Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

EK 231 20 December DXB IAD near crash?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

EK 231 20 December DXB IAD near crash?

Old 20th Feb 2022, 00:04
  #301 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 3,792
​​​​​For recording and display purposes, different from the source ADS-B transmission, FR24 nullifies some of the altitude data.

When an aircraft is geometrically below the 1013.25 isobaric surface, FR24 presentation would need to show negative values since ADS-B transmits level referenced to standard pressure.

Perhaps to avoid confusing the common inernaut, all sub-zero readouts are truncated. When our ilk try to convert ADS-B indicated FL back to ALT, that data is missing.

​​​​​​The cutoff layer is
FL < 0, which is the same as
ALT < (QNH - 1013.25)x27

The modest local 1018 hPa at occurrence time means displayed 0 by FR24 can be any ALT below 125 ft. (XPDR codes in 25 ft increments). Down to ELEV, that is .

Last edited by FlightDetent; 20th Feb 2022 at 10:22.
FlightDetent is online now  
Old 20th Feb 2022, 00:25
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post

C/A: congrats for the nice 2,200
Thanks. maybe I should be out flying more
Check Airman is online now  
Old 20th Feb 2022, 08:38
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,920
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
Yes, error is not a good naming.

​​​​​​For recording and display purposes, different from the source ADS-B transmission, FR24 nullifies some of the altitude data.

When an aircraft is geometrically below the 1013.25 isobaric surface, the FR24 presentation would need to show negative values, since ADS-B transmits altitude referenced to standard pressure which actually is a negative numeber in that case.

To avoid confusion for the common inernaut, all negative reports are truncted to 0 for FRIf FL < 0 then, for display their records.

When converting the ADS-B FL as reported FR24 to ALT, some of that data are simply not there.

​​​​​​The cutoff layer is
FL < 0, which is the same as
ALT < (QNH - 1013.25)x27

With the modest 1018 hPa at local station in the discussed case, where 0 is dispalyed by FR24 the ALT was (anything) less than 125 ft. (XPDR codes level in 25 ft increments).
Good explanation of an often (as we have seen) misunderstood FR24 idiosyncrasy.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 20th Feb 2022, 08:58
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: aaa
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
OK, I think I see what you mean, although I'm still struggling to understand what a "gross error check" would prove, other than the existence of the FR24 QNH issue that I previously referred to.



Yes, that's more easily ascertained from the FR24 data as it's not QNH-dependent. At the quoted lift off time of 23:10:29 (per the report) the ADS-B data shows the 777 roughly abeam twy N4.
Gross error check as in if the two times aren't similar, then I would say the FR24 liftoff time is almost certainly wrong.

But from reading more posts, from people such as yourself, who obviously know much more than me about FR24 data. It seems that the FR24 data is always wrong in high QNH conditions.
Therefor as you say the gross error check is redundant, if we already know its not reliable
SpamCanDriver is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2022, 10:24
  #305 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 3,792
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Good explanation of an often (as we have seen) misunderstood FR24 idiosyncrasy.
Apologise sincerely for the atrocious style and grammar. Edited now again, sorry for the eyesore.
FlightDetent is online now  
Old 20th Feb 2022, 23:33
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 915
Talking about Flight Radar, why do they show the scheduled time as airborne time when the scheduled time shown on Flight Radar in my outfit at least is supposed to be the off block time?
Thank you.
pineteam is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2022, 06:34
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,920
Originally Posted by pineteam View Post
Talking about Flight Radar, why do they show the scheduled time as airborne time when the scheduled time shown on Flight Radar in my outfit at least is supposed to be the off block time?
In my experience, the STD shown in FR24 is the Out time. Can you give any examples of where it's the scheduled Off time? Where would they get that information from?
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2022, 07:40
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 915
This flight for example: They showed the schedule time as 15h45. This is the STD: Time we suppose to push back. However they show the actual time as 16h25 which is the airborne time. I checked on the company system this flight actually pushed back at 16h09.

pineteam is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2022, 09:33
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,920
Originally Posted by pineteam View Post
This flight for example: They showed the schedule time as 15h45. This is the STD: Time we suppose to push back. However they show the actual time as 16h25 which is the airborne time. I checked on the company system this flight actually pushed back at 16h09.
OK, so your problem isn't with the scheduled times on FR24, it's with actuals.

FR24 attempts to identify, as you have noted, the time the aircraft gets airborne - that's what appears in the "ATD" column. Whether that satisfies most people's understanding of an ATD is a moot point, but that's what they use.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2022, 09:58
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 915
Thank you DaveReidUK!
pineteam is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2022, 11:33
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 44
Posts: 279
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Whether that satisfies most people's understanding of an ATD is a moot point, but that's what they use.
There is a reason they do not use it in CDM. ATOT (Actual take off time) is much clearer, though I guess there is the question whether this is when you start the take-off roll or after you have completed it and passed screen height.
procede is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2022, 13:43
  #312 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 1,254
Hmmm. lets try again...

res ipsa loquitur.

Sacking the crew of this flight doesn't get rid of the issue that permitted the situation to arise in the first place. That problem, like pilot skills and SA were absent from the cockpit on the day (or night). But certainly, sacking the "abberant" crew sure works as spack filler on the side of the space shuttle would.

