Possible overload?
 

This could be filed under speculation, but it happened to me years ago. Cargo was much heavier than what was shown on manifest and Aircraft (DC-10-30) was not performing to the book. Taking out the runway lights after long takeoff roll? Landing and using all the runway? Could it be someone was getting under table pay for loading cargo not on the manifest?

With 14 hours of fuel in the tanks, and bearing in mind that it is not unusual to be commencing rotation approaching the alternating red and whites at the far end of 16, I would very seriously doubt that an intersection take off was utilized

All will be revealed in due time

Dooner:ok:

If that happened to me, I would want to be on the first flight out of the country too.

Australia is going the way of Japan, Greece, New Zealand and Taiwan to name a few. All these countries arrest pilots that have had incidents. In New Zealand, they use FDR recordings in criminal proceedings. (Dash 8)

In Australia, we prosecute pilots based on confidential reports.:eek: (QF 737 in Launceston)

Good luck to the crew for getting out so quick. I would have too if I could. But I live here.:sad:

Take off weight would have been in the range 340 - 360 tonnes, probably landing DXB a few tonnes under max landing weight.

Emirates system of cross checking entered performance data versus loadsheet data should have picked up any data entry errors. (ie ZFW as TOW etc etc) I always had a mental gross error check in my own mind as well.

I can't believe they would have used anything but the full length and 5 knots of tailwind would not have been a problem. Temperature was no issue.

If the above are eliminated as causes, it leaves rotation technique and shifting cargo . I've never had shifting cargo on an A345.

I can't imagine how, but if there was some very odd situation that involved incorrect performance data actually getting past the cross check, and then being used as the reference data for the take off ( ie low Vspeeds, low FLEX etc) it would be very interesting to see how the cross check system failed.

Based on an example of SYD to the middle-east that we fly, 6650 nm, Melbourne to the middle-east is similar.

The flight time can be in excess of 14 hours: 30 minutes (136 tons departure fuel versus max fuel of 171 tons), this aircraft has in the region of almost 16 hours endurance with this fuel 136 tons, and average fuel flow of (plus minus) 8700kg per hour. Take-off weight for the A345 could be in the region of 358 tons, still under max TOW of around 368-372 tons.(depending whom the operator is).

Surely full length would be the only consideration!

Typical A345 speeds from the FOVE would be:

YMML RWY 34
Length 3657m
Elevation 330ft
15’c 1014 QNH
010/6 kts
358 tons

Optimum is Flap 3 from FOVE:

Flap 3 ,153 163 172 Flex 41 c of g AFT
Flap3 ,152 161 171 Flex 42 c of g FWD

Flap 2 ,152 165 175 Flex 38 c of g AFT
Flap 2 ,152 166 176 Flex 37 c of g FWD

Note: These speeds are just an example of the speeds calculated using Airbus Fove for a similar scenario and not the actual of the incident of the day

CONF iture;
Clearly.

My point was, in observing this over a 34+ year career, I saw amost no errors in the process. It is trivially obvious that any process is open to error but I suspect not, here.

Your estimate of 310k kgs seems reasonable for 10hrs - I see there are higher estimates - it'll come out soon enough. As I say, not likely near the MTOW, if the MTOW is like other - 500's, around 372k kgs. Reduced thrust would likely have been possible.

Emersome:
Yes, possible - seen it, and on a 340.

That said, unlike the A340-300 with hair-dryers for engines and, like the DC8-61, always made you wonder, the -500 is a very powerful aircraft and a) given that it is a serious error in calculations, would still hardly notice an extra 20k kgs and b) would not, even at all-up gross, take all of a 12,000ft runway. If the type is rotating in the reds, somethings's seriously wrong.

Can't happen.

The Loadsheet is done from weights off a Pallet Statement, ie every container is weighed.

Manifest is just a nice simple crosscheck for any SNAFUs, and will give you a net weight of freight, add the containers on and you should be very close to your total Pallet Statement weight.

As for shifting units, I cannot see it, having dealt with the loaders at MEL, they are professional and even an oversight such as leaving a pallet lock down wouldn't cause a weight shift enough to cause this. Worse case scenario would be a shift in an all but empty Cpt 3 and 4 all the way aft. Very unlikely.

A cargo shift would only explain the tailscrape, not the rotation in the weeds.
It sounds to me that it may be related to the Sing Air 747 incident in Auckland. Incorrectly entered V speeds and thrust.. too low for the weight which caused an early rotation and tailscrape.
Reports of three separate strikes on the runway would tend to confirm that.
Ironically one of the contributing factors in AKL was that the Captain had just converted from the Airbus, so the lower settings didn't set off any alarm bells.

woodja51

"EK' s 'find him and kill him approach' used to work at 33 SQN but not in the real world I suspect!"

OK, I'll bite! Please explain.

Gru

Captain Peacock,

Wrong, particularly in your reference to New Zealand. The NZ Police issued a warrant to search and obtain the CVR and FDR from TAIC after TAIC had completed its investigation in 1997. TAIC appealed, but lost, because even though New Zealand was a Contracting State to the Chicago Convention, it had not ratified the provisions of Annex 13 to protect the CVR and FDR into New Zealand law.

It was also discovered that there was no provision for the carriage of CVRs at that time of the Dash 8 accident. TAIC, NZ Department of Transport, and the NZ airline industry lobbied the government to change the law, and that was achieved in 1999.

New Zealand now has protection for CV and FD recordings and they can't be used in criminal investigations without aspects of public interest being considered.

Yes, and that seems reasonable, particularly if the matter involves 'the public interest and safety' (as was noted by the Tasmanian Supreme Court Judge when granting a permanent stay on the proceedings to which you are referring).

But the same Supreme Court Judge also noted that public interest and safety was not being served in the QF737 Launceston matter, because it involved a prosecution some six years after the event was alleged to have occurred.

le bus team down from le France to fix le plane...got towed to the hangar in the dead of night.....damage to rear pressure bulkhead:sad:

Capt Kremin;
Are three individual strikes confirmed or are we still seeing information come in? Were there any reports of "porpoising" of the aircraft at all? I ask for a specific reason related to my post on what the A340-500 FCOM has to say about rotation technique.

Route for this flight was to have been :
MEL-ADL-PHE-CMB-DXB with an estimated flight time of 13:36

7378FE

EK Snorkel;
We'll see if the data bears this out but I have no reason to doubt your info, thanks.

Having done these flights in the -500, you will know with greater certainty than I then, about on average, how much runway is used for such a takeoff, (are you into the reds and whites, generally?), whether intersection takeoffs are generally not done and whether there are any rotation issues for the 345 the technique for which, as you will know if you have also flown the 340-300, is slightly different. I ask in a collegial spirit and not in any accusatory or pointed way. I have flown the same types under the similar circumstances so am curious.

Obviously you are at the right spot to know about it, but still, it looks VERY heavy ... would you detail a bit your numbers ?

Just a PP so dont shoot me!
Is at all possible they had a problem with brakes not fully releasing?
Alloys dont normally emit too many sparks, but brakes certainly can.
Are there any brake temperature indicators on the flight deck?
My first thoughts were that it had to be weight related, but after many learned observations, perhaps not, although theft is of course an art form, and I am sure a determined team could find away around the checks and balances(no pun intended).

Find him and kill hm
 

Woodja51 Like grusome I too would be interested in some further detail.

"PJ2"

Not sure about other countries or foreign carriers operating in Aus etc (my experience doesn't stretch that far), but from the Australian documents:

"A pilot wishing to use less than the full length of the runway available should nominate the intention when requesting the taxi clearance" AIP ENR 1.1-4.3.11
"ATC may offer an intersection departure and will advise the remaining runway length of the runway if required" AIP ENR 1.1-4.3.12

And one must not forget
"The pilot in command must ensure that the runway is suitable for the operation. If not suitable for an operational reason, ATC must be advised before taxiing or when requesting an airways clearance by using the phrase: "REQUIRE RUNWAY (number)" ............. The decision to take off rests solely with the pilot in command" AIP ENR 1.1-4.6

With an air distance of 6500 nm, approx fuel burn is 114 tonnes and flight time around 13:55 at M 0.83.

Approx. numbers

ZFW 225.0
FOB 125.0
TOW 350.0
FBO 114.0
LDW 236.0

Smart move by Emirates but not a precedent. Personal knowledge of a heavy L1011 landing due to a microburst at Narita. Common practice in Japan to detain the operating crew for the duration of the official investigation which took about two years to complete preventing the captain of that flight to be rostered on any flights to Japan.