EK 231 20 December DXB IAD near crash?
Originally Posted by retired guy
How could this have been kept quiet I wonder since the aircraft was damage apparently..
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: At home, occasionally
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not familiar with modern types such as the 777-300. ( Although, did fly DC10 and B744 over 20 years ago. ) My question: "Is it mandatory to engage flight director for take-off" ? Rotating followed by nailing the basic parameters not that complicated I'm guessing, even if there is some sort of 'swung cone' for losing a donk at V1 on a twin with spot heights impinging close in. Do recall one of those seasonal DXB temperature inversions making initial climb performance a touch lazy, but this sounds a whole lot more interesting unless there's something we don't know. One comment I read elsewhere would leave potential pax believing that it is normal for the autopilot/s to be fully engaged for takeoff. PR could be awkward, and I doubt whether the average tabloid pages will go much into explaining 'TOGA'.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilots are rumoured to learn their fate or fortune over the next day or so.
The screenshot of the company NOTAM that was leaked was, (in my view) a knee jerk reaction that was misplaced and has been withdrawn. The aircraft had been on the ground in Dubai for a little less than 24hrs and if it was powered down at any stage, the MCP would have defaulted to 10000ft. If the MCP was set to 0ft, perhaps it was not the previous crew who set this level, as has been suggested.
The screenshot of the company NOTAM that was leaked was, (in my view) a knee jerk reaction that was misplaced and has been withdrawn. The aircraft had been on the ground in Dubai for a little less than 24hrs and if it was powered down at any stage, the MCP would have defaulted to 10000ft. If the MCP was set to 0ft, perhaps it was not the previous crew who set this level, as has been suggested.
Originally Posted by ONE GREEN AND HOPING
I'm not familiar with modern types such as the 777-300. ( Although, did fly DC10 and B744 over 20 years ago. ) My question: "Is it mandatory to engage flight director for take-off" ? Rotating followed by nailing the basic parameters not that complicated I'm guessing, even if there is some sort of 'swung cone' for losing a donk at V1 on a twin with spot heights impinging close in. Do recall one of those seasonal DXB temperature inversions making initial climb performance a touch lazy, but this sounds a whole lot more interesting unless there's something we don't know. One comment I read elsewhere would leave potential pax believing that it is normal for the autopilot/s to be fully engaged for takeoff. PR could be awkward, and I doubt whether the average tabloid pages will go much into explaining 'TOGA'.
Unlikely to have a significant inversion this time of year and the -300 is not short in the thrust department. I suspect this accident (if they did hit the LOC array) will be fascinating in terms of HF and company culture. I’m not saying this is the case here (yet), but you can only dumb things down and be prescriptive to a certain level before you leave people unable to cope with much outside the ordinary because they enter a state of cognitive dissonance: the pilot part is saying 15degs NU, ignore the FD, sort it later and/or turn it off; the part that’s been beaten senseless by SOPs says follow the FD otherwise it’s no tea no biscuits in the office...
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is well and truly unbelievable. Flight directors, whatever they show, were never meant to be followed during rotation. At least not on any aircraft I have flown. Once the aircraft is off the ground, you either follow the FDs if their indications make any sense - or, if they don't or are missing altogether, you pitch for an attitude which gives you more or less the correct climb speed, get away from the ground and sort it out whenever safely possible.
Also, that would have made for a great sim scenario. The PM calls "Rotate", no reaction from the PF.
Also, that would have made for a great sim scenario. The PM calls "Rotate", no reaction from the PF.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the world
Age: 46
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8.5 degrees keeps you out of a Tailstrike. 777-300 Tail strikes at 8.9 degrees normal liftoff attitude is 8.0 degrees ... on the 300 ER. Tail strikes at 10.0 degrees... normal liftoff is at 9.0 degrees
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just some thoughts how it could've happened. I am still lost for words if this was an otherwise uneventful "departure".
- Different airspeed readings, followed by confusion. Should have come up in the story that's been told.
- Flaps not set?
- Glued to the runway to duck under birds and things went too far. Do birds even live in the desert?
- Trim mis set nose down. There was an odd procedure for a while on the 737 to trim full fwd for de-icing.
yes yes... I know checklist, procedures, take off config warning et al. should've stopped it. I am just speculating.
- Different airspeed readings, followed by confusion. Should have come up in the story that's been told.
- Flaps not set?
- Glued to the runway to duck under birds and things went too far. Do birds even live in the desert?
- Trim mis set nose down. There was an odd procedure for a while on the 737 to trim full fwd for de-icing.
yes yes... I know checklist, procedures, take off config warning et al. should've stopped it. I am just speculating.
Originally Posted by flyguyflies
8.5 degrees keeps you out of a Tailstrike. 777-300 Tail strikes at 8.9 degrees normal liftoff attitude is 8.0 degrees ... on the 300 ER. Tail strikes at 10.0 degrees... normal liftoff is at 9.0 degrees
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 172_driver
Just some thoughts how it could've happened. I am still lost for words if this was an otherwise uneventful "departure".
- Different airspeed readings, followed by confusion. Should have come up in the story that's been told.
- Flaps not set?
- Glued to the runway to duck under birds and things went too far. Do birds even live in the desert?
- Trim mis set nose down. There was an odd procedure for a while on the 737 to trim full fwd for de-icing.
yes yes... I know checklist, procedures, take off config warning et al. should've stopped it. I am just speculating.
