Ultra Low Emirates into BHX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Coventry
Age: 63
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultra Low Emirates into BHX
I am posing the question here as I would probably get a telling off in the Rumours and News forum for this one but . . . . .
I work at a luxury car manufacturer In Castle Bromwhich and as a result are used to seeing the coming and goings into BHX - not taking huge amounts of notice as most events are routine.
The largest regulars we see are the morning flight (arrival) of the Air India 777 and later (usually around 13:00) the arrival of the Emirates Airbus.
Last Friday 25th @ 12:50 - The inbound Emirates flight came in so low over the plant we seriosuly thought we had had it !
The aircraft was not on its normal decent (glide path) and was way low with frequent changes to the pitch and roll being evident from the ground.
We have a 150ft cooling tower in the side of the paintshop and the aircraft only just cleared it before a very loud "go around" or take off level of engine noise as it apparantly struggled to climb high enough to clear the raised section of the M6
I know there will be issues with my perspective and angle of view - but I see this aircraft almost daily when I am on site and I really thought there was a mjaor incident about to happen.
Does anyone have any other info - was there a problem reported formally after this flight ?
CVTD
I work at a luxury car manufacturer In Castle Bromwhich and as a result are used to seeing the coming and goings into BHX - not taking huge amounts of notice as most events are routine.
The largest regulars we see are the morning flight (arrival) of the Air India 777 and later (usually around 13:00) the arrival of the Emirates Airbus.
Last Friday 25th @ 12:50 - The inbound Emirates flight came in so low over the plant we seriosuly thought we had had it !
The aircraft was not on its normal decent (glide path) and was way low with frequent changes to the pitch and roll being evident from the ground.
We have a 150ft cooling tower in the side of the paintshop and the aircraft only just cleared it before a very loud "go around" or take off level of engine noise as it apparantly struggled to climb high enough to clear the raised section of the M6
I know there will be issues with my perspective and angle of view - but I see this aircraft almost daily when I am on site and I really thought there was a mjaor incident about to happen.
Does anyone have any other info - was there a problem reported formally after this flight ?
CVTD
The crossing point of the M6 is about 4-5 miles out from the 15 threshold and the aircraft should be at around 1200-1500ft.
Did you notice it as much lower than normal? Any idea of the height?
Did you notice it as much lower than normal? Any idea of the height?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Yorkshire Zone
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cvt Dog, No problem posting what you saw.
Like you said It was not a 'routine' approach, And if you think that the A/C was flying low then you do right saying so.
There has been other incidents at Bhx over the past few years, Where the A/C have been flying too low.
Regards.
Like you said It was not a 'routine' approach, And if you think that the A/C was flying low then you do right saying so.
There has been other incidents at Bhx over the past few years, Where the A/C have been flying too low.
Regards.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Castle Bromwich appears to be about 3 nm from touchdown on the runway in question and at that point aircraft should be around 950 ft . If one was just above 150 ft it would be a very serious incident which would surely make the press and TV, etc.
It's exceedingly difficult for the untrained eye to accurately estimate heights of aircraft, as I know from plenty of experience during my time at Heathrow. The Noise Nutters from Windsor once insisted to me that aircraft fly down Windsor High Street at 500 ft and no amount of my explaining would convince them otherwise.
I thought a 777 overflew us well below the usual altitude a few days ago but when I checked it on SBS it was around 5000ft and well within normal limits.
Lastly, ATC radars have height readout and a deviation of that degree from the normal glideslope would be seen.
It's exceedingly difficult for the untrained eye to accurately estimate heights of aircraft, as I know from plenty of experience during my time at Heathrow. The Noise Nutters from Windsor once insisted to me that aircraft fly down Windsor High Street at 500 ft and no amount of my explaining would convince them otherwise.
I thought a 777 overflew us well below the usual altitude a few days ago but when I checked it on SBS it was around 5000ft and well within normal limits.
Lastly, ATC radars have height readout and a deviation of that degree from the normal glideslope would be seen.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Coventry
Age: 63
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess
Thanks for helping me put this into perspective HD.
Chatting to my colleagues who legged it out of their offices to see the spectacle (they honsetly heard it coming !!) The aircraft was approx 1/3 of the height that it normally clears the plant at.
I polled others - equally as inexperienced at spotting as I am - using the 150ft tower as a guide the overwhealming opinion was that it was no more than 300ft up as it came over the plant.
I have tried to take the steam out of peoples thoughts but when one senior manager on the north side of the plant thought it was coming in through his office window ("I thought my number was up you could see into the cockpit") something really did happen in this case.
IF it was lower than the "rules" would it have been reported as a matter of course ?
