Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emirates 777 crash-landed in Dubai

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    [QUOTE=brianw999;641769]
    Originally posted by obmot View Post
    Disclaimer: I've an avid aviation enthusiast but not a pilot and have no training

    I read an article yesterday (I'll try to find it but don't have it handy) that was compelling at least from my layperson perspective. He was an Emirates 777 captain x15 years and total flight hours 26,000.

    His notion was that crew of 773s sometimes have had a bit of difficulty transitioning from 772 to 773 due to the increased length, and have in the past underestimated (or not completely accounted) for the extra length, and that the crew might have gone TOGA and pulled up, retracted gear since in the flight deck they would perceive gaining altitude (as they are that far forward) yet the tail end is still sinking due to moment of rotation/plane length - and that as a result the plane had tailstrike as gear were starting to or partially retracted and basically belly flopped due to tail strike.

    I'll look for the article the name Byron is sticking in my head, an Aussie maybe (??)

    Please no flames if I used improper terminology etc. as stated I am not a pilot or expert nor do I claim to be.

    OMG I'm good I got it in 20 seconds
    (Link deleted by admin. Commercial website where you have to pay to view)
    Could you link to a non commercial URL please

    Hi Brian first of all SORRY I'm a bit perplexed because it was an article on a non pay site as I viewed it and I had no intention of posting improperly. Let me look again and see what was up with the link - again apologies for posting an improper URL

    EDIT: Try this link, it is a cached page of the article . . . I'm not sure if this is acceptable way to post if not again, my bad :|

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      You mean the ones who used to fly into mountains, seawalls, each other...?
      No.

      One or two days before, there was a 120-minutes-contribution on German TV which was called:
      "Boeing 747 - Die Jumbo Revolution". I can translate that, but it is almost the same in English.

      Mr Sutter has been part of that contribution, and he perceives that, after quite severe difficulties after he had invented the 747 in 1969, it became a
      very safe a/c type.

      AF 747s only had 5 incidents during 45 years (1970-2015), with no fatality reported.

      As I said, I don't know much about the B773ER. And, as I operate a simulator that is named like my nickname, I understand that GPWS is a very nice thing. But:
      In a 741 you didn't find a computer that tells you:
      - the correct amount of fuel, preflight.
      - eta
      - NO TDZ (Siri kindly asks you to choose star and/or arr rwy... My most beloved message.)
      - [I have 25 examples, but probably 3 are enough.]

      Mr Sutter might correct me.

      Thus, [only my assumption], in a 741, a human brain was more in action than in a 744. And action in a brain is not a bad thing, imho.

      We don't need to discuss that the displays that can be found e.g. in a B744 cockpit ease especially long haul flights. When "you have control" changes from one pilot to the second, the displays really help avoiding too much words.

      But, what was an important part of the 747 broadcast, all 747 sister ships (747SP, 742, 744 and the newest sister, the 748i) can be flown manually, and according to one pilot in the broadcast even
      "ridiculously easy". I don't have a comparison. But since the LH fleet consists of
      more 748i
      than 744,
      I get curious. 748i.
      Last edited by LH-B744; 2016-08-19, 21:34. Reason: AF 747
      The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
      The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
      And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
      This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
        Thus, [only my assumption], in a 741, a human brain was more in action than in a 744. And action in a brain is not a bad thing, imho.
        I think BoingBobby would assure us that the brain is very much in action on the 748, just often acting on different tasks. Look, technology has changed the methodology of many professions. They are still the same professions. Back on the 747-100/200, you had a role as a pilot but you also had a flight engineer taking some of that workload off your plate. One of the intentions of the glass cockpit was to allow a crew of two to do what used to require a crew of three. In losing the FE, the role of pilot was expanded to include that role as well. At the same time, advanced automation allowed certain aspects of piloting to become less demanding and provided assistance, warnings and reminders to offset any split concentration issues. CRM was introduced to allow a crew of two to handle what once required a crew of three (or four). None of this compromised the role of basic airmanship, which still has the highest priority.

        The role of pilot has changed a lot since the 1950's. A lot of pilot workload is now in planning, performance calculations, navigation and systems monitoring. There is less manual control of flight surfaces involved; modern aircraft are actually quite robotic and piloting involves programming, directing and monitoring the 'robot' most of the time. That is the role of piloting a 777 or a 748. If you aren't up to the tasks, if you don't have the intellect, it doesn't matter how many loops you can do in a 747-100, you aren't a pilot in the modern sense.

        But all of these aircraft are designed to be flown manually when necessary and are frequently flown manually to keep those necessary skills practiced and ready. Basic airmanship remains the primary requirement of any airline pilot.

        Basic airmanship alone will have you crashing a 777 into the runway however, because a thorough understanding of the aircraft systems you are there to administrate is also a primary requirement. TO/GA switches are inhibited in ground mode above 50kts on the 777. If you don't know this, you aren't qualified to fly it. You might as well not know what the yoke is for.

        So you see, the old pilots weren't better, they just had a different role. There was more physical flight requirement but less concentration on systems and guidance. I would argue that the job requires more mental discipline today and certainly more intellect.

        You can argue that the old-school pilots had, by necessity, a greater concentration on basic flying skills but fatigue is fatigue and human factors are human factors and those pre-FMC pilots got lost and CFIT'd a lot more often than they do now (and required much greater separation as they tended to fly into each other in crowded airspace).

        We are safer today because piloting has changed to serve technological improvements. We are in danger when pilots do not understand this.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          I think BoingBobby would assure us that the brain is very much in action on the 748, just often acting on different tasks. Look, technology has changed the methodology of many professions. They are still the same professions. Back on the 747-100/200, you had a role as a pilot but you also had a flight engineer taking some of that workload off your plate. One of the intentions of the glass cockpit was to allow a crew of two to do what used to require a crew of three. In losing the FE, the role of pilot was expanded to include that role as well. At the same time, advanced automation allowed certain aspects of piloting to become less demanding and provided assistance, warnings and reminders to offset any split concentration issues. CRM was introduced to allow a crew of two to handle what once required a crew of three (or four). None of this compromised the role of basic airmanship, which still has the highest priority.

          The role of pilot has changed a lot since the 1950's. A lot of pilot workload is now in planning, performance calculations, navigation and systems monitoring. There is less manual control of flight surfaces involved; modern aircraft are actually quite robotic and piloting involves programming, directing and monitoring the 'robot' most of the time. That is the role of piloting a 777 or a 748. If you aren't up to the tasks, if you don't have the intellect, it doesn't matter how many loops you can do in a 747-100, you aren't a pilot in the modern sense.

          But all of these aircraft are designed to be flown manually when necessary and are frequently flown manually to keep those necessary skills practiced and ready. Basic airmanship remains the primary requirement of any airline pilot.

          Basic airmanship alone will have you crashing a 777 into the runway however, because a thorough understanding of the aircraft systems you are there to administrate is also a primary requirement. TO/GA switches are inhibited in ground mode above 50kts on the 777. If you don't know this, you aren't qualified to fly it. You might as well not know what the yoke is for.

          So you see, the old pilots weren't better, they just had a different role. There was more physical flight requirement but less concentration on systems and guidance. I would argue that the job requires more mental discipline today and certainly more intellect.

          You can argue that the old-school pilots had, by necessity, a greater concentration on basic flying skills but fatigue is fatigue and human factors are human factors and those pre-FMC pilots got lost and CFIT'd a lot more often than they do now (and required much greater separation as they tended to fly into each other in crowded airspace).

          We are safer today because piloting has changed to serve technological improvements. We are in danger when pilots do not understand this.

          Holy shit Evan, This is one of the best posts that I have ever read here. And I mean that sincerely! There is NOTHING that I would add except that as usual, Mr. LH B-744 is all over the place in his writing. Also, Mr. Sutter is an engineer, he designed the 747 along with a team of over 400 other engineers. He DID NOT "Invent" the aircraft!

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            a bunch of stuff trying to reconcile traditional airmanship and modern systems management,

            AND THIS

            ...Basic airmanship alone will have you crashing a 777 into the runway...
            There it is, the phrase that's always there, that betrays Evan's attempts to hide his disdain for fundamentals.

            "Watching airspeed, power and the other big fundamentals causes crashes."

            Wrong!

            NOT_doing those things causes crashes...as we have seen with regularity.

            Yeah Bobby, we can all talk about how it requires both procedures and airmanship (and put in in historical versus modern context) (it's been said before).

            But when the subject of fundamentals comes up, and how fundamentals are part of procedures comes up, someone just can't bring themselves to acknowledge that...

            Saying that basic airmanship is causing crashes...I'll again say that no where is "pull up relentlessly" nor "not watch airspeed on short final", nor is "hit TOGA and raise the gear without thinking" a part of "basic airmanship".
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              There it is, the phrase that's always there, that betrays Evan's attempts to hide his disdain for fundamentals.

              "Watching airspeed, power and the other big fundamentals causes crashes."
              Basic airmanship alone will have you crashing a 777 into the runway however, because...


              Ah yes, the little word matters. As do the words what come after it.

              You will never understand this 3WE, but once situational awareness goes haywire, so does fundamental airmanship. Now you're a 777 pilot making a hard landing and you opt to go-around. You press the TO/GA switches and pull up but the thrust doesn't come on. Now you're in it. Why doesn't the thrust come on? You pushed the damned switches! What's happening?!! There's no time to stabilize. Where do you place your concentration in that critical moment? PFD or EICAS? Human factors 3WE.

              You can't train these human factors out of the equation. In these situations they are going to confuse you. You have to do everything possible to avoid such situations in the first place. One way you avoid them is by making sure pilots never put themselves into them. You train pilots to know what the systems CAN and CANNOT do in EVERY phase of flight for the EXACT type they are flying. You train them on the pitfalls lurking there. Knowing this IS part of the job today, as much as airmanship. Otherwise, you get into situations where airmanship can simply vanish...

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                [/B]
                Ah yes, the little word matters. As do the words what come after it.

                You will never understand this 3WE, but once situational awareness goes haywire, so does fundamental airmanship. Now you're a 777 pilot making a hard landing and you opt to go-around. You press the TO/GA switches and pull up but the thrust doesn't come on. Now you're in it. Why doesn't the thrust come on? You pushed the damned switches! What's happening?!!
                If you let your situational awareness "go haywire", odds are your fundamental airmanship wasn't all to good in the first place. If the thrust doesn't come up by itself, I ram the thrust levers forward, that's all there is to it.

                Gee-willikers, it just occurred to me that Airbus was onto something when they decided that ramming the thrust levers forward WAS the TO/GA switch.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Evan & 3WE, You two may banter semantics back and forth all day long. What you are BOTH trying to say, and ATLcrew has just put it in a nutshell statement, is that in today's modern aircraft, and I really don't care who built it, there must be a blend of "basic airmanship", and the use of automation. HOWEVER! and this is what ATLcrew and I have said to the point of it being boring, there are going to be times when you MUST discontinue the use of automation ans FLY the damn airplane. The accident that we are discussing in this thread was completely preventable had they just flown the damn aircraft.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                    If you let your situational awareness "go haywire", odds are your fundamental airmanship wasn't all to good in the first place. If the thrust doesn't come up by itself, I ram the thrust levers forward, that's all there is to it.
                    In the normal frame of mind, yes, that's all there is to it. Now, you may choose to ignore the fact (as many pilots seem to), but history has proven that there are other states of mind, brought on by sudden, sheer confusion, combining the human factors we have discussed ad nauseum, where that's not all there is to it. This is where you, a pilot with superb airmanship, might do something you will not be able to explain later (if you live) and you might spend the rest of your life asking yourself "why didn't I move the thrust levers"? One answer might be, "because I never had to before". The only thing that can really prevent this kind of pilot error is preventative deep training on procedure (hand on the thrust levers) and system behaviors, limitations in certain aspects of flight and familiarity with potential pitfalls. In this case, the pilot should have had his hand on the levers, felt the lack of response and advanced them manually. He should also have understood in that moment why they didn't advance by themselves. That is solid airmanship and solid SA.

