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

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?

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.:ok:

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.

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

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..

Follow up
 

OK H.D - I'll try dropping them a line

CVTD

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.

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?

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

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

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 ?

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

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.

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?

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

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. :ok: Better than them losing sleep over it.

This...

...makes me :yuk:. This isn't sensible, it's moronic. :ugh::ugh:

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?

Post 17
 

Uncalled for.

:confused::confused:

Have I missed something ---- again?

This thread is just starting to get pedantic, without cause.

No slagging and no abuse please.

PPP

It may have no bearing on this matter, but those using on-line "radar", should be aware that some of the information is derived from SBS type equipment which is certainly not fallible and aircraft are occasionally depicted in wrong positions. This is due to ADS-B not transmitting correct lat and log. Just yesterday I observed two aircraft approaching Heathrow in what appeared to be extremely dangerous conflict. A few minutes later one "landed" at Bracknell, several miles south of the true location! A/c postions on SBS can be 5 or more miles wrong so don't trust everything you see on-line.

I see no problem with post #17, but the next one was a bit off-side.

In the cruise you can hear a jet pass overhead by 1000'. This when you have all the other noise in your own flightdeck and them at 'cruise' thrust.

At the airport, most jets do not use 'full' power for take off and that is pretty noisy.

By comparison it's not difficult to see why someone outside, or in a relatively quiet place, would take notice of a full thrust go-around directly above them :eek:
You could easily assume this was something to do with the height!

And those of us who have endured.... sorry, ENJOYED a Concorde go-around will agree fully with Helen!

Really? :confused: You must have much better hearing than me!

It was never dangerously low or even too low for that matter, it was a bog standard missed approach, breaking right of 15 to re-position for another approach. It's just a big aeroplane so your perspective is somewhat different making it appear lower than it actually was.

Now you know where the waiting list for UK 'luxury' cars comes from - they're all out plane spotting instead of building posh Mondeos.

Sorry F
 

Sorry f my fault meant 18 :ouch::ouch::ouch::ouch:

Well people can grumble and grizzle all they like, but the fact remains someone came here and erroneously reported a violation against an identifiable flight and crew with a drastically exaggerated claim of nearly hitting things and killing lots of people. They could have been in trouble because of this. And when it comes out that the report was, quite simply, wrong, what do we get........silence....until we presumably try and nail someone else with a grossly exaggerated written up report of children running away screaming while the vortex whips them off their feet and almost sucks them into the engine.

If you are going to try and nail someone, at least take the trouble to try and get your facts right and not exaggerate! Rather than object to my posting criticising this nonsense, perhaps someone could say to the perpetrator 'well maybe you did overstate it!'. Extraordinary. If you are going to use false alleged 'facts' to try and nail a professional doing his job, should you be able to get away with it without any comeback or criticism whatsoever?

Perspective is everything! It can play incredible tricks on your eyes (brain) and will alter what is apparently normal.

When a large piece of 'metal' is contained within a peripheral that is, perhaps, 'enclosed' on both sides it will by definition alter many other perspectives also.......therefore a 74, 76 or 77 filling a relatively small area will look bigger than it is! Same aeroplane in a open space will look a little smaller than it is. Vision and height evaluations being grossly exaggerated.

Perhaps, this go-around was simply the crew acting correctly because they MIGHT have been slightly below the glideslope but I doubt it was as much as has been suggested.

Just a normal everyday event.

Maybe people were confusing 777s for 737s and thinking they were much closer than they actually were :p

They were sadly 'confused' alright...or is it totally 'deluded' and in a highly 'exaggerated' state of mind! I find it absolutely outrageous. And when it is shown what a plonker they have been, do we get any attempt at an apology? Dream on!

So perhaps time to end this nasty thread attempt to get a crew hammered with just a few mindless presses of a keyboard!

Don't go overboard, old chap and no apologies are necessary. During my years at Heathrow I fielded any number of phone calls from Joe Public with similar stories. I even had a BA Captain quite adamant that he had seen a scary airmiss over Westminster. What he'd seen was a light aircraft at 1500ft and a Heathrow inbound at 3000 ft.

Point taken. But do reread post 1. Did the light aeroplane come so close to Parliament 'that all the MPs thought they'd had it'? After the alleged airmiss, did the Heathrow inbound 'struggle after the airmiss to climb over Tower Bridge, sucking in startled pigeons?'. By all means query peculiar observations, but leave out the poetic (and totally fictional) setting-of-scenes! The man was so deluded all I can say is.........you know what's coming, don't you.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He shudda gone to Specsavers!

...which brings it full circle and kind of back to the post i'm most proud of, i.e. number 18....

I stand by it. The original post was moronic...not abuse but a statement of fact.

I do, however, apologise to notsofantastic, my irony radar was evidently not working as it should. Maybe your post was below the coverage of EMA Webtrak and was so low that it's wingtip was carving it's way through a playground full of frightened children, the engines roaring as the deadly aircraft struggled to miss the local orphanage. Whatever, I thought you were being serious :O

Maybe he should have gone to specsavers, but no amount of optical correction will help an 'adult' differentiate between 2000' and a motorway bridge, 50' above the ground. :rolleyes:

The only apology needed is one from the original instigator of this nonsense for the damage he could have done and his dramatic recount of his imaginary events. But I guess we will wait for a long time!

.....and in any case, if anybody wonders why I'm still so annoyed about self appointed flight-inspector jerks apparently permanently on the look out to snitch on any flight operations alleged 'deviations' to newspapers, pprune, CAA and anybody else who will possible be persuaded to listen, let me tell you it's hard enough doing the bloody job at the best of times without these creeps blasting into print anytime they think they can get a bit of free publicity AND nail a professional pilot at the same time.

As evidence, I point to a planeload of hysterical Air France passengers recently- any true nosey aviation busybody will know the details already. The desire to bag a pilot scalp seems to be very strong these days! And a bit of daft exaggeration helps the cause!

Over-reaction
 

Notso (clearly) fantastic & Topside - I posted this is the spotters forum to avoid people like you.

H.D answered my query adequetly as did a few others - I never made accusations of the crews ability - I didnt make it up as verified independantly by others.

And BTW it was luchtime so we were not making cars at the time.

You are everything that is wrong with PPRUNE - self opinioned oafs... :yuk:

I beg to differ.

There are many that would suggest that giving a voice to nonsense like this is what is wrong with pprune. After all, this is the 'Professional Pilots Rumour network'. Whilst it is obvious that you have posted this in the spotters forum, it was also obvious that pilots would read it. The point is, of course, that you have identified a specific flight, and by that, a specific crew and made observations that would be amusing if made by a child, but that are frankly pathetic for an adult.

I refer you to a couple of your points...

I find it difficult to believe you can try and defend those comments without at the very least feeling uncomfortable. Personally, i'd be embarrassed. You reported this to ATC, which in turn suggests that you also believe they cannot do their job. If there was ever an issue, it would have been dealt with long before your 'overwhealming opinion' (sic) came along.

A quote from one of your other posts:

So you know this kind of stuff is crap, yet you post it yourself. Dr Jeckyll, let me introduce Mr Hyde. :rolleyes: