FYI, in over two decades operating from MIA, I've never seen anyone use the T1 intersection departing runway 09 (09R). Never.

Absolutely right, I had it bass ackwards with my lysdexia. :ugh:

It was 9R where my small motor '72's were clawing for altitude as well.

I'll try to edit my post with the correction.

It may have been weak in the climb with those motors, but once airborne, it flew far better than anything built after it except maybe the 747 and Concorde.








757/767/777, close but no cigar. The 737? A grocery shopping cart with one wiggling wheel. Airbus? I doubt it. ;)

Are QR required to check the TOD in the EFB for the selected runway/intersection against the TOD on the chart? That would have flagged up the 1300m difference.

OPT check
 

SOP procedures are to make precalculation of take off performance during preflight with estimated gross weight etc.

Good practice is to set the estimated V2 on MCP.

Also a good practice is to read an other page on OPT called "take off details" with associated runway distances such as engine inop go distance, accelerate stop distance and all engine go distance. That's helps for situation awareness.



http://nsa38.casimages.com/img/2015/...5447224693.jpg

whatsa:

727? We had both -100 and -200s with the 14,500 thrust engine. Lousy airplane, both models.

727-200 taking off on Runway 8 at ABQ was an "E Ticket" ride. The wallowing at altitude in the -100 was a delight...not.

Same thing happened to Pan Am in San Fransisco years ago:
The 747 crew screwed up their performance numbers and hit the approach lights on take off. The light structure ripped open 2 hydraulic systems (or was it 3?)
The return and landing was filmed. Hard landing on partial main gear.
Probably on You Tube somewhere now.

Never seen anybody doing intersection take offs on RWY 09 in MIA.
With 31 degrees and light winds it is hard enough to get airborne using full length :sad:

A couple of thoughts ...

1. The A/C knows from which point the EFB has calculated the T.O. performance, and it also knows via GPS where it is when it lines up on the runway ... it would not be too technically difficult to follow the Boeing concept of " not being in the demanded position" ( switch or geographical) and make a light/warning ???

2. I find it disgraceful that there is such obvious and legitimate confusion over the nomenclature used to describe 2 different geographical positions .. a complete bypass of imagination. This despite the facility in the Boeing OPT to check the TODA/TORA used for the calculation and therefore the option to check against NOTAMs and Runway charts ..

3. I feel tremendous sympathy for the pilots in this unfortunate situation .. we have no idea what other operational circumstances added to the confusion. Like for example 10 pages of poorly written NOTAMS which have the tendency to hide important information and highlight trivia .. I wish there was a concerted effort to by ALL agencies to help the flight deck have easy access to vital information and not overload them with poorly documented non vital info i.e. to prioritise before presentation. I am not for a second inferring there is any conspiracy to make our complex pre flight preparation more difficult, more a little understanding of what we are trying to digest.
There are many things ( weather, ETOPS/MNPS, NOTAMs, Performance,Technical, Plotting, operational and Commercial issues, fuel etc) that have to be scrutinised before any ULR flight, and due to FTL's not an excess of time to complete this important task .. We are all on the same side in the constant pursuit of Flight Safety so let us hope that the information that is presented to crews in the briefing room is as free from confusions and "gotcha's" as possible. I cannot imagine how the 4 crew felt when the engineer after his post flight inspection said .. " what happened on the T/O guys ??"

4. It is quite conceivable that the crew were unaware of any impact until they arrived in Qatar .. I would imagine though that their "fundamental orifices" were doing the "half a crown/sixpence" in the first 2 segments of the climb ..

5. I am heartened to see most people empathetic and I hope we can all learn some valuable lessons in whatever role we have to play in the safe dispatch of a commercial flight ...

I.Duke

" I am heartened to see most people empathetic and I hope we can all learn some valuable lessons in whatever role we have to play in the safe dispatch of a commercial flight ..."


Me too,I've read the whole thread and it's quite heartening to find no slagging off or blame apportioned.This is what I want to discuss in human factors training,not what so and so said to cabin crew member to offend them.

"When they press the tab RUNWAY for the calculation from the EFB they show this " 09#T1 ". They deemed that was the performance from the intersection T1. This symbol " #T1 " means temporary runway. It is just a NOTAM for the runway 09."

