EK407 Tailstrike @ ML
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOP's
Hello AirBusted320, post #883
It's been a while, this thread has fallen quiet now that everybody is on to the AF447.
On SOP's: they make it possible to step onboard an aircraft with someone you have never met before and fly away safely and efficiently!
The SOP of a company however, is not the ONLY thruth in aviation. The biggest hassle when moving from one company to another, while going to fly the exact same type of aircraft, is to learn the SOP's of the new company.
When sticking to SOP's religiously, like a real fundamentalist,how would you solve the following problem: my company SOP is to lower the gear on ILS glideslope, while passing 2.000 ft. German law (for noise abatement) requires me to keep the gear up until 1.300 ft. Either I violate SOP or break the law?
How about a pragmatic approach? When I cannot see the airport in a timely way, I have to be stable at 1.000 ft, so I will stay close to my SOP's.
When I can see the airport early enough, I can use the company SOP to be stable at 500 ft (in visual conditions), so I stay close to the German regulations and delay gear extension beyond my SOP rules.
Evaluating options is not a breach of company or Airbus SOP's: the SOP's require that the calculation that is used for the actual take-off is properly (double) checked.
As far as boards go, I do not stick to SOP's out of fear for any board. If I would make an error in the way that you describe in #883, then I have made an error, period. I try not to make errors and I use SOP's as an efficient way to trap errors, whether made by me or by my mate.
The error could just as well be blamed on the cup of coffee that I drank during cockpit preparations. The main thing is, after all the "fooling" around, concentrate on the important items when needed (not only in Melbourne, but also in Madrid, for instance).
It's been a while, this thread has fallen quiet now that everybody is on to the AF447.
On SOP's: they make it possible to step onboard an aircraft with someone you have never met before and fly away safely and efficiently!
The SOP of a company however, is not the ONLY thruth in aviation. The biggest hassle when moving from one company to another, while going to fly the exact same type of aircraft, is to learn the SOP's of the new company.
When sticking to SOP's religiously, like a real fundamentalist,how would you solve the following problem: my company SOP is to lower the gear on ILS glideslope, while passing 2.000 ft. German law (for noise abatement) requires me to keep the gear up until 1.300 ft. Either I violate SOP or break the law?
How about a pragmatic approach? When I cannot see the airport in a timely way, I have to be stable at 1.000 ft, so I will stay close to my SOP's.
When I can see the airport early enough, I can use the company SOP to be stable at 500 ft (in visual conditions), so I stay close to the German regulations and delay gear extension beyond my SOP rules.
Evaluating options is not a breach of company or Airbus SOP's: the SOP's require that the calculation that is used for the actual take-off is properly (double) checked.
As far as boards go, I do not stick to SOP's out of fear for any board. If I would make an error in the way that you describe in #883, then I have made an error, period. I try not to make errors and I use SOP's as an efficient way to trap errors, whether made by me or by my mate.
The error could just as well be blamed on the cup of coffee that I drank during cockpit preparations. The main thing is, after all the "fooling" around, concentrate on the important items when needed (not only in Melbourne, but also in Madrid, for instance).
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gulf playing Golf
Posts: 1,141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quick answer is that you must follow the stricter rule. A company's SOP may not invalidate a national air law. The company knows this as they sent you to this airport...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: BNE
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$100m repair bill for damaged Air Emirates A350
$100m repair bill for damaged Air Emirates A350 | Herald Sun
EMIRATES will pay an expected $100 million to repair a jet severely damaged in a near disastrous take-off incident at Melbourne Airport.
A team of French pilots and engineers, which has been working on the jet for the past five weeks, plans to ferry the plane at low altitude to Toulouse next week.
* Multimedia interactive: How the near disaster happened
* Earlier report: Air Emirates jet was centimetres from crashing
Once there it will undergo one of the biggest aircraft salvage jobs ever undertaken by Airbus.
The entire tail and last two sections of fuselage will be stripped away to allow engineers to replace a fractured bulkhead, a huge salvage task that has never been done before.
Because of the bulkhead fracture, the cockpit and passenger cabin cannot be pressurised, which will force the ferry crew to fly the plane at no higher than 12,000ft.
Senior pilots have said the low-altitude, four-day flight will consume copious quantities of fuel and cause the pilots to put down in Bali, Singapore, Dubai and Cairo before the final leg along the Mediterranean Sea to France.
"For the crew it will be like flying as it was in the 1950s when passenger jets had to make the journey unpressurised from Australia to Europe," long-haul pilot Capt Ian Woods said.
"Because of the low altitude the four engines will simply guzzle fuel, but there are plenty of places along the route that they can put down," said Capt Woods, a veteran long-haul pilot with more than 20,000 hours in his logbook.
Iain Lachlan, Emirates senior vice-president for engineering, told how getting the plane ready to fly after the March 20 incident where the tail struck the tarmac on take-off, had involved replacing several lower skin panels on the fuselage.
A number of structural frames and stringers used to join sections of the airframe had also been replaced, he said in an email.
"The aircraft is currently scheduled to begin commercial operations in late October or early November after undergoing the required safety checks," he said.
Emirates' decision to repair the four-engine, A350-500 Airbus rather than buy an identical model secondhand for about the same price follows a precedent Qantas set after one of its Boeing 747s over-ran the runway at Don Muang airport at Bangkok in September 1999, where it ended up with an engine ripped off.
EMIRATES will pay an expected $100 million to repair a jet severely damaged in a near disastrous take-off incident at Melbourne Airport.
A team of French pilots and engineers, which has been working on the jet for the past five weeks, plans to ferry the plane at low altitude to Toulouse next week.
* Multimedia interactive: How the near disaster happened
* Earlier report: Air Emirates jet was centimetres from crashing
Once there it will undergo one of the biggest aircraft salvage jobs ever undertaken by Airbus.
The entire tail and last two sections of fuselage will be stripped away to allow engineers to replace a fractured bulkhead, a huge salvage task that has never been done before.
Because of the bulkhead fracture, the cockpit and passenger cabin cannot be pressurised, which will force the ferry crew to fly the plane at no higher than 12,000ft.
Senior pilots have said the low-altitude, four-day flight will consume copious quantities of fuel and cause the pilots to put down in Bali, Singapore, Dubai and Cairo before the final leg along the Mediterranean Sea to France.
"For the crew it will be like flying as it was in the 1950s when passenger jets had to make the journey unpressurised from Australia to Europe," long-haul pilot Capt Ian Woods said.
"Because of the low altitude the four engines will simply guzzle fuel, but there are plenty of places along the route that they can put down," said Capt Woods, a veteran long-haul pilot with more than 20,000 hours in his logbook.
Iain Lachlan, Emirates senior vice-president for engineering, told how getting the plane ready to fly after the March 20 incident where the tail struck the tarmac on take-off, had involved replacing several lower skin panels on the fuselage.
A number of structural frames and stringers used to join sections of the airframe had also been replaced, he said in an email.
"The aircraft is currently scheduled to begin commercial operations in late October or early November after undergoing the required safety checks," he said.
Emirates' decision to repair the four-engine, A350-500 Airbus rather than buy an identical model secondhand for about the same price follows a precedent Qantas set after one of its Boeing 747s over-ran the runway at Don Muang airport at Bangkok in September 1999, where it ended up with an engine ripped off.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by Herald Sun
$100m repair bill for damaged Air Emirates A350
...
Emirates' decision to repair the four-engine, A350-500 Airbus
...
Emirates' decision to repair the four-engine, A350-500 Airbus
If they're repairing an EK A350-500, it'll be a veritable miracle.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the media report is not confusing the facts of the Qantas incident with the proposed repair to the EK A340-500
I doubt that it would cost 100 million to repair, if it is going to be back in service by November.
From memory the Qantas incident cost 100 million to fix and took a very long time to repair in Bangkok. The aircraft should have been written off. But Qantas wanted to maintain its safety record of never loosing a hull.
The Qantas incident was more substancial than an engine been torn off.
Note, Qantas has always referred to this as an incident and not an accident.
I doubt that it would cost 100 million to repair, if it is going to be back in service by November.
From memory the Qantas incident cost 100 million to fix and took a very long time to repair in Bangkok. The aircraft should have been written off. But Qantas wanted to maintain its safety record of never loosing a hull.
The Qantas incident was more substancial than an engine been torn off.
Note, Qantas has always referred to this as an incident and not an accident.
Last edited by kenbuck; 18th Jun 2009 at 22:49.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weston Super Mare/UAE
Age: 60
Posts: 406
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or 'LOSING' a hull? Maybe the hull is 'loose' as in not tight as well - for an intelligent group such as this it is incredible how many do not understand the difference between 'lose' and 'loose'! Drift thread, I know!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with you "smiffy" 
It's amazing how many people don't know the difference.
lose definition | Dictionary.com
loose definition | Dictionary.com
Sorry to continue the drift.
It's amazing how many people don't know the difference.
lose definition | Dictionary.com
loose definition | Dictionary.com
Sorry to continue the drift.
It seems some unnamed individuals have sent emails to the Australian regulator, blaming the airline´s corporate culture, according to this article:
Emirates pilots speak to regulator | Herald Sun
Emirates pilots speak to regulator | Herald Sun
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem at all
One wonders...is this (James7) an example of the airline pilots of tomorrow?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gather that the ferry flight will be conducted with the gear up (the article doesn't mention it); anybody knows? I'm surprised that the range is so severely limited, even at FL100, given that the aircraft will carry no payload, presumably.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
James7, I think there are quite a few here who'd be very interested in hearing whether you still believed it to "no problem at all" after you tried what was suggested (normal cruise levels, unpressurised, crew on oxy) for just one short-ish sector, let alone Melbourne-Toulouse. Even if you managed the oxygen - which would be debatable - I'd just love to see how you handled the cabin temperature.
No problem at all.
No problem at all.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yep, years ago a Connie Kalitta DC-8 crew famously tried to fly unpressurized at FL330 with the inevitable result:
NYC94LA062
NYC94LA062
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: hell
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gather that the ferry flight will be conducted with the gear up (the article doesn't mention it); anybody knows?