Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Qatar 77W at MIA

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Qatar 77W at MIA

Old 19th Sep 2015, 21:02
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 411
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
"No only if there is a NOTAM there is a temporary appendix #T1, #T2 etc. In MIA there is one for Rwy 09 unfortunately called T1. I suspect the crew made a wrong assumption that this means a takeoff from T1."

Thanks again Croc. I couldn't find a runway/departure NOTAM for Runway 09 at MIA.


The "#T1" designation would seem to be a very poor wording choice for the EFB performance selection, shades of AA into Cali with two close fixes named "Rozo" in fix choices.


I can see the cheese holes lining up. Not sure when looking right while taking the active didn't ring a bell with a view of the unused runway runway back to the start point, but understand there are plenty of factors to look at. Sometimes the elephant is right in front of us staring and nobody sees it for whatever reason.


It was a close one, glad everyone is safe.
WhatsaLizad? is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 21:26
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 320
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AirBubba.

The runway change scenario continues to be a high threat situation in my view. New speeds, new numbers, change it in the box, reselect a departure, reset the heading bugs, recheck the NOTAMS, update the ACARS etc. all while either taxiing or sitting still with an impatient controller and ten planes behind you if you've already left the ramp.
Very true. Some airports in the Far East (BKK, PEK, et al) used to be notorious for runway change after pushback; it was my habit to do performance calcs etc and brief for both runways in the pre flight.

Some of our US friends had the same inclination. But with multiple unfamiliar runways/taxi patterns (to we the infrequent visitors) at some of these places, it could be quite a challenge after pushback. I had no hesitation in setting park brake while we did EFB performance, reprogrammed FMC, reset MCP etc etc and rebriefed taxi routes. Not too popular sometimes with ATC, but better safe than sorry.

I will admit though that things had improved worldwide quite a lot recently before I hung up the old headset.
Phantom Driver is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 22:18
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
thanks again croc. I couldn't find a runway/departure notam for runway 09 at mia.
!mia 08/311 (kmia a2795/15) mia rwy 9/27 cl markings obsc 1508271543-1509252000
peekay4 is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 23:02
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yep, that is the only NOTAM that I could find, has nothing to do with performance. There is a NOTAM about obstacles on Rwy27. Wondered too why there is no information about the #T1 on the Opt or the NOTAMs, not even in the FAA FDC NOTAMs?
FlyingCroc is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 03:48
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Róisín Dubh
Posts: 1,389
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba
It is indeed on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/tl_wXfSwRzM

More here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_845

The runway change scenario continues to be a high threat situation in my view. New speeds, new numbers, change it in the box, reselect a departure, reset the heading bugs, recheck the NOTAMS, update the ACARS etc. all while either taxiing or sitting still with an impatient controller and ten planes behind you if you've already left the ramp.

Multiple opportunities to make the chief pilot's hotline.
I am not and have never been tower rated, haven't done tower stuff since my initial training years ago, however if you get a spanner like this thrown into your works, advise the controller that you need time to run the numbers, and advise how long that will take to comfortably and thoroughly do.

If you say it's going to take you a couple of minutes to work out your numbers and you need to be fully stopped to do it, depending on airfield layout the controller might take you onto an adjacent taxiway and leave you alone or decide it's not worth the delay and leave you on the original departure.

The vast majority of us don't know company specific procedures (unless told when we get to meet you, which is very, very helpful), just like most of you do not and cannot be expected to know the various nuances of every airspace you fly through. At the end of the day you were promised X and now ATC are asking you for Y at the last minute. A last minute runway change is ATC discomoding you, it's your privilege to refuse. In almost all cases we are just trying to get you on your way faster, so normally it's worth looking at, for anything bar heavies near MTOW at least!

Last edited by Una Due Tfc; 20th Sep 2015 at 04:06.
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 06:29
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 61
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Per the question about taking off from an intersection:

Sometimes, the intersection takeoff is all that is available, due to various circumstances.

Sometimes ATC assigns an intersection takeoff, due to various circumstances.

When I look at our box that shows runways available for takeoff, it has shown 3 or ever 4 options for the same runway...one will be the full runway length, and the others are all intersection takeoffs with varying length remaining.
atpcliff is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 06:45
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some of our US friends had the same inclination. But with multiple unfamiliar runways/taxi patterns (to we the infrequent visitors) at some of these places, it could be quite a challenge after pushback. I had no hesitation in setting park brake while we did EFB performance, reprogrammed FMC, reset MCP etc etc and rebriefed taxi routes. Not too popular sometimes with ATC, but better safe than sorry.
I am with Phantom. If the performance figures change, park the aircraft and get everyone on the flight deck involved. Changing the plan involves examining the consequences to ensure that there are no safety issues, sometimes hard to do when one's head has been focused on a different plan of action.

Qatar Airways now uses a checklist when any performance or runway items change after the initial planning. Good move on their part. Concerning this accident, thinking the #T1 issue is going to have a bearing though can't get my head around taking off with 2600 TORA off a wet runway for an 11:30 flight.
Flytdeck is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 07:43
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No triple 7 pilot in their right mind would have used T1 intx at the gross weight required to fly MIA-DOH!!

That the other three pilots agreed to it is incomprehensible.
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 07:56
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the torpedo tube above!
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why are we even assuming that there was a runway change?
And even if there WAS a runway change, QR uses a very comprehensive checklist for a runway change/intersection departure.
It involves stopping the aircraft (if moving), changing all relevant parameters, and it requires both pilots to recalculate and revise all performance figures. I doubt anyone could mess up any figures with this new procedure and checklist in place.

What begs an answer however is WHY was the crew trying to take off from intersection T1 when this is almost never done. I seriously doubt it was thru simple choice or simple 'go gitis'.
Get that answer and the rest falls in place. #T1 selected incorrectly simply lined up the holes.
Flaperon777 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 08:06
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,094
Received 478 Likes on 129 Posts
It has been discussed that more technical safety nets leads to possible complacency and lack of gross error checks.
It really is a difficult dilemma to solve.
The XAA's need to assess what has changed in the last decade and re evaluate the training required and also the time required. As an example, I get on average four emails a day from my company, normally three of them are propaganda that I can safely delete, but one of them requires me to think about how I operate. I get the emails at all times of the day including public holidays and days off yet I get zero time allocated to read and assess the information. Most of the time I manage to allocate personal time to do this but every now and then when home life requires my full attention I arrive at work with a less than ideal understanding of changes that have taken place. The XAA's need to say to the Airlines " We know it is easy for you to fire off changes in operational circumstances to your pilots via digital means, but there is a price to pay, you must bring all of your pilots into work for a day every three months to check their understanding of the information you have promulgated."
At my Airline we have had major changes to performance requirements that were promulgated via email and many of my colleagues are unsure of what their legal obligations are. The appropriate safety forms have been filed which results in more emails. The digital age is a threat in itself.
framer is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 14:21
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,837
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
No triple 7 pilot in their right mind would have used T1 intx at the gross weight required to fly MIA-DOH!!

That the other three pilots agreed to it is incomprehensible.
I think that’s a little harsh. With the large variation in TORR between F5 derated and F20 full power, it’s not a given. With a headwind it might even be OK. We don’t use OPT on our T7s but I can see the issue with /T1 and #T1.

Had any of the crew operated that sector before and were familiar with MIA? Does it say 2600m TORA at the T1 intersection? Like others say, this looks like a classic design/HF issue where it was bound to happen eventually and these guys copped it. Will be very interested in the report when it surfaces.
FullWings is online now  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 15:14
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Why are we even assuming that there was a runway change?
The runway change was with the Pan Am mishap at SFO in 1971 discussed above.

