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

Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?

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

Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?

Old 9th Aug 2016, 11:14
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,220
pushing the TOGA switches leads to selection of go-around thrust guaranteeing a vertical speed of at least 2,000 ft/ min, automatic disengagement of all of the previously selected AFDS modes, and automatic engagement of the go-around roll and pitch modes. Pressing a second time leads to selection of maximum thrust.
Exactly! :-D Hence the requirement during the climb to review and reselect lateral modes as required. Hdg Sel, LNAV etc.
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 11:18
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,300
Originally Posted by bobdxb
EK pilots don't use A/P on for LDG's unless it is autoland LDG required to keep recency and knowing the wx conditions at the time of arr that was the case.
Personally I would also disengage A/T at the same time.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant the FD part of the A/P. By disengage, do you mean turn off the A/T switches or are you saying that the A/T will not respond to the TOGA switches with the A/T switches armed when in the air? (before or after a bounce)
NSEU is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 11:31
  #683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,220
A/T disengage switches are on either side of the thrust levers. Pressing TOGA will re-engage the A/T as will selecting the A/T switch on the MCP or selecting FLCH.

TOGA after a bounce will not re-engage A/T as the switches are inhibited for 5 secs. If A/T is off then the pilot has manual thrust control, if A/T is active then the thrust will be being commanded to idle. If you push the throttles forward and release them A/T will command them back to idle again!
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 11:34
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,376
Anyone remember the Jetstar incident back in 2007 involving an A320 where a go around was attempted but TOGA didn't engage and the aircraft kept descending and got within 38' of the ground ? This could have had the same ending as the EK incident but on this occasion the holes in the Swiss cheese didn't all line up.

Parallels can be drawn between the two occurances even though they involved different aircraft manufacturers and happened seven years apart.

The two engined go around receives far less attention than the single engined one, possibly as it is assumed to be a routine manoeuvre which should be well within the capability of any crew. A visual approach was regarded in a similar manner until the Asiana crash.

Perhaps simulator training needs to revisit the basics more often. Back in 1973 D.P. Davis was complaining in "Handling the Big Jets" about pilots who had forgotten how to fly.

Jetstar makes changes after go-around mishap | Australian Aviation
Metro man is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 11:38
  #685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 102
Don't forget that there is also a variation in ticket prices. As a pilot it frustrates me when I see ticket prices that will barely cover the cost of the fuel for that sector. The effectiveness and size of the training department, the quality of candidates attracted by salaries, the number of tasks completed on Engineering checks, the number of pilots per airframe etc are all elements that affect the bottom line.
If Airline A has ten people in their training department, pays pilots the minimum they can get away with considering the market, runs the bare minimum tasks per Engineering check that the manufacturer allows and has pilots flying the maximum number of hours per month/ year that is considered legal, and offers cheap tickets, then Airline B who has a bigger more expensive training department ( ie better trained staff) , runs an extra 200 tasks for the same Engineering check, and has more pilots per airframe allowing well rested crews to operate at their best is stuffed. They have to compete on the price of the ticket, but their overheads are greater.
The "lean operators" drag the other operators down to their level. The only way to combat this is to have sensible minimum standards legislated. Unfortunately, the regulators don't often meet with pilot/ engineering groups ( those who understand the realities of safety) , they meet with the lawyers and accountants who run the Airlines and come up with rules like the recently introduced duty and flight time limitations that can see people who are not fit to operate a lawn mower in charge of a jet with 400 people on it.
Maybe / maybe not relevant to proceedings but best post here.

World's best practice Framer, world's best...
maggotdriver is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 11:40
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Geneva
Posts: 11
hi

I ‘ve a simple and clear question for qualified pilots on the triple 7

This concerns only the 777:
AP Off
AThr speed On / FD On
on short final approach, with a tailwind gradient of 10 knots for example, don't you think it would be better if auto-throttle keep managing the thrust after pulled them to idle -a few seconds earlier- to absorb the speed suddenly taken, caused by the 10 kts (tail wind)

Do you not think it would be better to have a similar management of the speed as is the case for the 737 or the A320/330/340/380
cervo77 is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 11:44
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,045
Volume:

However, If you do not have time to figure out the best speed, pulling up to the stick shaker is not totally off.
That's what i meant

The speed of steepest climb is related to engine power, the stall speed is not.
But the stick shaker limits you with stall, everything above gives you margin

Wirbelsturm:

Throw a stick shaker in there and your workload has gone through the roof
No, you didn't get the idea: BECAUSE of the suggested "Pull-Up", the pilot would EXPECT a stick shaker as limit. He will NOT be surprised.

What i would describe as the beauty of such a procedure is, that there is no mode to be achieved, chased and checked or misinterpreted, only manual max thrust, manual wings level and pitch up and as limit the shaker.
It seems to me the most simple and straight forward action for the first few seconds.

The astronautical and sublime automation operator can be displayed once safe ....
glofish is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 11:54
  #688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Posted in the ME section:

Images Of The Emirates Plane That Burst Into Flames In Dubai, Photo Gallery

Shows the large nose gear doors open.
lineupandwait is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 12:03
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,220
A Go-Around, whether mandated by ATC or due to approach instability, deep landing or a bounce is not, nor should it be considered an emergency manoeuvre! It is something we are all trained to do and should all be briefing before the instigation of the descent checklist. It comes under the Non Normals and that's it.

