Wonder if Emirates pressures pilots with 'get homeitis' if this corporate pressure exists could be a major factor as the wind shear may have meant safer option was to divert or go-around...

You had wide bodies landing on this Rwy every 3 mins before this , was there any reports of shear ?

The money question for me is did they have the gear down at any time during this approach? The data Emirates has must address this. Let's hear if they simply came in without extending gear or had the gear down and decided to pull it up at some point.

I'm surprised the wreckage was removed so quickly. I thought the wreckage would form part of the investigation.

Different a/c had a two degree pitch attitude difference for a tail strike for struts compressed or extended so it makes a difference.

There's always windshear there in summer
Just how strong... not really microbursts tho

Agree. See it often in the Boeing 737 where the preflight, before start, before taxi and after takeoff checklists have the PM not only doing the majority of the switching but then proceeds to challenge his own actions and responds to his own actions. Makes the true principle of challenge and response a joke. Why Boeing threw out the original challenge by one pilot and response by the other pilot, beats me

Wouldn't be at all surprised if there was confusion in the low altitude attempt at a go-around and someone didn't select full GA thrust for some reason. It would go some way to explaining why it pancaked into the deck

how do you know they are threatening legal action?

Careful what you post
 

Criticism of Middle East Arabic airlines on this or other sites may well be met by legal action folks. Others can concur. Watch out.

(Hardly in the interests of air safety, but that is how it is these days)

The mods may be censoring stuff in your own interest as well as theirs'.

:mad:

Great post fdr (although I needed a dictionary to read part it)

I think some are getting slightly misled by the reports of windshear. What windshear do you expect to have with the reported winds? +/- 5kts? At worst probably +/- 10kts, enough to possibly cause a bounced landing but I believe people are off the mark thinking this was strong enough to cause the crew any major problems. As has been said before WS reported all runways is quite common at DXB this time of year.

Regards,

GBD

Has there been an "incident" at DXB ?
After the initial "burst" of (mixed) reportage, there's now nada.

It is a far cry from how Deborah Hersman handled the Asiana 214 crash at SFO.
The NTSB had faced criticism before, so they went for the "transparent" approach. And in my humble view, it worked. What was seen was a competent, open and honest investigation....

....and I wouldn't hold your breathe. You won't be seeing that approach from the GCAA out in the sandpit.

The only "more later" images/information/factoids we have seen, has been via "third parties". Footage and (ATC) audio "supplied" by passengers who happened to be there or websites monitoring the tower. Officially, there has been "nothing".

The Emirates Group Chairman, CEO...the Chairman of Dubai Airports...the Chairman of Dubai Air Navigation Services... and President of the Department of Civil Aviation (the ONE and the SAME) Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed al Maktoum has given a televised statement and a Press Conference....which was a bit like watching a 1980's USSR State Address/Public Information broadcast.
Nobody else sat with him on the platform, as he delivered his monotone monologue, mainly due to the fact that there aren't anymore aviation posts left, that he doesn't already hold.

And other than "the treat" issued by the GCAA for "publishing pictures/film of the crash on Social Media", there has been nothing else "official" forthcoming .

I do worry that "fatigue issues/working practices" at EK may have been a contributing factor in this crash. If they weren't, they still should be fully investigated...and then completely discounted. But what chance is there of that, when the Operator is so closely linked to the Regulator. Surely this a glaringly obvious "conflict of interest"...and it should be highlighted.

Deborah Hersman's Asiana investigation should be congratulated....
...whereas Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed al Maktoum's Emirates 521 investigation (wearing whichever aviation hat he chooses to wear), should be treated with caution.

I just hope, whoever gets the job of catering for the meeting between the chairman/presidents of the airline, the aviation authority, the airport and the navigation services....isn't too disappointed when they realise it just a "meal for one" needed !

The UAE GCAA has posted an "interesting" tweet on their account:

https://twitter.com/gcaa_uae?ref_src...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

No pics allowed. No vids allowed.

And that Tweet is probably why the Emirates pilots who have been really outspoken about how life in Emirates really is, suddenly have clammed up completely.
Wise move as anything else could end their carreers immediately.
It tells volumes about how they are treated, and should act as a big red flag for any pilots considering a move to Dubai.

Capn Bloggs

I am not trying to reinvent the wheel, or propagate some new technique, the bounced landing technique by Boeing is certainly prevalent. At least as long as we're talking bounces of a few feet.

The MD11 was very prone to bounced landings and had the same procedure in the books. After three hull losses however, there came another suggestion, namely that in such circumstances, especially when the bounce is pronounced and at least one of them went to ~15 feet, a standard go around, without intermediate 4-5degs, might be the better solution, the tail strike degrees becoming less of a problem.

We all concur that go arounds are not the best executed flight procedures, only the "expected" ones in the sim seem to happen smoothly. Most unexpected ones prove to be quite untidy. This especially if two procedures are at choice , like with bounced landings.

A heavy bounce puts you in an awkward position. You are an unknown amount of feet above ground and more often than not, you don't really know why the landing has come to this. Was it unstable? Wind shear? Wake turbulence? Bad technique? Something else? The only thing you know, is that you are hanging in the air with most probably little airspeed left between flight and stall.

