Graham Eccleston Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 It's a bit worrying when an aircraft can't become airborne with 3,600 mtrs of runway!! http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25323449-5014090,00.html If it was Qantas, it would have been headline news in all the media. So much for balanced reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurdy Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Load error I am guessing...I bet she was heavier than she should be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuywithaBeer Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Would've been interesting to see the reaction of anybody parked in the viewing area at the end of the runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest javo Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Would've been interesting to see the reaction of anybody parked in the viewing area at the end of the runway. The Porta Dunny man would have made a killing if he'd been there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chumley Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 It's a bit worrying when an aircraft can't become airborne with 3,600 mtrs of runway!! http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25323449-5014090,00.html If it was Qantas, it would have been headline news in all the media. So much for balanced reporting. If it was Qantas it would be a mangled heap. With every near miss we move one miss closer to a black day. Aybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawbe Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 It's a bit worrying when an aircraft can't become airborne with 3,600 mtrs of runway!! http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25323449-5014090,00.html If it was Qantas, it would have been headline news in all the media. So much for balanced reporting. If it was Qantas it would be a mangled heap. With every near miss we move one miss closer to a black day. Aybe lol... Media has succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrajag Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Well, it isn't an Australian airline so it won't be as newsworthy as if it was but I am still a little surprised it wasn't picked up more too. The main thing that concerns me about Qantas is the CEOs comment that they will spend 10Mil (right after sacking people) on "Still call Austrlia Home" advertising, the reason, because people were starting to think the airline wasn't as safe as it once was. Personally I would feel better if the spent the 10mil on the original guys and gals that worked to give them their precious image instrad of moving the jobs OS. I hate the common idea these days that problems should be fixed with marketing. The Emirates pilots resigned, to me means that either they don't want to fly for the company anymore, maybe because they and their passengers were put in an unsafe position by the airline management or they stuffed up badly and thought it was best to jump ship to prevent being sacked. Overloading or a trimming issue sounds like the probably cause but it would be good to get some facts. It is good to learn from other peoples mistakes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singletracker Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Apparently incorrect takeoff data, speeds and FLEX(thrust derate) were entered into the FMGEC resulting in not enough thrust to get airborne in the runway available. Without commenting on how that happened, good job getting airborne and flying it out of ground effect, given the aircrafts flight control laws at low speeds! If it was Qantas it would be a mangled heap. With every near miss we move one miss closer to a black day. Wonderfully ill informed comment, keep cutting those tall poppies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrajag Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Apparently incorrect takeoff data, speeds and FLEX(thrust derate) were entered into the FMGEC resulting in not enough thrust to get airborne in the runway available. Without commenting on how that happened, good job getting airborne and flying it out of ground effect, given the aircrafts flight control laws at low speeds! hehe. These days I only fly the small planes in FS and my real world is a two seater so I forgot all about that. I was practicing slow flight two days ago but I was at 3,500 feet. I was going slow enough that if I did much of a turn the downward ailerons induced drag would have stalled that part of the wing. Having to do it as low as those guys were. Far out, I would need stress leave thats for sure! Is there a TOGA switch in that aircraft? Having realised that the end of the runway was getting very close surely you would want to lose any derate? Maybe they did but there still wasn't enough thrust to get them comfortably off the ground within the now available (and shrinking runway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradHosking Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Airbus throttles have a sorta lock in place type settings with their throttle... and it you clunk them forwards to the last post you get TOGA. The one before that is the one that it is set to for takeoff as the computers calculate the takeoff thrust required/distance...etc I would however suspect that the throttles would have been in the last position before they left the ground otherwise they might not have. My old man hasn't heard much on what has been happening or what has happened to the two pilots apart from I believe they are back in Aus now assisting the authorities in what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Henare Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 The Aircraft is still hidden in the John Holland Hangers (Old Ansett Hangers) from a technical perspective it is likely the aircraft will be written off. The Aft Pressure Bulkhead was crushed and as it is a composite material which is quite difficult to repair, something Airbus have to work out (Aluminium ones can be repaired generally). Meaning the aircraft cannot safely be pressurised. If it does fly with out a full repair it will be a 10000ft flight