Eppy, that's not even the system that caused the problem.

No bent metal and already on page 3. So much wasted talent with all these experts out there. I can't see there ever being a pilot shortage.

Well done you.

Incidentally our company SOPs would allow you to continue in those circumstances.

Happy for you to level an accusation of "child of the magenta" against me. With a couple of thousand hours military fast jet and over 10,000 hours heavy civil I'm reasonably comfortable with my level of airmanship.

If I remember correctly there was a notam warning about false GPWS false warning at Athens.

It was caused by the database not yet updated and still showing a hill that was "shaved".

A slightly different situation.

Well, to begin with the aircraft thinks it's too heavy to fit on the runway length. After a few hours it will be lighter, but then it will also have less fuel available for diversion.

Just kidding ...

The weather can also have improved.

Below 500ft the landing system uses live flight, weather and a/c parameters; weight, speed, altitude, AC position and wind.

Interesting. There is another topic about what wind to sue for landing; the tower AC wind of the FMC wind. (First Officer's Crosswind limitations - in Tech Log) The overall consensus was Tower wind. Now this situation seemed to be created by FMC wind at 500'. That doesn't seem consistent with what the rest of us would do without this magic box of tricks. We'd use Tower wind and ignore 'an inconvenient truth'. However, especially with such unequivocal SOP's, when there's doubt there is no doubt.
It was mentioned that if a crew disobeyed the G/A SOP it would be tea no biscuits at mission control. If that were the case I'd not be surprised if the crew were grounded at destination and could not even fly back to base. Hero to zero in a blink of an OFDM.

Cheers Council Van.
At the end of the day, it's another tool in the tool box. Whether you decide to use it is up to you but if you do, then there are SOP's that come with it. In this case a Go Around if you get a particular warning.
The crew did the right thing.

PULL APRT NAV and the problem is gone. FCOM recommends to do so for spurious warnings.

As long as you make sure the LDPA is checked, one does NOT need the ROW/ROP and BTV to land an A380!

In the end, that is what they did on the way to LHR... A bit late, if you ask me. But then again, I wasn't there!

I don't fly the A380; merely smaller Airbii. However, if what Craggenmore wrote about BTV is correct, I don't see that the crew had a choice if everything happened as is being reported here. If you get an amber or red message on your PFD, you had better be bloody sure what you're doing if you decide to disregard it.

To give an example to illustrate the point: an incident happened here a while ago where a crew ignored a REACTIVE windshear warning (WINDSHEAR aural callout and WINDSHEAR in red on PFD), because in their opinion no actual windshear condition existed. In the debrief, it turned out that the windshear warning was absolutely correct, and the aircraft had ended up in a low energy state. As I said, you have to be absolutely sure what you're doing before you start disregarding amber or red messages on your PFD.

As a mere SLF who cares about my life, I'd rather have the crew divert and try somewhere else. The A380 is huge and extremely complex, and if winds and rain makes the runway unsafe for landing things could go very wrong. Such a big plane just wouldn't stop on a penny.

Yes, yes, why take orders from a computer and following rules and SOP's - well, in this particular case I don't think anyone knows (yet). Wind angles, rain conditions, number of pax, weight of cargo, all things considered it was calculated that the stopping distance was not enough for that particular plane on that particular evening. As SLF I absolutely respect that the pilots move on to next place, hopefully with a longer runway. I surely would not want to end up in a burning wreck some 100 metres overrun with my laptop on fire.

Nah, I'll choose a slight annoyance over a life-or-death-situation any day.

does anyone have any idea WHY the automation reported the runaway as too short ? System error / failure (I find it unlikely that if there was such a bug in the A380 software it would not have poped up earlier) ? Bogus data feed ?
Just a thought - does EK do tankering (I guess not but maybe that bird was heavier that one might think) ?

Yes, EK tanker fuel. I don't think it is done on UK sectors, though, at current prices. But if they were likely carrying a fair bit extra for weather, which would seem to be the case if they could do three apps before diversion, that extra fuel could conceivably have put them over landing weight. That is a real double edged sword with contaminated (rather than wet) runways; carrying the extra to allow for runway clearance or holding in a big queue at an alternate or needing a further alternate can put you overweight, while going min fuel could get you in, but holding to burn of fuel could see a runway window close on you as the contamination builds up again but you no longer have the fuel for the further alternate. It can be a juggling act in some cases.

I'm sure we've all had situations where the tailwind at 500ft on the FMS/ND shows out of limits and the tower is reporting calm winds or similar. I assume the software design made the assumption that winds below 500ft were fairly representative of the landing conditions and decided to be conservative in triggering the warning...

What no one has mentioned or they have missed is the insurance company.

I sat through a Health and Safety day at my present employer and the instructor said the following;

‘apart from anything else you may learn today, a major reason your company is providing you with this course is to stop the insurance company welching out of any subsequent claim’

I can’t help but think that this sort of mentality results in, shall we say slavish, adherence to the SOP.

I can not therefore 'blame' either the management or the crew

Just reading back through a number of posts, what many here seem to be overlooking is that EK run two A380s a day into MAN. Average pax load factors are in excess of 90%, EK being the first of 3 Gulf carriers to exploit the local market. Manchester has a reputation, not totally deserved, for rain and wind. Contrary to early reports, the wind was 30 degrees off the nose to port at 200 degrees, 17 kts, gusts to 27kts for the first two attempts. For the third attempt it was bang on the nose at 230 degrees at 17kts. At all times the runway was wet, but it is grooved and was in no wetter state than on any other wet late winter/early spring evening. This morning's three LHR A380 diversions faced wind at between 14kts and 16kts from between 310 to 340 degrees with an equally wet runway 05 in use. The EK episode was so obviously a computer glitch it is surprising the crew and ops could not work it out.

So this must be the other Emirates flight into MAN today? Stopped on a dime
https://youtu.be/ciotIjiriyY

No problems for Virigin either
https://youtu.be/-mYFvh9cO8Q

Good question, but was it really a malfunction ?

Think about a fully loaded plane with litte bit of extra fuel for holding etc., lets say around 390 t. Heavy rain and in the final calculation the System is using the actual conditions for recalculation based on contaminated runway. If you add now some tailwind to that recipe, you might end up with an runway to short warning.

Edit: Even Chuck Yeager would be amazed about the number of "Top Gun User" in this Thread.

411A would have loved this thread...

" I was already in the pub in MAN, while the 380 chaps were still in the Hold, trying to figure out what Alfons Au Revoir was up to, after I landed my L-1011 with the reassuring words from my Flight Engineer. " You can do this ". So I did ...."

lol lol :D

So very true...

Slavish adherence to the rules is perfect......for people without any ability or sense.

The SOPs are great, most of the time, but this modern culture of writing a rule for everything, and then kicking anyone's ass who doesn't strictly comply is, imho, better suited for ground based activities.

In this case, after the first GA, what was to stop the crew making an independent performance calculation, concluding that their system had gone TU, and then landing?

I'm not suggesting that they just say 'disregard that, we operate to here and we're sure it's fine', then slapping it down.

There should be a place for the careful and diligent crew derived decision.

But there isn't.

ROW/ROP uses DRY and WET predictions based on maximum braking from an auto land with the WET considering maximum reverse thrust.

The system doesn't know the runway conditions. (e.g.. snow/contaminated/slush/standing water/ice).

ROW/ROP can be erroneous if the database (OANS) length is corrupted or shortened by NOTAM and actual LDA is longer than the database or if the airplane position is erroneous, if the IRS was drifting, or declared threshold was wrongly coded in the database hence displacing the the 3 deg path.

Maximum braking......

The devil is always in the detail. There are a lot of technical inaccuracies in this thread. Without going into the specific detail of ROW / ROP, the ignoring of a 'Runway too short' message would be inadvisable on many different levels. It is easy to be an expert from your armchair.

Cheers

Reading that just made may day! Sure wish he'd have stayed around a bit longer!

ExDubai, read my post #60. The wind speeds and directions are actuals for the approch times. There was no tailwind and other flight landed normally.

Wow I can't wait for the A350's to arrive in my outfit..........

Now, I would go around after the first warning, both of us would carryout an independent landing distance assessment using conservative figures ( low A/B, No Rev, Wet Rwy ) double check the LDA was correct, obtain braking action reports if possible, let other Aircraft land first........then if it happened again on the next approach fully brief that we will LAND.

Airbus make a similar statement regarding predictive windshear false alarms, "if the commander judges that the warning is false and the reactive windshear is serviceable it may be disregarded"

So I'd use that common sense approach in this situation as well.

Now having said all that I do not know EK's policy or indeed AB policy regarding this system......so I can't really comment on their particular situation except to say that they landed safely, so we'll done.

ACMS,

I posted it earlier. If an amber, "IF WET: RWY TOO SHORT" .......or a red," RWY TOO SHORT" message appears during finals the pilot MUST go around. It is highlighted and boxed in the FCOM. Must is MANDATORY.

It is SOP to pull the systems Reset button to deactivate the ROW/ROP/BTV only if the runway lengths differ by more than 35m from database to chart. Whether you'd want to contact company (who'd then probably have to contact Airbus) to get dispensation to pull the reset button based upon your calculations showing a successful outcome is a tricky one. 1989 springs to mind when I hear the word 'dispensation' so this problem is nothing new.

With regard to 411A and his love of English beer, rightly or wrongly, the days of one-man bands flying close to the edge are by and large over. Airline legal departments and civil lawyers don't stand for it.

You can already hear the words being spoken at the Board of Enquiry. "Mr 380 captain, you ignored two warnings, one amber and one red yet proceeded to land and caused an end state with 527 souls on board. What was your justification?"

"I thought the system at fault and a Dash 8 and a 319 ahead of me managed to land without problem."

Thank God I'm out of it, this thread demonstrates very clearly what the job has now become. It would appear that it is now possible to have 2 FOs on the flight deck, perhaps one more senior to the other. He can be the commander. All that money for captains not now required, just a small loading for initiating checklists.

... so what if the warning had occurred again at Heathrow and any subsequent approach ????

Even an SLF can work out that if he HAS to land he can land and he is in the clear! Even an SLF can understand that if he lands in contravention of SOP's he could end up walking home. Assumptions of a computer glitch are just that .. assumptions. Apollo 13 Mission Control assumed they had a computer glitch ... so I believe did Air Transat. And that's not to mention Sod's Law which would probably have seen him ignore the computer warning and find a bird right where it shouldn't have been ... thus not putting a nail in a career but positively screwing down the lid ....

well if that happens and its still messing up on the approach to LHR you speeddial a conference call between the CEO, the chief pilot, the chief lawyer, and the chief insurance representative ;) and vote on how to proceed!

no seriously this is getting out of hand, it is a landing on 3000 meter runway with no systems faults except the landing calculations!

Out of interest, I was informed that an A320 landed, after the A380 go arounds, carrying an extra 20kt IAS. I'm guessing for increased control authority and gust protection, my point is how much extra speed would an A380 add to the approach and would that be enough, all things considered, to trigger the "Runway too Short" warning?

Just curious.

Straight from the FCOM :

ROW is armed below 500 ft until the aircraft touches down, independently of the braking means chosen by the flight crew (i.e. autobrake, or pedal braking), when ROW detects the landing runway.
L2 In basic autobrake mode or pedal braking, ROW detects the landing runway between 500 ft and 300 ft RA.
If the flight crew selects BTV autobrake mode, the BTV function detects the landing runway at 300 ft. The BTV function performs a late detection of the landing runway in order to favor the landing runway selected by the flight crew as long as possible.
L1 ROW detects a possible runway overrun when the aircraft is in flight, considering different parameters such as the aircraft weight, the aircraft speed, the aircraft altitude, the aircraft position, the wind.
If ROW detects a possible runway overrun, ROW activates aural and visual alerts to inform the flight crew of the situation.
ON WET RUNWAY
ROW computes two lines: I.e. one WET line and one DRY line. These lines correspond to the minimum landing distance for a WET runway and for a DRY runway.
The flight crew uses the appropriate line as reference depending on the actual runway condition, i.e. dry or wet.
ROW informs the flight crew via a visual alert on the PFD IF WET : RWY TOO SHORT , meaning that if the runway is WET, the landing distance computed by ROW is too long.

