Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder if Emirates pressures pilots with 'get homeitis' if this corporate pressure exists could be a major factor as the wind shear may have meant safer option was to divert or go-around...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The money question for me is did they have the gear down at any time during this approach? The data Emirates has must address this. Let's hear if they simply came in without extending gear or had the gear down and decided to pull it up at some point.
short flights long nights
I'm surprised the wreckage was removed so quickly. I thought the wreckage would form part of the investigation.
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
Agree. See it often in the Boeing 737 where the preflight, before start, before taxi and after takeoff checklists have the PM not only doing the majority of the switching but then proceeds to challenge his own actions and responds to his own actions. Makes the true principle of challenge and response a joke. Why Boeing threw out the original challenge by one pilot and response by the other pilot, beats me
Wouldn't be at all surprised if there was confusion in the low altitude attempt at a go-around and someone didn't select full GA thrust for some reason. It would go some way to explaining why it pancaked into the deck
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.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careful what you post
Criticism of Middle East Arabic airlines on this or other sites may well be met by legal action folks. Others can concur. Watch out.
(Hardly in the interests of air safety, but that is how it is these days)
The mods may be censoring stuff in your own interest as well as theirs'.
(Hardly in the interests of air safety, but that is how it is these days)
The mods may be censoring stuff in your own interest as well as theirs'.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: south england
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great post fdr (although I needed a dictionary to read part it)
I think some are getting slightly misled by the reports of windshear. What windshear do you expect to have with the reported winds? +/- 5kts? At worst probably +/- 10kts, enough to possibly cause a bounced landing but I believe people are off the mark thinking this was strong enough to cause the crew any major problems. As has been said before WS reported all runways is quite common at DXB this time of year.
Regards,
GBD
I think some are getting slightly misled by the reports of windshear. What windshear do you expect to have with the reported winds? +/- 5kts? At worst probably +/- 10kts, enough to possibly cause a bounced landing but I believe people are off the mark thinking this was strong enough to cause the crew any major problems. As has been said before WS reported all runways is quite common at DXB this time of year.
Regards,
GBD
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Another FBO !
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has there been an "incident" at DXB ?
After the initial "burst" of (mixed) reportage, there's now nada.
It is a far cry from how Deborah Hersman handled the Asiana 214 crash at SFO.
The NTSB had faced criticism before, so they went for the "transparent" approach. And in my humble view, it worked. What was seen was a competent, open and honest investigation....
....and I wouldn't hold your breathe. You won't be seeing that approach from the GCAA out in the sandpit.
The only "more later" images/information/factoids we have seen, has been via "third parties". Footage and (ATC) audio "supplied" by passengers who happened to be there or websites monitoring the tower. Officially, there has been "nothing".
The Emirates Group Chairman, CEO...the Chairman of Dubai Airports...the Chairman of Dubai Air Navigation Services... and President of the Department of Civil Aviation (the ONE and the SAME) Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed al Maktoum has given a televised statement and a Press Conference....which was a bit like watching a 1980's USSR State Address/Public Information broadcast.
Nobody else sat with him on the platform, as he delivered his monotone monologue, mainly due to the fact that there aren't anymore aviation posts left, that he doesn't already hold.
And other than "the treat" issued by the GCAA for "publishing pictures/film of the crash on Social Media", there has been nothing else "official" forthcoming .
I do worry that "fatigue issues/working practices" at EK may have been a contributing factor in this crash. If they weren't, they still should be fully investigated...and then completely discounted. But what chance is there of that, when the Operator is so closely linked to the Regulator. Surely this a glaringly obvious "conflict of interest"...and it should be highlighted.
Deborah Hersman's Asiana investigation should be congratulated....
...whereas Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed al Maktoum's Emirates 521 investigation (wearing whichever aviation hat he chooses to wear), should be treated with caution.
I just hope, whoever gets the job of catering for the meeting between the chairman/presidents of the airline, the aviation authority, the airport and the navigation services....isn't too disappointed when they realise it just a "meal for one" needed !
After the initial "burst" of (mixed) reportage, there's now nada.
It is a far cry from how Deborah Hersman handled the Asiana 214 crash at SFO.
The NTSB had faced criticism before, so they went for the "transparent" approach. And in my humble view, it worked. What was seen was a competent, open and honest investigation....
....and I wouldn't hold your breathe. You won't be seeing that approach from the GCAA out in the sandpit.
The only "more later" images/information/factoids we have seen, has been via "third parties". Footage and (ATC) audio "supplied" by passengers who happened to be there or websites monitoring the tower. Officially, there has been "nothing".
