:ugh:CONF

"Obviously you are at the right spot to know about it, but still, it looks VERY heavy ... would you detail a bit your numbers ?"

Detail a bit following::rolleyes:

Gnd Dist 6420nm
Ramp Fuel 137t
Trip Fuel 126t
ETOW 363t
ELWT 237t
EZFW 227t

G;)

Derate/flex is calculated specifically for every takeoff, using TORA to calculate the minimum take-off thrust required. With derates of up to 73 deg on the 777, and similar flex on the bus, almost every longhaul takeoff (and indeed a lot of midhaul takeoffs) end up in the 'reds and whites'.

The overload issue should be easy to settle by a QAR/DFDR download. The Airbus' three flight control computers weigh the aircraft after liftoff -- too bad that can't be done while taxiing -- and these values can be displayed on the MCDU. Usually the variance between the three are only a few hundred kgs, which on a +300 ton aicraft speaks to their accuracy.

Let's just hope that the cause of this incident was not flap mis-selection, i.e. 2 instead of 3.

Latest from the local paper in MEL.

Passengers "terrified" | Herald Sun

In particular Something else to consider.

It's actually been a pretty DUMB move by Emirates, particularly if its actions are regarded as having hindered the investigation. :ugh:

Don't the ATSB have a telephone?

halas

Hempy;
In post #81, I stated, "Thrust levels would not likely be an issue. There are two thrust lever positions for such a takeoff - TOGA and FLX/MCT. They would likely be well within the ability to use Flex takeoff thrust. The crew is warned if a Flex temperature isn't set or if the thrust levers are not in either the TOGA or FLX/MCT position."

By that I mean, it is not possible nor likely, that this is a power setting incident. If the runway and, if available, the Flex temperature, have been entered into the MCDU, (FMGC interface), providing the thrust levers were in the TOGA or FLX/MCT detent, the takeoff thrust will have been correctly set by the FADECs for the runway entered. These are not easy mistakes to make. I doubt if they were made.

An incorrect flap setting is also possible but unlikely. Also, an incorrect flap setting does not, under most but not all conditions, have that great a variance on V speeds and available lift right after takeoff.

What I can see, outside a mishandled rotation, is a possible error in the V speeds. I say this because these speeds are usually manually entered into the MCDU from data received over the ACARS. We know this is possible because, as we know, it has happened.

I understand and know that a heavy takeoff can rotate in the reds and whites. It's the last thousand feet I'd be concerned about.


Hot Dog;
Yes, agree - seen it. They don't mess around. Given the country I don't think it was wise to ferret the crew out of the country so there is an underlying story here that will emerge as to why, which will ultimately reveal who was right.

Hopefully Emirates rights to operate to Australia are cancelled until this is sorted out.

16 is slightly downhill (about .5° from memory), and after the perimeter road falls away into a valley. If the comment earlier about it cleaing the perimeter fence by about 10' is even close to true, then it would seem that the aircraft was at best level, and perhaps slightly descending.

Intersection departures on 16/34....with a strong southerly, the domestics will often use E (just south of the intersection). I've never seen anyone use C.

"Hopefully Emirates rights to operate to Australia are cancelled until this is sorted out".
Why?

Geometry limits
 

If my memory serves me correctly the 345 is geometry limited - usually this means that if rotated too early the tail prevents the AOA increasing to a level that makes acceleration and liftoff impossible ( unlike say, an A4 or something like that) , however , that assumes things like the thrust being at the correct value etc.

If not enough thrust then anything is possible, but that is why the pilot has his hands on the go faster levers.

I could be wrong but even if really badly loaded the elevator and stab power
should be enough to get the thing airborne.

Of course the 345 autotrims the stab when a couple of the engines are started but it is based on the input data to the FM if I remember correctly.

so s%^t in =s$%t out = possible mis-trimmed stab- and that could certainly mess the rotate up and reduce elevator control.

just speculation of course which I agree is not always helpful - just my 2 cents. w

tongue in cheek
 

Probably an in joke - sorry guys - it was just that we had a rubber stamp at 33SQN when I was there that someone made up that had 'find him and kill him' AUTH CO 33SQN that was bandied around on various unofficial publications and manuals etc.

trying - poorly- to allude to the usual witch hunt process that seems to come out of things like this.

Apologies if it sounded contentious. Should have left it out.

Ta

I'm glad to hear that Emirates didn't abandon their flight crew and leave them at the mercy of a foreign state. Fortunately, it was an incident and not an accident with no-one hurt. The investigators will have access to all flight data and CVR recordings + they do have telephones in Oz. (00971 is the international dialing code if they're wondering) :}

mrdeux -
Hopefully Emirates rights to operate to Australia are cancelled until this is sorted out.

That has to be the most naive response yet on this thread.
Should they cancell all Qantas flights untill they get there recent spate of technical issues sorted out?

Unfortunately it will be termed an accident, not an incident.

Accident
''(a) a person is fatally or seriously injured.....''
''(b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which,
-adversely affects the structural strength, perf. or flight characteristics of the aircraft or
-would normally require major repair or replacement.......
etc.

No doubt EK will report it as an incident for publicity reasons, and I would do the same. They did it with the JNB accident for example.

I wasn't referring to the incident itself, but rather the very quick removal of the pilots. Australia isn't Japan. Nobody was hurt, but it's still a pretty major event. At least having approval from the ATSB before heading home would seem prudent, and it makes it look much less like they are 'running away'. Now that they are 'home' I presume that the Australian ATSB will be well down the list of people that they will speak too...rather than being the first, as they probably should have been.

Fromagio......

You probably need to revise your ideas about the difference between accident and incident, because if the photos and description of the damage sustained are correct, then this was very much an accident and not just an incident.

ICAO Annex 13:-

Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which ... the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which ...would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component, except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin.

I may be wrong, but the way that I'm seeing it, those holes in the underside of the fuselage certainly appear to be more than just puncture holes! :eek:

I truly wonder if anyone contributing their thoughts actually reads the posts that have come before their own.

It is certainly frustrating to see the same points and the same questions arise so early in the thread, when they have been dealt with in one form or another in earlier posts.

While it may be that someone believes that what has been thus far contributed by experienced people on the airplane may be questioned, at least have the courtesy to pose the question and standby for an informed response so that the conversation can be developed.

Questions about how the Airbus and standard operating procedures handle takeoff weights, takeoff data and takeoff thrust have all been responded to by experienced, knowledgeable contributors. Questions about fuel loads, enroute times, takeoff V speeds and calculations of same have similarly been dealt with by experienced people on the equipment. I posted a lengthy description of the rotation technique, including cautions, concerning the A340-500. These are relevant points to a tailstrike incident. They are necessary aspects of the discussion yet continue to be ignored in favour of the wildest theories. Most theories regarding early gear or flap retraction, cargo shifting, wrong trim setting on takeoff range from much less likely to not-a-chance.

Of interest are reports that the aircraft was still on the ground at the end of the runway. Can anyone confirm this or is this just another media story? Thanks.

Hempy...

Can't see enough detail in that pic there, but the LLZ antenna has to be aligned with the runway centreline. The transmitter building is the one abeam.

So which one is it? Antenna i'm guessin...

If they were still on the ground after leaving the end of the runway and in a tailstrike attitude, it does somewhat follow that they weren't going fast enough to fly at that point (less than Vmu). What *could* cause this on 12,000' of tarmac?

- Lack of thrust
- Not enough flap
- Too little runway (intersection departure)
- Windshear
- Gross overload

Something (or things) must have gone badly wrong... After all, the aircraft should have been able to clear the runway end by at least 35' after losing an engine at V1. I doubt this accident has a type-specific cause as it is so far removed from normality.

sb4200

Early in the morning and still groggy but the llz antenna are off to the side of the runway