EK407 Tailstrike @ ML
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mensaboy - the JNB incident was because the captain derotated the aircraft trying to maintain the 'german cross' at 9 degrees. It may have been bad gen from a TRI or TRE or LTC but since when do you derotate a large, heavy bird at take-off?????
I personally have no problem with flying MFF - in fact I haven't flown 343 for 4 months but would be more than happy to jump in one tomorrow. Some of you guys try to turn a simple job into rocket science and want to get your astronaut wings issued too
I also know very few guys that have gone out of recency. It has happened but is not that common.... And I think the responsibility of maintaining currency is up to you the pilot, so if you mensaboy are going out of currency on 330 or 340 then I have no sympathy if you then have to go sim
Kenny - good post. I don't think the 2 guys were ignoring SOP but for both to miss the figures is somewhat startling.. I'm sure the loadsheet wasn't 130 tonnes out was it?
I personally have no problem with flying MFF - in fact I haven't flown 343 for 4 months but would be more than happy to jump in one tomorrow. Some of you guys try to turn a simple job into rocket science and want to get your astronaut wings issued too
I also know very few guys that have gone out of recency. It has happened but is not that common.... And I think the responsibility of maintaining currency is up to you the pilot, so if you mensaboy are going out of currency on 330 or 340 then I have no sympathy if you then have to go simKenny - good post. I don't think the 2 guys were ignoring SOP but for both to miss the figures is somewhat startling.. I'm sure the loadsheet wasn't 130 tonnes out was it?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropp the Pilot, I certainly agree with your comment on post #280 but that was clearly not the case for EK407.
As the report did not mention any cargo, the average weight for each pax + his baggage was already over 200 kg (440 pounds)
The report is interesting for the pictures, but I would have loved to see a copy of the W&B, also the perf figures how they should have been, where the rotation should have taken place ?
Also no indication if in this scary situation the Captain touched its sidestick ... ?
As the report did not mention any cargo, the average weight for each pax + his baggage was already over 200 kg (440 pounds)
The report is interesting for the pictures, but I would have loved to see a copy of the W&B, also the perf figures how they should have been, where the rotation should have taken place ?
Also no indication if in this scary situation the Captain touched its sidestick ... ?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like everyone else I am not privy to what went on in the flightdeck that night. However, it would surprise me if the crew were not aware of the weight of the aircraft. It would have been discussed during the flight plan review, during the final fuel decision & passed to load control for the load sheet.
The problem as I see it, is that the weight was incorrectly entered into the laptop in what appears to be a simple typo. Then, for reasons not yet known, the error was not picked up on the cross-check of the laptop. Nor did the V-speeds look wrong for the weight, to 4 qualified pilots. If this does turn out to be the case, no amount of weighing the aircraft & delivering this weight to the crew would have prevented the accident in Melbourne.
Perhaps an SOP, that in this procedure simply required one crew member to check a bunch of figures entered into a computer by another crew member, is not an adequate error trap, particularly considering the serious safety impilcations of getting it wrong. I would have thought that with what is now known regarding human error, particularly in regard to aviation, that a more robust method of error trapping for this critical aspect of flight preparation would have been devised & formalised in the SOPs.
That being said, this accident hopefully will serve as a warning to all flight crew of the serious nature of the business & how quickly & easily it can bite you. It is certainly a sober warning to me of the need to constantly review my performance & the need to ensure that if I am required to cross-check something that I actually do a thorough & deliberate check, rather than just glancing over it because I am busy, distracted or tired & it has always been correct in the past.
The problem as I see it, is that the weight was incorrectly entered into the laptop in what appears to be a simple typo. Then, for reasons not yet known, the error was not picked up on the cross-check of the laptop. Nor did the V-speeds look wrong for the weight, to 4 qualified pilots. If this does turn out to be the case, no amount of weighing the aircraft & delivering this weight to the crew would have prevented the accident in Melbourne.
