EK407 Tailstrike @ ML
Flight International reports data entry error ...
Flight's "Unusual attitude" blog reports (at So what did happen to the Emirates A340-500 at Melbourne - Unusual Attitude) that
"What I'm told is that the first officer entered a digit 2 instead of a 3 when entering the take-off weight in the laptop that the crew uses - resulting in a selection of a weight 100t less than the actual. "
"What I'm told is that the first officer entered a digit 2 instead of a 3 when entering the take-off weight in the laptop that the crew uses - resulting in a selection of a weight 100t less than the actual. "
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
I can't recall if it is ICAO or merely NTSB policy that a preliminary report must be published within 30 days of an accident.
Originally Posted by ICAO Annex 13, Section 7.4
The Preliminary Report shall be sent [...] within thirty days of the date of the accident.
Cheers,
Bernd
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the pit
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contacted
Guess you haven,t been too long in DXB, or maybe you don,t leave the house that much!
Its quite a small community over here. The operating crew could be your neighbour
Guess you haven,t been too long in DXB, or maybe you don,t leave the house that much!
Its quite a small community over here. The operating crew could be your neighbour
Guest
Posts: n/a
Positivegee:
"If you follow company SOP's and use reduced power take-off's and/or intersection departures (or any other company SOP's for that matter), a tech crew is protected by the law of vicarious liability. If a tech crew ignores company SOP's and are involved in any incident that results in any liability, a crew may be found negligent and a court may then find them liable. This is not to say a crew must used reduced power or intersection departures, that decision is always left to the PIC."
The first comment is not correct under English law. Vicarious liability is purely a mechanism by which an employer is held accountable for an employee's negligent actions. If you follow the SOP and it leads to an accident, the airline is vicariously liable for your actions. It does not "protect" the employee in any way! Indeed, if you follow erroneous SOPs blindly and they cause an accident, the "I was just doing what I was told to do" argument will not stand up in court. I think this is worth clarifying.
"If you follow company SOP's and use reduced power take-off's and/or intersection departures (or any other company SOP's for that matter), a tech crew is protected by the law of vicarious liability. If a tech crew ignores company SOP's and are involved in any incident that results in any liability, a crew may be found negligent and a court may then find them liable. This is not to say a crew must used reduced power or intersection departures, that decision is always left to the PIC."
The first comment is not correct under English law. Vicarious liability is purely a mechanism by which an employer is held accountable for an employee's negligent actions. If you follow the SOP and it leads to an accident, the airline is vicariously liable for your actions. It does not "protect" the employee in any way! Indeed, if you follow erroneous SOPs blindly and they cause an accident, the "I was just doing what I was told to do" argument will not stand up in court. I think this is worth clarifying.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
news.com.au
Emirates jet 'close to crashing' in Melbourne
Sunday Herald Sun / April 12, 2009 12:01am
A FULLY-LADEN jet came only centimetres from crashing at Melbourne Airport last month, it has been revealed.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has placed it in the most serious category of aircraft mishap available to it - an accident, rather than an incident.
An ATSB investigation update shows the accident was labelled a "significant event" by investigators, who also listed damage to the aircraft as "substantial".
"During the take-off the aircraft's tail scraped the runway surface. Subsequently smoke was observed in the cabin," the report says.
A Sunday Herald Sun investigation has confirmed that the flight - EK407 to Dubai - almost failed to become airborne and barely made it over the airport perimeter fence, half a kilometre away.
Damage to the $220 million plane is so severe that the airline is considering writing it off rather than repairing it.
The fully-laden Airbus A340-500 was believed to have been travelling about 280km/h when it reached the end of the runway without becoming airborne.
At the last minute, the two pilots "rotated" the plane - or pulled its nose up into a steep ascent - causing its tail to crash into the end of the runway.
Despite its steep climb, the plane was still so low that it wiped out strobe lights that were only 70cm high and positioned 170m from the end of the runway.
It then took out an antenna, believed to be near a small building, before barely making it over the 2.44m wire perimeter fence.
Aviation expert Dick Smith said something had gone badly wrong.
"It's the closest thing to a major aviation accident in Australia for years," he said.
"The people (passengers) are incredibly lucky, it was an overrun where the plane didn't get airborne."
Mr Smith said Emirates was a "very good airline" and it was strange the pilots had resigned immediately after the accident.
"Emirates' standards are very high and they have a lot of Australian pilots," he said.
"What I'm startled by is that there hasn't been a more immediate announcement. We should get some urgent advice from the ATSB. This is one of the most serious accidents you can imagine."
A Melbourne Airport spokeswoman confirmed the size of the strobe lights, which are on a grassed area between the end of the runway and the perimeter fence, which runs alongside Operations Rd.
"The height of the runway strobe lights is 0.7m above ground level," she said.
Sunday Herald Sun / April 12, 2009 12:01am
A FULLY-LADEN jet came only centimetres from crashing at Melbourne Airport last month, it has been revealed.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has placed it in the most serious category of aircraft mishap available to it - an accident, rather than an incident.
An ATSB investigation update shows the accident was labelled a "significant event" by investigators, who also listed damage to the aircraft as "substantial".
"During the take-off the aircraft's tail scraped the runway surface. Subsequently smoke was observed in the cabin," the report says.
A Sunday Herald Sun investigation has confirmed that the flight - EK407 to Dubai - almost failed to become airborne and barely made it over the airport perimeter fence, half a kilometre away.
Damage to the $220 million plane is so severe that the airline is considering writing it off rather than repairing it.
The fully-laden Airbus A340-500 was believed to have been travelling about 280km/h when it reached the end of the runway without becoming airborne.
At the last minute, the two pilots "rotated" the plane - or pulled its nose up into a steep ascent - causing its tail to crash into the end of the runway.
Despite its steep climb, the plane was still so low that it wiped out strobe lights that were only 70cm high and positioned 170m from the end of the runway.
It then took out an antenna, believed to be near a small building, before barely making it over the 2.44m wire perimeter fence.
Aviation expert Dick Smith said something had gone badly wrong.
"It's the closest thing to a major aviation accident in Australia for years," he said.
"The people (passengers) are incredibly lucky, it was an overrun where the plane didn't get airborne."
Mr Smith said Emirates was a "very good airline" and it was strange the pilots had resigned immediately after the accident.
"Emirates' standards are very high and they have a lot of Australian pilots," he said.
"What I'm startled by is that there hasn't been a more immediate announcement. We should get some urgent advice from the ATSB. This is one of the most serious accidents you can imagine."
A Melbourne Airport spokeswoman confirmed the size of the strobe lights, which are on a grassed area between the end of the runway and the perimeter fence, which runs alongside Operations Rd.
"The height of the runway strobe lights is 0.7m above ground level," she said.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toowoomba Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedures Before Take Off
Assume all checks are carried out on board before take off.
Suggestion
For weight and other critical input data could this be input and checked by ground staff with pilots giving last check, thus reducing risk of input error.
Reality
Accidents happen and we should learn from them.
Emirate Business Rationale
Managers in Commerce use blame as a strategy, advising the market place that it was not us, but like in Baring Brothers, someone messed up and we have solved the problem by getting rid of them. Thus it is safe to fly with us.
Speculation
Commerce has always had govt depts by the Sphericals. Look at a merchant bank's luck with competing ABC2 radio station closure, short selling extensions, negative analyst sacked, infrastructure contracts.
If an input error was the cause, I am very sure the authority advised Emirates immediately, hence the "resignations".
Commercial Reality
Regardless of Emirates playing that game, they can be counted on to fix those procedures.
Consumer Reality
If there is a next time the collective consumer body, those that can, may well decide to walk away whilst others, sadly, may not have that choice.
For those who do walk, they will still be vulnerable to human and mechanical failure, which is endemic with other carriers.
What Emirates should do is own up, detail their solution so we all can be reassured and learn from it.
Suggestion
For weight and other critical input data could this be input and checked by ground staff with pilots giving last check, thus reducing risk of input error.
Reality
Accidents happen and we should learn from them.
Emirate Business Rationale
Managers in Commerce use blame as a strategy, advising the market place that it was not us, but like in Baring Brothers, someone messed up and we have solved the problem by getting rid of them. Thus it is safe to fly with us.
Speculation
Commerce has always had govt depts by the Sphericals. Look at a merchant bank's luck with competing ABC2 radio station closure, short selling extensions, negative analyst sacked, infrastructure contracts.
If an input error was the cause, I am very sure the authority advised Emirates immediately, hence the "resignations".
Commercial Reality
Regardless of Emirates playing that game, they can be counted on to fix those procedures.
Consumer Reality
If there is a next time the collective consumer body, those that can, may well decide to walk away whilst others, sadly, may not have that choice.
For those who do walk, they will still be vulnerable to human and mechanical failure, which is endemic with other carriers.
What Emirates should do is own up, detail their solution so we all can be reassured and learn from it.
Last edited by Nicolaus Silver; 12th Apr 2009 at 09:08. Reason: Change in wind direction
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Boring Point
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now look, I know this is your first post, but for an experienced airline pilot like me, who obviously knows b*gger all, compared to a super hero like you...
could you please decipher that psycho babble you've just posted??
could you please decipher that psycho babble you've just posted??
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toowoomba Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedures
Sorry Obie, here's the translation,
1. Should airport admin calculate settings for pilots to check and input when they come on board. These settings are then reconciled with airport admin by wireless computer link.
2. Corporations will cover up for errors if exposure affects their market. Govt and carriers should be made to publicise errors and solutions. Then we all could learn.
