EK 231 20 December DXB IAD near crash?
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: the ridge where the west commences
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, those would be stunningly thin margins if they were true, but here in the real-world a 300ER
- normal unstick is at 8.5 degrees. The tail will strike at 10 degrees IF the pilot (who is in a Boeing after all, which does what the pilot asks it to) INSISTS that he wants it to do so (windshear escape, etc). If he does NOT want it to strike it will not do so because of FBW tailstrike protection
The tail however can be struck at as little as 7.5 degrees
-with bad landing technique, touching down at anything much less than Vref-10
-with incorrect takeoff data leading to rotation when the airplane still has weight on wheels (cf EK 777 departing LHR about 20-odd years ago)
- normal unstick is at 8.5 degrees. The tail will strike at 10 degrees IF the pilot (who is in a Boeing after all, which does what the pilot asks it to) INSISTS that he wants it to do so (windshear escape, etc). If he does NOT want it to strike it will not do so because of FBW tailstrike protection
The tail however can be struck at as little as 7.5 degrees
-with bad landing technique, touching down at anything much less than Vref-10
-with incorrect takeoff data leading to rotation when the airplane still has weight on wheels (cf EK 777 departing LHR about 20-odd years ago)
Last edited by Dropp the Pilot; 4th Jan 2022 at 02:12. Reason: editing
Only half a speed-brake
Common thing, my type also has full authority tailstrike law. 👻 11000 sold so far.
Thanks for setting the record straight. Thus
10 deg oleos extended
7.5 deg compressed?
Sounds more realistic. Any insight about flaps auto retract at take-off?
Thanks for setting the record straight. Thus
10 deg oleos extended
7.5 deg compressed?
Sounds more realistic. Any insight about flaps auto retract at take-off?
Last edited by FlightDetent; 4th Jan 2022 at 03:49.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Just Around The Corner
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion the industry need to decide if pilots must be allowed to flying manually or not , once and for all , it is ridiculous that the airline put a multimillion dollars in the hand of the crew and then suggest that flying manually is not safe , there always will be cases where some part of manually flying must be used to save the day , as we saw in this days. So since we have many evidence that this skill is required , must be implemented not forbidden . We have reached the top of of the nonsense with the UPRT or stall recovery , so we ( they the industry ) pretend that a cadet, that never saw a stall or a spin in a light single engine during his/her training , must be able to recover an upset or an high altitude stall in an airliner when , the actual time of manually flying the thing is minute after take-off ( when this happen ) or before landing.
Are we growing and training a bunch of pilot with Chuck Yeager latent skill ?
Are we growing and training a bunch of pilot with Chuck Yeager latent skill ?
In my opinion the industry need to decide if pilots must be allowed to flying manually or not , once and for all , it is ridiculous that the airline put a multimillion dollars in the hand of the crew and then suggest that flying manually is not safe , there always will be cases where some part of manually flying must be used to save the day , as we saw in this days. So since we have many evidence that this skill is required , must be implemented not forbidden . We have reached the top of of the nonsense with the UPRT or stall recovery , so we ( they the industry ) pretend that a cadet, that never saw a stall or a spin in a light single engine during his/her training , must be able to recover an upset or an high altitude stall in an airliner when , the actual time of manually flying the thing is minute after take-off ( when this happen ) or before landing.
Are we growing and training a bunch of pilot with Chuck Yeager latent skill ?
Are we growing and training a bunch of pilot with Chuck Yeager latent skill ?
I am aware of an airline nearby that had a Cessna 150 Aerobat in its training fleet. Each and every cadet had to master basic aerobatics on that plane - but that was decades ago, today this is no longer required.
I am stunned, that any teenage glider pilot beginner is not allowed to solo before s/he successfully demonstrates his/her stall/spin recovery technique, but powered plane pilots, including ATPL guys/gals might actually get in the cockpit of 10, 50 or 300ton A/C without ever experiencing a real unusual attitude. Approach to stall / buffet is max they will see in their PPL course, and never ever get an impression of how it looks when the world / horizon really spins around you or you are suddenly pointing down and no blue is visible anymore. Why on Earth is it so difficult to sit in a small, basic aerobatics capable airplane here and there and try some hand flying and extreme attitudes for real? Simulators, whatever sophisticated, will never replicate the real feel, especially the sinking feeling when things REALLY go haywire - not in a moving cabin, that is bolted to the ground but up in the sky with some air between you and Mother Earth. I am sure that all those pilots that crashed or nearly crashed big jet after they were faced with requirement to hand fly a partially crippled jet or things were not as expected, were reasonably trained to sort it out, but were unable to do so, as panic settled in and downgraded their brain computers below minimum - Lionair and Ethiopian included. All those modern computer guided jets are nice as long as everything works reasonably fine, but when, very rarely, they give up and hand it over to the pilot to sort it out, the stunning effect cripples too many.
Last edited by hoistop; 4th Jan 2022 at 12:04.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Hoistop.....
An interesting perspective. It has been more than a few years since I was rushing round pulling 6G and looking at the world from interesting angles..... But I don't agree with you.
All heavy-jet (HJ) pilots get training in incipient stall recovery which is VERY different to doing the same exercise in a mil-jet or a Cessna Aerobat, so I'm a bit lost in how that gives them a good grounding for what is to come? Do HJ pilots really need exposure to spinning with incipient/full recovery actions? If your airliner gets to the point of entering an incipient spin then it's all rather too late!
OTOH Basic stalling in clean and approach configurations is valuable, that's why it is covered not only in basic training but included in every type rating course. Most modern airliners are completely without natural cues to the approach of a stall so synthetic training takes place often with stall protections inhibited. That experience is nothing like a mil-jet or the Aerobat.
As for unusual attitudes or jet-upsets.... There is a finite limit of how far you can manoeuvre a HJ away from normal flight and still bring it back to straight and level without pulling the wings off, the airframe disintegrating or simply running out of height. Those margins are explored in type rating courses, often resulting in G forces that would write-off the jet even if you subsequently made a safe landing. The skills in achieving a safe UA recovery are peculiar to big jets and today are aided by devices like the excellent 787 HUD which automatically switches to a dedicated UA display if the pilot loses control beyond certain limits.
The real training problem these days is quite simply the lack of it: Airline managers have to justify their salaries. Your manager's bonus this year will hinge on how much $$$ you have saved the company. If you made 0.5% savings on your budget over last year then you made it... you're a good manager - we'll keep you! If you didn't then we kinda' wasted your salary last year and you will soon be doing something more appropriate to your skills (or lack of them). Have you wondered why training course footprints only ever seem to get smaller? The first time I ever did an A320 course was in 1993 and the ground school was 4 weeks duration..... Today it is less than half that. The simulator footprint likewise. OK some candidates fail but they get some extra help before hopefully coming up to standard with some shred of confidence left. Training has been reduced to Demonstrate - Check - Move On - (Forget).
Mind you - The Training Manager seems to keep his job, year on year !
An interesting perspective. It has been more than a few years since I was rushing round pulling 6G and looking at the world from interesting angles..... But I don't agree with you.
All heavy-jet (HJ) pilots get training in incipient stall recovery which is VERY different to doing the same exercise in a mil-jet or a Cessna Aerobat, so I'm a bit lost in how that gives them a good grounding for what is to come? Do HJ pilots really need exposure to spinning with incipient/full recovery actions? If your airliner gets to the point of entering an incipient spin then it's all rather too late!
OTOH Basic stalling in clean and approach configurations is valuable, that's why it is covered not only in basic training but included in every type rating course. Most modern airliners are completely without natural cues to the approach of a stall so synthetic training takes place often with stall protections inhibited. That experience is nothing like a mil-jet or the Aerobat.
As for unusual attitudes or jet-upsets.... There is a finite limit of how far you can manoeuvre a HJ away from normal flight and still bring it back to straight and level without pulling the wings off, the airframe disintegrating or simply running out of height. Those margins are explored in type rating courses, often resulting in G forces that would write-off the jet even if you subsequently made a safe landing. The skills in achieving a safe UA recovery are peculiar to big jets and today are aided by devices like the excellent 787 HUD which automatically switches to a dedicated UA display if the pilot loses control beyond certain limits.
The real training problem these days is quite simply the lack of it: Airline managers have to justify their salaries. Your manager's bonus this year will hinge on how much $$$ you have saved the company. If you made 0.5% savings on your budget over last year then you made it... you're a good manager - we'll keep you! If you didn't then we kinda' wasted your salary last year and you will soon be doing something more appropriate to your skills (or lack of them). Have you wondered why training course footprints only ever seem to get smaller? The first time I ever did an A320 course was in 1993 and the ground school was 4 weeks duration..... Today it is less than half that. The simulator footprint likewise. OK some candidates fail but they get some extra help before hopefully coming up to standard with some shred of confidence left. Training has been reduced to Demonstrate - Check - Move On - (Forget).
Mind you - The Training Manager seems to keep his job, year on year !
@Hoistop.....
An interesting perspective. It has been more than a few years since I was rushing round pulling 6G and looking at the world from interesting angles..... But I don't agree with you.
All heavy-jet (HJ) pilots get training in incipient stall recovery which is VERY different to doing the same exercise in a mil-jet or a Cessna Aerobat, so I'm a bit lost in how that gives them a good grounding for what is to come? Do HJ pilots really need exposure to spinning with incipient/full recovery actions? If your airliner gets to the point of entering an incipient spin then it's all rather too late!
OTOH Basic stalling in clean and approach configurations is valuable, that's why it is covered not only in basic training but included in every type rating course. Most modern airliners are completely without natural cues to the approach of a stall so synthetic training takes place often with stall protections inhibited. That experience is nothing like a mil-jet or the Aerobat.
As for unusual attitudes or jet-upsets.... There is a finite limit of how far you can manoeuvre a HJ away from normal flight and still bring it back to straight and level without pulling the wings off, the airframe disintegrating or simply running out of height. Those margins are explored in type rating courses, often resulting in G forces that would write-off the jet even if you subsequently made a safe landing. The skills in achieving a safe UA recovery are peculiar to big jets and today are aided by devices like the excellent 787 HUD which automatically switches to a dedicated UA display if the pilot loses control beyond certain limits. !
An interesting perspective. It has been more than a few years since I was rushing round pulling 6G and looking at the world from interesting angles..... But I don't agree with you.
All heavy-jet (HJ) pilots get training in incipient stall recovery which is VERY different to doing the same exercise in a mil-jet or a Cessna Aerobat, so I'm a bit lost in how that gives them a good grounding for what is to come? Do HJ pilots really need exposure to spinning with incipient/full recovery actions? If your airliner gets to the point of entering an incipient spin then it's all rather too late!
OTOH Basic stalling in clean and approach configurations is valuable, that's why it is covered not only in basic training but included in every type rating course. Most modern airliners are completely without natural cues to the approach of a stall so synthetic training takes place often with stall protections inhibited. That experience is nothing like a mil-jet or the Aerobat.
As for unusual attitudes or jet-upsets.... There is a finite limit of how far you can manoeuvre a HJ away from normal flight and still bring it back to straight and level without pulling the wings off, the airframe disintegrating or simply running out of height. Those margins are explored in type rating courses, often resulting in G forces that would write-off the jet even if you subsequently made a safe landing. The skills in achieving a safe UA recovery are peculiar to big jets and today are aided by devices like the excellent 787 HUD which automatically switches to a dedicated UA display if the pilot loses control beyond certain limits. !
The answer is more relevant training..(easy for me to say now I’ve hung up the headset). Given the plethora of mandatories/recurrent items that needs to be shoe horned into sessions I’m not sure how that can be done without it impacting on the training/pilot establishment budget.
Last edited by wiggy; 4th Jan 2022 at 14:14.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Back in the dim past, which no-one under about sixty will remember, the UK CAA requirement for a CPL was 700 hours. That got you the LHS of an aircraft below 5,700 kg (12,500 lb in old money), or the RHS of something bigger. IIRC, the hours required for an ATPL were 1500(?). Unless you were lucky enough to be military, or managed a scholarship with someone like BA, that involved 45 hour to PPL, build up your hours any way you could, to 150, at which point you could become an instructor. Work for peanuts to get the magic 700. That was of course in the days when simulators were very much in their infancy, and couldn't replicate what they can now. However, it did mean that by the time a pilot was on the line, they had a good grounding in actually flying.
I'm sure the modern world is better and safer in many ways, but perhaps it's lost something along the way? Just saying.
I'm sure the modern world is better and safer in many ways, but perhaps it's lost something along the way? Just saying.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread drift alert:
A good preflight briefing for any RAAS-equipped airplane: ...."and on this flight we will totally ignore all RAAS call-outs except for 'on taxiway' and 'altimeter setting'".......
Those two will save your life, everything else produced by the blighted device is noise, and noise at the worst possible time.
A good preflight briefing for any RAAS-equipped airplane: ...."and on this flight we will totally ignore all RAAS call-outs except for 'on taxiway' and 'altimeter setting'".......
Those two will save your life, everything else produced by the blighted device is noise, and noise at the worst possible time.
As the saying goes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence ...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Now at Home
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ de fumo
I looked out and saw we were on profile to plough through a huge flock of gulls, with no avoidance forthcoming. I took control and ducked below what would have been a multiple strike.
.
That was a good one
All this in a heavy widebody jet after take-off to avoid birds. Let us know more of your flying stories
I looked out and saw we were on profile to plough through a huge flock of gulls, with no avoidance forthcoming. I took control and ducked below what would have been a multiple strike.
.
That was a good one
All this in a heavy widebody jet after take-off to avoid birds. Let us know more of your flying stories
Cheeky bugger, it wasn't a bunt or anything like it - just a reduction in the climb rate for a few seconds and less than 100' to clear below the birds. Also manoeuvred a jumbo around the ****ehawks circling over the dump at the end of Delhi's r/w. I find it deeply concerning you would willingly plough through a flock of birds - there goes another slave to the FD!
The reaction of most birds/flocks when startled is to achieve speed to avoid danger.
They do this by descending and turning downwind - at the same time.
Planning to pass under them is probably not the optimum choice in most cases.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ de fumo
I looked out and saw we were on profile to plough through a huge flock of gulls, with no avoidance forthcoming. I took control and ducked below what would have been a multiple strike.
.
That was a good one
All this in a heavy widebody jet after take-off to avoid birds. Let us know more of your flying stories
I looked out and saw we were on profile to plough through a huge flock of gulls, with no avoidance forthcoming. I took control and ducked below what would have been a multiple strike.
.
That was a good one
All this in a heavy widebody jet after take-off to avoid birds. Let us know more of your flying stories
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my thoughts exactly; must have missed that section of performance A when it mentioned that trick that invalidates all your segments climb perf.
I can relate, a flock of birds at an inconvinient place for the time being. Your reactions may vary but my natural instinct has been to stay on the runway instead of rotating and plough through. You have to evaluate the threats on the fly.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: oztraylia
Age: 72
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's simply zero hope left in this industry. At a time where we're supposed to be proving to the general public why it's not a great idea to let automation take over our profession, this stunt only proves otherwise why us humans should be replaced... I can only hope now that the pace at which ultra high speed rail services get developed globally picks up so I don't have to worry about whether or not my life is in the hands of a robot, or otherwise someone who probably doesn't know how to tie their own shoe laces.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My knowledge of perf A tells me it climbs a whole lot better on two engines, than one or none! (And a few seconds of gently converting the profile to speed and converting it back again, isn't significantly going to affect the overall climb profile. PS That occasion was a medium jet at about 1500', I dunno if folks are thinking it was very low level or just after rotation or something - it wasn't). Valid point about birds diving, but anyway, it worked and we were enough below them to avoid whatever they did, going over wasnt going to work, exactly following the FD was deffo the worst choice. Anyway, point is, I think the windows should be used anytime in the flight that there is, or could be anything to see! Even in the cruise - I cringe when people hang up yellow vests/checklists and the like. Given the discussion at hand, I'm truly shocked we have some supposed pilots advocating following the FD no matter what!
About evasive action: Swallows might be able to do that, but a couple of formation flying big fat Canadian Geese will eventually just continue their path. Try to cope with such an impact and a slight evasive action might suddenly look very attractive and any climb performance a subsidiary problem. Or simply replace the word bird with helicopter and ask yourself if the FD commanding second segment is still appropriate?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK the world's safest airline. How reputable is JACDEC
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/indu...safest-airline
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/indu...safest-airline