Delta in JFK ?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
Since you’ve had no takers I’ll pop up to wildly speculate given the length of 04L, there’s no talk of an actual braking system malfunction and they had two goes at that runway I’d suggest some sort of RAAS (or Airbus equivalent system ) problem giving them maybe a false short runway warning.
That might explain some of the very mild exasperation and mention of talking to maintenance….
Hopefully someone comes along soon with a better idea.
That might explain some of the very mild exasperation and mention of talking to maintenance….
Hopefully someone comes along soon with a better idea.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,689
Likes: 118
From: USA
wiggy,
Thanks. I Googled around and found out what that system is (some Airbus concoction) but I don't know how it's applied operationally. I don't know if a crew is legally/SOP bound to adhere to such a warning regardless...even when they know they're not looking at a short runway.
I looked at the metar for that time at JFK and didn't see any precip that would create stopping issues on a 12K ft runway.
So, like you, I wonder if that pile of computer chips merely went off the rails.
Thanks. I Googled around and found out what that system is (some Airbus concoction) but I don't know how it's applied operationally. I don't know if a crew is legally/SOP bound to adhere to such a warning regardless...even when they know they're not looking at a short runway.
I looked at the metar for that time at JFK and didn't see any precip that would create stopping issues on a 12K ft runway.
So, like you, I wonder if that pile of computer chips merely went off the rails.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
Apologies if the following is teaching you to suck eggs but certainly on the Boeing I used to fly with RAAS fitted the SOP for “Caution short runway, short runway” on final was to Go-around…that may have changed, don’t know.
It’s a while ago but I think the checklist/manuals were silent on what to do if you got the warning on a second approach to the same runway having rechecked performance.
It’s a while ago but I think the checklist/manuals were silent on what to do if you got the warning on a second approach to the same runway having rechecked performance.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,689
Likes: 118
From: USA
wiggy,
I can always be taught. Fortunately, I've been retired long enough that I didn't have to defer to computer chips when I had other data saying a landing was okay.
I suppose I'd object to being removed from the equation...and replaced with computer chips when I could identify a safe operation.
Not a big deal I suppose...sign of the times.
I can always be taught. Fortunately, I've been retired long enough that I didn't have to defer to computer chips when I had other data saying a landing was okay.
I suppose I'd object to being removed from the equation...and replaced with computer chips when I could identify a safe operation.
Not a big deal I suppose...sign of the times.
Joined: Mar 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,558
Likes: 155
From: BC
To me, this is the other side of incorrect takeoff data case. Now retired, but I have lots of time in the A330 and there was never an operation in which a runway the length of 04L was insufficient in normal ops. So there was incorrect data either sensed or inserted in software at some point.
Very difficult for captain & crew to assess and then make a decision as to the level of safety and inherent risks.
There are certainly times when an experienced crew may, in all good sense, set aside what appears to be unreasonable data and just fly the airplane, not the chips. But of course, the correct decision is to go-around if the aircraft software driving the warning says it is unsafe to proceed as to do otherwise would be indefensible should something, (anything!), untoward occur.
They landed on the third attempt…one wonders what changed and why.
Very difficult for captain & crew to assess and then make a decision as to the level of safety and inherent risks.
There are certainly times when an experienced crew may, in all good sense, set aside what appears to be unreasonable data and just fly the airplane, not the chips. But of course, the correct decision is to go-around if the aircraft software driving the warning says it is unsafe to proceed as to do otherwise would be indefensible should something, (anything!), untoward occur.
They landed on the third attempt…one wonders what changed and why.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 262
From: Blighty
This has happened with the A380 several times. Never heard of it occurring on a 330 though.
AI Overview+2In March 2016, an Emirates A380 (A6-EOP) operating flight EK19 from Dubai to Manchester went around three times before diverting to London Heathrow. The Flight Management System repeatedly warned that Manchester's conditions were unsuitable, leading to the go-arounds and subsequent diversion, according to a PPRuNe forum thread.
