Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Disagree, our FCOM states "POSITIVE CLIMB", definitely not rate!/QUOTE]
Interesting 28 years ago I joined my current airline and had to learn 'Positive Climb' after using 'Positive Rate' in my old company. A couple of years ago we went 'Back to Boeing' and so now it is 'Positive Rate' again - The circle of life..............
Interesting 28 years ago I joined my current airline and had to learn 'Positive Climb' after using 'Positive Rate' in my old company. A couple of years ago we went 'Back to Boeing' and so now it is 'Positive Rate' again - The circle of life..............
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other significant (possibly more so) factor about RR Trent engines is that they take a LOT longer to spool up as they are 3-spool as opposed to the GE which is 2-spool...
Plenty of time on all six of the 777 variants, and the go-around feels very different on 773 versus a 77W (ER)...
Plenty of time on all six of the 777 variants, and the go-around feels very different on 773 versus a 77W (ER)...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Severe windshear
Aluminium shuffler. Your post:
Indicates you have not read my post.
I referred to all
environmental conditions. AFAIK, no a/c are 'certified' for landing in 'severe windshear'! (Are you aware of the definition of severe?) If that is what you are alleging occurred, then I would counsel you to tread very careful indeed. The added complication you would of course need to address is that the gear seems to have been retracted? Not part of any windshear procedure of any aircraft manufacturer!
As for the suggestions that the B777-300 is unfit for operations in DXB in the summer, again I would suggest great caution. Not that I believe it would be allowed/tolerated, but the allegation is a very serious one!
4468, your post indicates that you have never flown into an airport with severe windshear, as can happen frequently.
I referred to all
CERTIFIED
As for the suggestions that the B777-300 is unfit for operations in DXB in the summer, again I would suggest great caution. Not that I believe it would be allowed/tolerated, but the allegation is a very serious one!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is pointless to try to analyse the goaround performance of an aircraft that probably had less than 10 tonnes of fuel on board and two engines working. Basically it would be very good. That same aircraft could take off from R/W 12L at OMDB with 50C OAT at 300 tonnes and lose an engine at V1 and still drag itself safely into the air conforming with Perf A requirements. So its goaround performance on 2 engines at an estimated weight of 70 tonnes lighter would be pretty good. You can goaround in the flare, it may touch down and trundle along briefly but it lifts off pretty well.
It is pointless to try to analyse the goaround performance of an aircraft that probably had less than 10 tonnes of fuel on board and two engines working. Basically it would be very good. That same aircraft could take off from R/W 12L at OMDB with 50C OAT at 300 tonnes and lose an engine at V1 and still drag itself safely into the air conforming with Perf A requirements. So its goaround performance on 2 engines at an estimated weight of 70 tonnes lighter would be pretty good. You can goaround in the flare, it may touch down and trundle along briefly but it lifts off pretty well.
Trundling along, as you say, waiting for spool-up I can certainly see but I'm just not seeing it not having the ability to climb away fairly easily once they're producing GA thrust (assuming the thing was legally dispatched). Bemoaning poorer performance at 50C compared to cooler days of 40C is akin to complaining water is wetter in a monsoon than in a downpour, but either they met the req'd Approach/Landing climb perf number weight at that current temp, or they didn't.
Last edited by PukinDog; 5th Aug 2016 at 21:36.
Some questions
Are there any pictures that show the landing gear after the crash?
Also, How long does it take for the gear to retract on a 777?
Finally, does the gear actually unlock before the gear doors open.
Thanks for any replies.
Regards,
OBD
Also, How long does it take for the gear to retract on a 777?
Finally, does the gear actually unlock before the gear doors open.
Thanks for any replies.
Regards,
OBD
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Issues here
I can only speak from my own experience a 777 regardless of version with that load does not have performance issues.
Correct me if am wrong, no one has mentioned wake turbulence.
After many years of flying on the region yes it does get bumpy and rough. Windshear possible, I was not there at the time.
Secondly if someone makes a mistake and they do happen even on an isa standard day. In that region sorry beforehand but the culture there makes people lose sleep over a Normal human error, not good.
I am also looking for an answer to what happened in rostov with fly dubai.
My 5 cents worth.
Sandbags filled and helmet on😂😂😂😂😂😂
Note: it is still an airplane at the end regardless of modes and such. If you want to go up you firewall and point the nose up between 10 and 15 degrees.
Yes if you don't press toga you will have to fight the system but otherwise will go up
Correct me if am wrong, no one has mentioned wake turbulence.
After many years of flying on the region yes it does get bumpy and rough. Windshear possible, I was not there at the time.
Secondly if someone makes a mistake and they do happen even on an isa standard day. In that region sorry beforehand but the culture there makes people lose sleep over a Normal human error, not good.
I am also looking for an answer to what happened in rostov with fly dubai.
My 5 cents worth.
Sandbags filled and helmet on😂😂😂😂😂😂
Note: it is still an airplane at the end regardless of modes and such. If you want to go up you firewall and point the nose up between 10 and 15 degrees.
Yes if you don't press toga you will have to fight the system but otherwise will go up
Last edited by totto70; 5th Aug 2016 at 22:24.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Glofish
Especially in hot conditions with an underpowered aircraft, the situation will look more as a impending stall than a bounce recovery. Therefore giving pitch values is delicate. With 5 degs a -300 will fall out of the air.
For such situations, i suggest (not teach) to apply the GPWS "pull up" warning procedure. Because it's something we train quite often and will save your day.
For such situations, i suggest (not teach) to apply the GPWS "pull up" warning procedure. Because it's something we train quite often and will save your day.
Pulling the nose higher doing a GPWS escape will only increase the chances of a tailstrike. Firewall power and 3°/second to 20°NU/stick shaker, I suggest, is not what you want to do if you bounce it.
As much as I hate to say it, I think Airbus' "Positive Climb" call is more reflective of what you are looking for than Boeing's "Positive Rate".
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The people loading the ac would have known the performance conditions at DXB for the landing, and it would have been weight limited accordingly to meet performance.
As far as windshear, I have seen quite a few GA due to WS at this airport, sometimes 4 and 5 ac in a row. One can hardly imagine wheels up at this altitude, more likely stalled with a good tailwind/headwind change
As far as windshear, I have seen quite a few GA due to WS at this airport, sometimes 4 and 5 ac in a row. One can hardly imagine wheels up at this altitude, more likely stalled with a good tailwind/headwind change
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totto
If you firewall the TLs and pitch up to 15* while MLG still in contact (or sinks into contact ) with ground you will have a tailstrike pulling up through 8.9* on the 773, 10* on the 77W and 12.1* on all the 772s - (struts extended)
The 300 is a special case when it comes to TS & low level GAs.
If you firewall the TLs and pitch up to 15* while MLG still in contact (or sinks into contact ) with ground you will have a tailstrike pulling up through 8.9* on the 773, 10* on the 77W and 12.1* on all the 772s - (struts extended)
The 300 is a special case when it comes to TS & low level GAs.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
assuming windshear
"no a/c are 'certified' for landing in severe windshear!" is a point finally emphasised.
Given the likelihood of windshear plus a reported temp of 49C, the landing attempt could have been re-assessed quite a while before touchdown. An unstable approach, initially lower than normal power and high ROD to maintain the glide path might have been additional red flags for this approach.
Certified 2 engine or single engine missed approach capability may not be actually relevant. I would be more interested in reported landing conditions that could be beyond the capacity to safely land. Since windshear can exist for relatively short periods, it is up to that actual crew to be completely in the loop, including a direct report from the previous landed or missed approach aircraft when there is doubt.
There is no shame in an early missed approach, holding, or diversion, even when previous and later aircraft land without incident.
Given the likelihood of windshear plus a reported temp of 49C, the landing attempt could have been re-assessed quite a while before touchdown. An unstable approach, initially lower than normal power and high ROD to maintain the glide path might have been additional red flags for this approach.
Certified 2 engine or single engine missed approach capability may not be actually relevant. I would be more interested in reported landing conditions that could be beyond the capacity to safely land. Since windshear can exist for relatively short periods, it is up to that actual crew to be completely in the loop, including a direct report from the previous landed or missed approach aircraft when there is doubt.
There is no shame in an early missed approach, holding, or diversion, even when previous and later aircraft land without incident.
Last edited by autoflight; 12th Aug 2016 at 21:23.
Climb requirements are pretty simple.
14 CFR Part 25.121(d) requires the plane to be able to achieve 2.1% gradient in the conditions, with a critical engine failed, with the gear retracted.
Part 25.119 covers Landing Climb, All Engines operating. Gradient requirement of 3.2%. that is in landing config, e.g., F30, Gear Down. The sub para (a) is pertinent on some aircraft, (the PW4098 was one that could be a long time between wanting and getting, but well within the required periods).
The gradients for the aircraft cover therefore approach configuration engine out, and all engines in full landing configuration. That is rational and works well.
Any assumption that after some millions of hours of operating we suddenly get a plane that cannot achieve a gradient would have to assume some extenuating circumstance well outside of normal operations. High temps are an issue, the reported temp and local temp of an airmass that the aircraft passes by are different, but you will likely find that that is not a big issue in this case. Wind shear equates directly to a change in the CAS as the energy state of the aircraft alters with a time domain delay due to inertia, either increasing it or reducing it depending on the sequence of encounter. In these conditions, again they would have to be rather severe to critically affect the energy state of the aircraft. Increasing tailwind, or reducing headwind result in loss of CAS. Modest shear will alter the performance outcome from an expected outcome such as a pitch attitude that is selected, the flight path then is reduced where CAS is lower than expected. That may seem pretty obvious, but when you rotate you are not necessarily looking at pertinent data, and routine standards evals show that the same is true for the PM case, what they are looking at during the change in flight path is not necessarily what you may expect. Bottom line, pitching up and assuming that the plane will achieve a certain performance is human nature, reinforced by the routine expectancy being matched by reinforcing outcomes, (we don't get surprises that often, fortunately).
On any day, proceduralizing of our processes in the cockpit act as much as a threat to the operation as an enhancement. How often is a checklist item answered without the actual condition being confirmed... "clear left/right!... without anyone looking, standard callouts being made without the requisite action being taken that is supposed to be verified/reinforced by the callout. Sucks to be human, but then humans also can do things that computers cannot do, so it really sucks to be walk-on freight. You get what you pay for...
Emirates is a compliant airline; look at any IOSA audit and you will find that in fact most are. (in fact, almost all are, and that should make one ponder for a moment, and then the moment will be lost in time). Emirates has a public image that is one of competence. Airlines are obliged to balance safety and economics, no matter what PR may say, that is not just the air transport industry, that is every human endeavour, in fact every system in nature that has a choice of actions. We are likely to find not very much was out of the ordinary here; we tend to forget due to the amazing reliability of the global air transport system that very flight involves an extraordinary confluence of things going right, with great demands for perfection. A failure can occur when a number of conditions are just sufficiently outside of normal to act together in concert to result in an unanticipated outcome. Such a failure mode comes from the reality of complex systems having potential for resonance to occur, where stochastic system behaviour of various inputs results in something that is outside of the expected occurring. Such a failure doesn't need active failures, it can occur with a number of within limit conditions just ending up at the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, it just sucks. If that sounds depressing to people that may gain succour from linear or quasi linear causation, it need not be. It indicates that the most important thing we can have in operations is situational awareness, and that means, knowing when it likely to be compromised hints at how to get serious about maintaining system integrity. But, it is much easier to shoot the messenger, that cures the problem immediately, and everyone is satisfied that both justice, and system safety has been satisfied. Unfortunately, the world is not linear, nor quasi linear, and so a similar event will not be avoided.
Wonder how the Emirates management will respond, insight or pavlovian responses.
If resonance appears a strange concept, one should consider their daily experience, or read up on complex systems failures as Ladkin or Hollnagel consider. Aircraft losses are brutal, so is a nuclear power station loss, and similar critical coupled systems.
Flight crew are not served well by rigid SOPs that end up affecting SA. Losing SA is just being human, yet our systems tend to belt the stuffing out of our crews for merely being so.
never dull
14 CFR Part 25.121(d) requires the plane to be able to achieve 2.1% gradient in the conditions, with a critical engine failed, with the gear retracted.
Part 25.119 covers Landing Climb, All Engines operating. Gradient requirement of 3.2%. that is in landing config, e.g., F30, Gear Down. The sub para (a) is pertinent on some aircraft, (the PW4098 was one that could be a long time between wanting and getting, but well within the required periods).
The gradients for the aircraft cover therefore approach configuration engine out, and all engines in full landing configuration. That is rational and works well.
