Shaggy,

380 lands at 390t, 744 takes off at 400t. Not sure those 2 reverses matter too much.

@Flap62

How easy it is for pprune to make a non-event an event! As the wisdom of D.P.Davies might have put it, 'The only system that can survive, therefore, is one which spells out in detail all operating procedures and insists on their application through a very high level of personal and crew discipline'. So Bravo to the A380 pilots who maintained the SOP's and Bravo to @Craggenmore for leaving zero doubt with concise elucidation!

Although I can follow the reasoning about adhering religiously to sops and not getting in the way of any management stooge, let’s summarise what is described and agreed:

A perfectly airworthy aircraft made an approach to an airport with adequate runway length, the weather within limits for the operation and the crew qualified. During the approach an automated warning sounded that implied a go-around, apparently before the system design would normally trigger it. They went into a holding and assessed the situation, then tried a second approach with the same outcome. No attempt with disabling the particular warning system and using alternate methods was made. Finally they diverted.

Did I get anything wrong?

Yes!

It did not imply a go-around, it REQUIRED a go-around.

Wow glofish, only took you 5 pages to catch up. I am guessing you also know what information MCC gave this crew as well right?

It seems difficult to detect sarcasm!

I repeat myself when saying that reading comprehension must have been taken out of pilots assessment, or the ME Puniverse seems to get to some of us ....

Maybe if you are as tired as is being stated in other parts then it is the safest and least career limiting decision to follow SOPs and not make it up as you go along.
Good call all round.

Divert to Stansted?

Not arguing about the crew obeying letter of law-they have no choice.
But SOPs do not just exist in the airline industry but all over the place. they are of course laid down to protect customers/passengers are n't they.

Well yes sort of but they are mostly their to protect management who because theyare management mean they can never be wrong but also they cannot be everywhere at once . Thus the SOPs protect them while leaving plenty of leeway to blame the operatives/crew.

In this case captain realises the caution is meaningless and there is ample room to land- tries it, screws up is crucified.

Or captain obeys caution and sticks to rules and diverts but Oh dear the diversion airfield has a shorter runway, plane goes off the end , captain gets crucified, should have used discretion and landed at first airport .

Very hard for you guys up front these days especially working in blame focussed cultures

The crew did what they did based on what they saw that day.

If the plane could not land at the destination nor alternate then someone stuffed up the flight planning - dispatching above the RTOW which more than likely was MLW (Structural) limited.

On any given day you should have 40% more runway than a maximum performance stop on dry and another 15% margin on a wet runway.

Yes test pilot figures some will say but the humble line drivers have the 6-7 seconds from 50 feet to touchdown plus 15% which is achievable...unless you float or hold off for a kisser.

These should definitely fit into the test pilot figures with a reduced margin. The ROW/ROP differs in that it calculates an auto land so slightly longer flare but the similarity is the MAX BRAKING.

More to the story than what's on AV Herald. Irrespective if you had x or y margin, classic airplane with or without RAAS/ROW/ROP you'd be crucified if you went off the end.

1st GA - justified, rest I can't judge yet without the full story but have an idea.

Helen
Im just wondering how they have managed to land in AKL with 2300m or so of LDA at the moment at close to MLW all this time? Given of course MAN is considerably longer.

Presumably because they didn't get the warning!!!!!

So then Helen, it would appear "resilience" isn't a term well understood on the wunderbus? Again the reason I say this is based on the plethora of various notes about "spurious" RAAS and BTV warnings all across the network, surely given the rather large quantity in effect there must have been at least a dozen or so similar incidents resulting in diversions etc. What makes MAN so special? or different for that matter, that is what intrigues me.

This would be the first ROW incident that I would be aware of Moanarch. There have been several ROP activations in the past. But as you know that's a completely different thing. BTV is of course yet another completely different system, as I am sure you are aware.

News from AVH:

Donald, you'd be wrong, I am pig ignorant of the wunderbus and its ROW functions, I wrongly assumed that ROP ROW etc etc was one in the same, moreover, it's the reason I asked the question in the first instance given that surely if the automation isn't doing what you need from it, you switch it off. So, can it be switched off in the event of a PET de ce?
How does one ensure that the ghost in the machine won't ruin your day?

This is marvellous news. To hear that the Flight Ops Dept. of some of my competition has such enlightened views is music to my ears. I hope they get even more retentive.

PM

It was totally my mistake Monach. Sorry about that. I just assumed you must have had some knowledge of the system before slating your colleagues resilience.

After asking a close neighbour Donald, who BTW is also a wunderbus chap, he is baffled as the resilience that you speak of is based in no small part on a computer with a French mindset....

I am not going to judge the captain on his decision here.

However, the aviation industry is headed nowhere good if we have come to this point.

However, the aviation industry is headed nowhere good if we have come to this point.
This is not aimed at a specific type of a/c, but a general comment on what we can expect from future computer systems. In early 1980's LNAV/VNAV glass cockpits were introduced and is now standard even flight school single propellor a/c. Thus I expect this land/no land system will be standard on airliners in 10 years.
What do you do if, at destination. it says you can not land. SOP says you divert. You arrive at ALTN, shorter runway, and it says you can not land, but fuel says you are going to sooner rather than later. You are now in a worse situation than you were originally when your GUT instinct said plonk it on terra firms, but SOP said you will be summoned if you do.
Where has Captaincy gone? Why have one if all trained monkeys are the same?

