Diversion - Did Manchester Shrink in the Rain?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard J
So you are suggesting that that the captain breaks a company rule for your benefit? So where exactly would that stop? And what would you be saying if, as the result of a Captain ignoring an SOP (not necessarily this one) a member of your family ends up as ash? Get real mate!
Council Van
You won't with that attitude!
customer satisfaction is YOUR problem.
Council Van
If I ever become a real pilot
Any other A380s?
We're there any other A380s landing at the same time?
Quick question from a none flyer: does the landing calculation take account of plausible equipment failures at awkward moments (burst tyre, or a break failure on touch down? Etc...) and would that be enough to explain why it thought that the runway was too short for those conditions?
Quick question from a none flyer: does the landing calculation take account of plausible equipment failures at awkward moments (burst tyre, or a break failure on touch down? Etc...) and would that be enough to explain why it thought that the runway was too short for those conditions?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airmanship should be #1 and airlines should train crew to fly the aircraft when the boxes can't or won't, make reasonable judgements based on circumstance and foster an environment where crews are known to be competant and trustworthy. Fly Dubai joined the list last week now Emirates....same culture, linked management.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that holding for two hours after a four and a half hour sector in bad weather when others are diverting to reasonably adjacent and acceptable alternates is very questionable both in terms of passenger comfort and safety and in terms of pressure on the crew when the obvious objective is to land at the planned destination come what may.
It is by no means a new phenomenon, nor has it always been management driven. The October 1965 Vanguard accident at Heathrow, is instructive. Diversions had been taking place for six or seven hours before that accident. I heard the crew talking to other BEA aircraft diverting as they made their way south and they were advised to divert. After holding and two unsuccessful attempts to land they were then encouraged by the successful attempt by another Vanguard.
ASN Aircraft accident Vickers 951 Vanguard G-APEE London Airport (LHR)
It is by no means a new phenomenon, nor has it always been management driven. The October 1965 Vanguard accident at Heathrow, is instructive. Diversions had been taking place for six or seven hours before that accident. I heard the crew talking to other BEA aircraft diverting as they made their way south and they were advised to divert. After holding and two unsuccessful attempts to land they were then encouraged by the successful attempt by another Vanguard.
ASN Aircraft accident Vickers 951 Vanguard G-APEE London Airport (LHR)
sometimes it is a good idea to do what the company wants (divert), knowing full well that the other plan (landing) would work just as well.
The office residents/bean counters may need a nudge to realise that their rule from the desk mentality is not ideal. At worst, it is the company's money which is wasted, at best, it gets the message across and they change their rules.
I feel sorry for the customers, but they seem to have been forgotten in this mad scramble to make money/build empires, sometimes they seem to be viewed as muppets who are to be fleeced for as much as they can be fleeced, not valuable supporters who keep the company afloat
The office residents/bean counters may need a nudge to realise that their rule from the desk mentality is not ideal. At worst, it is the company's money which is wasted, at best, it gets the message across and they change their rules.
I feel sorry for the customers, but they seem to have been forgotten in this mad scramble to make money/build empires, sometimes they seem to be viewed as muppets who are to be fleeced for as much as they can be fleeced, not valuable supporters who keep the company afloat
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sometimes it is a good idea to do what the company wants (divert), knowing full well that the other plan (landing) would work just as well.
The office residents/bean counters may need a nudge to realise that their rule from the desk mentality is not ideal. At worst, it is the company's money which is wasted, at best, it gets the message across and they change their rules.
The office residents/bean counters may need a nudge to realise that their rule from the desk mentality is not ideal. At worst, it is the company's money which is wasted, at best, it gets the message across and they change their rules.
B777 of really big ME airline departs from base on fine day. During climb the expat captain switches of the FD for visual climb currency and then several minutes later turns the FD back on. Perfectly safe, keeps his hand in at flying without a FD.
The "event" is recorded via the QAR data beamed back to base. Captain is up for tea and no bikkies for the heinous crime of turning the FD off.
The "event" is recorded via the QAR data beamed back to base. Captain is up for tea and no bikkies for the heinous crime of turning the FD off.
If you have RUNWAY TOO SHORT flashing at you in red on the PFD, you would have to be very brave to second guess it. If you aren't correct and there is a problem, it will be the end of your career at best, ruination and prison at worst.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CYYC
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All these armchair quarter backs going on about how they should have done this or that and If they were there they'd show "The Man" blah blah blah. My question to them is, when was the last time you told your significant other to get stuffed and blatantly do something different than what they asked ? Exactly, and that just involved one person...you, never mind a number of people that represents a small town. Good job you guys/gals on your decision. As far as fears concerned, EK management would be nothing compared to a group of US lawyers on your back had you did something against an SOP which ended up hurting someone or worse. I have two goals when I fly.
1) not to become a Mayday episode.
2) if ever required, to be able to answer the first 2-3 questions correct at an inquiry.
1) not to become a Mayday episode.
2) if ever required, to be able to answer the first 2-3 questions correct at an inquiry.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what management by fear looks like in actual operations.
It removes common sense, and replaces it with blind adherence to SOP, even if it is stupid.
EK should stop flying the A380 into MAN since we now all know every landing dangerously close to the limit.
It removes common sense, and replaces it with blind adherence to SOP, even if it is stupid.
EK should stop flying the A380 into MAN since we now all know every landing dangerously close to the limit.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, this is merely reflective of the type of mindset that exists at management level in certain organisations.
The fact that this aircraft diverted in the circumstances it did will have come as no surprise to those who have lived and worked in that part of the world.
The idea and concept of airmanship has been enshrined in a generation of local aviators, who are now at management level, their opinion is the only one that matters, and their opinion revolves around the parrot like regurgitation and adherence to SOPs along with a zero tolerance policy to any deviation.
