Diversion - Did Manchester Shrink in the Rain?
 

Strange situation if true, seems like a case of "the computer says no."

26 March 2016

"Emirates A380 A6-EOP operating EK19 Dubai – Manchester diverted via London Heathrow this evening after going around three times at Manchester when the Flight Management System repeatedly warned that Manchester’s runways were too short to attempt to land on."

Emirates A380 A6-EOP EK19 London Heathrow Diversion. | Emirates News

Would this be linked to calculated stopping distances on a wet runway?

Watching a televised snooker tournament held in Manchester yesterday (mid-afternoon) the deafening click of the balls was drowned out by the sound of torrential rain hammering on the roof of the venue. Even for Manchester it sounded - and was remarked upon by the snooker whisperers - as if it was exceptionally heavy.

Brake to Vacate. Maybe the magenta line went passed the runway end?

SGC

What is the A380's stopping performance?

A330 stops on a sixpence.

It was nasty, but it passed through in 10-15 minutes, surprised they didn't hold for a bit.

Incident: Emirates A388 at Manchester on Mar 26th 2016, FMS decides runways too short

better link.

Sounds like a glitch more than anything? Surely 10,000ft is enough

It's plenty long enough - having landed 380s there many times myself on 23R and 05L in heavy rain; however with the BTV ROW/ROP system you may get a "runway too short" warning. Trouble is, even if it is a glitch in the system a Go Around is mandatory, and so on until diversion follows!!!

I was keeping it simple as real pilots will get the general idea...

No. There is no performance section in the QRH...

I know it will stop on that runway. My colleagues know it will stop on that runway... Management will issue a Warning if a 'Too short' warning is ignored... It's all a Frying Pan V Fire kind of thing; however, once the Pan call is made after diversion is made and fuel potentially tight then an approach to land can be continued even if the 'glitch' reoccurs...

Very simple...rules are rules and as a EK Skipper you better follow them. That's how it is

Says more about EK -and the direction our profession is going in general- than it does about the crew.

Very sad our industry has gone in this direction with no allowance for airmanship,we seem to be encouraged just to blindly follow SOP's.
Well done EK crew for following your SOP.

And if for whatever reason something goes wrong then crucify the Skipper?

Just a normal day in the office of a ME airline where airmanship has been replaced with fear and micromanagement of their flights.
It ranks right up there with some Asian airlines who can't fly visual approaches because they are not allowed to. So they crash trying to do the impossible.

What if something happened, indeed.

Fuel cost, on the other hand, seem not to be an issue. Three approaches then a diversion to LHR?
How much fuel do you take? Two hour holding+ ?
How much lighter would they have been with a normal fuel load?

ManaAdaSystem Why should that Skipper start and fight against the windmills? I know that the wale will stop on that runway, my former colleagues know it but is it worth to play Don Quixote and fight against the windmills? Most likely not..... So follow the SOPS and fight against the windmills when it is worth to do it...

I agree, but it is not a healthy way to run an airline.
I would be questioned as to why I did three approaches where I am.

I really don't see an issue here - EK own the aircraft (or are financially responsible for it), and if they don't want you to land with a certain problem then that's their choice. As a Captain, if their choice was unsafe then you exert your authority - If their choice is safe, then go with it. It has nothing to do with whether you think the company is right or not - it's their train set. Your role is to ensure the aircraft, crew and passengers are safe - everything else is just window dressing.

If Emirates' SOP is for the crew to slavishly follow the computers come what may then they go on my no fly list. Airmanship should be #1 and airlines should train crew to fly the aircraft when the boxes can't or won't, make reasonable judgements based on circumstance and foster an environment where crews are known to be competant and trustworthy. Fly Dubai joined the list last week now Emirates....same culture, linked management.

It is worth doing it if otherwise you would alienate several hundred passengers who don't appreciate being diverted to an airport 200 miles away not because of a real safety issue but because of some company rule. If you're in a service industry such as an airline, customer satisfaction is YOUR problem.

The machine says no but you have all ready done your landing performance and you also know that the runway is long enough from previous experience.

OK, go around, perhaps you have made a mistake but surley just run another set of landing performance on the EFB. Still not sure then ACARS the company and make sure you have not missed something and get them to check your perf calc.

But to fly round the hold for a while, try another couple of approaches then divert to come back 4 hours later to land on the same runway. That just seems like crazy SOP's to me.
If I ever become a real pilot perhaps I will work for an airline that is happy to just chuck money and customer goodwill away. For the time being I will concentrate on getting our customers to the correct destination on time.

Richard J

So you are suggesting that that the captain breaks a company rule for your benefit? So where exactly would that stop? And what would you be saying if, as the result of a Captain ignoring an SOP (not necessarily this one) a member of your family ends up as ash? Get real mate!

Council Van

You won't with that attitude!

Any other A380s?
 

We're there any other A380s landing at the same time?

Quick question from a none flyer: does the landing calculation take account of plausible equipment failures at awkward moments (burst tyre, or a break failure on touch down? Etc...) and would that be enough to explain why it thought that the runway was too short for those conditions?

Why? Do you know something about the accident that the investigation has not yet revealed to the public?

Yes, that holding for two hours after a four and a half hour sector in bad weather when others are diverting to reasonably adjacent and acceptable alternates is very questionable both in terms of passenger comfort and safety and in terms of pressure on the crew when the obvious objective is to land at the planned destination come what may.

It is by no means a new phenomenon, nor has it always been management driven. The October 1965 Vanguard accident at Heathrow, is instructive. Diversions had been taking place for six or seven hours before that accident. I heard the crew talking to other BEA aircraft diverting as they made their way south and they were advised to divert. After holding and two unsuccessful attempts to land they were then encouraged by the successful attempt by another Vanguard.

ASN Aircraft accident Vickers 951 Vanguard G-APEE London Airport (LHR)

Do you know why they crashed? I think it's wiser to withhold speculation and judgement until facts emerge.

sometimes it is a good idea to do what the company wants (divert), knowing full well that the other plan (landing) would work just as well.

The office residents/bean counters may need a nudge to realise that their rule from the desk mentality is not ideal. At worst, it is the company's money which is wasted, at best, it gets the message across and they change their rules.

I feel sorry for the customers, but they seem to have been forgotten in this mad scramble to make money/build empires, sometimes they seem to be viewed as muppets who are to be fleeced for as much as they can be fleeced, not valuable supporters who keep the company afloat :=

My thoughts exactly. At a previous company, the cubicle dwellers came up with a stupid procedure regarding crew bags. When flights were delayed because crews started strictly following the procedure, things went back to the old way.

B777 of really big ME airline departs from base on fine day. During climb the expat captain switches of the FD for visual climb currency and then several minutes later turns the FD back on. Perfectly safe, keeps his hand in at flying without a FD.

The "event" is recorded via the QAR data beamed back to base. Captain is up for tea and no bikkies for the heinous crime of turning the FD off.:mad:

If you have RUNWAY TOO SHORT flashing at you in red on the PFD, you would have to be very brave to second guess it. If you aren't correct and there is a problem, it will be the end of your career at best, ruination and prison at worst.

All these armchair quarter backs going on about how they should have done this or that and If they were there they'd show "The Man" blah blah blah. My question to them is, when was the last time you told your significant other to get stuffed and blatantly do something different than what they asked ? Exactly, and that just involved one person...you, never mind a number of people that represents a small town. Good job you guys/gals on your decision. As far as fears concerned, EK management would be nothing compared to a group of US lawyers on your back had you did something against an SOP which ended up hurting someone or worse. I have two goals when I fly.
1) not to become a Mayday episode.
2) if ever required, to be able to answer the first 2-3 questions correct at an inquiry.

This is what management by fear looks like in actual operations.
It removes common sense, and replaces it with blind adherence to SOP, even if it is stupid.

EK should stop flying the A380 into MAN since we now all know every landing dangerously close to the limit.

Sadly, this is merely reflective of the type of mindset that exists at management level in certain organisations.
The fact that this aircraft diverted in the circumstances it did will have come as no surprise to those who have lived and worked in that part of the world.
The idea and concept of airmanship has been enshrined in a generation of local aviators, who are now at management level, their opinion is the only one that matters, and their opinion revolves around the parrot like regurgitation and adherence to SOPs along with a zero tolerance policy to any deviation.
This in turn creates a mindset that is akin to safe-mode on your MAC or PC, essentially you do everything in a slow and deliberate fashion without ever extending your mental model to get the job done. The only time you would ever consider doing anything beyond your own personal safe mode is when your safety depends on it.
FWIW I'm sure Airbus will be receiving a invoice in due course for the cost of the diversion due to a defective system that rendered their aircraft incapable of landing in MAN habibi....

This has nothing to do with management.

On the a380 below 500ft on approach, you respect any amber warning "IF WET:RWY TOO SHORT" like you would the STALL warning.

It's highlighted and boxed in the manufacturers FCOM, "...the flight crew must perform a go-around".

Above 500ft, the FMS landing system, BTV, bases the landing performance on the figures entered. These static figures will say landing distance OK (as we know EK have been landing 380's at MAN for years).

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

Therefore if you get a "........TOO SHORT" message, then the runway is, funnily enough TOO SHORT.

Craggy, based on Avherald my understanding is that all 3 GA's were performed above 500 AGL, which would suggest that either they didn't understand the system in the fashion you suggest? Or was it true that it was a training flight with two training Captains onboard? In which case, nothing would surprise me to be honest :}

Craggenmore, whatever the boxes may say, the FACT is neither runway at Manchester at 10000ft and 10007ft is too short as has been demonstrated many, many times. It is TOTALLY due to management which would prefer to rely on boxes rather than experienced humans. True, humans are fallible but in this instance where the facts of the runway length are incontravertible and there was a cross wind seemingly within limits, airmanship should have sperceded management dictats and a faulty computer.

This morning 3xA380s have diverted to MAN from LHR in conditions worse than EK found as storm Katie hit SE England. None had difficulty.

Too clarify what Craggenmore stated.
The system is designed to notify you that during your approach, and for some unknown reason, be it environmental or handling or other, and the clever black boxes see that you are not going to touch down in the touch down zone and pull up safely, then a Go Around should be performed.
It is a tool to prevent continuing after a potential unstabilised approach.

I am constantly surprised by some of the replies on this thread. Either the mojority of posters are cowboys who fly around thinking their superior skills and airmanship over-rule everything or they are Microsoft sim clowns.

It has been said but to summarise - it's the companies train set, they make the rules. Doesn't matter if you don't agree with them. The crew followed these rules (a go around from a warning is not an SOP, it's a rule-there is a difference) diverted and a safe landing resulted. If, by following a rule, a safe landing is not assured (warning on finals on minimum fuel when landing performance suggests sufficient stop margin) then airmanship comes into play and the crew can make a decision on a safe course of action. These are two very different sets of circumstances.

Council Van, performance data has nothing to do with it. The runway is long enough and there fore an approach has commenced. This system is a dynamic assessment of your energy/altitude/speed and a bit more to notify you wether you can land and stop in the given distance. An excessive tailwind on finals is capable of triggering the system.
If you diverted to another longer runway with no excessive tailwind and were on profile, then you will not trigger the system.

Flew an approach to then relatively new airport at Athens in a CJ1 - VFR, daytime. At about 700ft AGL the GPWS went wild and blared Pull up Go Around.

Looking out of the huge windows and verifying with RDR ALT, DME/ILS GP and my eyeballs I was fine, I continued against our SOPs.

I´m a cowboy, I admit it.

Ever seen children of the magenta ?


BTW, turned out to be a database issue