Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. A GA shall be made if landing not within TDZ ( I assume after)
2. A380. "Long Landing" = GA. What about B777.
Next question: should these be advisory or mandatory? Sometimes I think the judgment of captains has been diluted or removed too much. Yes, there will be those who are press-on jockeys. Yes there have been those who ignored F/O's call to toss it away. Yes, there will be those who ignore computerised SOP calls & actions. But I wonder if this accident could have been avoided using captain's discretion. I know about the mis-airmanship afterwards, but I'm still asking about the computer v captain(Pilot) decision making process.
True; if they'd executed the GA correctly all would be OK, but they didn't. If they'd stayed on the ground they should have stopped short & everything would be OK. Which would they more likely have succeeded at? It's a moot point and the start of a circular debate with, perhaps, no black & white answer. However, IF the SOP says the computer is boss and you WILL GA, that is black & white, but should, it be the SOP?
2. A380. "Long Landing" = GA. What about B777.
Next question: should these be advisory or mandatory? Sometimes I think the judgment of captains has been diluted or removed too much. Yes, there will be those who are press-on jockeys. Yes there have been those who ignored F/O's call to toss it away. Yes, there will be those who ignore computerised SOP calls & actions. But I wonder if this accident could have been avoided using captain's discretion. I know about the mis-airmanship afterwards, but I'm still asking about the computer v captain(Pilot) decision making process.
True; if they'd executed the GA correctly all would be OK, but they didn't. If they'd stayed on the ground they should have stopped short & everything would be OK. Which would they more likely have succeeded at? It's a moot point and the start of a circular debate with, perhaps, no black & white answer. However, IF the SOP says the computer is boss and you WILL GA, that is black & white, but should, it be the SOP?
A comprehensive and professional interim report.
Those who forecast otherwise might reflect on their views and adjust attitudes before making further contributions, lest they be ignored.
Re the discussion on wind; for reference see the documents linked here. http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/58346...ml#post9489344
It would be interesting to know the basis of the wind speed and variations discussed in the report, and thence the likelihood that the crew would have been aware of them. Data, communication, time, understanding.
Also, if RAAS uses a wind-speed input (even if only to compute groundspeed).
RAAS 'smart landing' has two landing awareness calls on the runway, 'long landing' followed at some point by the runway 'distance remaining'. The long landing distance (a defined touchdown zone) can be selected by the operator and preset in the system software. Presuming that this is a fixed value vice differing values for every runway, then selecting the most limiting, shortest runway option might be logical.
Are there any posters who can expand on this, and also if the operator policy is to rejected a landing in the event of an awareness call, and by using the GA procedure.
In addition whether the end of the RAAS touchdown zone a calculated from the threshold position (normally in the EGPWS / RAAS database), or is it a specific GPS location?
P.S. RAT, it would be difficult to compare the A380 ROPS with the B777 RAAS as the alerting philosophies differ; this may affect the choice of procedure.
AFAIR A380/ Airbus ROPS does not have a 'long landing call' - perhaps for a good reason?
don, would you like to define TDZ, and justify the reasoning.
Those who forecast otherwise might reflect on their views and adjust attitudes before making further contributions, lest they be ignored.
Re the discussion on wind; for reference see the documents linked here. http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/58346...ml#post9489344
It would be interesting to know the basis of the wind speed and variations discussed in the report, and thence the likelihood that the crew would have been aware of them. Data, communication, time, understanding.
Also, if RAAS uses a wind-speed input (even if only to compute groundspeed).
RAAS 'smart landing' has two landing awareness calls on the runway, 'long landing' followed at some point by the runway 'distance remaining'. The long landing distance (a defined touchdown zone) can be selected by the operator and preset in the system software. Presuming that this is a fixed value vice differing values for every runway, then selecting the most limiting, shortest runway option might be logical.
Are there any posters who can expand on this, and also if the operator policy is to rejected a landing in the event of an awareness call, and by using the GA procedure.
In addition whether the end of the RAAS touchdown zone a calculated from the threshold position (normally in the EGPWS / RAAS database), or is it a specific GPS location?