CAUTION:
If the runway is WET, and "IF WET: RWY TOO SHORT" is displayed on the PFD, the flight crew must perform a go-around.
In the case of a dry runway, the flight crew can continue the landing.
PFD: IF WET RWY TOO SHORT

Straight from the SOP's :

e to: ALL except MSN 9815
OANS
OANS RUNWAY LENGTH Vs CHARTS RUNWAY LENGTH CROSSCHECK
If the difference between the runway length from OANS and the runway length from charts is more than 35 m (115 ft), the flight crew must not use BTV autobrake mode. To avoid any intrusive ROW/ROP alert during final approach and landing, the flight crew should consider to pull the ARPT NAV reset button on the overhead panel. If the flight crew pulls ARPT NAV reset button, ROW/ROP BTV functions are inoperative.
RUNWAY SHIFT AS RQRD
PF
The flight crew must shift the runway threshold and/or the runway end, as required (e.g. due to NOTAM).
L2 BTV locates the dry and wet lines according to the runway threshold and to ensure that the flight crew will select an achievable runway exit
The dry and wet lines computation takes into account the FMS predicted landing weight of the aircraft. If the FMS predicted landing weight of the aircraft is not avail, BTV uses the current aircraft weight limited by the MLW.
ROW/ROP needs the real position of the runway end to ensure the aircraft protection against runway excursion.
Ident: PRO-NOR-SOP-160 00022721.0004001 / 06-Jun-11
Criteria: T73183, T78703
Applicable to: MSN 9815
OANS
RUNWAY SHIFT AS RQRD
PF
The flight crew must shift the runway threshold and/or the runway end, as required (e.g. due to NOTAM).
L2 BTV locates the dry and wet lines according to the runway threshold and to ensure that the flight crew will select an achievable runway exit
The dry and wet lines computation takes into account the current weight of the aircraft (i.e. not the predicted landing weight).
ROW/ROP needs the real position of the runway end to ensure the aircraft protection against runway excursion.
Ident: PRO-NOR-SOP-160 00020718.0004001 / 05-Aug-14
Criteria: 22-8006, 42-8020, T73183, T78703
Applicable to: ALL
BTV
The use of the BTV autobrake mode is recommended in the case of dry or wet runway conditions.
CAUTION:
Do not use BTV in the case of:
Contaminated runway
Any reverse inoperative, or in the case of any aircraft failure affecting landing performance.

Simple system I see, so unlike Airbus........:eek:

Thank God I'm out of it, this thread demonstrates very clearly what the job has now become. It would appear that it is now possible to have 2 FOs on the flight deck, perhaps one more senior to the other. He can be the commander. All that money for captains not now required, just a small loading for initiating checklists.

Well said. Me too. Doesn't the Captain have absolute responsibility for the aircraft and it's contents? What happens if there is nowhere to go that you will NOT get a warning?

Reminds me of the old joke:

Captain on PA: Ladies and Gentlemen I'm afraid the Nr 4 engine has failed. Our flight will be delayed by an hour ...

Sometime later:

Captain on PA: Ladies and Gentlemen I'm afraid the Nr 3 engine has failed. Our flight will be delayed by another hour ...

Sometime later:

Captain on PA: Ladies and Gentlemen I'm afraid the Nr 2 engine has failed. Our flight will be delayed by another hour ..

One Pax to another: It's to be hoped the other engine doesn't fail otherwise we'll be up here all day ... !!!

:)

Will the same situation occur at BHX with a Runway Max of 10013 FT? We could have A380's flying in all directions if the weather turns for the worst...!

For whatever reason this was pretty much a one off. The 380 is a Cat c aircraft (unlike the Jumbo!) and has fantastic brakes so landing performance isn't really an issue usually.

This appears to have been a safe decision, nobody died, what's the problem?

They'll be having fun with crosswinds most of the time! :)

A380 only has reverse on the inner engines, though. 74 has it on all 4.