Heads roll at Emirates
 

Confirmation i'm afraid.Both pilots involved in the overrun incident at J'burg have been sacked. Training manager has stepped down and will resume duties as training Capt.( Boss's son in law i gather).Nice to know that the guys out there have the full support of their managers and the company doesn't believe in using scapegoats.I think i'll stick to my 40% tax or should i say41%( having BALPA)has never felt so good.Shame on you Emirates :(

Firing people who made a mistake is the best way of having more mistakes made by anihilating the trust and feedback systems.

With recent atrocities in Saudi in mind, perhaps it would be an idea to change the title of this thread.....

Changed, agree.... Squid

Thanks BEagle.......didn't give it a second thought i'm afraid.Apologies if anyone may have been offended.Sad world we live in when even a turn of phrase can take on a whole new meaning.I don't know what the level of trust was like between managers and pilots but i bet this sacking won't have helped.The Company is expanding so fast they are trying to run before they can walk and the top level managment must be putting huge pressure on training dept's and pilots to deliver.(hence a lot of
the trainers leaving which only compounds the problem!) People must be too afraid to say to the top guys....no,this isn't safe,let's slow down and get it right. Any guys out there who feel this may be the case or were the two pilots involved grossly negligent?

Why
 

Does anyone know what justification was used, from what I have read on this site it was a loadsheet error, by someone else? dispatcher? that the pilot's could not have known about. If this is the case the sack is a horrendous way of treating these people. Even if they were at fault, has there been a finding within the investigation that the pilots were wilfully negligent, or that there was a fundamental flaw with the way they operated. If not surely training not sacking is the answer.

View From The Ground.
I am sorry to say you have not read this post with all its pages very well. The one thing that can be said with certainty, is that it was not a load sheet or trim error.
I am sorry to point out to you, it is 99% certain that it was Pilot error. Whether it was due to training or not we will have to wait and see.

OK
 

Apologies I was basing my posting on the early pages of that thread, and I had not read it all in detail. If it is proved to be pilot error then depending on the nature of the error training may be more appropriate than sacking, for all kinds of reasons, including maintaining an open reporting culture.

If this was the one where pitch angle was set by using the sidestick position indication as a target then I feel the blame has come to rest squarely where it ought to have. Forget the Masonic wails and stop denegrating "professional" by accepting consequence for action.

According to the article in flight, the investigation found that the crew had used non-standard handling techniques which lead to under-rotation.

They made a mistake but maybe a period of retraining (for the whole fleet), emphasising correct techniques, would have been more appropriate.

I agree that if the guys had made intentional violation of sop's then they must face the consequence,however,no guy is going to intentionally take out 150m of overrun and lighting for fun!I gather that it was the skippers first flight on the A340-300,which is a completely diff. beast to the-500 series.Was all this pointed out during his training and further more,why have both guys been sacked?

Ally Minium

But what a mistake to make

If deviation from SOP's ends up with an unforeseen problem due to an error of judgement. The consequences of that action should be accepted.

The problem with EK is that those pilots that see the problems are AFRAID to speak up and those that do speak up get SACKED or ABUSED in any way possible.

Finally the box of pandora will be opened!

Yes, well, when very senior training Capt's train the guys to "set the stick indication on 9 degrees" have those people also lost their jobs. "Well the FCOM s state 11 deg PITCH they say in response". "Oh no capt, the "preferred method" is ???????"

What a bloody disgrace. To the two brothers involved, the majority of us feel ashamed at your treatment and only hope that a visit to the international courts and worldwide publicity will expose that airline for what it is.

BYMONEK ...... truer words have never been said.

If there is a problem at EK then it can not be that serious or peoples feet would be be doing the talking.

Or is the allure of the big bucks and the life style sufficient to endure what is supposedly dished out.

So, for those which contributed to over 20+ pages of b~~~**** concerned with load sheets and trim hypothosis...have a deep thought before resuming your pious BS as fact.

Wrong rotation technique proliferated by the EK training department on one variant too many almost cost the lives of over 300 people.

F/O I believe considered resignation before being fired and now has excellent grounds for unfair dismissal... Cpt not sure but is pursuing similar legal action... all will probably be settled out of court to prevent public emabarrasment to 'award winning' EK management.

FA back up from an impotent trg regime content with climbing the tree vacated by far more qualified personnel than they could ever hope to be...

Anyone remember human factors before it was hijacked by CRM sound bites?

Oh, and sad Engineer... $ ?...FO!

Loungelizard

I seem to be quoting it a lot at the moment but the recommendation you describe is not an Emirates recommendation but one published in the Airbus Instructor Support Manual!