to i would guess Singapore which would use lot and lots of fuel and take quite a while too. They have carefully covered the damaged areas with cardboard and painted over in white, but i had a little look before it was disguised. It is constantly under guard too. I spoke to a pilot who was on approach as this thing took off and they could see he was using a lot of runway from their point of view. Apparently the centre gear left tracks in the grass and the localizer antenna was hit. There is also a small building to the side which very nearly got hit to. This was a pretty close call in my books, not surprised they crew resigned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Hmmm... If it was a Flex setting mistake and you realise that it is a mistake just before V1 but since its taken so long to speed up there isn't enough space to abort is there a way to quickly override flex setting a get full power? If remember right the flex setting is on the MCP? Surely there must be a way? If there was ever a 'pucker moment' those two guy would have grown new muscles just clenching their buttocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singletracker Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 You could push the thrust lever forward to the TOGA detent at any time to override the FLEX. FLEX is set via the performance page in the FMC. The main issue is when you are heavy as they probably were(?), when you calculate the FLEX you are reducing thrust to achieve a balanced field length which means you are basically planning on using all of the runway for the takeoff roll, rotate and achieve a 30' screen height with a very small stop margin. I'm sure they selected TOGA at some point after V1. But it's easy in hind sight to say you should of realised the acceleration was slower than normal! You should have made that decision by visual assesment of runway remaining when you still had over 1/3 of the total runway length ahead of you approaching V1. The Potomac river over run was another example of this, caused by TAT probe icing. That said I hope I could pick up gross errors based on experience, IE why at MTOW do we have Flex 52? we normally have flex 32 -36, hmmm strange lets recheck the takeoff data. But like I said all easy with hindsight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Henare Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 ...is there a way to quickly override flex setting a get full power? Thats called TOGA, but that is only helpful if you have identified you are too slow for the remaning runway length, not to mention the time required to reach max thrust. As with most incidents its not usually one single error that these things happen. The recent Turkish 737 that crashed in amsterdam is a glaring example of not realising there was a problem until it is too late. At 1900ft the Autothrottles went to idle as the A/C thought it was in flare mode due to a Radio Altimeter discrepancy. The crew sat there for 100 seconds with the aircraft slowing to a stall before making any attempt to recover the aircraft, and their recover effort was botched as then applyed full thrust them let go of the throttles which went back to idle again. Try it in the sim set yourself on glideslope at 1900ft in full landing config, then idle the engines see how far you can get. Or for the Emirates one see how little thrust you can get away with to still get in the air using full length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumman Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Makes me wonder if pilots have some way of objectively evaluating takeoff progress relative to runway length remaining. There's no point in reaching V1 with insufficient runway left to stop, because surely the calculation of V1 incorporates runway length, among other factors. So some additional objective measure is needed, e.g. runway length remaining when 80kts is reached, to confirm that the thrust setting is correct. Singletracker, is there such an indicator, or is it based on subjective feel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Henare Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 There is no reason an indicator could not be developed, especially on a HUD system with a projected point of takeoff being displayed. The only issue would be ensuring accurate weight information is available to acceleration calculations could be used. The issue returns to the manual entry of weight being the key to these sort of events. Until weight is automated long takeoffs will always be a posibility. A simpler method (probably already done) is for the crew to breif on what point they should expect to reach V1 to cross check where they are on the acceleration curve relative to remaining runway length. Our 737s have a VSD (Vertical Situation Display) which the pilots use to view a side on profile of the aircrafts position relative to the terrain, glideslope and runway and generally used on approach, its a big step forward in terrain avoidance information and display. A display showing the projected takeoff point could work with this display too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singletracker Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Makes me wonder if pilots have some way of objectively evaluating takeoff progress relative to runway length remaining. There's no point in reaching V1 with insufficient runway left to stop, because surely the calculation of V1 incorporates runway length, among other factors. So some additional objective measure is needed, e.g. runway length remaining when 80kts is reached, to confirm that the thrust setting is correct. Singletracker, is there such an indicator, or is it based on subjective feel? No it's down to feel and experience. Theodkiwi is correct regarding the input of data and any system you introduce will require some data entry either at the user(pilot) end or the programmer end (scary thought personally). Dodgy data in = dodgy performance out. The 380 for example calculates it's own weight and CofG and if you enter figures that are glaringly different you get an ECAM Weight/CG disagree. But you could still enter whatever V speeds and FLEX and