CVTD
Chatting to my colleagues who legged it out of their offices to see the spectacle (they honsetly heard it coming !!) The aircraft was approx 1/3 of the height that it normally clears the plant at.
I polled others - equally as inexperienced at spotting as I am - using the 150ft tower as a guide the overwhealming opinion was that it was no more than 300ft up as it came over the plant.
I have tried to take the steam out of peoples thoughts but when one senior manager on the north side of the plant thought it was coming in through his office window ("I thought my number was up you could see into the cockpit") something really did happen in this case.
IF it was lower than the "rules" would it have been reported as a matter of course ?
CVTD
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you really feel that a dangerous situation occurred you should report it. Start by contacting ATC at the airport and discussing the matter. If a large aeroplane really was that far below the glidepath it is very serious. I'm sure that had that happened, ATC would have instructed the aircraft to climb and they would have filed a report.
I'm still surprised that it didn't make the national papers... and there's nothing on here in the flight deck forums..
I'm still surprised that it didn't make the national papers... and there's nothing on here in the flight deck forums..
As HD says it is sometimes difficult to accurately judge the height of the a/c especially if, say it is one of the larger ones to use the airport and has maybe followed in a couple of smaller types (like say the EMB145).
However if you have referenced its height against that of similar sized aircraft and it was way low, backed up by opinions of other co-workers who have also seen the same thing then I'm surprised it hasn't made the news.
However if you have referenced its height against that of similar sized aircraft and it was way low, backed up by opinions of other co-workers who have also seen the same thing then I'm surprised it hasn't made the news.
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll see be interesting to see the result of CVT's enquiry to ATC.
Let's also bear in mind that he knew he could be in for a battering here but was still energised enough by the event to post.
Did the plane actually go around?
Let's also bear in mind that he knew he could be in for a battering here but was still energised enough by the event to post.
Did the plane actually go around?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Coventry
Age: 63
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contact
Made contact with the BHX ATC tower who are "looking into it"
The aircraft DID bank right and climb away after we viewed it - those of you that have access or can interpret the weather information on the day will know there was quite a low cloud base. The second approach (if there was one) wasn't observable from where we were
CVTD
The aircraft DID bank right and climb away after we viewed it - those of you that have access or can interpret the weather information on the day will know there was quite a low cloud base. The second approach (if there was one) wasn't observable from where we were
CVTD
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Lichfield
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK37
I work at the plant next door to CVTD and the whole office ran out, so low and loud was the noise. Approaches that day around that time were on NDBs as the ILS was off. I am not sure if this was due to routine maintenance or another issue. All preceeding aircraft and at least the next 4 landers over a 12 minute period made approaches that were significantly to the left of centreline (approx half a mile) when about 4 miles out. A FlyBe E145, CityJet RJ85 and TUA B757 were all well left on a converging track to the centreline and intercepted the centreline about 2 miles out with a bank to the left. Not all were as low as A6-EBH, but he returned about 10 mins after his go around, and landed normally. When I arrived at BHX I was told the EK had overshot due to being too close to the previous lander (A LH B737) which was still rolling out on landing as the EK B777 was over BHX. No explanation was given as to why he was so low. Having been watching aircraft land at BHX for 40 years, I would estimate power was applied at 300-400 feet with the aircraft pointing on an approx heading of 180 degrees (ie 30 degrees to the right of centreline track). He routed directly over my place of work instead of half a mile to the west. The next FlyBe E145 5 mins later was even further to the east (east of the A452) as he flew abeam me.
I have no explanation why such wayward approaches should result from NDBs.
I too thought it would have made the press.....
EK37
I have no explanation why such wayward approaches should result from NDBs.
I too thought it would have made the press.....
EK37
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Coventry
Age: 63
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK37
Thanks for that post - ATC havent got back to me to confirm the actual height but your response is very informative.
Thanks very much
would there not be a "formal" notice regarding such a low pass ?
Thanks very much
would there not be a "formal" notice regarding such a low pass ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Webtrak
You may find the EMA Webtrak site interesting. You can replay radar information taken from EMA, which fortunately just covers the approach to R15 at BHX. If you replay 25 April from 12.55 you will note SSR code 4177 which crosses the M6 at Castle Vale at 1650 ft (presume asl). The aircraft then disappears as it flies below the radar coverage at EMA.
The next aircraft appears at 12.58 on SSR code 4112 - I believe that this is the Emirates aircraft. Its lowest height recorded shows at 1798 ft, in the Castle Vale area, before it commences a go around to 2500 ft.