Not familiar with the Boeing onboard EFB. Is there a regular Runway 09 data selection and a RW09#T1 selection choice? With a RW09#T1 selection choice, would be the intention of that choice be to use temporary runway data to correct the standard data for takeoff computation due to Notams uploaded into the EFB?


Thx

No there is no regular Rwy09 only Rwy09#T1. However there is also no option for Intersection takeoff T1. I calculated with a manual shortening for Rwy09 with T1 and the max TOW would be around 315000kg with Flaps 15.
The all engine Run from full length with Rwy09#T1 (full lenght) would be around 3000m with Flaps 5. It looks like they must have rotated before Vr in order not to end up in the grass:ooh:

It is indeed on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/tl_wXfSwRzM

More here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_845

The runway change scenario continues to be a high threat situation in my view. New speeds, new numbers, change it in the box, reselect a departure, reset the heading bugs, recheck the NOTAMS, update the ACARS etc. all while either taxiing or sitting still with an impatient controller and ten planes behind you if you've already left the ramp.

Multiple opportunities to make the chief pilot's hotline. :eek:

Qatar parks on the North side of the terminal in MIA. Most departures from there will use runway 8R which is 10506 feet or 3202 m long.
Only if too heavy for 8R will a crew spend the extra 15 minutes it takes to taxi to rwy 9 which is 13016 feet, 3967 m long.
It would not make sense to me to spend the extra time and fuel taxiing to the longer runway and then use an intersection that gives you less distance than would be available on the closest runway 8R.

IMHO this is a real human factor issue rather than a technical one. As has been suggested, with GPS, there could be a technical safety net with a warning when lined up. That should get the juices of the IT & lab boys running. In the meantime the sharp end jockeys need to be sharper. It has been discussed that more technical safety nets leads to possible complacency and lack of gross error checks.
It really is a difficult dilemma to solve.

Guys,
To someone such as myself looking in from outside your world it appears that not going to the end of the runway in this circumstance is a data entry mistake compounded by the unyealding desire to save time and money oberpowering common sense and caution gained through experience.

"Guys,
To someone such as myself looking in from outside your world it appears that not going to the end of the runway in this circumstance is a data entry mistake compounded by the unyealding desire to save time and money oberpowering common sense and caution gained through experience. "

Thanks for your input, but respectfully, like all accident/incident threads on PPrune, it would help actual aircrews/engineers/ops personnel/airport personnel and aircraft manufacturer personnel if the enthusiasts would remain in their forum during discussions. Most endless threads become useless for aircrews attempting to learn from others worldwide about events.


So far there is a good discussion here.

Thank you.

Back in the day, computer memory was expensive and CPU speeds slow, which led to all sorts of abbreviations being used to save bytes and CPU cycles. The practice continues, even though memory is now inexpensive and CPU speeds are so high that any amount of interface processing is instantaneous from a user standpoint.

So, maybe one solution is to quit using abbreviations? Just spell out what's meant and avoid a source of confusion.

"No there is no regular Rwy09 only Rwy09#T1. However there is also no option for Intersection takeoff T1."


If I understand correctly, every runway displayed has the "RwyXXX#T1" displayed similar to the above?


Thanks

No only if there is a NOTAM there is a temporary appendix #T1, #T2 etc. In MIA there is one for Rwy 09 unfortunately called T1. I suspect the crew made a wrong assumption that this means a takeoff from T1.

Rat 5-

Right on. Sad fact is that 4 guys on the flt deck failed to spot the anomaly. QR are/were pretty hot on requiring everybody cross check every minute detail (to the extent of obsession, as B (augmenting) crew would sometimes get very involved, much to the annoyance of A crew trying to get on with the pre-flight job with minimal interference/distraction), so very surprising this one was missed.

However, as we have all seen in our CRM "exercises", all it takes is one strong individual to impose his views, and the rest of the group follows blindly against better judgement. "He knows what he's doing/saying". Human Factors indeed.

"No only if there is a NOTAM there is a temporary appendix #T1, #T2 etc. In MIA there is one for Rwy 09 unfortunately called T1. I suspect the crew made a wrong assumption that this means a takeoff from T1."

Thanks again Croc. I couldn't find a runway/departure NOTAM for Runway 09 at MIA.


The "#T1" designation would seem to be a very poor wording choice for the EFB performance selection, shades of AA into Cali with two close fixes named "Rozo" in fix choices.


I can see the cheese holes lining up. Not sure when looking right while taking the active didn't ring a bell with a view of the unused runway runway back to the start point, but understand there are plenty of factors to look at. Sometimes the elephant is right in front of us staring and nobody sees it for whatever reason.


It was a close one, glad everyone is safe.

AirBubba.

Very true. Some airports in the Far East (BKK, PEK, et al) used to be notorious for runway change after pushback; it was my habit to do performance calcs etc and brief for both runways in the pre flight.

Some of our US friends had the same inclination. But with multiple unfamiliar runways/taxi patterns (to we the infrequent visitors) at some of these places, it could be quite a challenge after pushback. I had no hesitation in setting park brake while we did EFB performance, reprogrammed FMC, reset MCP etc etc and rebriefed taxi routes. Not too popular sometimes with ATC, but better safe than sorry.

I will admit though that things had improved worldwide quite a lot recently before I hung up the old headset.

!mia 08/311 (kmia a2795/15) mia rwy 9/27 cl markings obsc 1508271543-1509252000

Yep, that is the only NOTAM that I could find, has nothing to do with performance. There is a NOTAM about obstacles on Rwy27. Wondered too why there is no information about the #T1 on the Opt or the NOTAMs, not even in the FAA FDC NOTAMs? :ooh:

I am not and have never been tower rated, haven't done tower stuff since my initial training years ago, however if you get a spanner like this thrown into your works, advise the controller that you need time to run the numbers, and advise how long that will take to comfortably and thoroughly do.

If you say it's going to take you a couple of minutes to work out your numbers and you need to be fully stopped to do it, depending on airfield layout the controller might take you onto an adjacent taxiway and leave you alone or decide it's not worth the delay and leave you on the original departure.

The vast majority of us don't know company specific procedures (unless told when we get to meet you, which is very, very helpful), just like most of you do not and cannot be expected to know the various nuances of every airspace you fly through. At the end of the day you were promised X and now ATC are asking you for Y at the last minute. A last minute runway change is ATC discomoding you, it's your privilege to refuse. In almost all cases we are just trying to get you on your way faster, so normally it's worth looking at, for anything bar heavies near MTOW at least!

Per the question about taking off from an intersection:

Sometimes, the intersection takeoff is all that is available, due to various circumstances.

Sometimes ATC assigns an intersection takeoff, due to various circumstances.

When I look at our box that shows runways available for takeoff, it has shown 3 or ever 4 options for the same runway...one will be the full runway length, and the others are all intersection takeoffs with varying length remaining.

I am with Phantom. If the performance figures change, park the aircraft and get everyone on the flight deck involved. Changing the plan involves examining the consequences to ensure that there are no safety issues, sometimes hard to do when one's head has been focused on a different plan of action.

Qatar Airways now uses a checklist when any performance or runway items change after the initial planning. Good move on their part. Concerning this accident, thinking the #T1 issue is going to have a bearing though can't get my head around taking off with 2600 TORA off a wet runway for an 11:30 flight.

No triple 7 pilot in their right mind would have used T1 intx at the gross weight required to fly MIA-DOH!!

That the other three pilots agreed to it is incomprehensible.

Why are we even assuming that there was a runway change?
And even if there WAS a runway change, QR uses a very comprehensive checklist for a runway change/intersection departure.
It involves stopping the aircraft (if moving), changing all relevant parameters, and it requires both pilots to recalculate and revise all performance figures. I doubt anyone could mess up any figures with this new procedure and checklist in place.

What begs an answer however is WHY was the crew trying to take off from intersection T1 when this is almost never done. I seriously doubt it was thru simple choice or simple 'go gitis'.
Get that answer and the rest falls in place. #T1 selected incorrectly simply lined up the holes.

The XAA's need to assess what has changed in the last decade and re evaluate the training required and also the time required. As an example, I get on average four emails a day from my company, normally three of them are propaganda that I can safely delete, but one of them requires me to think about how I operate. I get the emails at all times of the day including public holidays and days off yet I get zero time allocated to read and assess the information. Most of the time I manage to allocate personal time to do this but every now and then when home life requires my full attention I arrive at work with a less than ideal understanding of changes that have taken place. The XAA's need to say to the Airlines " We know it is easy for you to fire off changes in operational circumstances to your pilots via digital means, but there is a price to pay, you must bring all of your pilots into work for a day every three months to check their understanding of the information you have promulgated."
At my Airline we have had major changes to performance requirements that were promulgated via email and many of my colleagues are unsure of what their legal obligations are. The appropriate safety forms have been filed which results in more emails. The digital age is a threat in itself.

I think that’s a little harsh. With the large variation in TORR between F5 derated and F20 full power, it’s not a given. With a headwind it might even be OK. We don’t use OPT on our T7s but I can see the issue with /T1 and #T1.

Had any of the crew operated that sector before and were familiar with MIA? Does it say 2600m TORA at the T1 intersection? Like others say, this looks like a classic design/HF issue where it was bound to happen eventually and these guys copped it. Will be very interested in the report when it surfaces.

The runway change was with the Pan Am mishap at SFO in 1971 discussed above.

Nobody said there was one with QR at MIA. :)

RAT 5:Spot on, RAT 5. We're loosing that intuitive sixth sense that used to call our attention ("something is not right here!"). Did they slammed thrust levers to TOGA somewhere during the take-off run? I would dare to doubt so, since we're so used to see eroded margins in EFB calculations (done to the infinitesimal) and rotations so close to the end of compensated runways.

Its been lost somewhere between the continuous fight for economic sustainability of the airline companies and an operational acceptable level of risk...

Runway change
 

Hi all,
I totally agree with Airbubba concerning rwy change(#54).I usually do not accept last minute rwy change for TO and APP as well if I have that option .
We have a rwy change checklist that helps a lot but anyway it is a treat.
I never accept intersection TO unless there is a Notam .
Fly safe,
Fbwdude

Maybe I missed it but has anyone addressed what "demystification" the FDR/CVR's will surely provide in time? Guess that's just understood in this entire conversation and needn't be mentioned? A very interesting discussion though.

A few comments from the ATC side :
Listening to the VHF recordings everything sounds normal there: It looks like ATC did not " suggest" an intersection dep and pilot knew where he was as he repeated T1, and took the line up and wait at T1, and later the take off clearance from there.
Unusual situation to ATC ? no, some departure are made from T1, and the controller is not there to ask " are you sure" everytime someone does. He/she will get funny replies if they did.

As to a 777 long range not using full runway,and " only " 2600m. and why controllers did not flag the problem to the crew :

Controllers today , especially the young ones, are not trained to detailed aircraft performance numbers, too many types and engine variants around, and the actual T/O weight is not distributed to them anyway. The aircraft could be empty and/or with minimum fuel , or making an intermediate stop , a last minute change not mentioned on the departure strip, etc..many possible factors why ATC will not normally challenge an intersection dep, especially one with 2600m left..

Lastly, on a lighter note , seen the average knowledge of geography of my US friends and colleagues, I wonder how many really know where and how far Doha is ..:E

I wonder how many really know where and how far Doha is ..

or really care for that matter

Quite a few of us have served time in the sandbox and know the area quite well, unfortunately :sad:

There's a lot to be said for the old adage that there are only three types of data that can be trusted - raw data, raw data and raw data.

FMS data, and that derived from iPads, EFB's, and a multitude of "magenta era" computers are all very convenient, and perhaps in the short term save a bit of paper and a lot of money, weight and time.

On the other hand it only takes a few sheets of paper to tell us the important numbers and, for those who haven't learned them, the rules of thumb associated with our craft.

Deefer, I do agree, when flying you can't lose sight of the basics! But as these planes get bigger and optimization is the magic word that management uses.. the rule of thumb for this specific aircraft isn't that clear anymore.

TOW on the 777 vary between 156T-351T.. (all types flown by most of us) take your pick, and we see the end of the runway closer and more often than we would like to see, because of these optimizations.

Off-course.. being dead tired (not just from 1 flight but roster systematics) will be not looked at in this region.. the word fatigue is now a magic word the management uses to make all things right.. because that way they can blame anything else except their malevolent practice of Bonus optimization.

a slower than normal rotation could have caused them to scrape it.. or anything else.. interesting to discuss and eager to find out the cause.

Pointer :E