In my humble opinion.
fdr is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2022, 21:31
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 888
Seriously? A modern jet airliner is nearly flown into the ground and the discussion centres on FR24? Maybe the Mods should set up a new category of FR24 issues. The Av Herald article quotes from the report stating that the PF achieved an 800fpm rate of climb following the FD's. The airlines have successfully taken away the ability to question the information presented to the pilots and handed the control of the aircraft to the automation. Thats the real concern. It has nothing to do with gender or nationality but everything to do with Flt Ops departments training to a minimum standard.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2022, 22:58
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: the ridge where the west commences
Posts: 753
Nothing was lost in translation

The report states that "she followed the flight director command" because she followed the flight director command.

Dropp the Pilot is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2022, 07:51
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hotel time zone
Posts: 156
The trend towards the "cure-all dogmatic fundamentalism" towards company procedures, isn't just to be found at EK; I think most large Western airlines are of the thinking that, provided they can legislate/automate a procedure for every conceivable scenario, then there cannot possibly be an accident, no matter how inexperienced/low paid/basically educated/low aptitude/tired/low stick skills the crews are.

Fact of the matter is, it is ineffective, and can often be counterproductive, where we have overwhelming layer upon layer of procedure, and when the particularly dim witted stumble into conflicting SOP minutiae, rather than acting and applying airmanship, they go into meltdown, and freeze.
Time Traveller is online now  
Old 22nd Feb 2022, 08:54
  #316 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,607
Originally Posted by Time Traveller View Post
The trend towards the "cure-all dogmatic fundamentalism" towards company procedures, isn't just to be found at EK; I think most large Western airlines are of the thinking that, provided they can legislate/automate a procedure for every conceivable scenario, then there cannot possibly be an accident, no matter how inexperienced/low paid/basically educated/low aptitude/tired/low stick skills the crews are.

Fact of the matter is, it is ineffective, and can often be counterproductive, where we have overwhelming layer upon layer of procedure, and when the particularly dim witted stumble into conflicting SOP minutiae, rather than acting and applying airmanship, they go into meltdown, and freeze.
And that’s the problem. Airmanship and common sense are no longer common.
SOPS is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2022, 09:04
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lost again...
Posts: 721
The real problem at the moment as regards airmanship stems form the fact that regulators, operators and training organisations are less interested in improving and restoring airmanship than they are in deciding whether it should be called "airpersonship" or "aviatorship".

To quote my favourite (and least favourite) phrase

"The trouble with making things idiot proof is that it simply encourages the development of better idiots"

OvertHawk is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2022, 10:18
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Falkland Islands
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Time Traveller View Post
The trend towards the "cure-all dogmatic fundamentalism" towards company procedures, isn't just to be found at EK; . . .
I came up with an analogy to describe this - “The Safety Ratchet-Strap” ©️ 🙂

The first organisation I flew for used what I understood to be aviation grade straps for securing freight. They were pulled tight by hand (on the strap itself, not the handle), then secured by a single over-centre and latch movement of the handle that tightened it a further 2cm or so. This ensured that the strap could not be pulled too tight.

Subsequently I worked for another operator that used standard ratchet straps, that could be tightened as much as you could pull on the handle (with approx 10:1 lever, you can easily put 600-800 pounds, or more, of tension on the strap).

I found that the majority of people seemed to be convinced that the tighter they pulled the strap, the safer they were making it.

It may seem slightly counter-intuitive, but as far as I can see, the safest the system can be is when the strap is just snugly tight.

If the tie-down ring pulls out of the rail at 2000lbs force, and the strap has 10 lbs of tension in it, the ring has 1990 lbs in hand. If the strap has 1900 lbs of tension, the system will fail with another 101 lbs of jolting force.

There is a sweet-spot of maximum strength in the system, and tightening the strap beyond that point actually weakens the system.

The problem is that it is very easy to tighten the strap another click, thinking you are improving things, but no-one wants to take the responsibility of loosening the strap a click, even though it may actually be safer.

In my view, a lot of aspects of aviation safety have passed their maximum strength.

Time Traveller sums it up very nicely above -

I think most large Western airlines are of the thinking that, provided they can legislate/automate a procedure for every conceivable scenario, then there cannot possibly be an accident, no matter how inexperienced/low paid/basically educated/low aptitude/tired/low stick skills the crews are.

Fact of the matter is, it is ineffective, and can often be counterproductive, where we have overwhelming layer upon layer of procedure, and [can end up] stumbl[ing] into conflicting SOP minutiae, rather than acting and applying airmanship

In my view, there are many areas where we have tightened the “Safety Ratchet-Strap” too tight, and in places need to loosen it a click or two.

Ant T is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2022, 13:42
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 899
Common sense is not very fashionable in the 21st. century.
Display some and someone will quickly point out the error of thinking like that.
The root cause is fear of legal liability.
IMHO
macdo is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2022, 07:33
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: ...
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by macdo View Post
Common sense is not very fashionable in the 21st. century.
Display some and someone will quickly point out the error of thinking like that.
The root cause is fear of legal liability.
IMHO
Sadly true. As long as you brief it, you can basically crash in VNAV. Instead of saving the situation without briefing it(paradox example of course).
fulminn is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.