Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sailor
As the technology advances certain cautions and precautions become superfluous. Engine failure statistics show the sixties jet engine had a failure once every two years while now it is once in thirty years. The engine ignition that was put on at the drop of a hat will cause a frown now. All the temperatures and pressures that needed to be memorised are better handled by flight warning computers. Even the hand eye coordination/talent required to fly the old aircrafts is not required to fly stabilised platform aircraft like Airbus. All you do is operate not fly the equipment by the user manual within the design philosophy. But world has always become better. Human mind is very selective it only cherry picks happy hours of the past. Nobody from today's generation would want to live those days. Considering the amount of flying that is done safety has tremendously increased. But for automation all weather and the extra long range flying was impossible to even think of. So if you haven't flown the modern aircraft then giving advice to those who do is a waste of time. There were good and bad pilots then and there are now. The accidents that keep getting discussed are generally due to poor piloting. That will not bring in better pilots but brings more and better automation. Profit greed? Sure! Isn't it called commercial aviation? When an airline doesn't think of profit it doesn't improve safety it merely shuts down
As the technology advances certain cautions and precautions become superfluous. Engine failure statistics show the sixties jet engine had a failure once every two years while now it is once in thirty years. The engine ignition that was put on at the drop of a hat will cause a frown now. All the temperatures and pressures that needed to be memorised are better handled by flight warning computers. Even the hand eye coordination/talent required to fly the old aircrafts is not required to fly stabilised platform aircraft like Airbus. All you do is operate not fly the equipment by the user manual within the design philosophy. But world has always become better. Human mind is very selective it only cherry picks happy hours of the past. Nobody from today's generation would want to live those days. Considering the amount of flying that is done safety has tremendously increased. But for automation all weather and the extra long range flying was impossible to even think of. So if you haven't flown the modern aircraft then giving advice to those who do is a waste of time. There were good and bad pilots then and there are now. The accidents that keep getting discussed are generally due to poor piloting. That will not bring in better pilots but brings more and better automation. Profit greed? Sure! Isn't it called commercial aviation? When an airline doesn't think of profit it doesn't improve safety it merely shuts down
Last edited by vilas; 22nd Aug 2016 at 06:15.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear langleybaston,
I am currently tasked to do a safety research on windshear and wake turbulence issues. Your experience from Nicosia seems to be relevant. Therefore I would appreciate if you could contact me on [email protected]
Regards, Heinz
I am currently tasked to do a safety research on windshear and wake turbulence issues. Your experience from Nicosia seems to be relevant. Therefore I would appreciate if you could contact me on [email protected]
Regards, Heinz
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The accidents that keep getting discussed are generally due to poor piloting.
PM
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been many posts about the value of manual flying skills and experience. Many years ago, some military air forces valued, if not required, glider experience. Even today, I understand that the U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Coast Guard Academy teach sailing to their midshipmen.
Vilas, you're being a bit harsh there. The leading cause of accidents nowadays, as you say, is poor piloting. The likes of Sailor and Sully are not poor pilots and undoubtedly would not have crashed in the many LOC prangs that have recently occurred. What a wonderful world it would be if we could have automation and good pilots. Unfortunately, so many have become "children of the magenta" that the skill is rapidly being lost, probably for ever. Acceptable to kill a few hundred occasionally? The bean counters may say yes. The relatives would so no, but they don't have a say.
Most of your stuff is very good but events over the last few years show that this is nonsense.
I wouldn't be so sure about that...
Even the hand eye coordination/talent required to fly the old aircrafts is not required to fly stabilised platform aircraft like Airbus.
Nobody from today's generation would want to live those days.
The last item of any NNCL for me was always "think think think and then think some more".
All answers from the assembled candidates were considered incorrect, eventually he said "Sit on your hands and do nothing but think, too many instances of the wrong engine being shut down through precipitous action"
Keep on keeping the blue side up always helps !
No matter, same result.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A training Capt. once asked our Sim. detail what was the first thing to do in the event of an engine failure ?
All answers from the assembled candidates were considered incorrect, eventually he said "Sit on your hands and do nothing but think, too many instances of the wrong engine being shut down through precipitous action"
All answers from the assembled candidates were considered incorrect, eventually he said "Sit on your hands and do nothing but think, too many instances of the wrong engine being shut down through precipitous action"
Reading through all these posts I'm almost detecting a vibe from some along the lines of "we don't need to think anymore because we have SOPs and automation". I'm kinda concerned about that.
Is thinking a dying part of aviation?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is thinking a dying part of aviation?
