Emirates 777 - Auckland
 

Lucky it wasn't a long haul flight.....around three hours to any of the cities listed in the article.....



Emirates 777 takeoff incident under investigation in New Zealand
By Leithen Francis
An Emirates Boeing 777 nearly collided with a truck and other equipment at the end of Auckland International Airport’s main runway on takeoff last month because the pilots were unaware that a section of the runway was being repaired.

New Zealand’s Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) says it is investigating the incident, which occurred at around 16:15 on 22 March at Auckland airport.

“The 777… was taking off from the main runway, which had been shortened due to repair works underway at one end… The crew were not aware of the shortened runway,” it says.

This meant they “had to increase to maximum thrust during the takeoff when they noticed machinery working at the end of the runway ahead”.

It adds, “The aircraft cleared the work area by the permitted margin [and] nobody was injured.”
Equipment in the work area included a truck and a car, TAIC air accident investigator Peter Williams says in an emailed response to a query from ATI.

He says the “normal full-length operations on the runway in use, 05R, [in terms of] the declared accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA) is 3,623m (11,900ft)”.

But “the effective ASDA from taxiway A10 at the time of the incident was 2,170m.”
He says the runway work was scheduled between 19 March and 8 April and information about this was included in the Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS), the notice to airmen and the operator’s briefing package”.

Emirates operates daily between Auckland and Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.

There have been instances in the past where passenger aircraft have hit large equipment while trying to take off. In October 2000, for example, a Singapore Airlines Boeing 747-400 hit construction equipment on takeoff from a closed runway in Taipei resulting in 83 deaths.

Related articles: Holiday flight nearly collided with vehicles on Manchester runway after pilots ignored controller advice on shortened runway, report finds

Maximum thrust? What does that mean? I always assumed that aircraft would use 100% thrust at almost all times. Can anyone explain under what conditions would an aircraft not use maximum thrust during take off?

Ta muchly!

Choice of thrust level depends on a number of factors, including runway state.

With very high-powered engines, eg the GE90s for example on the 777s, there is enough room to use a lower setting in some situations, though for a while there was a DA against this due to the software problems.

Check the Tech forums - I'm sure the subjects been done in detail there. ;)

This is getting a bigger run on this thread.

Mods - care to merge the two threads?

As a B777 operator, approximately 90% of takeoffs use REDUCED takeoff thrust either with a fixed derate of 10% or the assumed temperature method (up to a 25% thrust reduction). Combining these methods you end up using approximately 65% of the available takeoff thrust.

The question that should be raised here, "what happened to the NOTAMS".


Mutt

Dr Kev - jet aircraft takeoff with flexed (or de-rated) thrust on almost all occassions, so as not to inflict excessive wear and tear on the engine that could otherwise damage it, if used at maximum thrust all the time. Taking into account the weight of the aircraft, temperature and runway length, thrust is calculated as what is safely required to get airborne.

Also known as de-rating, the manufacturer will separately de-rate an engine to a lower published thrust, or rather the computers regulating the engine will do so, so that a similar engine is used across a range of types, with a maximum thrust of x available for a particular variant of the same type.

The GE90's on a B777 rated at 115,000lb thrust/side can be de-rated by as much as 40% I believe...when the emergency AD came out that required only rated thrust takeoffs for a while they were quite a handful on short (light TOW) sectors....

Mis-use of De-reated Thrust
 

The worst case of too low a de-rated thrust being used being the MK 747 at Halifax. Glad this one was quickly resolved.

For those not familiar with it's use, suggest that reading the report into the MK tragedy which will provide a full insight. There is a link to it on the MK 747 thread which can be readily searched.

DGG

On the Classic 747 we were not permitted to use graduated (reduced) power in certain circumstances such as when there was a contaminated runway. A full power take off with a very light aircraft on a short sector, e.g. Boston to Philadelphia, could be exhilarating to say the least.

Stoic

DrKev, another simple analogy for the use of reduced thrust would be, do you put your foot to the floor every time you drive off in your car? Of course you probably don't, but you could!

On a jet aircraft, unless it is absolutely necessary, we use a derated take-off thrust. Just as in your car, if you were to drive off with maximum throttle, you would wear out the engine (and other associated bits and pieces) much quicker than if you use only the power that is needed rather than is available.

I thought as well that reduced thrust would be used in most cases in all aircraft types. However, I was flying with a friend of mine in a Cessna 172, taking off from a 6900 foot runway and he used maximum power - we were in the air after rolling roughly 500 feet. I asked him about this, and he said that's what he has been taught to do, that it is safer to use maximum power and be in the air ASAP. Is this because it is a single-engine aircraft?

Please refer such questions to the 'Questions Forum'. There is too much thread diversion and this reduced thrust issue is related to turbine jet engines.

For those that have not been to Auckland lately - the runway is being repaired while a/c are using it. This means that different approaches e.g with or without ILS etc are in force, according to very confusing Notams. Blue, yellow and white pages in the JEPP according to NOTAMS in force.

While using the airport, no mention is made of the fact that work has commenced. ceased etc. Would it not be nice if ATC could inform pilots either via ATIS or voice, of timings for the work. Confusing NOTAMS, total silence from ATC - recipe for disaster:ugh:

Sandman I haven't found them too hard to figure out. When in doubt you can always ask ATC and they will let you know.

Surely, a simple ATIS message would just highlight the WIP. Lets face it, It's all our responsibility.Lets not finger point.....CRM !!!!!;)

I've been planning flights out of AKL for more than 25 years (which is about as long as they have been digging the place up) and whilst their NOTAMs are VERY detailed and require a lot of reading in conjunction with the airport chart (or at least a briefing by a very well informed dispatacher) they DO contain ALL you need to know about their thousand year MOWP. It is all there and always has been. One thing that AKL do not normally do is publish a notam when the works are suspended however when this happens they normally publish the fact on the ATIS.
I suspect there was just too much information in the WIP NOTAMS for for anybody to fully get the picture in their head. For the last major WIP I was involved in Air Services NZ sent us a powerpoint presentation spelling the whole thing out in small words of few syllables and very well done it was too.
So glad nobody got hurt.
H

The WIP was NOTAMed - and the crew were asked on ground freq as to whether they required full length which they declined - I suspect the NOTAMS were not read........?

The Nitty Gritty
 

So finally after sidetracks about RTT we get to the point - why were the crew "Unaware" of the WIP?

A BA ran into soft tar in the Carribean a while back - also unaware.

The whole NOTAM system is quite lousy, with additions and modifications and hidden goodies and does lead to people skimping their study of them. How about a plan to get the main points in as plain English headlines - details lower down?

RW25 reduced TORA/TODA ---- m due to WIP. LDG Dist Avbl ---- m.
Times... for instance.

By the way, the contractors are pretty trusting in calculated stop distances to be working on the end of a live runway. One day there will be an RTO and the graphs will be put to the test...

Good airfields with ATIS, put performance related NOTAM information on every ATIS broadcast that any NOTAM maybe valid for.
The system in Auckland is very complex and bureaucratic. however there is a lot of different colour Jepp plates, that should give you a heads up that this place is somewhat different.
The fact that the WIP started between landing and take off didn't help with the BIG picture.
To the self righteous amongst you, are you so perfect ?? :mad: :mad:

EGGW

Read the Notams!
 

You are absolutely right - there but for the grace of God go I....

But...I was once upon a time responsible for Cat 3 ILSs at a major UK airport. Everytime that we worked on the equipment (you will be glad to know!) we followed a strict protocol so that we never left the electronic equivalent of a 'spanner in the works' and the next fully laden 747 could use the equipment to descend to minimums in the fog without a shadow of a doubt as to the integrity of the ILS system. We were disciplined engineers...

After we have all learnt the nitty gritty of manhandling aeroplanes around the sky, it all becomes relatively hum drum and we can be lulled into thinking that every day is routine and we can skip the notam reading and weather info.... we've all done it.. I know I have..

Whether the crew in this instance did or did not read the notams or take them into account, we should, as disciplined professional pilots, make a mental note to ensure that we do tighten up our discipline in this area.

That, after all, is the reason for the sharing of this sort of information.:ok: