Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emirates 777 crash-landed in Dubai

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

  • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    No mention of whether the TOGA switch was used.
    Strange, but I think it is pretty well implied. The alternative is that the pilot did nothing to initiate a go around, which would be most bizarre.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
      He does not really try to argue with you?! You know who is the most quoted man here at Jetphotos? Not really the angry bird at #147...

      A few days ago, I declared him the youngest writer here in this topic. I like to correct that statement.

      Since 2008, I have known Jetphotos Junior members who behaved more relaxed.

      The more forum entries the less relaxed? Not really.
      #148 is a good evidence for that.

      PS:

      Not really. Try to read the non survivable
      Lockerbie accident.

      600,000 lb are 600,000 lb. Where tf does he take those assumptions from?! A 747 passenger jet makes a hole in your garden, so that even 11 people on the ground do not survive...
      And with 600 k lb, a LH-B744 is almost empty
      (for my next simulator flight, I have 322 pax on the list, so I expect ... a little bit more than only 300 tons/662,000 lb gross wt)!

      To come back on topic:
      B773ER MTOW: 775,000 lb
      B744 MTOW: 875,000 lb --- (744ER: 910,000 lb)

      A few weeks ago I wrote, the 777 needs alot of space on the apron. But the pilots who serve on the really heavy super long haul passenger jets
      sit in a...
      B744 or B744ER.
      [I haven't really met a 748i passenger jet pilot here on Jetphotos who exactly knew his MTOW...]

      [He is young, so we should forgive him.]

      Remember we also have 10 -8's MTOW 987,000 And 6 pax 744's as well. And tomorrow morning when I operate QF 7550 from ORD to HNL @ 0815Z, the big difference is, I will be flying a real airplane, and getting paid very well for it!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        Why do some of you seem to think that passengers in the back make a damn bit of difference? First of all, I am the most important person on my aircraft. I want to get home safely at the end of the day and have no accidents/incidents....
        Bobby- look, your attitude is good and I don't doubt that 'pilots everywhere' share your views.

        However, are you really that much of a dumb-ass to not know WHY people MIGHT THINK THAT? [Harsh razz, but I will buy the beer and you can cuss me back.]

        Do we stop our cars at train tracks and look both ways? No, but we stop busses and look both ways.

        Do people typically drive their sports car the same when they are out driving for fun, versus the Mini-van chock full of children on the way to the soccer game?

        Were the Pinnacle Four-one-oh dudes operating differently because they did not have passengers in the back?

        Do crop dusters operate differently than airline pilots?

        And, right or wrong- I definitely feel that Les Abend and ATL crew and V-Nav-V have a greater responsibility than you based on the body count sitting behind them.

        Please, keep preaching that: For good pilots, it really doesn't matter that there are passengers back there, but 1) we keep learning that not all pilots are as good as our forum friends and 2) there are reasons and examples that- right or wrong- it does sometimes matter and that it is a valid thought that passengers might affect the thinking of outsiders (or maybe even pilots sometimes).
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Bobby- look, your attitude is good and I don't doubt that 'pilots everywhere' share your views.

          However, are you really that much of a dumb-ass to not know WHY people MIGHT THINK THAT? [Harsh razz, but I will buy the beer and you can cuss me back.]

          Do we stop our cars at train tracks and look both ways? No, but we stop busses and look both ways.

          Do people typically drive their sports car the same when they are out driving for fun, versus the Mini-van chock full of children on the way to the soccer game?

          Were the Pinnacle Four-one-oh dudes operating differently because they did not have passengers in the back?

          Do crop dusters operate differently than airline pilots?

          And, right or wrong- I definitely feel that Les Abend and ATL crew and V-Nav-V have a greater responsibility than you based on the body count sitting behind them.

          Please, keep preaching that: For good pilots, it really doesn't matter that there are passengers back there, but 1) we keep learning that not all pilots are as good as our forum friends and 2) there are reasons and examples that- right or wrong- it does sometimes matter and that it is a valid thought that passengers might affect the thinking of outsiders (or maybe even pilots sometimes).
          This is like when I am at a dinner party and I am introduced to someone new and they say "Did you ever want to be a commercial pilot"? Ignorance can be bliss! Again, Atlas has 6 passenger 747's and I think 6 767's. If I get stuck flying a passenger bird, I do not operate it any differently except having to do a flight attendant briefing before the flight, and a couple of passenger announcements which I usually have the First Officer do anyway.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            This is like when I am at a dinner party and I am introduced to someone new and they say "Did you ever want to be a commercial pilot"? Ignorance can be bliss! Again, Atlas has 6 passenger 747's and I think 6 767's. If I get stuck flying a passenger bird, I do not operate it any differently except having to do a flight attendant briefing before the flight, and a couple of passenger announcements which I usually have the First Officer do anyway.
            Maybe you should think a little more about "comfort" too, not just performance. Like smoother level-offs and initiation of descents, and care for some level of officially inocuous turbulence that is nothing for you (or your cargo) but could be uncomfortable for paxs, and the like. I know that when I drive my car I don't do it the same way when I am with paxs or alone, and not regarding safety but comfort.

            --- 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 know that when I drive my car I don't do it the same way when I am with paxs or alone, and not regarding safety but comfort.
              Do you stop at ALL train tracks?...

              Even ones that have incredible uninhibited visibility and are known to be old, only operated on rare occasions and then slow-moving trains??...and you still stop even if it has fully automated crossing gates?

              In the USA busses are required to stop at ALL train tracks (you know, it's in a procedure manual somewhere and is a regulation and is even a fundamental concept that a train vs. a bus = a bad day for the passengers- so some extra safety effort is a good idea).

              ...and it is always a full stop...just about almost never a "roll-and-go" lest they are reported and lose their jobs!

              Gasoline tanker trucks have similar requirements, but not other transport trucks.

              This is an extremely direct example of how the body-count affects safety procedures in the transport world.

              Nevertheless, Bobby's insistence that safety and his own a$$ are #1 is a good attitude that is probably somewhat prevalent among big-iron pilots whether they haul boxes or butts.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                Nevertheless, Bobby's insistence that safety and his own a$$ are #1 is a good attitude that is probably somewhat prevalent among big-iron pilots whether they haul boxes or butts.
                For both you and Gabriel, One of the things that I tell my new First Officers, and the rule that I live by is, operate EVERY flight like there is a 70 year old flight attendant in the last row about to pour a cup of hot coffee for a customer. Yes I might not change a flight level for light chop if I am at optimum altitude for my weight and the winds are favoring my direction of flight. But other than that I always go for as smooth as possible. No matter if it's box's in the back or passengers.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  Do you stop at ALL train tracks?...
                  Let's say that I don't change my train tracks stopping habits (or any safety item) depending of whether I am alone or with pax.
                  For example, I don't exceed the max speed by more MPH when I'm alone, but I might accelerate faster, brake faster, turn faster (still well withing the envelope) or drive faster in bumpy streets.

                  --- 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
                    Let's say that I don't change my train tracks stopping habits (or any safety item) depending of whether I am alone or with pax.
                    For example, I don't exceed the max speed by more MPH when I'm alone, but I might accelerate faster, brake faster, turn faster (still well withing the envelope) or drive faster in bumpy streets.
                    I'm thinking if you become a professional driver, driving a school bus, then your train track behavior is indeed going to change based on safety for the larger numbers of passengers you are responsible for...But if you become a professional driver hauling packages in a Federal Express Truck...you might just cross trainless train tracks without coming to dead stop.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                      For both you and Gabriel, One of the things that I tell my new First Officers, and the rule that I live by is, operate EVERY flight like there is a 70 year old flight attendant in the last row about to pour a cup of hot coffee for a customer.
                      Or, as they are called at DL, a "young'un".

                      Comment


                      • From the report: "The Aircraft was vectored for an area navigation (RNAV/GNSS) approach to runway 12L. Air traffic control cleared the flight to land, with the wind reported to be from 340 degrees at 11 knots, and to vacate the runway via taxiway Mike 9. During the approach, at 0836:00, with the autothrottle system in SPEED mode, as the Aircraft descended through a radio altitude (RA) of 1,100 feet, at 152 knots IAS, the wind direction started to change from a headwind component of 8 knots to a tailwind component"

                        I don't get it, what headwind component? 340 at 11 on a 120 heading is 9 knots tailwind...
                        moving quickly in air

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
                          From the report: "The Aircraft was vectored for an area navigation (RNAV/GNSS) approach to runway 12L. Air traffic control cleared the flight to land, with the wind reported to be from 340 degrees at 11 knots, and to vacate the runway via taxiway Mike 9. During the approach, at 0836:00, with the autothrottle system in SPEED mode, as the Aircraft descended through a radio altitude (RA) of 1,100 feet, at 152 knots IAS, the wind direction started to change from a headwind component of 8 knots to a tailwind component"

                          I don't get it, what headwind component? 340 at 11 on a 120 heading is 9 knots tailwind...
                          It was a headwind at 1,100'. Between there and the ground it shifted to a tailwind. Not that complicated, really.

                          Comment



                          • 0837:23, the Aircraft became airborne in an attempt to go-around and was subjected to a headwind component until impact.

                            At 0837:27, the flap lever was moved to the 20 position. Two seconds later the landing gear lever was selected to the UP position. Subsequently, the landing gear unlocked and began to retract.

                            At 0837:35, three seconds before impact with the runway, both thrust levers were moved from the idle position to full forward.

                            They realised the problem and took correct action in 8s, sadly not fast enough.

                            Not sure it's so easy to blame the pilot.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Quench View Post

                              0837:23, the Aircraft became airborne in an attempt to go-around and was subjected to a headwind component until impact.

                              At 0837:27, the flap lever was moved to the 20 position. Two seconds later the landing gear lever was selected to the UP position. Subsequently, the landing gear unlocked and began to retract.

                              At 0837:35, three seconds before impact with the runway, both thrust levers were moved from the idle position to full forward.

                              They realised the problem and took correct action in 8s, sadly not fast enough.

                              Not sure it's so easy to blame the pilot.
                              Nobody has a hand on the thrust levers; nobody is watching the engine readouts; thrust levers are at idle for one one thousand two one thousand three one thousand four one thousand five one thousand six one thousand seven one thousand eight one thousand "hey, look at the thrust levers!"...

                              It's a tiny amount of time in general but an ice age in terms of the situation they were in. That's what the hand on the levers is for. That's why the very next item on the procedure after TO/GA and flaps 20 is 'verify pitch and thrust response'.

                              In some cases it is the PM who is expected to advance the thrust levers if the thrust is not sufficient. But this was no thrust at all. Pure pilot error.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Quench View Post

                                0837:23, the Aircraft became airborne in an attempt to go-around and was subjected to a headwind component until impact.

                                At 0837:27, the flap lever was moved to the 20 position. Two seconds later the landing gear lever was selected to the UP position. Subsequently, the landing gear unlocked and began to retract.

                                At 0837:35, three seconds before impact with the runway, both thrust levers were moved from the idle position to full forward.

                                They realised the problem and took correct action in 8s, sadly not fast enough.

                                Not sure it's so easy to blame the pilot.
                                And just who would you blame then, Boeing?

                                Go-Around procedure:

                                GO AROUND THRUST! (TOGA didn't work? PUSH THEM UP MANUALLY)

                                PF calls for FLAPS 20

                                PM calls out (after looking at the VSI and the altimeter showing a climb) "POSITIVE RATE"

                                PF calls for "GEAR UP"

                                400' AGL PF calls for "LNAV"

                                1000' AGL PF calls for "VNAV"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X