Yes I crap on a lot.
Cheers NS
1. Should airport admin calculate settings for pilots to check and input when they come on board. These settings are then reconciled with airport admin by wireless computer link.
2. Corporations will cover up for errors if exposure affects their market. Govt and carriers should be made to publicise errors and solutions. Then we all could learn.
Yes I crap on a lot.
Cheers NS
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toowoomba Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre Flight Checking
Note discussion concerning cabin disruption when pilots are calculating and inputting data.
Is it not possible for pilots to do all this in airport before boarding. Create a quiet pilots pre flight admin room with computers linked to their craft loaded with data from oil, baggage, cargo, weather, runway, flight details etc as soon as it is to hand.
This way data input can be checked by an airport administrator as being consistent for plane and admin before pilots board.
Computer self checks would also screen 3rd party input as being within normal range for this craft, cargo, fuel, destination and passengers.
If any data subsequently changes prior to take off the revised data is advised and input agreed by pilots and airport administrator, cross checking that the crafts settings have been updated and are consistent.
Is it not possible for pilots to do all this in airport before boarding. Create a quiet pilots pre flight admin room with computers linked to their craft loaded with data from oil, baggage, cargo, weather, runway, flight details etc as soon as it is to hand.
This way data input can be checked by an airport administrator as being consistent for plane and admin before pilots board.
Computer self checks would also screen 3rd party input as being within normal range for this craft, cargo, fuel, destination and passengers.
If any data subsequently changes prior to take off the revised data is advised and input agreed by pilots and airport administrator, cross checking that the crafts settings have been updated and are consistent.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicolaus silver
No it is not possible nor practical and under what "regulatory" system would your "administrator" work.
You may think your ideas are workable but unfortunately you obviously have never worked in an airline / aircraft environment, details are never finalised until well after the aircrew have boarded!
No it is not possible nor practical and under what "regulatory" system would your "administrator" work.
You may think your ideas are workable but unfortunately you obviously have never worked in an airline / aircraft environment, details are never finalised until well after the aircrew have boarded!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This way data input can be checked by an airport administrator as being consistent for plane and admin before pilots board.
Far too much administration already, far too many signatures before we can go.
I believe the key is in some other place :
Probably 90% of the operation nowadays is done for a crew of only two members. These two guys must always check each other, and never ever take for granted anything. To look over your partner's shoulder is one of the main part of your job. You have to pick up any of its possible mistakes as much as you need him to do exactly the same for you, and you never miss thanking him anytime he does so.
If one the crew made a mistake in the numbers, that's ok.
But if the other crew didn't pick up the mistake because he relied on his partner and didn't take the time or didn't have the energy to check by himself the entries ... that's where is the bobo !
Also the job is exhausting at times ... Fatigue is a major intruder ...
15 days off a month should be the rule ... everywhere !
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so what IS possible?
Iceman:
The aircraft's computer could have spotted that one with its in-built sanity-checking algorithm, and issued a beep and a question such as "Is this aircraft empty? Then why so much fuel?"
Expecting the other pilot, apparently bleary-eyed from fatigue, to not suffer from dyslexia, was not so successful.
How about we get the ARRIVING crew to enter the estimated settings for the next flight before they leave the aircraft? The computer could then compare each of them with the real settings entered by the operating crew, and query any that seem so different as to be unlikely?
Just a thought...
No it is not possible nor practical and under what "regulatory" system would your "administrator" work.
You may think your ideas are workable but unfortunately you obviously have never worked in an airline / aircraft environment, details are never finalised until well after the aircrew have boarded!
OK, so what "can" we do? If we believe the rumor, one of the pilots typed a "2" instead of a "3" and nearly spread a 300-tonne mixture of passengers and kerosine all over the end of the runway.You may think your ideas are workable but unfortunately you obviously have never worked in an airline / aircraft environment, details are never finalised until well after the aircrew have boarded!
The aircraft's computer could have spotted that one with its in-built sanity-checking algorithm, and issued a beep and a question such as "Is this aircraft empty? Then why so much fuel?"
Expecting the other pilot, apparently bleary-eyed from fatigue, to not suffer from dyslexia, was not so successful.
How about we get the ARRIVING crew to enter the estimated settings for the next flight before they leave the aircraft? The computer could then compare each of them with the real settings entered by the operating crew, and query any that seem so different as to be unlikely?
Just a thought...
OK, so what "can" we do? If we believe the rumor, one of the pilots typed a "2" instead of a "3" and nearly spread a 300-tonne mixture of passengers and kerosine all over the end of the runway.
How about we get the ARRIVING crew to enter the estimated settings for the next flight before they leave the aircraft?
The best way to reduce this kind of thing is having excellent crew layover conditions, good HF training, fatigue management teams/systems, and if it's a turn around then make it long enough so that the crew aren't under pressure.