                    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                    Gee-willikers, it just occurred to me that Airbus was onto something when they decided that ramming the thrust levers forward WAS the TO/GA switch.
                    Here's how I see it:

                    Servo-driven thrust levers: point Boing.

                    No servo-driven TO/GA: point AIrbus.

                    Now if they could just get those two things together....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      Gee-willikers, it just occurred to me that Airbus was onto something when they decided that ramming the thrust levers forward WAS the TO/GA switch.
                      Yes, and then you have the incidents caused by the TL not fully reaching the forward stop and hence the plane not reacting as expected because it never went to TOGA mode while the pilots were wandering "What is it doing now?" You also have logic that even if the plane is on the ground, you have one engine in full reverse, you are applying full brakes (and even the antiskid kicked in), if the other TL was accidentally left slightly above idle your intention is to fly and hence the plane is in flight mode, it will decide for you that you cannot deploy the spoilers even if you want to do it, and the AT will not disengage and will try to keep the selected airspeed by increasing the thrust in the engine that was not put in reverse.

                      Fact is, you don't need a TOGA switch to make a Go Around. You can always do it yourself if the GA mode is not performing as expected. If you have good (but not exceptional, just what's expected from any pilot) levels of airmanship including situational awareness.
                      Add thrust, pull up, set flaps, establish a stable climb, gear up... Of course, if you are going to follow the FD that tells you that you have to point down to return to the glide slope, then you are in trouble.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        In this case, the pilot should have had his hand on the levers, felt the lack of response and advanced them manually. He should also have understood in that moment why they didn't advance by themselves. That is solid airmanship and solid SA.
                        I absolutely agree with the green part.
                        The red part is secondary. It can (should?) be deferred until after the situation is stabilized.

                        As an American Airlines instructor said, if the automation is not performing as expected, don't ask "what is it doing now?". Take control, manually enforce the required flight performance and flight path, and then ask "why was it doing that?".

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          I absolutely agree with the green part.
                          The red part is secondary. It can (should?) be deferred until after the situation is stabilized.

                          As an American Airlines instructor said, if the automation is not performing as expected, don't ask "what is it doing now?". Take control, manually enforce the required flight performance and flight path, and then ask "why was it doing that?".
                          And here is what that comes from. One of the best training videos ever made! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            Here's how I see it:

                            Servo-driven thrust levers: point Boing.

                            No servo-driven TO/GA: point AIrbus.

                            Now if they could just get those two things together....
                            Servo driven doesn't mean that they cannot be manually advanced.
                            Have servo-driven TLs (mainly for visual/tactile feedback helping the pilot remain in the loop).
                            Fully advancing the TLs engages TOGA mode. So the pilot firewalls the throttles and then keeps the hands on the TLs monitoring how the automation adjust the TLs to set and keep TOGA thrust as the engines spool up. Worst case is that TOGA doesn't engage and the automation will want to adjust the thrust to some lower setting to keep up with the approach, something that the pilot will easily identify and prevent by having the hands already on the TLs. Other scenario is that the AT was off and remains off due to not engaging in GA. Then the thrust will be the max available with the FADEC avoiding exceeding the engine parameters and damaging the engine. Just don't follow the FD down to the glide slope!!!

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                              And here is what that comes from. One of the best training videos ever made! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10

                              I have watched this video probably a dozen times. I just watched it again, just as good as I remember it.

                              Comment


                              • Really, it all comes down to three simple words....

                                Aviate
                                Navigate
                                Communicate
                                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X