Yes. Well, it is until you blindly follow an unsuitable SOP up a blind alley and then the CP will ask, "for gawd's sake what were you thinking?"
Yes. Well, it is until you blindly follow an unsuitable SOP up a blind alley and then the CP will ask, "for gawd's sake what were you thinking?"
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs
You may read my post on thread Young ATPL FO 200hrs TT. In Airbus FBW at FL350 you never yank the stick back, what is the average pitch and bank used at FL350 you don't need a genius to know or teach this nor dozens of hour required to practice in the SIM. You have to switch both FDs to get airbus ATHR in speed mode should be taught in a classroom.You don't fly an approach without monitoring your speed, Vapp-27kts in A320 at Bangalore, Vapp-31kts in B777 at SFO, good visibility, no clouds, serviceable aircraft, people who were involved had thick log books. In airbus thrust levers don't move and yet they do so in B777 but the result is same. You tell me why? The biggest tragedy/comedy is that at that time these pilots were under check. What does the check captain write in the report when he himself doesn't know what the speed was? Without automation there will be no CAT3, no long range flying. The industry will find solution through technology by better automation so the human factor is not allowed to come in. Hasn't it dawned on you that this is commercial aviation means it's sole purpose is to make money and not give pleasure or sense of adventure to employees who sit in front. Without profit everybody goes home in utmost safety, pilots included.
You may read my post on thread Young ATPL FO 200hrs TT. In Airbus FBW at FL350 you never yank the stick back, what is the average pitch and bank used at FL350 you don't need a genius to know or teach this nor dozens of hour required to practice in the SIM. You have to switch both FDs to get airbus ATHR in speed mode should be taught in a classroom.You don't fly an approach without monitoring your speed, Vapp-27kts in A320 at Bangalore, Vapp-31kts in B777 at SFO, good visibility, no clouds, serviceable aircraft, people who were involved had thick log books. In airbus thrust levers don't move and yet they do so in B777 but the result is same. You tell me why? The biggest tragedy/comedy is that at that time these pilots were under check. What does the check captain write in the report when he himself doesn't know what the speed was? Without automation there will be no CAT3, no long range flying. The industry will find solution through technology by better automation so the human factor is not allowed to come in. Hasn't it dawned on you that this is commercial aviation means it's sole purpose is to make money and not give pleasure or sense of adventure to employees who sit in front. Without profit everybody goes home in utmost safety, pilots included.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BugSmasher1960 and RAT 5
In your dislike for procedures or over confidence in your own innovations you don't notice how ridiculous and dangerous the above statement is. When engine fails on take off if you sit on your hands and think then rest of the work will be only at your funeral. When Engine fails you don't think, you instantly react and maintain control the aircraft. Identifying the correct engine before shutting down is very much part of the SOP you don't need to think for that. Somebody smarter than you has put it in the SOP.
Rat come on! Can there be a suitable SOP for a person who has visceral hatred for any procedures except his own irrelevant innovations? I think manufacturer's test pilots deserve more respect than that.
A training Capt. once asked our Sim. detail what was the first thing to do in the event of an engine failure ? Sit on your hands and do nothing but think
until you blindly follow an unsuitable SOP up a blind alley
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The sinking sandpit
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So based on what we know so far from the accident and the culture of the region, airline and regulator, who or what is going to be found to BLAME. This is not an analysis of who is to blame! 
Latent factors:
Weak regulator that lets the airline do pretty well whatever it likes.
Local Chief Pilots and EVP Flt Ops who think maximum automation is the safest philosophy, although both manufacturers think otherwise.
Training Department that is seriously under Fleet managements thumb
Airline that treats all FTL limits as targets and as negotiable.
Boeing A/THR mode subtleties that can confuse
Regulator and Airline both agree burying head in sand on bad things is best philosophy, so as not to damage country's reputation.
To ensure this the regulator is allegedly using two of the airline's staff on secondment to help with the investigation
On the Day factors:
Local Captain, who has only been a Capt for about a year
F/O relatively new to airline.
Although rested, flight and landing took place at circadian low.
Summer wind conditions that can be fluky causing direction shifts close to ground.
Blamestorming Analysis:
Boeing and Rolls Royce will get minimal blame otherwise they will demand a proper investigation. The airline and country brand must be protected at all costs, so the airline will get minimal blame, maybe a little placed on the training department. The Capt will receive little blame, as he is a local and you do not want to question the quality of local pilot training and skills, or the command upgrade process. The Aussie F/O might get some blame for not supporting the Capt properly, unless the Qantas unions can protect him. ATC likewise may get some of the blame for confusing the pilots by giving them an instruction during the G/A, but that won't stick very well. Only solution BLAME Mother Nature, as plainly severe windshear caused this accident to happen. There, everybody happy now.
One thing we are never likely to know is the Truth
Latent factors:
Weak regulator that lets the airline do pretty well whatever it likes.
Local Chief Pilots and EVP Flt Ops who think maximum automation is the safest philosophy, although both manufacturers think otherwise.
Training Department that is seriously under Fleet managements thumb
Airline that treats all FTL limits as targets and as negotiable.
Boeing A/THR mode subtleties that can confuse
Regulator and Airline both agree burying head in sand on bad things is best philosophy, so as not to damage country's reputation.
To ensure this the regulator is allegedly using two of the airline's staff on secondment to help with the investigation
On the Day factors:
Local Captain, who has only been a Capt for about a year
F/O relatively new to airline.
Although rested, flight and landing took place at circadian low.
Summer wind conditions that can be fluky causing direction shifts close to ground.
Blamestorming Analysis:
Boeing and Rolls Royce will get minimal blame otherwise they will demand a proper investigation. The airline and country brand must be protected at all costs, so the airline will get minimal blame, maybe a little placed on the training department. The Capt will receive little blame, as he is a local and you do not want to question the quality of local pilot training and skills, or the command upgrade process. The Aussie F/O might get some blame for not supporting the Capt properly, unless the Qantas unions can protect him. ATC likewise may get some of the blame for confusing the pilots by giving them an instruction during the G/A, but that won't stick very well. Only solution BLAME Mother Nature, as plainly severe windshear caused this accident to happen. There, everybody happy now.
One thing we are never likely to know is the Truth
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Building Induced Windshear
Alphaprot,
Good summation..however...
I would add Density Altitude (DA) and Building Induced Windshear/Turbulence to the mix....
Note the proximity of the Emirates maintenance hangars (A380 capable) to the Runway...less than 450m!....
Further, note that in general, Automated Weather Stations (AWS) globally, round 'wind direction' to the nearest deca degree (nearest +/- 10 deg)...
Speed is also recorded +/- a margin.....
The density altitude (DA), given the adverse combination of OAT and air pressure at the time was SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than ISA for Dubai....
Unfortunately, this crew were subjected to a multitude of adverse environmental conditions (vertical windshear, possible building induced Windshear/Turbulence and an elevated DA) which SHOULD be highlighted by the accident investigation team, if they are on the ball....
DATUM
Good summation..however...
I would add Density Altitude (DA) and Building Induced Windshear/Turbulence to the mix....
Note the proximity of the Emirates maintenance hangars (A380 capable) to the Runway...less than 450m!....
Further, note that in general, Automated Weather Stations (AWS) globally, round 'wind direction' to the nearest deca degree (nearest +/- 10 deg)...
Speed is also recorded +/- a margin.....
The density altitude (DA), given the adverse combination of OAT and air pressure at the time was SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than ISA for Dubai....
Unfortunately, this crew were subjected to a multitude of adverse environmental conditions (vertical windshear, possible building induced Windshear/Turbulence and an elevated DA) which SHOULD be highlighted by the accident investigation team, if they are on the ball....
DATUM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prima facie it appears that although not catastrophic but there was a wind shift, initially head wind shear then changing to tail wind. The head WS part caused excess energy situation leading to IAS increase and float that made the crew initiate a GA. Excess speed converting to height may have given the crew indication of +climb leading to retraction of the gear but wind shift to tail and increased drag from open doors of retracting gear made the aircraft contact the runway. With unlocked gear collapsing fuselage took the impact and was destroyed. If the gear was not retracted the aircraft would have survived. The only question that remains to be answered is whether the crew retracted the gear prematurely? From available information it is not possible to say that.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cynics on here should reflect that they are questioning the integrity not only of Emirates and the GCAA but also Boeing, Roll-Royce and numerous other aviation bodies. There is simply no way that they would sign off their contribution to any report that did not contain the true facts. Has any ICAO-required report , ever, been found to be false or fabricated? Findings have been disputed after publication on rare occasions such as Egyptair but that is not the same. An interim report will appear around 2nd September which will cover the basics of the accident in accordance with ICAO requirements. Unlikely to include FDR data because it is not required at this stage and it is too early to expect it.
Originally Posted by Vilas
The industry will find solution through technology by better automation so the human factor is not allowed to come in.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cynics on here aren't just questioning the 'integrity' of companies such as Boeing and Rolls. For there to be any 'cover-up', those manufacturers would be forced to accept that the equipment was simply incapable of flying safely in the prevailing ambient conditions. If operated correctly, and after many millions of flight hours, I suspect that's a pretty unlikely scenario?