P.S. RAT, it would be difficult to compare the A380 ROPS with the B777 RAAS as the alerting philosophies differ; this may affect the choice of procedure.
AFAIR A380/ Airbus ROPS does not have a 'long landing call' - perhaps for a good reason?
don, would you like to define TDZ, and justify the reasoning.
Last edited by alf5071h; 6th Sep 2016 at 13:18. Reason: P.S.
RAT, it was not the long landing call that caused the go-around. It was the fact that they touched down beyond the TDZ. They would have done (go around) this even without the RAAS as that is company policy.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's very relevant how ineffective a number of the slides were in particular their response to wind. Could some method be considered that would place a slide back in a useful position in the event it was blown up against an exit door?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those runways in Dubai are 4km long, you could land halfway down and still stop using auto rake 3 on the 777. Far from idea, but better than screwing up the GA and writing off the hull.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RAT 5
2. A380. "Long Landing" = GA.
And to clarify the company policy:
If touchdown cannot be accomplished within the desired touchdown zone, a go-around SHOULD be CONSIDERED.
ergo it is not MANDATORY
I'm splitting hairs with you Don
Reading the report it apears that BOTH recent accidents of UAE registered aircraft may be attributed to an experienced crew failing to revert to basic airmanship during a normal go-around situation. One question immediately comes to mind, knowing the operating environment and culture, posed to those with the local experience:
Is there a PERCEIVED detrimental career effect of performing a go-around (never mind what he SOP says) at EK/FZ ? If so, the induced additional stress when making the decision would (in part) explain why a reasonably experienced crew could ommit / fail to notice till too late basics in such a situation.
Is there a PERCEIVED detrimental career effect of performing a go-around (never mind what he SOP says) at EK/FZ ? If so, the induced additional stress when making the decision would (in part) explain why a reasonably experienced crew could ommit / fail to notice till too late basics in such a situation.
Didn't think you had many left whitey 
but you are correct.
but you are correct.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jew-Buy Mate
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][) The Aircraft was vectored for an area
navigation (RNAV/GNSS) approach to runway 12LQUOTE]
This would imply that VNAV was the vertical mode used for the approach. With an OAT of +48 this would create a very steep glide path which would exacerbate a tailwind component. The report mentions that the flare commenced at 35 ft which is also a tad on the high side. There are two possible causes for that. Either the higher descent rate required to maintain the profile caused by the met conditions or following the F/D guidance at low level which would have levelled the aircraft at 50 ft above the runway. Possibly a combination of the two. Is there any reason why they were conducting an RNAV approach rather than an ILS ?
navigation (RNAV/GNSS) approach to runway 12LQUOTE]
This would imply that VNAV was the vertical mode used for the approach. With an OAT of +48 this would create a very steep glide path which would exacerbate a tailwind component. The report mentions that the flare commenced at 35 ft which is also a tad on the high side. There are two possible causes for that. Either the higher descent rate required to maintain the profile caused by the met conditions or following the F/D guidance at low level which would have levelled the aircraft at 50 ft above the runway. Possibly a combination of the two. Is there any reason why they were conducting an RNAV approach rather than an ILS ?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of companies, in order to make decision making easier for the crew stipulate that if touchdown is expected beyond x feet from start of runway then a go around is mandatory.
In my honest opinion this is crap and now we have a destroyed 777 and a dead firefighter to show why. I understand where the airlines are coming from, they figure pilots shouldn't be trying to make judgements that close to the ground and to make it easier and to improve pilot discipline they say if you don't touch down by x feet go around.
But a go around is no joke and we've lost a 737 with all pax and crew dead and a 777 hull with one death. Airlines need to reassess this. Imagine landing on a 4000m runway and you're flying a narrow body and because you've floated to let's say 1200 metres down the runway even with 2800m left the 'company'procedure is to go around even though a perfectly safe landing can be made. Meanwhile the guys who came up with this policy are patting themselves on the back for establishing such discipline. Yet there will be unnecessary go arounds, but that's OK for them I guess. So why not let pilots handfly the plane some more, get more practice? Wont that make things safer? And if you have the odd go around so what. Why is it that in the case of manual flying it's not OK to have some go arounds for the greater good?
