Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manadasystem, whether it was one day or 25 years ( and it was the latter) racism and bigotry was never in my sop and it shouldnt be in yours either. I came across a few cases but never on the scale I am seeing on here.
In the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual (FCTM) in Chapter 5 under the heading 'Go-Around and Missed Approach - All Engines Operating' there is just this single line about the behaviour of the automatics
Further on in the same chapter under the heading 'Go-Around after Touchdown' there is the single sentence:
In the FCOM Chapter 4, Section 20 under the heading 'Automatic Flight - Go-Around' there is one line:
I have always felt there are many items in the Boeing manuals which have cursory or vague explanations of various systems or scenarios. Given the importance of understanding the inhibition of the Autothrottle system in the event of a rejected landing and especially in light of this accident the explanation in the Boeing manuals of this particular quirk of the system seems woefully inadequate.
Further on in the same chapter under the heading 'Go-Around after Touchdown' there is the single sentence:
In the FCOM Chapter 4, Section 20 under the heading 'Automatic Flight - Go-Around' there is one line:
I have always felt there are many items in the Boeing manuals which have cursory or vague explanations of various systems or scenarios. Given the importance of understanding the inhibition of the Autothrottle system in the event of a rejected landing and especially in light of this accident the explanation in the Boeing manuals of this particular quirk of the system seems woefully inadequate.
but if the Boeing wording is so ambiguous (which i read many post back on the day of the accident) then Pilots in training should be red flagged that one implicitly as GA's are a thing that will be with them more so in the future as airports get busier so it needs to be 2nd nature
i cannot believe we are having this convo about no power available via A/T which is inhibited once the wheels touch the ground but then a GA is quickly required.
GA's are so common now surely airlines should have drummed into pilots in training to shove the throttles forward if they ever face that scenario - even I have taken that on board just reading this thread.
it has been highlighted here in quite a few posts of the inhibition of power from the AT during the ground phase yet this 777 was allowed to fall back to the ground when the pilots wanted to get off the ground PDQ
I cannot understand that such a vital piece of info is not foremost in training
GA's are so common now surely airlines should have drummed into pilots in training to shove the throttles forward if they ever face that scenario - even I have taken that on board just reading this thread.
it has been highlighted here in quite a few posts of the inhibition of power from the AT during the ground phase yet this 777 was allowed to fall back to the ground when the pilots wanted to get off the ground PDQ
I cannot understand that such a vital piece of info is not foremost in training
I cannot understand that such a vital piece of info is not foremost in training...
The fundamental issue to address here is that there was no need for the go-around in the first place, so the crew was not mentally prepared for executing one following the touch-down. A key contributing factor was the adherence to SOP after the confusing and in the circumstances totally unnecessary system warning.
I would be much more comfortable with a warning related to RWY length remaining, with a predictive logic so the warning could be made while still in the air if the aircrafts drifts too far past the threshold. Another change in logic could be that such a warning which by SOP mandates a go-around should also re-enable TOGA even if on ground if T/R not yet deployed, enabling the much faster instinctive action to be performed rather than relying on the slower cognitive process
Last edited by andrasz; 10th Sep 2016 at 14:14.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ME
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FCOM and FCTM have to cover a wide scope of circumstances and scenarios. It is clearly mentioned that it would be impossible to cover everything every time.
The Autothrottle is NOT a component required for Dispatch. Therefore, for maneuvers such as Takeoff or Go Around we are required to " verify " that enough thrust has been set, either manually or by the ATS.
On the Human Factors side of things, have we sometimes hit TOGA when the intention was to disengage the AP ? or disconnect the ATS when we wanted to select some other mode ?
A number of times, in the simulator, I observed guys with a " heavy hand ", that is, preventing the ATS from selecting the required thrust, even with the noisy clutches saying " let me move !!! "
The Autothrottle is NOT a component required for Dispatch. Therefore, for maneuvers such as Takeoff or Go Around we are required to " verify " that enough thrust has been set, either manually or by the ATS.
On the Human Factors side of things, have we sometimes hit TOGA when the intention was to disengage the AP ? or disconnect the ATS when we wanted to select some other mode ?
A number of times, in the simulator, I observed guys with a " heavy hand ", that is, preventing the ATS from selecting the required thrust, even with the noisy clutches saying " let me move !!! "
indeed - well said
but if the Boeing wording is so ambiguous (which i read many post back on the day of the accident) then Pilots in training should be red flagged that one implicitly as GA's are a thing that will be with them more so in the future as airports get busier so it needs to be 2nd nature
but if the Boeing wording is so ambiguous (which i read many post back on the day of the accident) then Pilots in training should be red flagged that one implicitly as GA's are a thing that will be with them more so in the future as airports get busier so it needs to be 2nd nature
- Require Boeing to develop enhanced 777 training that will improve flight crew understanding of autothrottle modes and automatic activation system logic through improved documentation, courseware, and instructor training.
- Once the enhanced Boeing 777 training has been developed, as requested, require operators and training providers to provide this training to 777 pilots.
That report was released two years ago. The FAA and Boeing danced around those recommendations such that they are currently classified as "Open - Unacceptable Response" on the NTSB register.
Interestingly, in noting the FAA's inaction as unacceptable, the NTSB stated that they were "... concerned that training improvements will be unnecessarily delayed and that the “lessons learned” will be limited to a single airline’s analysis, that neither the FAA nor other Boeing 777 operators will be aware of the problems found, and that no resultant training revisions will be made."
Guess what? Looks like the NTSB's concerns were well founded.
thanks you guys for such interesting and on topic replies
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still say this was not a GA but a rejected landing after the wheels touched. In FCTM its does say that during a GA from low height the wheels may touch, a bounce may occur and the GA should be continued. The engines should have spooled up quickly, automatically or manually, as idle was likely not yet selected.
In the rejected landing case, it is most likely that the engines will be selected idle. Calling "Go-Round" would require the TL's to advance and verified thrust achieved, (takes time) BUT, the driven point in GA training & checking is to expeditiously increase attitude to reduce height loss. From PF's point of view that is his priority. PM should verify that sufficient thrust is achieved as his priority. However, here was quite some startle factor. Mitigating, perhaps, but not a total defence. I suspect PF yanked back on the stick as his priority in GA without either selecting TOGA nor following through on thrust. PM would be startled and distracted from his priority. Getting airborne the priority is thrust up not gear up. In a rejected landing as in a T&G it is reduce flap, increase thrust, adjust trim, accelerate on the ground and then rotate. In this case the rotate came first not last.
In the rejected landing case, it is most likely that the engines will be selected idle. Calling "Go-Round" would require the TL's to advance and verified thrust achieved, (takes time) BUT, the driven point in GA training & checking is to expeditiously increase attitude to reduce height loss. From PF's point of view that is his priority. PM should verify that sufficient thrust is achieved as his priority. However, here was quite some startle factor. Mitigating, perhaps, but not a total defence. I suspect PF yanked back on the stick as his priority in GA without either selecting TOGA nor following through on thrust. PM would be startled and distracted from his priority. Getting airborne the priority is thrust up not gear up. In a rejected landing as in a T&G it is reduce flap, increase thrust, adjust trim, accelerate on the ground and then rotate. In this case the rotate came first not last.
Originally Posted by 604Driver
A cognitive act followed by positive reinforcement would be better still.... Which is why I think any G/A Baulked landing should be announced and commanded by "G/A check thrust"!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original question "do you find that the locals at EK have it easier when it comes to upgrades(or initial checkout)?"
So now a simple question is bigoted. Then following your accusatory reply, the next post(quite possibly be someone in the know) stated I don't know. Therefore, a simple question and only looking for a truthful answer whatever it is. The truth is not bigoted so lets get an honest answer no matter what it is.
Never let disgusting political correctness take priority over aviation safety.
And yes....all lives do matter including all the passengers lives.
P.S. I seem to remember some guys who had a tailstrike(among other crews that had incidents) that were fired almost immediately. Has this tradition continued in this case or has it suddenly changed for some reason.
Never let disgusting political correctness take priority over aviation safety.
And yes....all lives do matter including all the passengers lives.
P.S. I seem to remember some guys who had a tailstrike(among other crews that had incidents) that were fired almost immediately. Has this tradition continued in this case or has it suddenly changed for some reason.
Last edited by JammedStab; 10th Sep 2016 at 15:48.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JammedStab, it's a valid question.
I have worked in the ME. Where I was, the locals were clearly treated differently from the expats.
In this case, have a look at the hours flown. The captain had been flying a little more than 60 hrs/month for the last three months. In an airline were pilots regularly fly 90-100+ every month.
I have not worked for EK, so I can't say if the local pilots there are given preferential treatment, but it would not surprise me.
Wasta is alive and well in the ME.
The conclusion of this report will tell a lot about this.
When the aviation authorities ban the population from discussing and/or sharing pictures of this accident, it doesn't look too promising.
I have worked in the ME. Where I was, the locals were clearly treated differently from the expats.
In this case, have a look at the hours flown. The captain had been flying a little more than 60 hrs/month for the last three months. In an airline were pilots regularly fly 90-100+ every month.
I have not worked for EK, so I can't say if the local pilots there are given preferential treatment, but it would not surprise me.
Wasta is alive and well in the ME.
The conclusion of this report will tell a lot about this.
When the aviation authorities ban the population from discussing and/or sharing pictures of this accident, it doesn't look too promising.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply.
I had noticed the difference in hours as well.
It could be considered unfair if locals are getting a better schedule than expats(or if it were the other way around).
But, my question is more about passing checks/upgrades in the company(whether there is a lower standard for one group over the other whichever way it might be) which could be dangerous.
I have absolutely no evidence that this has ever happened, I was just curious if this was the case. Not as an individual occasional one-off situation due to some biased individual but as a general rule across the board.
I had noticed the difference in hours as well.
It could be considered unfair if locals are getting a better schedule than expats(or if it were the other way around).
But, my question is more about passing checks/upgrades in the company(whether there is a lower standard for one group over the other whichever way it might be) which could be dangerous.
I have absolutely no evidence that this has ever happened, I was just curious if this was the case. Not as an individual occasional one-off situation due to some biased individual but as a general rule across the board.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its called enegy management- Potential versus Kinetic
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ampthill
Age: 76
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the trouble with entering that margin between what SOPs normally allow and the actual edge of the flight envelope. Trying to get airborne without sufficient thrust at low speed will put you there. Another aspect that seems to have been overlooked here is the effect of raising the gear in such a compromised performance situation. Back in 1974, Lufthansa crashed a 747 on takeoff from Nairobi. The leading edge devices were not properly extended and the aircraft staggered into the air just shy of the stall. What little lift they had was lost when the gear was selected and the doors opened up to expose the large void in the fuselage which accommodates the gear. The aircraft ploughed into the ground and the aircraft was destroyed.
Controversial, moi?
it has been highlighted here in quite a few posts of the inhibition of power from the AT during the ground phase yet this 777 was allowed to fall back to the ground when the pilots wanted to get off the ground PDQ
I cannot understand that such a vital piece of info is not foremost in training
I cannot understand that such a vital piece of info is not foremost in training
I am sure it will be in the near future.
A manufacturers conversion course is not designed to teach you to fly. It is only to show you how to operate the equipment. The being able to fly part is taken as already known. They provide books and procedures to allow the pilot to familiarise himself with systems etc.
In the past this worked well. To get onto complex aircraft a pilot had to learn his craft on something more basic. And when experienced was hired onto heavy metal. Now, the majority of pilots attend a sausage factory of basic training. Conduct CBT and legal minimum SIM and line training, and start their careers on a 737 or 320. They never had a chance to learn how to fly. Most have never had a person teach them systems, only a CBT.
Now these fellas are Captains and training Captains .
In the past this worked well. To get onto complex aircraft a pilot had to learn his craft on something more basic. And when experienced was hired onto heavy metal. Now, the majority of pilots attend a sausage factory of basic training. Conduct CBT and legal minimum SIM and line training, and start their careers on a 737 or 320. They never had a chance to learn how to fly. Most have never had a person teach them systems, only a CBT.
Now these fellas are Captains and training Captains .
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem
Airplanes do not go up without thrust, no matter what your starting point is.
Nope- one can always trade speed for altitude without additional thrust - But you need enough altitude room to recover fron near zero speed.
Its called enegy management- Potential versus Kinetic
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem
Airplanes do not go up without thrust, no matter what your starting point is.
Nope- one can always trade speed for altitude without additional thrust - But you need enough altitude room to recover fron near zero speed.
Its called enegy management- Potential versus Kinetic
JammedStab, maybe one should look at previous EK accidents and how the (expat)pilots were treated? Gone from the company long before any reports came out.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had noticed the difference in treatment after an accident as well(along with the scheduling).
It could be considered unfair if locals are getting a better treatment than expats after an accident (or if it were the other way around).
But, my question is more about passing checks/upgrades in the company(whether there is a lower standard for one group over the other whichever way it might be) which could be dangerous.
I have absolutely no evidence that this has ever happened, I was just curious if this was the case. Not as an individual occasional one-off situation due to some biased individual but as a general rule across the board.
First hand witness would be preferable though.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is one question you will not get a straight answer to.
PPRuNe will not protect your anonymity if EK (or any airline) should choose to go after a poster.
Where I was, politics and connections played a role when they selected local pilots.
I think it's best to leave it at that.
PPRuNe will not protect your anonymity if EK (or any airline) should choose to go after a poster.
Where I was, politics and connections played a role when they selected local pilots.
I think it's best to leave it at that.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't matter if the TOGA switch is inhibited after WOW, the GA procedure includes verify thrust which this crew simply did not do.
Consider if it had been a more normal GA as all airline pilots train for, but the TOGA switch was broken or the autothrottle failed. They would still have crashed as they were not checking the thrust. This might be an interesting scenario to throw at crews when they do the GA simulator check, fail the autothrottle just as they are about to push the TOGA button.
Consider if it had been a more normal GA as all airline pilots train for, but the TOGA switch was broken or the autothrottle failed. They would still have crashed as they were not checking the thrust. This might be an interesting scenario to throw at crews when they do the GA simulator check, fail the autothrottle just as they are about to push the TOGA button.