But then, money talks.
As for the 'old and bold' (read 'better!') versus 'magenta line' arguments. There are indeed very many traps awaiting the unwary in modern equipment. Apart from the most rudimentary of skills, there is a significant disconnect between what passed as acceptable in the 'halcyon days', and what is required of a modern airline pilot now. It's like comparing Stanley Matthews with Lionel Messi. There is no reason whatever to suggest that good and bad pilots occur in any different proportion these days, than ever they did. Modern pilots are simply the same people facing different problems. (For example ULH with perhaps less than one landing per month, and you'll be lucky if you can still fly like Chuck Yeager) Different coping strategies than simple 'practice', are required! To suggest anything else is just silly. Or pompous?
But then, money talks.
As for the 'old and bold' (read 'better!') versus 'magenta line' arguments. There are indeed very many traps awaiting the unwary in modern equipment. Apart from the most rudimentary of skills, there is a significant disconnect between what passed as acceptable in the 'halcyon days', and what is required of a modern airline pilot now. It's like comparing Stanley Matthews with Lionel Messi. There is no reason whatever to suggest that good and bad pilots occur in any different proportion these days, than ever they did. Modern pilots are simply the same people facing different problems. (For example ULH with perhaps less than one landing per month, and you'll be lucky if you can still fly like Chuck Yeager) Different coping strategies than simple 'practice', are required! To suggest anything else is just silly. Or pompous?
Last edited by 4468; 22nd Aug 2016 at 12:06.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has any ICAO-required report , ever, been found to be false or fabricated?
You don't necessarily have to 'falsify' a report. But you can raise exaggerated attention to some minor details or protagonist (you will always find some) as to divert from the real holes in the Swiss cheese.
Has been done in the past to protect the biggies involved. It basically 'can never be' the manufacturers, the airline, the country with its regulator. Too much interest and money involved.
That leaves the active crew and the weather.
The weather has been ghastly, agreed, but it had been like that many times before and even worse, the sandpit is known for these effects. Blame it on the weather and make a fool out of yourself.
The crew has one particular component that involves the biggies' interests mentioned above. So i fear that the other component will get the major share. If you think his union will protect him, think twice ..... I don't believe it one second. Their company depends too much of the one involved and all three will gladly pick on the handy scape goat.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what little it's worth, in my limited time at the sharp end, in any non-normal situation I was happy enough to use SOP but - having done that - it was never a case of then just sitting back "fat, dumb, and happy".
The last item of any NNCL for me was always "think think think and then think some more".
The last item of any NNCL for me was always "think think think and then think some more".
BugSmasher1960 and RAT 5
In your dislike for procedures or over confidence in your own innovations you don't notice how ridiculous and dangerous the above statement is. When engine fails on take off if you sit on your hands and think then rest of the work will be only at your funeral. When Engine fails you don't think, you instantly react and maintain control the aircraft. Identifying the correct engine before shutting down is very much part of the SOP you don't need to think for that. Somebody smarter than you has put it in the SOP. Rat come on! Can there be a suitable SOP for a person who has visceral hatred for any procedures except his own irrelevant innovations? I think manufacturer's test pilots deserve more respect than that.
In your dislike for procedures or over confidence in your own innovations you don't notice how ridiculous and dangerous the above statement is. When engine fails on take off if you sit on your hands and think then rest of the work will be only at your funeral. When Engine fails you don't think, you instantly react and maintain control the aircraft. Identifying the correct engine before shutting down is very much part of the SOP you don't need to think for that. Somebody smarter than you has put it in the SOP. Rat come on! Can there be a suitable SOP for a person who has visceral hatred for any procedures except his own irrelevant innovations? I think manufacturer's test pilots deserve more respect than that.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prima facie it appears that although not catastrophic but there was a wind shift, initially head wind shear then changing to tail wind. The head WS part caused excess energy situation leading to IAS increase and float that made the crew initiate a GA. Excess speed converting to height may have given the crew indication of +climb leading to retraction of the gear but wind shift to tail and increased drag from open doors of retracting gear made the aircraft contact the runway. With unlocked gear collapsing fuselage took the impact and was destroyed. If the gear was not retracted the aircraft would have survived. The only question that remains to be answered is whether the crew retracted the gear prematurely? From available information it is not possible to say that.
Is that analysis presuming there was no thrust delivered from the engines? Isn't that the 'only' question that remains to be answered? I can't for my life believe the engines are so slow to spool up that they couldn't have arrested an impact from a bounce/wind shift (even in 49 deg C heat).