The Emirates Group Chairman, CEO...the Chairman of Dubai Airports...the Chairman of Dubai Air Navigation Services... and President of the Department of Civil Aviation (the ONE and the SAME) Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed al Maktoum has given a televised statement and a Press Conference....which was a bit like watching a 1980's USSR State Address/Public Information broadcast.
Nobody else sat with him on the platform, as he delivered his monotone monologue, mainly due to the fact that there aren't anymore aviation posts left, that he doesn't already hold.
And other than "the treat" issued by the GCAA for "publishing pictures/film of the crash on Social Media", there has been nothing else "official" forthcoming .
I do worry that "fatigue issues/working practices" at EK may have been a contributing factor in this crash. If they weren't, they still should be fully investigated...and then completely discounted. But what chance is there of that, when the Operator is so closely linked to the Regulator. Surely this a glaringly obvious "conflict of interest"...and it should be highlighted.
Deborah Hersman's Asiana investigation should be congratulated....
...whereas Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed al Maktoum's Emirates 521 investigation (wearing whichever aviation hat he chooses to wear), should be treated with caution.
I just hope, whoever gets the job of catering for the meeting between the chairman/presidents of the airline, the aviation authority, the airport and the navigation services....isn't too disappointed when they realise it just a "meal for one" needed !
The UAE GCAA has posted an "interesting" tweet on their account:
https://twitter.com/gcaa_uae?ref_src...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
No pics allowed. No vids allowed.
https://twitter.com/gcaa_uae?ref_src...Ctwgr%5Eauthor
No pics allowed. No vids allowed.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that Tweet is probably why the Emirates pilots who have been really outspoken about how life in Emirates really is, suddenly have clammed up completely.
Wise move as anything else could end their carreers immediately.
It tells volumes about how they are treated, and should act as a big red flag for any pilots considering a move to Dubai.
Wise move as anything else could end their carreers immediately.
It tells volumes about how they are treated, and should act as a big red flag for any pilots considering a move to Dubai.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs
I am not trying to reinvent the wheel, or propagate some new technique, the bounced landing technique by Boeing is certainly prevalent. At least as long as we're talking bounces of a few feet.
The MD11 was very prone to bounced landings and had the same procedure in the books. After three hull losses however, there came another suggestion, namely that in such circumstances, especially when the bounce is pronounced and at least one of them went to ~15 feet, a standard go around, without intermediate 4-5degs, might be the better solution, the tail strike degrees becoming less of a problem.
We all concur that go arounds are not the best executed flight procedures, only the "expected" ones in the sim seem to happen smoothly. Most unexpected ones prove to be quite untidy. This especially if two procedures are at choice , like with bounced landings.
A heavy bounce puts you in an awkward position. You are an unknown amount of feet above ground and more often than not, you don't really know why the landing has come to this. Was it unstable? Wind shear? Wake turbulence? Bad technique? Something else? The only thing you know, is that you are hanging in the air with most probably little airspeed left between flight and stall.
If your decision is to go around, which most probably is the good solution, then the next problem is with what technique. This because a standard go around calls for "Go around, thrust, Flaps20, positive climb, gear up" and a pull up to the Flight Director.
As it turns out on the T7, the TOGA switch might be inhibited, therefore you have to realise that and then definitely push the levers forward manually. The Flight Director will not show a relevant pitch up until the system goes back to flight mode and a second push on the TOGA switches can bring it back to life. When this actually happens is not clearly described in our books. Fact is, that the "normal go around" is somewhat disturbed by flight guidance. This is a very difficult manoeuvre at a critical point with little time to react and it is almost never trained.
The most impending threat is heavy contact with the ground which can very rapidly develop into a full blown crash, as demonstrated.
If it was due to wind shear, we should opt for the WS escape manoeuvre, which calls for AP/AT off, full thrust, wings level, pitch up to 15deg (or StSh) and no configuration change. The same applies if you deem the more threatening issue a disabling ground contact/crash and go for a "pull up" procedure with up to 20deg (or StSh).
These procedures are trained more often and are easier to apply, they work irrespective of the actual flight guidance modes.
Therefore my "suggestion". I can only guess, but with some experience in my backpack, i am pretty sure that avoiding a crash with heavy bounces might be more successful this way.
Glofish, curious about your preference for a GPWS escape. IMO, the "~4-5°" was given as a typical landing attitude (which is what Boeing suggest I aim for in my [completely different] type if I bounce it). I assume the idea is that, if the aeroplane slows down further and descends before the power comes up, it will again contact the ground on the wheels.