- Different airspeed readings, followed by confusion. Should have come up in the story that's been told.
- Flaps not set?
- Glued to the runway to duck under birds and things went too far. Do birds even live in the desert?
- Trim mis set nose down. There was an odd procedure for a while on the 737 to trim full fwd for de-icing.
yes yes... I know checklist, procedures, take off config warning et al. should've stopped it. I am just speculating.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Switzerland ... oh wait: Swaziland
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zero/zero
Think it's fairly well known at this stage that it is related to the altitude set in the MCP for the departure
How would any MCP setting cause 4400 m takeoff run and 216 kts on ground? It has nothing to do with the director.
The assumption therefore being that the PF didn't apply any significant nose-up to rotate until they got to the far end of the rwy.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,719
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
10 Posts
Originally Posted by H Peacock
Read the earlier posts. Mis-set Alt Sel meant the FD didn't give an initial take-off pitch target, instead it was probably in Alt. Have a read of post #15!
The assumption therefore being that the PF didn't apply any significant nose-up to rotate until they got to the far end of the rwy.
The assumption therefore being that the PF didn't apply any significant nose-up to rotate until they got to the far end of the rwy.
The Joberg over-run years ago? Bad training and over relience on generated, rather than raw information.
The 777 hull loss, including a fatality? bad training and fear culture coupled with too much relience on automation.
This one? Ddidn't rotate because the FD didn't say to? Really???
Not long before leaving I had a (non) incident,complete with frog-march to the office, becaue I disconnected the AP to correct a rapidly decreasing airspeed due to windshear and the 777s habit of going into ALT CAP early.
The verdict? You should have let the automation deal with it until stck shaker.
Thise who do not learn from the past are apt to repeat it....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
5 Posts
The FD has nothing to do with initiating the rotation. That is based on the non-flying pilot saying 'rotate' which is soon after the automated V1 call(unless a contaminated runway) which is based on reading the airspeed indicator. I suppose someone could rotate very slowly but something hasn't been fully explained at this early stage yet.
Originally Posted by punkalouver
The FD has nothing to do with initiating the rotation. That is based on the non-flying pilot saying 'rotate' which is soon after the automated V1 call(unless a contaminated runway) which is based on reading the airspeed indicator. I suppose someone could rotate very slowly but something hasn't been fully explained at this early stage yet.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wasteland
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the take off was attempted with the autopilot engaged on the ground. This has happened once before in a 777, off 12R as I recall. I believe the pitch mode was ALT and the ASR quoted the pilot as reporting "higher than usual stick force" required to rotate the aircraft. It was not a ULR flight so although they used a lot of additional runway they still didn't hit anything. Washington would be a different story. I'm not saying this is what happened but it is reminiscent of the other event and to the best of my knowledge nothing was changed to prevent it happening again.
The 777 FD pitch bar sometimes has a way of sitting lower than the desired climb attitude after rotation. If the nose is lowered toward it, the pitch bar will usually then behave correctly and rise to the appropriate angle. Some people will ignore the FD and fly the proper attitude and be called at by the PM for not following the FD. Others will do what the FD tells them by lowering the nose after rotation, then raising it again, frustrating the other pilot who believes in ignoring spurious data. This should all be trained out of the pilots by the training dept but that's another discussion altogether.
Originally Posted by Service-x
Sometimes I hear the comment of the PM, follow the FD!!! And here lies the problem in my opinion. It’s a tool and if you don’t like it, put the pitch and thrust where you want it.
Prob just a rumor but it was mentioned to me that someone in the company was suggesting that the PF on rotation realized that the take-off climb altitude was set to 0, called for the PM to set it, the PM then (unknown reason) didn't set it and instead turned on the autopilot with it set to 0.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Service-x
Bring back raw data flying.
I never understood why it is not allowed to switch off the FD for the PF in companies like Ryanair or EK. Sometimes I hear the comment of the PM, follow the FD!!! And here lies the problem in my opinion. It’s a tool and if you don’t like it, put the pitch and thrust where you want it.
I never understood why it is not allowed to switch off the FD for the PF in companies like Ryanair or EK. Sometimes I hear the comment of the PM, follow the FD!!! And here lies the problem in my opinion. It’s a tool and if you don’t like it, put the pitch and thrust where you want it.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly this has nothing to do with raw data skills. It's a procedural lapse with four pilots in front under what circumstances not known yet. They could all be very proficient in raw data flying. It's happened once before in the air with four in front involved in non-professional chat, overspeed then with speed brakes underspeed, AP tripping and altitude excursion in RVSM airspace. Another example of more the merrier in front not being true.
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is absolutely gobsmacking.
Since when on any Boeing has rotation ever been commanded by the Flight Director?
Quite apart from the obvious breakdown of SOPs and CRM etc. at what stage does the Lizard brain kick in with the realisation that you are going to die ?
By the way setting 0 on the MCP altitude window is a very bad idea at any time and something I was warned against very early on flying Boeings.
Since when on any Boeing has rotation ever been commanded by the Flight Director?
Quite apart from the obvious breakdown of SOPs and CRM etc. at what stage does the Lizard brain kick in with the realisation that you are going to die ?
By the way setting 0 on the MCP altitude window is a very bad idea at any time and something I was warned against very early on flying Boeings.