This in turn creates a mindset that is akin to safe-mode on your MAC or PC, essentially you do everything in a slow and deliberate fashion without ever extending your mental model to get the job done. The only time you would ever consider doing anything beyond your own personal safe mode is when your safety depends on it.
FWIW I'm sure Airbus will be receiving a invoice in due course for the cost of the diversion due to a defective system that rendered their aircraft incapable of landing in MAN habibi....
The fact that this aircraft diverted in the circumstances it did will have come as no surprise to those who have lived and worked in that part of the world.
The idea and concept of airmanship has been enshrined in a generation of local aviators, who are now at management level, their opinion is the only one that matters, and their opinion revolves around the parrot like regurgitation and adherence to SOPs along with a zero tolerance policy to any deviation.
This in turn creates a mindset that is akin to safe-mode on your MAC or PC, essentially you do everything in a slow and deliberate fashion without ever extending your mental model to get the job done. The only time you would ever consider doing anything beyond your own personal safe mode is when your safety depends on it.
FWIW I'm sure Airbus will be receiving a invoice in due course for the cost of the diversion due to a defective system that rendered their aircraft incapable of landing in MAN habibi....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has nothing to do with management.
On the a380 below 500ft on approach, you respect any amber warning "IF WET:RWY TOO SHORT" like you would the STALL warning.
It's highlighted and boxed in the manufacturers FCOM, "...the flight crew must perform a go-around".
Above 500ft, the FMS landing system, BTV, bases the landing performance on the figures entered. These static figures will say landing distance OK (as we know EK have been landing 380's at MAN for years).
Below 500ft the landing system uses live flight, weather and a/c parameters; weight, speed, altitude, AC position and wind.
Therefore if you get a "........TOO SHORT" message, then the runway is, funnily enough TOO SHORT.
On the a380 below 500ft on approach, you respect any amber warning "IF WET:RWY TOO SHORT" like you would the STALL warning.
It's highlighted and boxed in the manufacturers FCOM, "...the flight crew must perform a go-around".
Above 500ft, the FMS landing system, BTV, bases the landing performance on the figures entered. These static figures will say landing distance OK (as we know EK have been landing 380's at MAN for years).
Below 500ft the landing system uses live flight, weather and a/c parameters; weight, speed, altitude, AC position and wind.
Therefore if you get a "........TOO SHORT" message, then the runway is, funnily enough TOO SHORT.
Last edited by Craggenmore; 28th Mar 2016 at 05:18.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Craggy, based on Avherald my understanding is that all 3 GA's were performed above 500 AGL, which would suggest that either they didn't understand the system in the fashion you suggest? Or was it true that it was a training flight with two training Captains onboard? In which case, nothing would surprise me to be honest 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Craggenmore, whatever the boxes may say, the FACT is neither runway at Manchester at 10000ft and 10007ft is too short as has been demonstrated many, many times. It is TOTALLY due to management which would prefer to rely on boxes rather than experienced humans. True, humans are fallible but in this instance where the facts of the runway length are incontravertible and there was a cross wind seemingly within limits, airmanship should have sperceded management dictats and a faulty computer.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Land of everlasting thirst
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too clarify what Craggenmore stated.
The system is designed to notify you that during your approach, and for some unknown reason, be it environmental or handling or other, and the clever black boxes see that you are not going to touch down in the touch down zone and pull up safely, then a Go Around should be performed.
It is a tool to prevent continuing after a potential unstabilised approach.
The system is designed to notify you that during your approach, and for some unknown reason, be it environmental or handling or other, and the clever black boxes see that you are not going to touch down in the touch down zone and pull up safely, then a Go Around should be performed.
It is a tool to prevent continuing after a potential unstabilised approach.
I am constantly surprised by some of the replies on this thread. Either the mojority of posters are cowboys who fly around thinking their superior skills and airmanship over-rule everything or they are Microsoft sim clowns.
It has been said but to summarise - it's the companies train set, they make the rules. Doesn't matter if you don't agree with them. The crew followed these rules (a go around from a warning is not an SOP, it's a rule-there is a difference) diverted and a safe landing resulted. If, by following a rule, a safe landing is not assured (warning on finals on minimum fuel when landing performance suggests sufficient stop margin) then airmanship comes into play and the crew can make a decision on a safe course of action. These are two very different sets of circumstances.
It has been said but to summarise - it's the companies train set, they make the rules. Doesn't matter if you don't agree with them. The crew followed these rules (a go around from a warning is not an SOP, it's a rule-there is a difference) diverted and a safe landing resulted. If, by following a rule, a safe landing is not assured (warning on finals on minimum fuel when landing performance suggests sufficient stop margin) then airmanship comes into play and the crew can make a decision on a safe course of action. These are two very different sets of circumstances.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Land of everlasting thirst
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Council Van, performance data has nothing to do with it. The runway is long enough and there fore an approach has commenced. This system is a dynamic assessment of your energy/altitude/speed and a bit more to notify you wether you can land and stop in the given distance. An excessive tailwind on finals is capable of triggering the system.
If you diverted to another longer runway with no excessive tailwind and were on profile, then you will not trigger the system.
If you diverted to another longer runway with no excessive tailwind and were on profile, then you will not trigger the system.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am constantly surprised by some of the replies on this thread. Either the mojority of posters are cowboys who fly around thinking their superior skills and airmanship over-rule everything or they are Microsoft sim clowns.
Looking out of the huge windows and verifying with RDR ALT, DME/ILS GP and my eyeballs I was fine, I continued against our SOPs.
I´m a cowboy, I admit it.
Ever seen children of the magenta ?
BTW, turned out to be a database issue