Nobody said there was one with QR at MIA.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 16:45
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RAT 5:
Back to a discussion there was a while ago about an AF trying to rotate a heavy a/c many kts too slow. Naturally it was the wrong weight in the EFB. The discussion brought up the point about having a 'feel' and 'mental gross error check' for performance calculations & takeoff speeds. Surely the same could be said for this case about TORA/TODA. I assume the crew knew the TODA from T1. With a little thought about past operations I would have expected there to be a "seems a little short to me. What do you think?" moment, before punching numbers into a computer and accepting the results willy nilly.
Sadly that is what the modern human has become. In all my cadet teachings, as an old fart, I gave examples of various gross error checks and mental estimates for different scenarios, both on grounded in the air, aligned with stories about the consequences of those who didn't make them. I don't think too many airlines, even on command courses, educate their crews in this time aged technique. It is disappointing, in cadet training, to see load sheet figures added up with a calculator. What ever happened to brain power? Even worse considering that cadet pilots are usually required to have a maths/science orientated education.
It was still quite common to see low hour F/O's blindly follow VNAV PTH and not consider Distance v Height. Often VNAV was rubbish and they then asked why it was adding thrust and suddenly changed to 'below path' or dived, accelerated now being 'above path'. The answer had been staring at them for a few minutes, if they had cared to observe.
I have some nervousness that EFB's, though great in paper saving and perhaps allowing higher TOW's, might also lead to more erroneous takeoffs. The gross error checks is perhaps one defence. Having both pilots use their own EFB's to cross check the performance result doesn't help if the basic data that is entered is duff gen. Rubbish into both EFB = same rubbish out of both.
Spot on, RAT 5. We're loosing that intuitive sixth sense that used to call our attention ("something is not right here!"). Did they slammed thrust levers to TOGA somewhere during the take-off run? I would dare to doubt so, since we're so used to see eroded margins in EFB calculations (done to the infinitesimal) and rotations so close to the end of compensated runways.

What ever happened to brain power?
Its been lost somewhere between the continuous fight for economic sustainability of the airline companies and an operational acceptable level of risk...
aguadalte is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 22:45
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: sky
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Runway change

Hi all,
I totally agree with Airbubba concerning rwy change(#54).I usually do not accept last minute rwy change for TO and APP as well if I have that option .
We have a rwy change checklist that helps a lot but anyway it is a treat.
I never accept intersection TO unless there is a Notam .
Fly safe,
Fbwdude
Fbwdude is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2015, 23:53
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: WA
Age: 84
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe I missed it but has anyone addressed what "demystification" the FDR/CVR's will surely provide in time? Guess that's just understood in this entire conversation and needn't be mentioned? A very interesting discussion though.
radken is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 10:42
  #76 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A few comments from the ATC side :
Listening to the VHF recordings everything sounds normal there: It looks like ATC did not " suggest" an intersection dep and pilot knew where he was as he repeated T1, and took the line up and wait at T1, and later the take off clearance from there.
Unusual situation to ATC ? no, some departure are made from T1, and the controller is not there to ask " are you sure" everytime someone does. He/she will get funny replies if they did.

As to a 777 long range not using full runway,and " only " 2600m. and why controllers did not flag the problem to the crew :

Controllers today , especially the young ones, are not trained to detailed aircraft performance numbers, too many types and engine variants around, and the actual T/O weight is not distributed to them anyway. The aircraft could be empty and/or with minimum fuel , or making an intermediate stop , a last minute change not mentioned on the departure strip, etc..many possible factors why ATC will not normally challenge an intersection dep, especially one with 2600m left..

Lastly, on a lighter note , seen the average knowledge of geography of my US friends and colleagues, I wonder how many really know where and how far Doha is ..
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 11:24
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder how many really know where and how far Doha is ..

or really care for that matter
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 11:43
  #78 (permalink)  

SkyGod
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 1 Post
. Lastly, on a lighter note , seen the average knowledge of geography of my US friends and colleagues, I wonder how many really know where and how far Doha is ..
Quite a few of us have served time in the sandbox and know the area quite well, unfortunately
TowerDog is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 12:00
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's a lot to be said for the old adage that there are only three types of data that can be trusted - raw data, raw data and raw data.

FMS data, and that derived from iPads, EFB's, and a multitude of "magenta era" computers are all very convenient, and perhaps in the short term save a bit of paper and a lot of money, weight and time.

On the other hand it only takes a few sheets of paper to tell us the important numbers and, for those who haven't learned them, the rules of thumb associated with our craft.
deefer dog is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 13:41
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: is a point of view
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Deefer, I do agree, when flying you can't lose sight of the basics! But as these planes get bigger and optimization is the magic word that management uses.. the rule of thumb for this specific aircraft isn't that clear anymore.

TOW on the 777 vary between 156T-351T.. (all types flown by most of us) take your pick, and we see the end of the runway closer and more often than we would like to see, because of these optimizations.

Off-course.. being dead tired (not just from 1 flight but roster systematics) will be not looked at in this region.. the word fatigue is now a magic word the management uses to make all things right.. because that way they can blame anything else except their malevolent practice of Bonus optimization.

a slower than normal rotation could have caused them to scrape it.. or anything else.. interesting to discuss and eager to find out the cause.

Pointer
Pointer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.