Any assumption that after some millions of hours of operating we suddenly get a plane that cannot achieve a gradient would have to assume some extenuating circumstance well outside of normal operations. High temps are an issue, the reported temp and local temp of an airmass that the aircraft passes by are different, but you will likely find that that is not a big issue in this case. Wind shear equates directly to a change in the CAS as the energy state of the aircraft alters with a time domain delay due to inertia, either increasing it or reducing it depending on the sequence of encounter. In these conditions, again they would have to be rather severe to critically affect the energy state of the aircraft. Increasing tailwind, or reducing headwind result in loss of CAS. Modest shear will alter the performance outcome from an expected outcome such as a pitch attitude that is selected, the flight path then is reduced where CAS is lower than expected. That may seem pretty obvious, but when you rotate you are not necessarily looking at pertinent data, and routine standards evals show that the same is true for the PM case, what they are looking at during the change in flight path is not necessarily what you may expect. Bottom line, pitching up and assuming that the plane will achieve a certain performance is human nature, reinforced by the routine expectancy being matched by reinforcing outcomes, (we don't get surprises that often, fortunately).
On any day, proceduralizing of our processes in the cockpit act as much as a threat to the operation as an enhancement. How often is a checklist item answered without the actual condition being confirmed... "clear left/right!... without anyone looking, standard callouts being made without the requisite action being taken that is supposed to be verified/reinforced by the callout. Sucks to be human, but then humans also can do things that computers cannot do, so it really sucks to be walk-on freight. You get what you pay for...
Emirates is a compliant airline; look at any IOSA audit and you will find that in fact most are. (in fact, almost all are, and that should make one ponder for a moment, and then the moment will be lost in time). Emirates has a public image that is one of competence. Airlines are obliged to balance safety and economics, no matter what PR may say, that is not just the air transport industry, that is every human endeavour, in fact every system in nature that has a choice of actions. We are likely to find not very much was out of the ordinary here; we tend to forget due to the amazing reliability of the global air transport system that very flight involves an extraordinary confluence of things going right, with great demands for perfection. A failure can occur when a number of conditions are just sufficiently outside of normal to act together in concert to result in an unanticipated outcome. Such a failure mode comes from the reality of complex systems having potential for resonance to occur, where stochastic system behaviour of various inputs results in something that is outside of the expected occurring. Such a failure doesn't need active failures, it can occur with a number of within limit conditions just ending up at the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, it just sucks. If that sounds depressing to people that may gain succour from linear or quasi linear causation, it need not be. It indicates that the most important thing we can have in operations is situational awareness, and that means, knowing when it likely to be compromised hints at how to get serious about maintaining system integrity. But, it is much easier to shoot the messenger, that cures the problem immediately, and everyone is satisfied that both justice, and system safety has been satisfied. Unfortunately, the world is not linear, nor quasi linear, and so a similar event will not be avoided.
Wonder how the Emirates management will respond, insight or pavlovian responses.
If resonance appears a strange concept, one should consider their daily experience, or read up on complex systems failures as Ladkin or Hollnagel consider. Aircraft losses are brutal, so is a nuclear power station loss, and similar critical coupled systems.
Flight crew are not served well by rigid SOPs that end up affecting SA. Losing SA is just being human, yet our systems tend to belt the stuffing out of our crews for merely being so.
never dull
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Emirates management is trying to make this accident go away by treatening legal action to those websites that display videos of it, it is a clear indication of how they will conduct the investigation.
It also reveals the unhealty connection between Emirates and DCAA as they have the same leader.
It also reveals the unhealty connection between Emirates and DCAA as they have the same leader.
Last edited by ManaAdaSystem; 6th Aug 2016 at 02:43.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but no it would not strike
Afm numbers regardless or not the gear is compressed or not is irrelevant. If you bounce your are already halfway up no? If in shear regardless of reason you are having a bad day😊
If your gear is up when pointing the nose up what degrees does then apply?
Either it is a massive cockup or shear/wake. Wait send see.
Here is where transparency would be good
Deleting videos or removing evidence does not really help does it?
Afm numbers regardless or not the gear is compressed or not is irrelevant. If you bounce your are already halfway up no? If in shear regardless of reason you are having a bad day😊
If your gear is up when pointing the nose up what degrees does then apply?
Either it is a massive cockup or shear/wake. Wait send see.
Here is where transparency would be good
Deleting videos or removing evidence does not really help does it?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your gear is up when pointing the nose up what degrees does then apply?
Either it is a massive cockup or shear/wake. Wait send see.
Here is where transparency would be good
Deleting videos or removing evidence does not really help does it?
Either it is a massive cockup or shear/wake. Wait send see.
Here is where transparency would be good
Deleting videos or removing evidence does not really help does it?
Before you call this a possible massive cockup, you need to look at the rosters for the two pilots, and how many hours they have been flying monthly for the last years, how many (or few) days off/leave they have had, night duties, etc.
EK management is sitting on a big box full of smelly rosters.
If it is legal, it doesn't mean it's safe.