EK407 Tailstrike @ ML
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: BCN
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For your first question i found answer only in german:
aero.de - Luftfahrt-Nachrichten und -Community
It's a news from August, and it says the aircraft will be flying from November, after Sections 18 and 19 were changed in its hull.
About the pilots i don't know anything...
aero.de - Luftfahrt-Nachrichten und -Community
It's a news from August, and it says the aircraft will be flying from November, after Sections 18 and 19 were changed in its hull.
About the pilots i don't know anything...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pointy End
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as the performance software used for these calculations I believe it is the fully certified Airbus Flight Operations Virtual Environment (FOVE) software that is being used by most Airbus operators, including EK.
The system requires the pilot to select a specific airport and runway, input environmental data and TOW from which the speeds are then calculated. The TOW is usually derived independently from the FMS which works this out from the ZFW and Block fuel input made by the pilot. However, if an error is made in entering one of these figures into the FMS then the same problem would occur, an incorrect TOW would be derived from the FMS and input to the FOVE, resulting in incorrect speeds . It seems that when the aircraft is static on the ground, there is no way the aircraft can know it's own weight apart from pilot input. The last check is done on receipt of the load sheet when the take off weight can be verified, but history shows that this check has failed in the past as well.
The true weight only becomes apparent when the operation becomes dynamic and actual physics takes over. If Lift does not exceed Weight iregardless of what was entered in the computer, a/c does not fly.... pretty basic!! In other cases where similar but smaller errors were made, the problem became evident after lift off and V2 was inside VLS, but above Vs1g allowing a/c to get airborne and basically accelerate in ground effect to a safe flying speed.
Still room for development in this critical area of the operation and I believe the onus lies with the manufacturers and not with operators trying to develop clever SOP's to double and triple check figures. etc... The aircraft should be able to do it's own independent "weigh in" somehow and tell the pilots at door closure or first engine start if their entered figures are within a given tolerance allowing for safe flight.
The system requires the pilot to select a specific airport and runway, input environmental data and TOW from which the speeds are then calculated. The TOW is usually derived independently from the FMS which works this out from the ZFW and Block fuel input made by the pilot. However, if an error is made in entering one of these figures into the FMS then the same problem would occur, an incorrect TOW would be derived from the FMS and input to the FOVE, resulting in incorrect speeds . It seems that when the aircraft is static on the ground, there is no way the aircraft can know it's own weight apart from pilot input. The last check is done on receipt of the load sheet when the take off weight can be verified, but history shows that this check has failed in the past as well.
The true weight only becomes apparent when the operation becomes dynamic and actual physics takes over. If Lift does not exceed Weight iregardless of what was entered in the computer, a/c does not fly.... pretty basic!! In other cases where similar but smaller errors were made, the problem became evident after lift off and V2 was inside VLS, but above Vs1g allowing a/c to get airborne and basically accelerate in ground effect to a safe flying speed.
Still room for development in this critical area of the operation and I believe the onus lies with the manufacturers and not with operators trying to develop clever SOP's to double and triple check figures. etc... The aircraft should be able to do it's own independent "weigh in" somehow and tell the pilots at door closure or first engine start if their entered figures are within a given tolerance allowing for safe flight.
Last edited by High 6; 20th Nov 2009 at 04:49.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 84
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still room for development in this critical area of the operation and I believe the onus lies with the manufacturers and not with operators trying to develop clever SOP's to double and triple check figures. etc... The aircraft should be able to do it's own independent "weigh in" somehow and tell the pilots at door closure or first engine start if their entered figures are within a given tolerance allowing for safe flight.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: BCN
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major repairs involving the pressure bulkhead of any aircraft, always send a shiver up my spine. Although lessons will have been learnt (one hopes) and that Airbus themselves are handling said repairs - one is always reminded of the Japan airlines / Air China incidients.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft 'knows' how much thrust it is getting from the engines and the speed. It should calculate all it needs before even approaching V1 speeds
It's important to note, though, that ATM (Flex) thrust provides margin built into the system. When you set thrust equivalent to (e.g.) a 48C ambient, the airplane wing is flying in a much cooler air mass; and so the GS (TAS) is lower than if it were 48C outside. So Flex takeoffs have plenty of margin if done correctly.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 54
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
according to the article they flew the plane back on a max alt. of 10000-12000ft. that must have been a long flight, as they were flying a much lower speed. does anybody know the route they were following and some more details on the flight time, speeds etc...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not be surprised if at that altitude/IAS etc., better specific range can be had by shutting down two engines at TOC. 
(Or perhaps after burning off some fuel...)
(Or perhaps after burning off some fuel...)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Roissy - CDG
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tediek
does anybody know the route they were following and some more details on the flight time, speeds etc...
I read that the A340's route was: Melbourne - Perth - Dubai - Toulouse. I don't have any ideas about the flight time and the speed.
Manu
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: BCN
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, A6-ERG is back in service, apparently since 1st December.
aero.de - Luftfahrt-Nachrichten und -Community
Plus in the link: ATSB proposes studies about Flight Performance Planning, examining the incidents similar to this.
aero.de - Luftfahrt-Nachrichten und -Community
Plus in the link: ATSB proposes studies about Flight Performance Planning, examining the incidents similar to this.