If your decision is to go around, which most probably is the good solution, then the next problem is with what technique. This because a standard go around calls for "Go around, thrust, Flaps20, positive climb, gear up" and a pull up to the Flight Director.
As it turns out on the T7, the TOGA switch might be inhibited, therefore you have to realise that and then definitely push the levers forward manually. The Flight Director will not show a relevant pitch up until the system goes back to flight mode and a second push on the TOGA switches can bring it back to life. When this actually happens is not clearly described in our books. Fact is, that the "normal go around" is somewhat disturbed by flight guidance. This is a very difficult manoeuvre at a critical point with little time to react and it is almost never trained.

The most impending threat is heavy contact with the ground which can very rapidly develop into a full blown crash, as demonstrated.
If it was due to wind shear, we should opt for the WS escape manoeuvre, which calls for AP/AT off, full thrust, wings level, pitch up to 15deg (or StSh) and no configuration change. The same applies if you deem the more threatening issue a disabling ground contact/crash and go for a "pull up" procedure with up to 20deg (or StSh).
These procedures are trained more often and are easier to apply, they work irrespective of the actual flight guidance modes.

Therefore my "suggestion". I can only guess, but with some experience in my backpack, i am pretty sure that avoiding a crash with heavy bounces might be more successful this way.

"#GCAA warns all residence in the #UAE to stop abusing social networks by publishing videos, news or pictures of aviation’s accidents"

When absolute power....corrupts absolutely.

My view is that if this was a balked landing, spool up time is the biggest likely issue. With the thrust in idle, and the notoriously long spool time on the RR engines, an attempt to rotate for the go around with thrust wandering up from idle would be "interesting".

Can anyone tell me at what point the EECs go from approach to intermediate or minimum idle as all my FCOM says is "after touchdown"? If the engines had gone to a lower idle the difficulty could be greatly exacerbated.

I'm in agreement with others that the wx conditions, while difficult, were not outside the capabilities of the aircraft. A two engine go-around should not pose a problem.
I'm more wondering about other possibilities. What if the AP wasn't engaged? CX had an incident in the -400 a while back where a go around was initiated but the AP wasn't engaged. Is it possible it this case that TOGA was pressed, but no firm pitch up was made? Given the temperatures, is it also possible (borne out of sim tactics) that there is an unofficial emphasis on "get the gear up quick in the go-around)?
Fatigue, both acute and chronic would play a part. Seems to be an issue at EK.
Automation reliance would play a part. A modern issue for mos airlines.
Negative training would play a part.
I've not flown the 777 so this is just my theory. Thoughts?

Well, to be fair: it's not a western democracy but a collection of sheikdoms.

The power dynamic is a little different...

:rolleyes:

Oh yes, it's different, but Emirates airlines is not a small, local operator. It's one of the biggest airlines in the world, and possible fatigued pilots behind the controls could cause accidents in major cities all over the world.

Unworry.....

Its the fact that the UAE authorities see "publishing news" as "abusing social media".

And "said abuse", is "punishable under law".




In the words of Cyndi Lauper "True Colours" !

GCAA warns all residence in the #UAE to stop abusing


I take it Emirates credited passengers with the usual up to 25000 Skywards frequent flyer miles as compensation?

FCeng84 wrote:

"The money question for me is did they have the gear down at any time during this approach? The data Emirates has must address this. Let's hear if they simply came in without extending gear or had the gear down and decided to pull it up at some point."

Your question would simply be answered with a (surely exists in these days of universal video surveillance) FULL (emphasize full) record of the 777 approaching/first take-land/bounce/defective run and etc.
Showing these images could save us of a lot of speculation and "ifs" and -certainly- would clarify a good percentage of the incident-accident in the initial moments. The further hull lose is another chapter.

Criticism of Middle East Arabic airlines on this or other sites may well be met by legal action folks.


It would be nice to see them try. Under which law would they prosecute? Libel in the UK perhaps (takes about 20 years..). Even under their own legal system it would be hard (on paper at least)

First actions by management is to block access to the names of the crew, and their rosters. Most likely so that the above mentioned questions cannot be asked or answered.....:=

Problem EK have got is by making themselves a global brand by sponsoring everything in sight and taking a very high profile when it suits them is that if you then have a serious accident /crash it is even more global news than many other incidents.

While they can control the UAE they cannot do the same everywhere, sure they can buy off a few media outlets with their money but not everyone and then the story shifts from -why did this happen to what does EK have to hide

my money would be on gear down and locked on short finals. Reasons: Pilot would not continue to land if he knew he had a gear problem. Twr has full view not many metres away to his left . He would not give landing clearance without actually looking at aircraft as he said it. He certainly wouldnt give landing clearance if he saw the gear wasnt down. He didnt appear to have a high workload at that point, just 521 and 565 landing, FDB taxiing etc. We are not even sure whether there was an aircraft immediately ahead of 521 who had to clear the runway before Twr could issue landing clearance to 521.