Careful, you'll give them ideas...

It didn't make it into the modern Puniverse.

Company culture is not the same at every airline, for the bette or the worst. I believe that, would this happen to most of the A380 operators, we would have a couple of go-arounds, some head-scratching, some LDA calculation, and a landing at destination. Report filed, problem investigated by the manufacturer and eventually solved.

Looks like the company culture at EK does not allow this.

RAT5. In 10 years time there will be at least 1 airfield with a runway 5km long within 1.5 hours of anywhere. If the system says NO LAND then G/A, select the ALTN page and the GoTo prompt and confirm. Select APPR and 2nd A/P and sit back, relax and give the dog next to you a treat for not biting you when you touched something.

Lighthearted reply over I still think the crew did the right thing. Many moons ago a colleague used to finish his emergency brief with the line "and then we will take the least career limiting option". This is what they seemingly did and who can blame them. You may not completely agree but if the train set owner says do that then you do it unless a greater emergency exists AND you can justify it.

Thanks for the link Council Van.

I think AvHerald added one zero too many. "1300 feet". More like 130 feet which would mean that this thread can now be closed.

Meaning they would all have died if they had completed the landing?
They took the only option open to them as EK would have made them pay if they did not.
This flight is very similar to the FZ that crashed. Both took off with lots of fuel. Both did multiple approaches. This flight diverted after three (!) go arounds, and I suspect the FZ flight would have done the same if things did not go bad during the second approach.
Pressure to get in. And pressure not to land even if you know you can.

The ME is a weird and dangerous world.

Video of the 2nd go around:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MQnIa9z29k

Funny old world Manada : In my day, some times, there was pressure on landing even if you knew you shouldn't ! Again, we have bought this insanity on ourselves. We have handed over Command Authority to the bean counters. Did so quite a while ago, actually. Reap the results ! Sit back, press the buttons & take the money. Not a bad job actually !

Correct Landflap, its not the Capt's problem that the aircraft and its pax end up in the wrong place. Off to the hotel for a sleep whilst the company sorts out the mess it brings on itself.

2 senior EK pilots who both are excellent operators (know them personally). Not standing up for them here but, if the aircraft is telling you not to land at the current airfield, company procedures (and tech info) state that a diversion is the best possible consideration, fuel is not an issue and is paid for by the company.......then why not do what the company pays you to do, follow their rules! Do what you are paid to do and let the company worry about either the technical issues, company policy or otherwise.

The crew did what they were told (paid) to do to get paid their salary and that's exactly what good pilots would do, simple, straight forward, end of..


J

So this was good airmanship?
That can only mean every landing with an EK A380 in MAN when it's wet and windy is a very risky enterprise.
So why continue to fly this aircraft into MAN when it is clearly unsuitable for the airport?

I trust the above was written in sarcasm. Years of operation of the type on both runways in all weathers and the physical details of the runways show that not to be the case.

As any rational review of the circumstances would show, this was a computer malfunction followed by a decision to follow SOPs either by the crew alone or under direction from Ops.

Poor Mana. On one thread he is discussing if his little Boeing will ALT capture the MCP altitude in a go around, and here he makes statements about a professional crew....seems a bit duplicitous.

donpizmeov said
 

This is the attitude of Emirates A380 pilots?
Airmanship is related to the aircraft size? Or type?

Lets talk airmanship. Emirates OM-A does not say something like this: A second approach should only be done if conditions have improved considerably. A third approach should only be done if landing is highly probable?

Your company has stated that this diversion was due to a storm that was not there.
Flydubai has the same owners as Emirates. Can we expect the same level of thruth from Flydubai when it comes to information relating to the Rostov accident?

What information did the crew gain from their maintenance department while holding before the last approach? If you don't know, which from your comments it would seem you don't, how can you question their airmanship?

Spotters opinion really can be distracting on this forum. How you can have such forthright opinion on an event you have no understanding about, while not understanding how your aircraft behaves when conducting a missed approach. This would reflect more poorly upon yourself than this crew.

This crew had nothing to do with what the company says. They just did their job.

I really don't know why you are bothering with some of the opinions of the less well versed individuals who post here. Whatever you say they will not change their point of view. But that doesn't matter since they don't seem to be in a position to hazard any passengers and don't seem to be willing to learn.

Make up your mind, please. Spotter or pilot?
Nowhere have I said I don't know how my aircraft behaves in a missed approach. That was not what the discussion was about.
No need to degrade other pilots just because you are used to getting that treament from you own management.
Stick to the topic. Three approaches are unusual, no?
Not landing on a runway that is more than long enough for the aircraft type is not normal practice. If it is not long enough, then the airport is not suitable for the type. Wet and windy is not unusual for MAN.

Yeah, right!

They should do anything the company tells them to do, because they're paid by them.
They should heed any advice by maintenance, because they have the bigger picture from their office.
They should fly any fatiguing roster up to 100h a month without complaining, because the FRMS team says that their calculator shows only minor fatiguing sectors.
They should go into any discretion, up to any limit, because the company says its legal.

Simple, straight forward, end of story and we all can give back the fourth stripe.

If you really mean the above, you're dangerous aviators. :ugh::ugh::ugh: