Durban bound Emirates A330 in severe turbulence encounter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a control room with no radar...
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Durban bound Emirates A330 in severe turbulence encounter
An Emirates Airlines Airbus A330-200, flight EK-775 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Durban (South Africa), was enroute about 2 hours prior to estimated landing in Durban, when the airplane encountered severe turbulence. A doctor on board provided first aid to the injured on board. The airplane continued to Durban for a safe landing. 8 passengers were brought to a local hospitals, 12 more were treated at the airport for minor injuries, all other passengers were offered trauma counselling.
Accident: Emirates A332 near Durban on Dec 19th 2009, severe turbulence injures 20
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err.,, No!
Opt Crz will almost always be below Max Crz so economics should not be a factor.
Starting by the fact that in our-days, fuel philosophy aims to upload minimum fuel and the fact that, despite EU OPS 1.255 e) - stating that commanders do have the last word regarding final fuel figures for their flight - there are rumors of crews being under pressure to fly minimum required...
Where is the "freedom" to chose between lower (but safer) levels, when there are turbulence forecasts ahead (sometimes reported to you in the middle of the Atlantic) when you're already half way to your destination?
Whom of us, may heartedly state here, that he has never accepted an Oceanic Clearance, flying Max CRZ levels at the initial part of the flight, fearing to loose Econ Crz for the rest of the crossing?
Aren't we paid to manager the risks? Who has never made a bad decision?
I have. And I'm one of the lucky guys who has learned from bad decisions. All of them seemed OK at the time, but had to be later corrected...
We're talking about strategic decisions, which later on turned to be tactically reviewed.
I'm talking about a tendency, that came with this new fuel and economical crises management stress for survival.
Fly Safe
V
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aguadalte
Not me, except if there is significant turbulence forcast.
The fuel penalty to fly the whole sector at one level lower i.e. 2000', is less than the contingency fuel uploaded. Circa 600kg versus 1500kg on this sector length for this a/c type. Therefore, the option to take lower levels for part of the trip is not a problem. If it is a problem, see the next point!
Furthermore, the airline concerned has never questioned me when I have taken extra fuel. I take it if I or one of the other flightcrew believe there is a reasonable and justifiable cause.
That's what you're paid to do every time you go to work..... isn't it?
Whom of us, may heartedly state here, that he has never accepted an Oceanic Clearance, flying Max CRZ levels at the initial part of the flight, fearing to loose Econ Crz for the rest of the crossing?
Where is the "freedom" to chose between lower (but safer) levels, when there are turbulence forecasts ahead
Starting by the fact that in our-days, fuel philosophy aims to upload minimum fuel and the fact that, despite EU OPS 1.255 e) - stating that commanders do have the last word regarding final fuel figures for their flight - there are rumors of crews being under pressure to fly minimum required...
We're talking about strategic decisions, which later on turned to be tactically reviewed.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: 2010, NSW
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Service vs Safety
Flew Emirates SYD-CHC in February. While the service and product were fab...felt safety was a bit lax.
At one stage the Captain had asked the Cabin Crew to be seated. Passengers were still walking around (I understand sometimes you just gotta go) but Cabin Crew said nothing; even worse some passengers were rooting around in overhead lockers, trying to get drinks...The EK Crew need to be more assertive when the Seat Belt Signs are on...esp when they are strapped in and there is so much "non-essential movement is occuring".
At one stage the Captain had asked the Cabin Crew to be seated. Passengers were still walking around (I understand sometimes you just gotta go) but Cabin Crew said nothing; even worse some passengers were rooting around in overhead lockers, trying to get drinks...The EK Crew need to be more assertive when the Seat Belt Signs are on...esp when they are strapped in and there is so much "non-essential movement is occuring".
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As airline staff of 30 years but as regular pax I invariably, as advised to do so, keep my seat belt loosely fastened during flight .... one finds it be more comfortable above one's bum than beneath one's bum!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With best will in the world ....................
The seat belt signs were ON. Strongly implying that sitting down and "belting up" would be a good, dare I say, a flipping good idea.
If, in their vast experience, certain members of the travelling public decide to ignore that advice.......................
Well Darwin had something to say about the nature of certain beings
Action ....Reaction?
The seat belt signs were ON. Strongly implying that sitting down and "belting up" would be a good, dare I say, a flipping good idea.
If, in their vast experience, certain members of the travelling public decide to ignore that advice.......................
Well Darwin had something to say about the nature of certain beings
Action ....Reaction?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helen-Damnation
Cool-down now, you're answering like if I was implying you, or your airline, in my statements. I was talking in general. I don't even know what airline are you flying with and I really don't care (but I'm glad you're not pressured by anybody when uploading more fuel, but others are...)
Quote:
Where is the "freedom" to chose between lower (but safer) levels, when there are turbulence forecasts ahead
and please, don't take my words out of context just to show you're a big wise guy...
here is what I said:
I know the numbers for the 330 and the 340 and I also know that sometimes one level below is not enough to face severe turbulence.
Yes, that's what we are all paid to do, when going to work and I'm not complaining. All I'm trying to highlight is the need for a more protective and safer fuel legislation, which would give us all better chances to face adversity and maybe would prevent some incidents/accidents to happen.
(Of course, those who are protected by Hades, know it all, need nothing to worry about, have no doubts what so ever...not me, I'm just human)
Cool-down now, you're answering like if I was implying you, or your airline, in my statements. I was talking in general. I don't even know what airline are you flying with and I really don't care (but I'm glad you're not pressured by anybody when uploading more fuel, but others are...)
Quote:
Where is the "freedom" to chose between lower (but safer) levels, when there are turbulence forecasts ahead
The fuel penalty to fly the whole sector at one level lower i.e. 2000', is less than the contingency fuel uploaded. Circa 600kg versus 1500kg on this sector length for this a/c type. Therefore, the option to take lower levels for part of the trip is not a problem. If it is a problem, see the next point!
here is what I said:
Where is the "freedom" to chose between lower (but safer) levels, when there are turbulence forecasts ahead (sometimes reported to you in the middle of the Atlantic) when you're already half way to your destination?
That's what you're paid to do every time you go to work..... isn't it?
(Of course, those who are protected by Hades, know it all, need nothing to worry about, have no doubts what so ever...not me, I'm just human)
Tsamaya sentle
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Muizenberg,
This is not EK specific at all. I have seen it only recently with LH, SA, KL, and you name them - even to the point where I was about to intervene and ask F/As to insist my fellow pax remain seated, and buckled up. Having said that, the balance between being assertive and putting a good face to the matter is always a difficult one when you want to 'present' a good, and seemingly relaxed, cabin service product.
The EK Crew need to be more assertive when the Seat Belt Signs are on
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Front right seat
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Aquadalte
I'll try and explain this in another way. My first comment refers. Flying above (or below) Opt will lead to a higher burn. Therefore flying around at Max (which is perfectly safe due to your 0.3g buffet margin) has nothing to do with economics. No one operates at Max Alt to save the company money. They fly at Opt to do that.
Thanks for the lecture though.
DFH
I'll try and explain this in another way. My first comment refers. Flying above (or below) Opt will lead to a higher burn. Therefore flying around at Max (which is perfectly safe due to your 0.3g buffet margin) has nothing to do with economics. No one operates at Max Alt to save the company money. They fly at Opt to do that.
Thanks for the lecture though.
DFH
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Divinehover,
Maybe I was not able to explain myself correctly. My apologies for that.
I'll try to do it now:
Sometimes you depart with a higher weight than expected. Your Economical Level will be a couple of hours latter than expected. When receiving your Atlantic Clearance you get your OFP requested level, which turns to be (due to your new higher weight) your Max LVL. If you decide to request your actual Econ LVL, you know that it will be later on below your economic one. There is a lot of traffic for that route. Wouldn't you accept your Max LVL, having in mind that you will be flying it as Economic latter on? Or do you prefer to start flying lower (but Econ) and risk to be below your Econ all the way down?
Sometimes, one has to make choices that "tactically" may seem wrong at first glance but turned to be "strategically" OK. Life is not always black and white, there are a lot of "colors" to be explored. And, not always one gets the Economic Levels, when asked.
The way one sees flight above Economic Levels as saving fuel for the company, really depends on the circumstances and experience on that particular route and ATC.
Happy Holidays.
V.
Maybe I was not able to explain myself correctly. My apologies for that.
I'll try to do it now:
Sometimes you depart with a higher weight than expected. Your Economical Level will be a couple of hours latter than expected. When receiving your Atlantic Clearance you get your OFP requested level, which turns to be (due to your new higher weight) your Max LVL. If you decide to request your actual Econ LVL, you know that it will be later on below your economic one. There is a lot of traffic for that route. Wouldn't you accept your Max LVL, having in mind that you will be flying it as Economic latter on? Or do you prefer to start flying lower (but Econ) and risk to be below your Econ all the way down?
Sometimes, one has to make choices that "tactically" may seem wrong at first glance but turned to be "strategically" OK. Life is not always black and white, there are a lot of "colors" to be explored. And, not always one gets the Economic Levels, when asked.
The way one sees flight above Economic Levels as saving fuel for the company, really depends on the circumstances and experience on that particular route and ATC.
Happy Holidays.
V.