ATC would not know about the gear, and while ATC in DXB is pretty good, I very much doubt they're checking gear through binoculars (where does?) as they're just too busy with the traffic flow.

However, for the pilots to omit the gear selection, forget the checklist (EICAS), miss the GPWS gear warning and not notice that the aircraft was exceptionally slippery on late finals seems somewhat unlikely. Let's stop the ridiculous assumptions and accusations, shall we?

ATC wasnt too busy to see something that caused them to issue climb instruction. Lets stop the ridiculous rebuttals shall we?

Makes you wonder how they do it at night...:hmm:

My biggest question no matter the spool-up time, whether it was a balked landing, bounced landing, combo of both with or without a touch of W/S is why was the gear up or retracting before the aircraft was positively climbing? No GA, recovery technique. or W/S escape calls for raising the gear before pos climb established or escape completed.

Touching down during any of the above scenarios due to long spool-up time or W/S with the gear down and locked produces a much different outcome than if they are not. If the auto thrust settings are fussing things up on a GA for whatever reason you can still revert to manually getting whatever you need as long as you're rolling, not sliding, down the runway.

Pretty easy really, if you know what your looking for!

Plus...
 

Plus the ground proximity warning if he tried to land with the wheels up.

To me it looks like bounced landing, GA full thrust (did they disengage AT?), and curiously, wheels up way too early. The Airbus guidance is better than Boeing's in this respect: maintain the same pitch (to avoid T/S), expect a second bounce, and so keep the wheels down until the GA profile is properly established. Of course if WS was suspected, the wheels should have stayed down anyway.

AB, I agree ... the *eyeroll* was meant to denote sarcasm.

Pictures will eventually make their way out regardless and once you see just where along the runway the tail struck, you will no doubt form your own conclusions :ok:

Several posters here have mentioned that there must be photos or video of this aircraft during it's final approach to land (thereby apparently confirming whether or not the landing gear was extended ...) but I am not sure that is a certainty!

If some aircraft spotter was specifically shooting photos or videos of this aircraft shortly prior to landing, and maybe even through the unfolding incident, I feel sure those images would have been out 'in the wild' already. But I don't suppose a nation such as the UAE takes too kindly to folk with long-lens cameras sitting out in the open around airport boundaries?

That means the only other likely source of pre-accident/unfolding imagery is going to be surveillance video (astonishlingly, in this digital age, usually grainy and indistinct) from security cameras on or near the airport. The UAE are almost certainly already requisitioning all such likely candidate footage, so we are very unlikely to ever see that stuff in the public domain.

The very limited video we have already seen of the latter stages and aftermath of the accident seem to have come from phone cameras, initiated when witnesses became aware something had already gone awry. The last few seconds of the aircraft sliding to a halt are all that has been seen of the aircraft actually in motion. I would be curious to know if anyone can actually determine how long after the aircraft came to a standstill that the explosion occurred - I suspect it was some notable time after evacuation had been completed.

So, expecting to see further video or photography of the late stages of this aircraft's arrival at Dubai is, I think, very unlikely. The unfortunate result of that is the speculation being developed here, about whether or not the gear was down before landing, will just continue. Reach for the chill pills, people! :ok:

Maybe (if true) the closest thing to a photo that has become available ?

Quote....a pilot who was waiting on a taxiway to take off for India from Dubai and would have entered the runway after a few planes, including EK-521, would have landed and vacated the runway. "She (EK-521) was about 30/40 (ft) from the ground with nose-up attitude. Her attitude confused us. We were discussing this, and we saw she is struggling to climb (landing gear were down). At a point, the struggle to climb stopped, for a brief moment levelled out, and then slowly she came down," the pilot said in a WhatsApp to a group of pilots....unquote.

Possibly that was EK572 to CCU ?

Sudden change in wind pattern led to Emirates jet's crash-landing - Times of India

Found this video, which provides an excellent overview of the crash site. You can clearly observe how the plane ended up. Footage was shot by a pax from a departing a/c.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GfgQyrv282E

The answer lies in the fact that the aircraft finished at the end of the runway. One will assume that the original touch down point was on the numbers so it's reasonable to assume that whatever happened took this ammount of time and distance so any theories have to fit into a very specific time period and distance. If it had landed wheels up then would it have slid that distance or if it bounced and attempted a GA could it have finished in this position?
If anyone could calculate the slide distance then the distance from planned touchdown to actual touchdown could be calculated and any of our theories would have to fit within this window.

Video from firefighter extracting the the wrecked tail & transporting it away from the runway before continuing to sedate more smoke from the cabin/cargo section of the 777
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=710_1470489298

Does the AFDS work the same on the 777 as on the 737 for go-arounds? You press TOGA, flight director gives you pitch and roll guidance while thrust levers advance to go-around thrust if A/T were engaged? How about if A/T was not engaged, just flight director pitch guidance and thrust levers stay where they are? As the FO seems to be quick on the PTT reading back go-around instructions, the Cpt. might have been quick putting both hands on the yoke, thrust levers are closed, with nobody checking thrust. Would explain the lack of climb. Must be more to it than just Rolls Royce engines being slow to spool up and high OAT.