There is no reason to pull to the PFI's and the stick shaker. In fact, in this case if the evidence really does point towards TOGA mode not being engaged then pulling to the stick shaker would have exacerbated the situation! Especially on a 300 series where a baulked landing with a rapid pull up could well puncture the tail!

Add into the mix of pulling up to such high levels of climb then you have a greater possibility of busting your go-around climb limits particularly when they are set low, such as 2000' due to controlled airspace above. Remember the MAP is a mandated 'procedure'.

In the event where situational awareness has degraded to such a point that you are unaware of terrain around you and suddenly get an unannounced EPGWS pull up warning then yes, absolutely correct to apply max thrust, dump the speed brake and pull to the PFI's. A normal Go-Around manoeuvre, in controlled airspace above an airfield? Not necessary IMHO.

Last edited by Wirbelsturm; 9th Aug 2016 at 12:15. Reason: Spellunk and grammer!!! Doh!
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 12:24
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Glofish
were what brought the three MD11 down and now a -300. All of them seemingly tried the procedure with holding actual attitude and then trying to go around .....
No, in at least one MD-11 prang (Narita), there were gross nose-down movements which resulted in the prang. Nothing like "holding the attitude" as you suggest. I wager that had the 521 crew pulled up to the stick shaker they'd all be dead.
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 12:30
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,220
AFAIK the reason behind the MD11 crash was that the aerodynamic authority of the tail plane to control pitch is severely reduced at below recommended landing speeds and post any bounce (where the speed might have reduced below Vapp) the SOP was a full power go-around not an attempt to recover the landing.

Never flown the MD-11 so perfectly happy to be corrected.
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 12:56
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 207
The Jetstar flight in Melbourne referred to was the result of attempting a TOGA tap (pushing the thrust levers to TOGA momentarily then pulling them back to the climb detent to prevent overspeeding from too much thrust). They didn't actually hit TOGA and their company procedure at the time was to check for positive rate and call gear up before checking the FMA. As a result the aircraft was still in Land Mode. The 777 is quite different in that TOGA commands a maximum of 2000' per minute so no issues with too much power.
Roger Greendeck is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 13:08
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,923
AFAIK the reason behind the MD11 crash was that the aerodynamic authority of the tail plane to control pitch is severely reduced at below recommended landing speeds and post any bounce (where the speed might have reduced below Vapp) the SOP was a full power go-around not an attempt to recover the landing.
Watch the video on Youtube. Had they done what you suggest, they would have been OK.
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 13:31
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 268
You only pull up to the PLIs (stick shaker) if ground contact is still imminent after the initial pull up to 20 degrees. The only time you wouldn't achieve 20 degrees is at very low speed - if you've got a low speed event and GPWS then you really have screwed up. A pull up manoeuver from a baulked landing could result in a tail scrape, then massive energy and ROC which would likely bust the MAP altitude. It's not necessary and would be innapropriate.
Propellerhead is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 13:50
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,045
the SOP was a full power go-around not an attempt to recover the landing.
Never flown the MD-11 so perfectly happy to be corrected.
Actually, it was a full power GA with initially no conf change ....... which comes pretty close to a ...... initial pull up manoeuvre.

Anyway, it seems that my suggestion is a bad idea.

By the way, i have flown and nicely survived both the Maddog and the Rotating Rubbish -300 and with that experience in my backpack, guess what i would most probably do if trapped in such a situation ....
glofish is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 14:08
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,220
The problem is the current GA manoeuvre is adequate IF it is flown correctly.

The past has shown that relatively simple manoeuvres are often messed up leading to potentially catastrophic events. Where does that fault lie? You could produce a procedure with the most perfect series of actions that would guarantee the successful resolution of the event but if they aren't carried out in the correct order the whole thing fails.

Is this automation reliance, fatigue, training or complacency or a combination of all of those factors?

We all know that some training takes place with the minimum amount of time devoted to consolidation. The mandatory LPC/OPC box ticking exercises leave little or no time to 'have a look' at some procedures that you may wish to brush up on. Additionally home pressures, rostering, capacity and cost may often preclude getting an hours sim practice time and 'having a go' no jeopardy!

The simple fact is that the human machine has flaws. Flaws that we can train out but which seem to have too high a training cost for many operators these days.

All IMHO of course.
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 14:51
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Woodbridge, Suffolk
Age: 67
Posts: 91
If a shipping man can chip in - if you have time to look at a check list or at the QRH, it's education. If it has to be done without conscious thought, it's training, and it must be trained for until it's automatic. This training comes at a cost.
Methersgate is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 16:11
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 81
Posts: 699
All the talk about rotation angle is irrelevent if the engines delay into spooling up to provide the required thrust, which is strongly indicated in this event.
funfly is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 16:21
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,220
funfly,

I agree entirely, the discussion there was the viability of pitching to the PFI's. The question with this event is why did the engines take so long or fail to spool up properly? Was it system or human error.

When/if the interim report comes out and if it holds the full un-redacted account of what happened then we'll know.

Last edited by Wirbelsturm; 9th Aug 2016 at 16:39.
Wirbelsturm is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2016, 16:22
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
All the talk about rotation angle is irrelevent if the engines delay into spooling up to provide the required thrust, which is strongly indicated in this event.

Which brings about the answer we are waiting for: why did they attempt a GA if the engines were already at idle, i.e. flare? Given all the sources of definitive information are available I'm going to wait for the definitive answer.
RAT 5 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.