As mentioned by EK37, it was surprising to see so many aircraft so far to the left of the approach track, and only being fully lined up at a late stage on the approach. I am five miles out, and I was fairly alarmed to see/hear the Emirates aircraft come straight over my house, rather than in front of it like normal. However, a number of other aircraft did exactly the same.
The Emirates did appear to be lower than 'normal', but I think that the way the approach was flown meant that many people saw the aircraft in a slightly different perspective than normal and this may have created the illusion that he was lower than usual. Certainly the data from Webtrak seems to indicate that he was on the correct descent profile.
Dave
http://ema.webtrak-lochard.com/index2.html
The next aircraft appears at 12.58 on SSR code 4112 - I believe that this is the Emirates aircraft. Its lowest height recorded shows at 1798 ft, in the Castle Vale area, before it commences a go around to 2500 ft.
As mentioned by EK37, it was surprising to see so many aircraft so far to the left of the approach track, and only being fully lined up at a late stage on the approach. I am five miles out, and I was fairly alarmed to see/hear the Emirates aircraft come straight over my house, rather than in front of it like normal. However, a number of other aircraft did exactly the same.
The Emirates did appear to be lower than 'normal', but I think that the way the approach was flown meant that many people saw the aircraft in a slightly different perspective than normal and this may have created the illusion that he was lower than usual. Certainly the data from Webtrak seems to indicate that he was on the correct descent profile.
Dave
http://ema.webtrak-lochard.com/index2.html
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to spoil the party too much here, but the NDB/DME approach to runway 15 at BHX is, as most non-precision approaches are, offset from the runway centreline by, in this case, 5 degrees.
In this case, it's entirely normal i'm afraid. Certainly not alarming. I'll also stick my neck out and say that the Emirates aircraft was exactly where it should have been, at the height it should have been.
As mentioned by EK37, it was surprising to see so many aircraft so far to the left of the approach track, and only being fully lined up at a late stage on the approach. I am five miles out, and I was fairly alarmed to see/hear the Emirates aircraft come straight over my house, rather than in front of it like normal. However, a number of other aircraft did exactly the same.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What? Do you mean it didn't ONLY JUST 'clear the 150' cooling tower, and it might not have 'struggled to clear the elevated section of the M-whatever'? And those people who 'thought they'd had it' on the ground were, in actual fact, watching the aeroplane at the correct altitude on the correct offset final approach course for the day? Zut alors!
Whatever next? Shall we let these pilots keep their jobs then?
Whatever next? Shall we let these pilots keep their jobs then?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The incident was also mentioned by someone on the UKAR forum. He thought the aircraft was lower than 1000ft (more like 500) whilst in the go around over the Solihull area. The aircraft would have been at 2500ft at this point.
http://forums.airshows.co.uk/cgi-bin...20;hl=emirates
Just shows how difficult it can be to gauge the height of aircraft when they are in a different position than you are used to seeing them.
Dave
http://forums.airshows.co.uk/cgi-bin...20;hl=emirates
Just shows how difficult it can be to gauge the height of aircraft when they are in a different position than you are used to seeing them.
Dave
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now now Not so F. I'm with you in spirit - but the issue here is that sensible people, independently, thought they saw a problem. They were convinced they'd seen something very wrong. They came to Prune to query it. Turns out to be an interesting optical illusion and non event. Everyones happy. Better than them losing sleep over it.
Better than them losing sleep over it.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This...
...makes me 
. This isn't sensible, it's moronic. 
What? Do you mean it didn't ONLY JUST 'clear the 150' cooling tower, and it might not have 'struggled to clear the elevated section of the M-whatever'? And those people who 'thought they'd had it' on the ground were, in actual fact, watching the aeroplane at the correct altitude on the correct offset final approach course for the day? Zut alors!
Whatever next? Shall we let these pilots keep their jobs then?
Whatever next? Shall we let these pilots keep their jobs then?
. This isn't sensible, it's moronic.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does rather smack of overstated reporting like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
..where it seems the main aim of the interviewees and the commentators to the article appears to be 'let's have the pilot's scalp hanging off the noisiest passengers belt!'
Someone comes to a professional pilot forum and reports a violation against an identifiable flight and identifiable crew that apparently did not take place at all. They must expect a custard pie in the face! Next step might be an apology and withdrawal...or is that expecting too much?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
..where it seems the main aim of the interviewees and the commentators to the article appears to be 'let's have the pilot's scalp hanging off the noisiest passengers belt!'
Someone comes to a professional pilot forum and reports a violation against an identifiable flight and identifiable crew that apparently did not take place at all. They must expect a custard pie in the face! Next step might be an apology and withdrawal...or is that expecting too much?