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.
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.
The MD11 was very prone to bounced landings and had the same procedure in the books. After three hull losses however, there came another suggestion, namely that in such circumstances, especially when the bounce is pronounced and at least one of them went to ~15 feet, a standard go around, without intermediate 4-5degs, might be the better solution, the tail strike degrees becoming less of a problem.
We all concur that go arounds are not the best executed flight procedures, only the "expected" ones in the sim seem to happen smoothly. Most unexpected ones prove to be quite untidy. This especially if two procedures are at choice , like with bounced landings.
A heavy bounce puts you in an awkward position. You are an unknown amount of feet above ground and more often than not, you don't really know why the landing has come to this. Was it unstable? Wind shear? Wake turbulence? Bad technique? Something else? The only thing you know, is that you are hanging in the air with most probably little airspeed left between flight and stall.
If your decision is to go around, which most probably is the good solution, then the next problem is with what technique. This because a standard go around calls for "Go around, thrust, Flaps20, positive climb, gear up" and a pull up to the Flight Director.
As it turns out on the T7, the TOGA switch might be inhibited, therefore you have to realise that and then definitely push the levers forward manually. The Flight Director will not show a relevant pitch up until the system goes back to flight mode and a second push on the TOGA switches can bring it back to life. When this actually happens is not clearly described in our books. Fact is, that the "normal go around" is somewhat disturbed by flight guidance. This is a very difficult manoeuvre at a critical point with little time to react and it is almost never trained.
The most impending threat is heavy contact with the ground which can very rapidly develop into a full blown crash, as demonstrated.
If it was due to wind shear, we should opt for the WS escape manoeuvre, which calls for AP/AT off, full thrust, wings level, pitch up to 15deg (or StSh) and no configuration change. The same applies if you deem the more threatening issue a disabling ground contact/crash and go for a "pull up" procedure with up to 20deg (or StSh).
These procedures are trained more often and are easier to apply, they work irrespective of the actual flight guidance modes.
Therefore my "suggestion". I can only guess, but with some experience in my backpack, i am pretty sure that avoiding a crash with heavy bounces might be more successful this way.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Another FBO !
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"#GCAA warns all residence in the #UAE to stop abusing social networks by publishing videos, news or pictures of aviation’s accidents"
When absolute power....corrupts absolutely.
When absolute power....corrupts absolutely.
My view is that if this was a balked landing, spool up time is the biggest likely issue. With the thrust in idle, and the notoriously long spool time on the RR engines, an attempt to rotate for the go around with thrust wandering up from idle would be "interesting".
Can anyone tell me at what point the EECs go from approach to intermediate or minimum idle as all my FCOM says is "after touchdown"? If the engines had gone to a lower idle the difficulty could be greatly exacerbated.
Can anyone tell me at what point the EECs go from approach to intermediate or minimum idle as all my FCOM says is "after touchdown"? If the engines had gone to a lower idle the difficulty could be greatly exacerbated.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: sYDNEY
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in agreement with others that the wx conditions, while difficult, were not outside the capabilities of the aircraft. A two engine go-around should not pose a problem.
I'm more wondering about other possibilities. What if the AP wasn't engaged? CX had an incident in the -400 a while back where a go around was initiated but the AP wasn't engaged. Is it possible it this case that TOGA was pressed, but no firm pitch up was made? Given the temperatures, is it also possible (borne out of sim tactics) that there is an unofficial emphasis on "get the gear up quick in the go-around)?
Fatigue, both acute and chronic would play a part. Seems to be an issue at EK.
Automation reliance would play a part. A modern issue for mos airlines.
Negative training would play a part.
I've not flown the 777 so this is just my theory. Thoughts?
I'm more wondering about other possibilities. What if the AP wasn't engaged? CX had an incident in the -400 a while back where a go around was initiated but the AP wasn't engaged. Is it possible it this case that TOGA was pressed, but no firm pitch up was made? Given the temperatures, is it also possible (borne out of sim tactics) that there is an unofficial emphasis on "get the gear up quick in the go-around)?
Fatigue, both acute and chronic would play a part. Seems to be an issue at EK.
Automation reliance would play a part. A modern issue for mos airlines.
Negative training would play a part.
I've not flown the 777 so this is just my theory. Thoughts?
The power dynamic is a little different...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes, it's different, but Emirates airlines is not a small, local operator. It's one of the biggest airlines in the world, and possible fatigued pilots behind the controls could cause accidents in major cities all over the world.