Perhaps an SOP, that in this procedure simply required one crew member to check a bunch of figures entered into a computer by another crew member, is not an adequate error trap, particularly considering the serious safety impilcations of getting it wrong. I would have thought that with what is now known regarding human error, particularly in regard to aviation, that a more robust method of error trapping for this critical aspect of flight preparation would have been devised & formalised in the SOPs.
That being said, this accident hopefully will serve as a warning to all flight crew of the serious nature of the business & how quickly & easily it can bite you. It is certainly a sober warning to me of the need to constantly review my performance & the need to ensure that if I am required to cross-check something that I actually do a thorough & deliberate check, rather than just glancing over it because I am busy, distracted or tired & it has always been correct in the past.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sharp End
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry i have not read every reply in this thread so maybe this may have been posted already elsewhere, if it has sorry, it is a very easy and possible error to enter the ZFW instead of TOW???
Looking at the man-machine interface aspects, I have another question relating to the laptop tool in use at Emirates. Does it transpose the computed takeoff weight from the load and trim software directly to the takeoff performance software, or does the crew have to manually transpose the figure from one to the other?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the pit
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Knight if life was that easy mate.
Check out post 734. Did most major airlines in europe see something coming, that EK didn,t ?
Why is EK in that respect always behind the curve. Is it because of the old school thinkers ,like yourselfs, in to many keypositions, or is it a moneything( software cost for example). Hell ,even the low cost boys have the more expensive airbus fcom software on there laptop!
.Check out post 734. Did most major airlines in europe see something coming, that EK didn,t ?
Why is EK in that respect always behind the curve. Is it because of the old school thinkers ,like yourselfs, in to many keypositions, or is it a moneything( software cost for example). Hell ,even the low cost boys have the more expensive airbus fcom software on there laptop!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 8N 98E
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if I am missing something blindingly obvious here!
Most of the previous threads refer to the possibility of entering erroneous figures into THE laptop, and transposing figures from THE laptop to the MCDU.
When I did my 'FOVE' course at Airbus we were taught that both pilots did the performance calculation independently and the results were compared between the TWO laptops. That precluded the possibilty of two incorrect calculations. This is standard SOP in my company.
It could well of course be that on the day, with many distractions that abound on a flight deck just prior to departure when everything comes together in the last few minutes, that caused the error to go un-noticed.
I presume EK use the same laptop system, so is it not SOP's for both pilots to do the performance calculations? If so, then presumably the problem started earlier in the chain.
Without, of course, any knowledge of what happened, the old adage with computers - 'rubbish in = rubbish out' springs to mind!
Most of the previous threads refer to the possibility of entering erroneous figures into THE laptop, and transposing figures from THE laptop to the MCDU.
When I did my 'FOVE' course at Airbus we were taught that both pilots did the performance calculation independently and the results were compared between the TWO laptops. That precluded the possibilty of two incorrect calculations. This is standard SOP in my company.
It could well of course be that on the day, with many distractions that abound on a flight deck just prior to departure when everything comes together in the last few minutes, that caused the error to go un-noticed.
I presume EK use the same laptop system, so is it not SOP's for both pilots to do the performance calculations? If so, then presumably the problem started earlier in the chain.
Without, of course, any knowledge of what happened, the old adage with computers - 'rubbish in = rubbish out' springs to mind!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: dubai
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whitenight,
It was not ''bad gen'' from the training department, it was the wrong technique being taught by some individuals. Many pilots were instructed to use the german cross, but thankfully the line guys knew better and most of us did not perform our first real takeoff in an A343 out of Joburg! Remember how ''avoid a tail-strike'' was literally beat into us, pretty much at the exclusion of everything else? So for you to explain away the accident simply by blaming the pilot for derotating, is to ignore the true causal factors.
I have no problem flying MFF either; you missed the point. It CAN be a contributing factor especially if currency is somewhat lacking. I'll bet you anything, the average A343 pilot who only flies an A343 will be more proficient than the average pilot who flies 3 types and as you put it, only once in 4 months.
I never complained about losing currency either. My currency has lapsed and the rostering department was advised well in advance, yet they did nothing to fix the problem. According to YOU, it is still the pilots fault even if he tried his best to fix the error coming out of rostering.
Some pilots who decree that this job is simple, MFF is never an issue or use the ''it's not rocket science'' argument, tend to expound on these topics in an attempt to convince people that 'they' manage things fine, so therefore they should be viewed as a better pilot than someone with the audacity to believe that MFF might be a contributing factor.
I once flew with a guy who spoke almost the exact same words you wrote in your post, yet on departure when ATC asked us to expedite our departure climb thru 2000', he went on a tirade about ATC not understanding the capabilities of the A340. Yet he continued accelerating past S speed, past green dot speed (about 240kts). Not too bright, and not exactly rocket science either.........but I have no doubt he still views himself in much the same light as you view yourself.
I enjoy MFF flying because it makes my job more interesting and it also makes my schedule better. But to go 89 days since your last flight on type, is not exactly ideal under some circumstances. Rostering 2 pilots for their first takeoff on the A343 out of Joburg, is just dumb.
To view yourself as maintaining the exact same proficiency on 3 types as opposed to 1 type, is a tad arrogant. To criticize pilots who realize it is more probable to omit something due to MFF, smacks of an attitude not conducive to safety or perhaps reality.
I truly hope you never forget some obscure OEB or FCI pertaining to one aspect of your flight on a given day. Do you base the success and skill of your flight solely on your landing too? Just wondering... kind of fits the pattern.
It was not ''bad gen'' from the training department, it was the wrong technique being taught by some individuals. Many pilots were instructed to use the german cross, but thankfully the line guys knew better and most of us did not perform our first real takeoff in an A343 out of Joburg! Remember how ''avoid a tail-strike'' was literally beat into us, pretty much at the exclusion of everything else? So for you to explain away the accident simply by blaming the pilot for derotating, is to ignore the true causal factors.
I have no problem flying MFF either; you missed the point. It CAN be a contributing factor especially if currency is somewhat lacking. I'll bet you anything, the average A343 pilot who only flies an A343 will be more proficient than the average pilot who flies 3 types and as you put it, only once in 4 months.
I never complained about losing currency either. My currency has lapsed and the rostering department was advised well in advance, yet they did nothing to fix the problem. According to YOU, it is still the pilots fault even if he tried his best to fix the error coming out of rostering.
Some pilots who decree that this job is simple, MFF is never an issue or use the ''it's not rocket science'' argument, tend to expound on these topics in an attempt to convince people that 'they' manage things fine, so therefore they should be viewed as a better pilot than someone with the audacity to believe that MFF might be a contributing factor.
I once flew with a guy who spoke almost the exact same words you wrote in your post, yet on departure when ATC asked us to expedite our departure climb thru 2000', he went on a tirade about ATC not understanding the capabilities of the A340. Yet he continued accelerating past S speed, past green dot speed (about 240kts). Not too bright, and not exactly rocket science either.........but I have no doubt he still views himself in much the same light as you view yourself.
I enjoy MFF flying because it makes my job more interesting and it also makes my schedule better. But to go 89 days since your last flight on type, is not exactly ideal under some circumstances. Rostering 2 pilots for their first takeoff on the A343 out of Joburg, is just dumb.
To view yourself as maintaining the exact same proficiency on 3 types as opposed to 1 type, is a tad arrogant. To criticize pilots who realize it is more probable to omit something due to MFF, smacks of an attitude not conducive to safety or perhaps reality.
I truly hope you never forget some obscure OEB or FCI pertaining to one aspect of your flight on a given day. Do you base the success and skill of your flight solely on your landing too? Just wondering... kind of fits the pattern.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three EK pilots speak off the record to the Herald-Sun about fatigue concerns:
Tired pilots plea | Herald Sun
Tired pilots plea | Herald Sun
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mensaboy - If I don't learn something from at least every flight I do then I shall hang up the flying gear and go farming... I don't think MFF is contributory if YOU OPERATE TO SOP..
If you're going 89 days between types then I suggest you try bidding slightly differently.. In nearly 6 years of MFF here I've never gone anywhere near 89 days
"Bad gen" from a TRE, TRI or LTC was what I wrote regarding JNB - not from the training department... Try reading that again!!!
If you're going 89 days between types then I suggest you try bidding slightly differently.. In nearly 6 years of MFF here I've never gone anywhere near 89 days
"Bad gen" from a TRE, TRI or LTC was what I wrote regarding JNB - not from the training department... Try reading that again!!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline beefs up safety checks - Herald-Sun
Airline beefs up safety checks - contains quotes from EK management on resignations, diaries, fatigue tests, etc.
Two stories and an editorial in the Herald-Sun today (3 May). Will sell newspapers but wont get bums on EK seats.
Airline beefs up its safety checks | Herald Sun
RAS
Two stories and an editorial in the Herald-Sun today (3 May). Will sell newspapers but wont get bums on EK seats.
Airline beefs up its safety checks | Herald Sun
RAS
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: EGCC
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWT, Dropp the Pilot:
Obviously, just because something is technically possible, it does not mean that it gets adopted immediately. There is always resistance to change. But the monetary argument has been shown as been without merit in road transport already.
Stationary automatic vehicle weighing is widely implemented in road transport, no reason it cannot be done so in aviation. Price of implementation is no real hindrance. If we can employ and pay for thousands of d1ckheads as security staff at airports to supposedly ward off the 1-in-10million chance of a terrorist attack on any given aircraft, there is obviously enough money around to fund minimizing crashes due to wrongly calculated a/c weight.
Obviously, just because something is technically possible, it does not mean that it gets adopted immediately. There is always resistance to change. But the monetary argument has been shown as been without merit in road transport already.
Stationary automatic vehicle weighing is widely implemented in road transport, no reason it cannot be done so in aviation. Price of implementation is no real hindrance. If we can employ and pay for thousands of d1ckheads as security staff at airports to supposedly ward off the 1-in-10million chance of a terrorist attack on any given aircraft, there is obviously enough money around to fund minimizing crashes due to wrongly calculated a/c weight.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: dubai
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whitenight,
The ATSB is looking into MFF as a causal factor now! This news came out, after I commented that they should delve into that area. I'm not saying it was definitely a factor in this instance, but it certainly was in Joburg.
The whole of EK is not represented by your personal experiences. In other words, sometimes people reach levels of currency that are not conducive to their proficiency, even if they follow SOP's. You stated that a person should change his bidding if he finds himself 89 days between types, so therefore you agree that the 90 day policy is not a good one, yet you contradict yourself by stating that the MFF policy can in no way affect a pilot's proficiency if he follows SOP's. If the policy is sound and there is no decrease in proficiency, then why should a pilot alter his bidding practice to reduce that limit??
Bad 'gen' coming from certain individuals in the training department means there is, or was, an issue regarding teaching the proper technique. You are quick to deny contributing factors to an accident, if these factors have not affected YOU. It is astounding how you are quick to blame the pilots and you have no desire to delve further into the matter to look at the underlying causes.
You might want to read the post about management styles/personalities X or Y in the EK forum.
The ATSB is looking into MFF as a causal factor now! This news came out, after I commented that they should delve into that area. I'm not saying it was definitely a factor in this instance, but it certainly was in Joburg.
The whole of EK is not represented by your personal experiences. In other words, sometimes people reach levels of currency that are not conducive to their proficiency, even if they follow SOP's. You stated that a person should change his bidding if he finds himself 89 days between types, so therefore you agree that the 90 day policy is not a good one, yet you contradict yourself by stating that the MFF policy can in no way affect a pilot's proficiency if he follows SOP's. If the policy is sound and there is no decrease in proficiency, then why should a pilot alter his bidding practice to reduce that limit??
Bad 'gen' coming from certain individuals in the training department means there is, or was, an issue regarding teaching the proper technique. You are quick to deny contributing factors to an accident, if these factors have not affected YOU. It is astounding how you are quick to blame the pilots and you have no desire to delve further into the matter to look at the underlying causes.
You might want to read the post about management styles/personalities X or Y in the EK forum.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Boring Point
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now look!... I think mensaboy and white knight ( how about that for a couple of stupid monikers? ) oughta go off and indulge themselves in a personal ego fest via PMs, and let the rest of us get on with sensible discussions! 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selfweighting aircraft vs acceleration meter
It has been mentioned some pages before about technological solutions to avoid accident like these, mainly selfweighting aircraft on gear strut or treshold markers on the runway.
Much more easier would be an acceleration meter on board. I learned recently that some business jets are already equipped with it.
The sensors are already on board, the IRS's. Some warning computer would compare actual acceleration vs. requested. You basically don't need any indication in the cockpit. Just give them an amber or red Acceleration Warning on the ECAM/Eicas. The warning would appear relatively early, depending on the size of the power setting error, at low speed, and standard policy would be to reject the take-off.
I guess that some bright engineer have already thought about it (otherwise it wouldn't be available), but manufactors of big airliners have decided against it, most probably not enough damage avoidance per unit's cost. This might change after this accident...
Dani
Much more easier would be an acceleration meter on board. I learned recently that some business jets are already equipped with it.
The sensors are already on board, the IRS's. Some warning computer would compare actual acceleration vs. requested. You basically don't need any indication in the cockpit. Just give them an amber or red Acceleration Warning on the ECAM/Eicas. The warning would appear relatively early, depending on the size of the power setting error, at low speed, and standard policy would be to reject the take-off.
I guess that some bright engineer have already thought about it (otherwise it wouldn't be available), but manufactors of big airliners have decided against it, most probably not enough damage avoidance per unit's cost. This might change after this accident...
Dani
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
acceleration meter on board
I truly dread another of these possible nuisance warnings during crucial moments as the take off. Like "approaching runway xx" with RAAS when you are above 80kts and cross a intersecting runway!
Give it a break with all your well intended new devices and procedures. Just train the people adequately and give them decent rosters. The SOPs were not that bad up to now and new ones will only fix the mismanagements accountability, but not the real issue.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mensaboy - you really don't read too well do you? MFF is fine if YOU FOLLOW SOPS whatever type you're in on a particular day... The SOPS are so rigid!!
My comments about the 90 day rule pertain only to having to avoid doing circuits in the sim when you hit 90 days.. You want to go sim - just don't fly 330 for 90 days.. Doesn't mean you're not proficient in it!
Indeed there are underlying problems leading to this incident - many which I think are far more causal than MFF.. Try morale for starters!! Lots of unhappy conversations on the flightdecks these days regarding our wonderful managers - how's that for distraction? However the discussion was about MFF if you can cast your mind back a few posts.. Indeed for those who have a problem with it maybe it would be a good idea to fly just 330 or 340 - have you put that to the office wallahs??
Obie - back into your hole
My comments about the 90 day rule pertain only to having to avoid doing circuits in the sim when you hit 90 days.. You want to go sim - just don't fly 330 for 90 days.. Doesn't mean you're not proficient in it!
Indeed there are underlying problems leading to this incident - many which I think are far more causal than MFF.. Try morale for starters!! Lots of unhappy conversations on the flightdecks these days regarding our wonderful managers - how's that for distraction? However the discussion was about MFF if you can cast your mind back a few posts.. Indeed for those who have a problem with it maybe it would be a good idea to fly just 330 or 340 - have you put that to the office wallahs??
Obie - back into your hole
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warnings about acceleration are very arbitrary anyway. Especially on four engined aircraft. On a twin, it might give up to 40kts trend, on a sluggish 340-300 out of ABB a meager 10 might be all it gives. How to program that??
But I agree that SOPs and human performance considerations do have a priority here. Easiest way to avoid such a procedural break down would be to x-check actual TO speeds vs load sheet vs a speed booklet. But where are they in modern airplanes...
Dani
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying it was definitely a factor in this instance, but it certainly was in Joburg.
J'oburg was bad technique, as taught or learnt. The rotation technique is basically the same on all 3 EK aircraft, as it is in all Airbus. 2.5-3 degrees/second towards your target pitch.
There were other factors included stupid rostering etc, but it wasn't the fact that the crew were MFF.
Last edited by helen-damnation; 3rd May 2009 at 10:34. Reason: Clarity