Mine is for the A330 and A320 so the figures will vary no doubt for the A340.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Perform a prompt input on the side stick at VR. Typically put the stick cross symbol on the PFD initially to around 7.5 to 10 degrees. This is NOT a parameter to monitor as such, but merely an indication of the amount of stick input required.

The purpose of the prompt input is to overcome the large inertia of the aircraft and initiate an adequate and continuous rotation.

Avoid being aggressive on the stick, and once rotation rate is established, avoid further aft stick inputs, especially when pitch attitude has increased, so as to avoid tail strikes.

Rotate initially to target pitch of 12.5 degrees; once airborne, adjust the pitch to follow the FD pitch bar orders (SRS mode)."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I respectfully suggest before you make such broad statements about the Emirates training department you first address your comments to the Airbus flight test and training departments who have made these recommendations, I am sure they will be interested in your views

And no I do not work for Emirates. I have no idea why this incident happened except clearly the aircraft did not get airborne before the end of the runway. Are there any official reports about yet?

Spy

I don't intend to trawl through the umpteen pages here on PPRuNE, but I do recall figures of 9 degrees being quoted by some here as the initial target pitch attitude....9 degrees is way off 12.5 degrees and will invariably result in a significantly different profile and performance. At the time, I thought 9 degrees was a very shallow pitch attitude for any jet, regardless of weight, but didn't respond because I am not familiar with that specific series of Airbus.

Way back, we were always taught to go for a target pitch attitude, depending on weight and then adjust as necessary once airborne (airborne as opposed to rotation). Even on a mini jet like a B737 the pitch can vary between 12 degrees and 17.5 degrees, depending on weight, but the technique was always the same, target 15 degrees and then adjust; select the pitch and let the flight director settle down, then follow its direction. Everyone knows on the airbus that the cross represents something different on the ground; The cross is there to check you have full deflection of your flight control surfaces on the ground.

Notwithstanding the above, technique is vitally important. Pilots can only follow what they have been taught and maybe there is something lacking in either the manufacturer's published technique or that of the airline's training techniques. Remember back to the early incidents on the Airbus (A320) which were caused by ignorance of the flight crew of the various modes of flight (India)? After that, pilots were alerted to the 'big No NO's, such as the NFP turning his F/D off and the PF following orders on his! Lots of pilots learned by the misfortune of those that didn't have the benefit of that forewarning. The engineers who designed the systems could not understand why the pilots didn't appreciate these things!

Airbus technology is brilliant, but it can and will bite you in the ass, unless you are very lucky or very conversant with the technology. It's a big learning curve.

Sad to hear the crew lost their jobs. It would have been more appropriate to suspend them pending the results of the official investigation into the circumstances and the airline's training department's taught techniques.

EK used to be one of my heros, but I'm dissapointed by it's 'knee jerk' reaction to this incident. Maybe they thought this would 'gloss over' any perceived doubt of their safety by the travelling public. Sadly, they are mistaken in that regard, because a 'whitewash' is just that...a whitewash. Sacking the crew on the day, does not necessarily solve a more deep seated problem!

Spy

Your post is lucid and has some value, if this so called “slip” by the EK training department is indeed based on an Airbus memo and would be an isolated one.

That is unfortunately not the case, as any investigation that digs a bit deeper would/have most certainly find out.

The key issue is that EK is loaded with money and exploded since 1991.

The Arabs looked for some OPS managers and have hired the worst they could find. The only excuse they possibly have is that their hands were tight on their back.

To a certain extend it's their (the arabs) own fault, since they do not accept any critism and are vulnerable to sweettalking.


Maybe you forget the incident about one year ago (also widely discussed on PPrune) that led to a dramatic change in the recruitment policy; a change initiated by no one else that HH himself.

The worst thing one can do, is to put a lot of money in incompetence as that’s about the same as pouring fuel into a fire.

Jack the Lad - I think you're missing the crucial issue - the wording states that the cross-hairs should be placed on 7.5 to 10 degrees. It's not the cross-hairs that should be used, it's the aircraft symbol; the pipper. Using the cross-hairs is crazy and bad technique to boot. That, IMHO, is what is vital here - Airbus has it in their literature, as posted by Spy & there is an indication that some trainers/ institutions are suggesting that the cross-hairs should be used. Try it next time in the sim - put the cross hairs on 8 to ten degrees. At sea level you might get some reaction ( certainly not 3 degrees per second) but at 5500 AMSL very little is going to happen.

4HP

4HP

Not mising your crucial issue at all....go reread what I said.

Attitude is attitude and the airplane will respond to whatever attitude you set it. Whether you use 'pippers' 'hairs' or whatever, to achieve that attitude doesn't really matter; the moral of the story is don't confuse the reference point!

Jack the Lad
Very much agree with your last paragraph.Twas a kneejerk reaction if ever i saw one.Ironically,the findings are out but seem to have been 'mislaid'.HH,however,has been handing out safety awards and congratulations all round to GCAA and various other relatives for some safety awarness program that's been running in UAE.Plenty of sand in Dubai to bury those heads in.Can't lose face if you can't see it eh?:suspect:

Shake....CRM.....IS....Human Factors.Your point there being what exactly?

4HP makes a very VERY valid point.

The "Maltese Cross" has nothing to do with attitude, just where the flight controls are!

This is ,i gather,what he may have used.As the A/C rotated,Pitch indications would have increased ( DYNAMIC CHANGE) so to compensate for the apparent over rotation, actual pitch was decreased,to around 4 degrees,give or take.17sec in total from 1st stick movement to fully airborne.Yes,that's one hell of a long time and why wasn't he..sorry..THEY,looking out of the window.But.my whole point about this sorry incident is the poss lack of training they received.I don't fly Airbus but would it be an easy mistake to make,confusing the 'maltese cross' with the actual F/D and is there a big diff between pitch targets on A340-300/500.i'd imagine so and this may well have been in the back of his mind to avoid over rotating.Remember,this WAS his first flight on the -300 series AND out of J'burg as well! Swiss cheese model....need i say more?

Guys my earlier post was in response to a claim that initially selecting 9 degrees on the Maltese cross was an Emirates training department teaching and that it was wrong. This is not true! Read my earlier post again, it is an extract from the Airbus training manual not a one off memo and it is also what I was taught by Airbus.

They do not suggest that this is a pitch target or indeed a parameter you need to monitor just a good place to start from to get the rotation going. Out of interest I have tried this in the sim on a hot day at max take-off weight at the airfield in question and it works! The target attitude is 12.5 degrees and then follow the SRS for an A330. This may be a little different for an A340 I don't know as I have no experience of the 340. Also the Maltese cross disappears once the weight is off the wheels so continuing to use the cross and getting it confused with pitch attitude is not going to happen.

I know nothing of Emirates internal politics and will be very interested in the results of the enquiry.:ok:

For those who want to know...

The training recieved by those of us at EK, we had 2 days groundschool, almost exclusively computer based training, followed by 2 sim sessions. The A340-300 manuals we had were handed back in after the grounschool was completed as there were not sufficient for us to keep them.

The sim sessions were flown on the A340-300 but the emphasis for techniques was for the A340-500. So we were taught the 1/2 sidestick input (as opposed to 2/3 for the -300) and to quick check the maltese cross was at 9 degrees pitch up (purely used as a cross check).

On the night of the incident, it was the first operating flight for BOTH the crew on the A340 (of either series) at an airfield which has its inherent problems associated with an elevation of 5500 feet.

It is rumoured that there were no FCOMs on board and that there was no laptop for use as a reference to the documents either.

The tech log had notification of the captains sidestick having approximately 1.5 cm of slack before any control surface reaction was noticed.

Somebody mentioned the Swiss Cheese model....here the holes lined up perfectly and the result is now history.

What happens next is up to the operating crew to decide, but I wish them luck and one has to now think of the future of the 'Award Buying Airline'.

4HolerPoler

I see that you are starting to realise that flying in thin air is not that easy after all.

Once more it's not 5556ft but around 8000 ft, pilots that forget that thing caled air wil have problems geting in the air.

J'Burg is aspecial place that in my opinion needs a sim ride before being dispatched as a crew.

As far as instructors are concerned, it is the UAE CA that endorses the qualification and not EK.

Cap56, I presume you are referring to airfield elevation at FAJS? According to my Jeppesen it is 5552ft or 1694meters AMSL:confused:

Must be the same on landing.

HotDog

I have explained this before,it\'s density altitude that counts.

Basic PPL stuff.

To the two guys sacked:

I can only offer my regret that you were sacked and am utterly dismayed at the Companies reaction.

Fear & mistrust will continue to be the underlying ethos of how pilots interact with a management that cares little for it's staff. A sad day indeed.....

Spy,

Well if you dont work for EK, then you dont know what was hammered into them verbally during their pathetic minimal training. !~!!!

FMGC

Not to be a nitpicker, but you just posted a dangerous misconception. The MALTESE CROSS DOES NOT TELL YOU WHERE THE FLIGHT CONTROLS ARE. It tells you what the sidestick is asking for. To see where the flight controlls are you would have to look at the flight controlls page.

Airbus has a long history of innaccurate operating/training manuals on their aircraft. They like to hide behind "translation" problems. However the language of aviation is ENGLISH, and untill Airbus can print an accurate operating manual in English they should be suspended from building aircraft (in otherwords get a better techinical writing or translation team). That would get them off their asses in a hurry.

Even mature aircraft turn out to having glaring errors in the English versions of their FCOMS (like the American Airlines A300 for example)

Cheers
Wino

Wino,

You are correct.

Following are two excerpt from the Airbus manuals. First id from Supplementary Techniques second is from Take-off SOP. These are for Single Aisle Family.

Perfectly clear and unambigous to me...




Quote

The PFD includes a symbol (1) that is the sum of sidestick positions given to the computers. It permits the PNF to check that the PF is making an appropriate control input during takeoff roll.

Small limit marks (2) indicate the limits of stick travel (± 16° in pitch, ± 20° in roll).

They are only displayed with the aircraft on ground. The flight crew must not use this display for control checks, because it does not necessarily indicate the control position in failure cases. The flight crew must use the ECAM flight controls page for making that check.

Unquote


Quote

-ANNOUNCE « ROTATE »


-ROTATION PERFORM


At VR, initiate the rotation to achieve a continuous rotation with a rate of about 3°/sec, towards a pitch attitude of 15° (12.5° if one engine is failed).


Minimize lateral inputs on ground and during the rotation, to avoid spoiler extension.


After lift-off, follow the SRS pitch command bar.


Unquote

Wino, spot on :ok:

With the plane still on the ground the "Maltese cross" at ~ 9 degrees would mean: "I want ~ 9 degrees of pitch."

During rotation, no change of input on the sidestick will mean: "I want more than 9 degrees" and therefore the Maltese cross will move to higher angles.
At this point, if you wanted to keep the cross at 9 degrees you'd have to reduce the pitch!

No big deal if it was a video-game :ugh:

Mad

Ah, at last someone has worked out what the Airbus engineers used as a yard-stick for their aircraft!:rolleyes:

Loungelizard

Perhaps you could enlighten us?

I would be very interested in what they have been teaching in all seriousness.

However, you did not expand on your earlier post and your statement merely mentioned selecting 9 degrees on the PFD Maltese cross. There is nothing wrong with teaching that as long as it is in the context of my earlier post. Minimal training is not restricted to Emirates, many airlines these days could be accused of cutting corners on training and my sympathy is with the crews if this is another example.

Yes the Maltese cross is an indication of side stick deflection!

The recommendation in the Supplemental Techniques also suggests the use of two thirds aft side stick deflection which appears as around 7.5 to 10 degrees on the Maltese cross!! As I said before the technique is described in the instructors guide to aid instructors in teaching students how to set up the correct rotation rate!

Maddog62

Selecting 9 degrees on the Maltese cross does not mean I want 9 degrees of pitch it is simply an indication of single or combined side stick deflection. It has no relevance the required pitch attitude.

It is all too easy to point the finger following events like these. The reasons are rarely as simple as they first appear.
:ok:

How many times have I seen during the revisions of manuals “rewritten for clarity”, it is an ongoing process.

But who initiates that process?

The Airlines of course by asking questions, technical meetings etc…

The position of the technical pilot is crucial in this process.
JAR OPS provided this possibility for good reasons.

Boeing or Airbus, it does not make a difference its a question of proper communication and transparency in both directions.

But someone has to identifythe problem first and that\'s the frontline instructors.

CAP 56
Well done! Forgive me for appearing facetious but for once i actually agree with you! unlike in the J'burg overrun forum!
The only problem in this case,however,is whether Emirates Culture fosters an open feedback/reporting of problems amongst it's instructors.If it doesn't,then they might as well be pi**ing into wind!

Do not worry, PPRuNe has it’s limitations…..semantics, connotation etc…it’s not always easy to get a point across.

Definitely not in a highly sensitive context. I se this one rather clearly because I lived trough it myself that's all.

One of the biggest challenges of the human being is to see the pitfalls in human communication.

Spy,

Yes, you are correct in all you say. The problem here is the teaching of setting 9 deg with the Maltese and holding until "she bites the air". This equates to only a 4.5 to 5 deg pitch. At a DENSITY ALTITUDE at prob close to 7500 ft on the day, "she" aint gonna go anywhere near "biting".

I am not jumping to judgement here whatsoever, nor should any of us because we were not the poor bas#ards there on the day. However, as the snout is taken further up in attitude, obviously to the lads by now that it aint quite working "THE WAY THEY WERE BLOODY WELL TRAINED", the RWY disappears under the nose and how much RWY is left nobody knows. I would be surprised if these guys were able to see the threshold come and go due to the pitch attitude they now had to input and their normal eye level. TOGA was now applied and the rest is history.

EK management should be dropping to their pathetic knees in the fact that they had this particular driver at the helm and not some, well errr, ahhh, I dont think you should go there Lizard. !!!!