get no warning, just like the 340. The reason being, V speeds and FLEX are dependant on temperature, QNH and wind vector. these are things that are dynamic and the aircraft cant ascertain for it's self pre departure (in theory it could get Temp and QNH but isn't programed to do so) it dose monitor runway length and provides an option for takeoff shift (intersection departures/reduced runway length). There are multiple systems in place both procedural and checklist items to stop the input of dodgy data. Sometimes however they still get through the safety net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divad_strebor Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I have a couple of quick questions.. Firstly, what does FLEX stand for/mean? And secondly, why have it at all? From what I can decipher, it reduces your take-off power settings to match the runway length, correct? Why do you want to use the whole runway for the takeoff run? Personally, I'd rather use full power so the acceleration is quick, and you have the maximum amount of runway left in front of you if it all goes pear-shaped. This sort of reminds me of that old aviation saying of the two most useless things to a pilot.. Runway behind you and altitude above you.. I prefer the KISS philosophy. Keep It Simple Stupid. Why complicate it all with fancy calculations and computer programs (all of which can go wrong) to control engine thrust on take-off, when there is a perfectly good throttle quadrant right there in front of you just waiting to be shoved to the instrument panel? I can kind of understand it from a passenger comfort standpoint, but which is more important? Keeping the PAX comfy on the takeoff, or making sure they get to their destination in one piece? Besides, I personally would prefer to fly with the bloke who uses 15 meters of runway then climbs out at 80º... But I'm a bit of a thrillseeker.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afl04 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Besides, I personally would prefer to fly with the bloke who uses 15 meters of runway then climbs out at 80º... But I'm a bit of a thrillseeker.. I agree!!! Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singletracker Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I have a couple of quick questions.. Firstly, what does FLEX stand for/mean? And secondly, why have it at all? From what I can decipher, it reduces your take-off power settings to match the runway length, correct? Why do you want to use the whole runway for the takeoff run? Personally, I'd rather use full power so the acceleration is quick, and you have the maximum amount of runway left in front of you if it all goes pear-shaped. This sort of reminds me of that old aviation saying of the two most useless things to a pilot.. Runway behind you and altitude above you.. FLEX is short for Flexible takeoff thrust / it's a derated takeoff thrust setting, It reduces fuel consumption, engine wear, noise footprint and Pylon fatigue. I would like to use TOGA on every takeoff just for the fun value alone, at most FLEX takeoff weights (light) you never get close to achieving a balanced field as you have way too much thrust and acceleration, it only becomes fully balanced at heavy weights. If everyone used TOGA every takeoff you would probably see a rise in engine failures, way more exciting than a balanced field takeoff. Aviation is full of great sayings, here's a few more; There fuel tanks not air tanks. I'll just put on 500kg additional...for mum and the kids. I don't want to teach you to suck eggs, but I find it works better if you..... I guess it comes down to this one though, Welcome to commercial aviation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krono Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Hi It all comes down to the mighty dollar. How much can we save on this take off. Its a pity really as in everything we do there is a middle point but too often the financial side will allways win, and im only an electrician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrajag Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Hi It all comes down to the mighty dollar. How much can we save on this take off. Its a pity really as in everything we do there is a middle point but too often the financial side will allways win, and im only an electrician Even with that I think Australian aviation does a fantastic job. It is always going to be hard to be as efficient as possible without crossing the line to corner cutting on high cost activities such as fuel loading and maintenance. Over the last few years it looks like we have seen a bit of an erosion in at least one airline but it can be hard for us casual observers to know for sure. In my flying a SportStar (a two seater) a single circuit will cost me about $25 to $30 in hire fees. It is easy to see that a small thing in aviation can have a big impact on our pockets. The more money we have, the bigger plane we fly, the more costly time and maintenance costs. I decided at the very start that if I start worrying about doing an extra circuit or two then it is time to fly less and save more. I guess that is what the big guys are doing ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Henare Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Hi It all comes down to the mighty dollar. How much can we save on this take off. Its a pity really as in everything we do there is a middle point but too often the financial side will allways win, and im only an electrician Its termed Power by the Hour, often engines are leased and the lease costs are dependent on how the engine is used. If Max thrust was used every take off, the engines themselves would need more maintenance and have less time on wing and thus cost more to operate and therefore impact ticket prices, less people would travel, airline fails, other airlines gets monopoly and pump up prices even more but who cares there is no more real competition, eg QF vs Ansett, remember how high the ticket prices were back then? This year we are starting an engine change schedule as our aircraft are starting to get to a certain age, we will be doing an engine change once a week as they begin their cycle through overhaul. We would probably have to do two a week if they used max power all the time.. ouch Put it this way, would you tear away from the lights at every intersection in your road car? No you accalerate smoothly and if needed us the full power to get your self out of trouble... or thats the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singletracker Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Update (Lunch with Emirates mate) TOGA was never selected and apparently the error was 100T, so I suspect they went with FLEX74 (full derate) no wonder it was so exciting \ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divad_strebor Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I assume by 100T you mean weight miscalculated by 100 tons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singletracker Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I assume by 100T you mean weight miscalculated by 100 tons? Yep, sorry used to abbreviations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krono Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Hi Theoddkiwi thanks for the info,putting it that way does put a different slant on things. Glad to hear your input Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotspot Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 remember how high the ticket prices were back then? Yep Theoddkiwi, 1959, earning twenty quid a week (which was a high wage for a young guy), an airline ticket Dubbo to Sydney (200 air miles) and back cost five quid, a quarter of my weekly salary, so could only afford to see my girlfriend once a month. She jilted me for a motor bike rider. Saw her the other day - he did me a big favour and I'm glad the tickets were so exxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Eccleston Posted April 25, 2009 Author Share Posted April 25, 2009 A further update. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25386322-661,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divad_strebor Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Thanks for the update Graham... Seems like this one has opened a can of worms regarding Emirates' attitude to employees and vice-versa. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Snyman Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Money > Safety Margin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krono Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 As I said .. the mighty dollar speaks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dow Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Fair go you blokes, you sound like the kind of deep and meaningful types who listen to Alan Jones's moronic diatribes. Running an international airline is always going to be a battle for the number crunchers who determine whether the airline stays in business or goes under. Multi-million dollar engines across a fleet the size of Emirates would cost hundreds of millions a year. Each take-off cycle adds to costs. A specialist manager, not an internet know-it-all, has a rough idea on how to run the engines to minimise wear without compromising safety. The process, believe it or not, involves calculating engine wear-saving procedures into the totality of getting an aircraft off the ground. If you look at a watch with a second hand, make a note that every time that little hand moves to the next second, somewhere in the world an aircraft laden with passengers is successfully taking off using the kind of wear-reducing measures Emirates and other airlines have in place. The fact of the matter is that the pilots in question made an error. The error of a wrong digit in the calculations was not something Emirates or any other airline would have had the power to prevent. Even the best systems can go awry once in a blue moon. And this was, quite simply, a once in a blue moon occurrence. A lot of industry-savvy people have stated that the stupidest thing Emirates did was to fire the two pilots, because one thing is absolutely sure, they will never ever make that mistake again, and will probably spend their lives warning other pilots about how to avoid it. Anyway, if you're not convinced, how about next time you're looking for an airline ticket, instead of selecting the best available fare, make sure you click on the most expensive option, because without the kind of measures that airlines take to save costs, that is what you would be up for every time you fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Johnston Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Very well said John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrajag Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Fair go you blokes, you sound like the kind of deep and meaningful types who listen to Alan Jones's moronic diatribes. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumman Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 The preliminary ATSB report was released today: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/AAIR/aair200901310.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgutteri Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Here's another link: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=416c9997/0001&opt=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgutteri Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Just an update: They're flying it back over 4 days to the France base for an $80million repair (!). That's a stretch just to say your airline has never written off a plane http://avherald.com/h?article=416c9997/0009&opt=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Henare Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Yeah have sneaky peak as we drove past it the otherday. Has the biggest patch repair i have every seen on an aircraft. Unpresurized flight all the way to france would be an expensive prospect with a very high fuel burn, probably explaining the 4 day trip. Airbus sent their AOG team to do the repair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skypilot Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 AOG ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.