EK407 Tailstrike @ ML
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane, Oz
Age: 82
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Obie, but your non-critical faith in those who write SOPs is entirely misplaced.
I have personally re-written sections of manuals as an FO, and had them published to the manual; challenged Boeing performance parameters and had Oz legislation changed as a result; been asked to write SOPs when I didn't have the skills, and declined; and seen quadruple SOPs for the same machine dictating four different procedures. The classic was a certain US manufacturer stating that on a certain three engine aircraft the statistical possibility of a double engine failure was too miniscule to write a procedure for ! ! Too many times I've bitten my tongue at operational stupidities.
I find your acceptance of everything in print frightening.
Pilots must first of all think. Follow SOPs as best they can when all is going well because it makes the cockpit an easier place to work in, but have a deeper well of knowledge & experience to draw on, hopefully, when the proverbial hits the spinning bits.
Rules are for the guidance of wise men, etc.
I have personally re-written sections of manuals as an FO, and had them published to the manual; challenged Boeing performance parameters and had Oz legislation changed as a result; been asked to write SOPs when I didn't have the skills, and declined; and seen quadruple SOPs for the same machine dictating four different procedures. The classic was a certain US manufacturer stating that on a certain three engine aircraft the statistical possibility of a double engine failure was too miniscule to write a procedure for ! ! Too many times I've bitten my tongue at operational stupidities.
I find your acceptance of everything in print frightening.
Pilots must first of all think. Follow SOPs as best they can when all is going well because it makes the cockpit an easier place to work in, but have a deeper well of knowledge & experience to draw on, hopefully, when the proverbial hits the spinning bits.
Rules are for the guidance of wise men, etc.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also agree with pool : work with your head first !
On top of that, what he mentions is part of the FCOM, and the first thing to do to apply SOP's is to respect the FCOM.
From the FCOM, one of the two possibilities to improve the takeoff performance is to :
Move towards the left side of the takeoff chart (tailwind) while remaining with the same configuration and looking for the same actual takeoff weight.
This produces a lower flexible temperature and, in general, lower takeoff speeds.
Isn't it possible with the laptop to apply such recommendation ?
On top of that, what he mentions is part of the FCOM, and the first thing to do to apply SOP's is to respect the FCOM.
Originally Posted by pool
The only way to build in a inbetween safer margin, with EKs procedure, would be to increase the weight input into the laptop.
Move towards the left side of the takeoff chart (tailwind) while remaining with the same configuration and looking for the same actual takeoff weight.
This produces a lower flexible temperature and, in general, lower takeoff speeds.
Isn't it possible with the laptop to apply such recommendation ?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 450
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More LPC trivia
Hello Pool. Your comment;
At operators I have observed, it often IS the pilot playing around to get the max flex (even when greater flex [i.e. less thrust] is not really in his own career best interest).
Really, why bother saving a few flex degrees? A greater flex is not really in your best interests as far as career prospects go (ask the MEL guys). And you will NOT get a medal from the Company.
Because they don't care.
Now, if you want to use a different Flap setting for reasons such as windshear, rough runway etc. Sure. Use common sense. And for the most part, the books will back you up on those scenarios.
Probably not a good idea to make unnecessary calculations just to get a greater flex, that's all. Especially at operators where dual calculations are required. 3x calculations each = 6 calculations (and a lot of extra chatter).
It's up to you of course. But don't be surprised if you wander away from the Optimum setting, and make unnecessary calculations followed by an error.
Might not look good in the ensuing investigation
First of all, it is not merely "playing" with flap setting if a pilot choses another setting. As it seems to be against SOP, it shows that the issuers know as little about that matter than the pilots adhering to them religiously.
Really, why bother saving a few flex degrees? A greater flex is not really in your best interests as far as career prospects go (ask the MEL guys). And you will NOT get a medal from the Company.
Because they don't care.
Now, if you want to use a different Flap setting for reasons such as windshear, rough runway etc. Sure. Use common sense. And for the most part, the books will back you up on those scenarios.
Probably not a good idea to make unnecessary calculations just to get a greater flex, that's all. Especially at operators where dual calculations are required. 3x calculations each = 6 calculations (and a lot of extra chatter).
It's up to you of course. But don't be surprised if you wander away from the Optimum setting, and make unnecessary calculations followed by an error.
Might not look good in the ensuing investigation
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@AirBusted320:
I don't want a greater Flex, I want a lesser Flex!!
If you would read my post correctly, I am talking about wanting a bigger safety margin, with a smaller Flex setting, between the Opt (maximum) Flex and Max Thrust ......
@CONF iture:
Your proposition works with tables. With the laptop it is more delicate and not advisable. When inserting a different wind (more tailwind), you might get a different flap setting. You would have to insert/block the flap at the proposed setting and then insert more tailwind. I personally don't like such procedures, again for awareness reasons. Inputs should always be whats really on and happening. Additionally we don't see behind all the programming and might end up with unpleasant results if we try tricking Microsoft!!
Inserting a lesser and deliberately desired Flex would be clear, clean and safe. All other required inputs are correct, I just want a little less assumed temperature as to obtain a little more thrust/safety margin with all inputs on the laptop AND the FMS correct, thus crosschecking possible and correct aswell.
I don't want a greater Flex, I want a lesser Flex!!
If you would read my post correctly, I am talking about wanting a bigger safety margin, with a smaller Flex setting, between the Opt (maximum) Flex and Max Thrust ......
@CONF iture:
Your proposition works with tables. With the laptop it is more delicate and not advisable. When inserting a different wind (more tailwind), you might get a different flap setting. You would have to insert/block the flap at the proposed setting and then insert more tailwind. I personally don't like such procedures, again for awareness reasons. Inputs should always be whats really on and happening. Additionally we don't see behind all the programming and might end up with unpleasant results if we try tricking Microsoft!!
Inserting a lesser and deliberately desired Flex would be clear, clean and safe. All other required inputs are correct, I just want a little less assumed temperature as to obtain a little more thrust/safety margin with all inputs on the laptop AND the FMS correct, thus crosschecking possible and correct aswell.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flexible FLEX
On post #878.
Pool, obviously, different operators have enabled or disabled available features in the interface of the LPC.
In my outfit, you would get a list of all possible thrust settings, from TOGA down to the max FLEX temp that still provided a safe take-off. Of course, standard procedure was to use the maximum amount of FLEX, but it was possible (and not outright prohibited) to FLEX a little less if you deemed that necessary. Of course, for all the FLEX temps, LPC would list the applicable take-off speeds.
One such an option that may be locked out is the mass and balance module - how many of you guys make a manual loadsheet on the LPC? Some people might argue that it would be much to dangerous to do that, loadsheets should be made by an automated process in which check-in data (from scanned boarding cards) are loaded into the loadsheet program without human interference. Funny though that the error than hides in a simple transcription error of 100 tons. I a pilot makes a transcription error in a manual loadsheet and, for instance, makes an error of 100 passengers, then the mass error would only be 8.800 kg (males) or 7.000 kg (females), or even just 1.500 kg for 100 bags. Not quite such a dramatic error.
Airbusted320
The notion that there is risk involved in viewing different flap settings is wrong. All the solutions that the LPC provides, are valid, that means, safe. If there is risk in "calculating" more than once, then what do you do: always use wet runway, so you don't need to redo the numbers when it starts to rain? Never pick up the most recent ATIS, because you might have to redo the numbers? Not accept LMC's, because the numbers have to be reworked? Not accept a change of runways after you have commenced taxiing?
The safe way is, both pilots must calculate a solution independently and compare their outcomes - they must be identical.
As a commander, you could "experiment" as much as you like, not every experiment has to be double checked by the co-pilot. Only the configuration that you are going to use, will have to be double checked. e.g. Yes, I have checked that intersection, performance from there is not adequate, we will take the full runway length. Because wind is light and variable, I have used 5 knots tail component. Compare outcome, slightly different, oh, I see, you have used take-off mass from the flight plan, actual mass is a little heavier, here check it on the loadsheet. That sort of work.
It's good to see some professional discussion again appearing in this thread.
Reason for edit: typo (forgotten word)
Pool, obviously, different operators have enabled or disabled available features in the interface of the LPC.
In my outfit, you would get a list of all possible thrust settings, from TOGA down to the max FLEX temp that still provided a safe take-off. Of course, standard procedure was to use the maximum amount of FLEX, but it was possible (and not outright prohibited) to FLEX a little less if you deemed that necessary. Of course, for all the FLEX temps, LPC would list the applicable take-off speeds.
One such an option that may be locked out is the mass and balance module - how many of you guys make a manual loadsheet on the LPC? Some people might argue that it would be much to dangerous to do that, loadsheets should be made by an automated process in which check-in data (from scanned boarding cards) are loaded into the loadsheet program without human interference. Funny though that the error than hides in a simple transcription error of 100 tons. I a pilot makes a transcription error in a manual loadsheet and, for instance, makes an error of 100 passengers, then the mass error would only be 8.800 kg (males) or 7.000 kg (females), or even just 1.500 kg for 100 bags. Not quite such a dramatic error.
Airbusted320
The notion that there is risk involved in viewing different flap settings is wrong. All the solutions that the LPC provides, are valid, that means, safe. If there is risk in "calculating" more than once, then what do you do: always use wet runway, so you don't need to redo the numbers when it starts to rain? Never pick up the most recent ATIS, because you might have to redo the numbers? Not accept LMC's, because the numbers have to be reworked? Not accept a change of runways after you have commenced taxiing?
The safe way is, both pilots must calculate a solution independently and compare their outcomes - they must be identical.
As a commander, you could "experiment" as much as you like, not every experiment has to be double checked by the co-pilot. Only the configuration that you are going to use, will have to be double checked. e.g. Yes, I have checked that intersection, performance from there is not adequate, we will take the full runway length. Because wind is light and variable, I have used 5 knots tail component. Compare outcome, slightly different, oh, I see, you have used take-off mass from the flight plan, actual mass is a little heavier, here check it on the loadsheet. That sort of work.