OK so this blind categorisation of acceptable touch down zones has to go. Here's why
1. More and more planes are coming with runway over run warning and protection systems. They will accurately calculate landing distance requirements and let the pilots know when they don't have enough runway.
2. Go arounds cost the airline money and add congestion in already busy airspace.
3. Pilots do not fly go arounds very often and can screw them up.
Airlines cannot simply have a blanket touchdown zone criteria, it needs to vary depending on runway length and other criteria. If I was in KTM and floated for whatever reason I'm landing unless I'm definitely not sure I can stop in time. There's no way I'm going around, it's way more risky.
Pilots can calculate factored landing distance before landing and agree on a point (perhaps a taxi way or some other easily available landmark) after which they will go around. This is called airmanship. The usual reason for floating is weather conditions. So why would you want to go around and try another approach in bad weather due to company procedure, when you are sure you can land and stop safely?
In my honest opinion this is crap and now we have a destroyed 777 and a dead firefighter to show why. I understand where the airlines are coming from, they figure pilots shouldn't be trying to make judgements that close to the ground and to make it easier and to improve pilot discipline they say if you don't touch down by x feet go around.
But a go around is no joke and we've lost a 737 with all pax and crew dead and a 777 hull with one death. Airlines need to reassess this. Imagine landing on a 4000m runway and you're flying a narrow body and because you've floated to let's say 1200 metres down the runway even with 2800m left the 'company'procedure is to go around even though a perfectly safe landing can be made. Meanwhile the guys who came up with this policy are patting themselves on the back for establishing such discipline. Yet there will be unnecessary go arounds, but that's OK for them I guess. So why not let pilots handfly the plane some more, get more practice? Wont that make things safer? And if you have the odd go around so what. Why is it that in the case of manual flying it's not OK to have some go arounds for the greater good?
OK so this blind categorisation of acceptable touch down zones has to go. Here's why
1. More and more planes are coming with runway over run warning and protection systems. They will accurately calculate landing distance requirements and let the pilots know when they don't have enough runway.
2. Go arounds cost the airline money and add congestion in already busy airspace.
3. Pilots do not fly go arounds very often and can screw them up.
Airlines cannot simply have a blanket touchdown zone criteria, it needs to vary depending on runway length and other criteria. If I was in KTM and floated for whatever reason I'm landing unless I'm definitely not sure I can stop in time. There's no way I'm going around, it's way more risky.
Pilots can calculate factored landing distance before landing and agree on a point (perhaps a taxi way or some other easily available landmark) after which they will go around. This is called airmanship. The usual reason for floating is weather conditions. So why would you want to go around and try another approach in bad weather due to company procedure, when you are sure you can land and stop safely?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: London
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 380 does NOT have a Long Landing call. That is on the RAAS fitted to the 777/330/340 EK aircraft. The 380 ROW/ROP gives a 'runway too short if wet' or a 'runway too short' aural warning...
And to clarify the company policy:
If touchdown cannot be accomplished within the desired touchdown zone, a go-around SHOULD be CONSIDERED.
ergo it is not MANDATORY
I'm splitting hairs with you Don
And to clarify the company policy:
If touchdown cannot be accomplished within the desired touchdown zone, a go-around SHOULD be CONSIDERED.
ergo it is not MANDATORY
I'm splitting hairs with you Don
OM-A Quote:
if a valid "LONG LANDING" alert (smart landing-equipped aircraft) or a Runway Overrun Warning relevant to the current runway state (A380) is activated, then the PM shall announce "GO AROUND" and an immediate go-around shall be flown.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why was auto throttle left in? The great debate again? Boeing is recommending that on the NG and I guess 777 that when manual flight is called for and actioned thats what you do, go full manual flight inc A/T
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
The 777 is not a 737.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PM had called "check speed" ...but at such a critical moment, his survival instinct should have shoved and held the thrust levers forward, irrespective of the captain's hand on the thrust levers. It's called assertiveness.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would work out really great with a local capt.
If you are scared of the local Captain captseth, EK ain't the job for you. Nor is being a pilot.