It's good to see some professional discussion again appearing in this thread.
Reason for edit: typo (forgotten word)
Last edited by EMIT; 21st May 2009 at 19:56.
Busbert and Derab. I understand the A345 has been 'evicted' from the hangar as the space is required by another a/c. There appears to be a problem getting approval to ferry the a/c through Aust airspace enroute to TLS for major repair. The problem being structural integrity in the tail area until Airbus can satisfy the Aust authority.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This link is worth a look.
.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...012_Prelim.pdf
.
Nice pics as well.
.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...012_Prelim.pdf
.
Nice pics as well.
FDR broke free....
According to the report, the flight data recorder was dislodged from its support!
I note that the report also states that the FDR ceased functioning just after take off.
I suggest that the FDR should be more securely attached so it can continue to record events post a tail strike or other sudden bump.
mickjoebill
I note that the report also states that the FDR ceased functioning just after take off.
I suggest that the FDR should be more securely attached so it can continue to record events post a tail strike or other sudden bump.
mickjoebill
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 450
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LPC Calculations... the Hidden Danger
Hello EMIT. You're extrapolating the previous comment (pertaining to unneeded calculations some pilots make in the hope of maximizing Flex...which is unnecessary).
Leaving that aside, to help illustrate the career danger you could put yourself in, with your line of thinking in post #881. Take a look at this. (words are taken from your post);
Board of Inquiry (BOI): "You say you made additional LPC calculations, not called for by SOP. Why was that?"
YOU: "I experiment as much as [I] like, not every experiment has to be double checked by the co-pilot."
BOI: Do you think you messing around with flap setting in LPC might possibly have been factor in why you didn't detect the FO [insert the unrelated departure mistake here]
YOU: "The notion that there is risk involved in viewing different flap settings is wrong."
BOI: "Who says that, Airbus? Where is it written in the FCOM?"
YOU: "Well, no. It's not written anywhere in Company docs. But that's what I think"
BOI: "I see. That's all"
YOU: "Thanks, Bye."
BOI: "By the way, we've been firing people for lesser mistakes than the one you made on departure. Please wait outside."
Starting to see the picture?
Leaving that aside, to help illustrate the career danger you could put yourself in, with your line of thinking in post #881. Take a look at this. (words are taken from your post);
Board of Inquiry (BOI): "You say you made additional LPC calculations, not called for by SOP. Why was that?"
YOU: "I experiment as much as [I] like, not every experiment has to be double checked by the co-pilot."
BOI: Do you think you messing around with flap setting in LPC might possibly have been factor in why you didn't detect the FO [insert the unrelated departure mistake here]
YOU: "The notion that there is risk involved in viewing different flap settings is wrong."
BOI: "Who says that, Airbus? Where is it written in the FCOM?"
YOU: "Well, no. It's not written anywhere in Company docs. But that's what I think"
BOI: "I see. That's all"
YOU: "Thanks, Bye."
BOI: "By the way, we've been firing people for lesser mistakes than the one you made on departure. Please wait outside."
Starting to see the picture?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Up front
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post EMIT, Options are the name of the game...Don`t use the word "experiments" rather "options".
Common Sense is not very common any more.
Keep thinking and looking at all those options, not much place for Pavlov eh..
Common Sense is not very common any more.
Keep thinking and looking at all those options, not much place for Pavlov eh..
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely !
Using paper charts, options are regularly reviewed, very convenient, it is done in a glimpse of an eye.
More complicated when runway is contaminated, but that's the exact time it HAS to be done.
Now, if the laptop makes things more tricky, maybe it's not an improvement ...
AirBusted320, there is no "Hidden Danger in LPC Calculations" the way EMIT put it. The Danger comes from NOT challenging through an INDEPENDENT calculation what your partner put in the FMC.
A few knots or degrees of flex mistake is not a big deal, 100 tonnes mistake on your TOW is.
Using paper charts, options are regularly reviewed, very convenient, it is done in a glimpse of an eye.
More complicated when runway is contaminated, but that's the exact time it HAS to be done.
Now, if the laptop makes things more tricky, maybe it's not an improvement ...
AirBusted320, there is no "Hidden Danger in LPC Calculations" the way EMIT put it. The Danger comes from NOT challenging through an INDEPENDENT calculation what your partner put in the FMC.
A few knots or degrees of flex mistake is not a big deal, 100 tonnes mistake on your TOW is.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The damage to the bulkhead can only be repaired in Toulouse, the repairs in Melbourne are to make the aircraft structurally sound enough to either fly it back to the factory unpressurised (i.e 10000 or below) or to fly it to the scrapyard (can't be scrapped in-situ). Considering the damage to stringers etc my bet is on the latter.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I guess it depends on how badly the airframe has been stressed. It is possible that the aft fuselage will be replaced at the production join. Otherwise there are so many repair schemes to replace stringers and frames, splice in sections - which may take longer and cost more. All depends on the detailed assessment of the damage and possible options to return to an airworthy condition with costs/schedules before those decisions can be made.