Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emirates 777 crash-landed in Dubai

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
    I only wanted to point out that I've heard of 1 type of Boeing that provides a cockpit that almost makes you shiver when the gear is not lowered in the right moment
    Originally posted by AirbusWorshiper
    What?
    C'mon, you know (not as well as Evan) that these aircraft systems are complex and interwoven, thus the need for good procedural knowledge.

    It's clear that the pressurization system keys both off of landing gear extension and altitude to normalize the cabin to the ambient pressure just before landing. However, the altitude system cuts off the hot air, while the landing gear cuts off the cold air. If you forget the lower the gear, the cabin is flooded with cold air, almost enough to make you shiver.

    Much like the incident/NEAR TOTAL DISASTER with Air Florida at BNA where some 'dump switch' wasn't working so the PNF popped the CB, however it was 'interlocked' with the automatic spoiler system, so the spoilers popped up on short final and some approach lights were clipped and some structural stuff was bent...the pilots went around (go-arounds are no big deal, you know) and then landed safely.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #32
      IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

      There is talk of go-arounds.

      We
      need to determine:

      1. How many autopilots are required.
      2. How many were in use.
      3. If old fashioned monitoring of primary flight parameters such as of attitude, speed, altitude, VS, power settings has any relevance.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by andyb99 View Post
        it makes my blood boil when i see a picture of a burning aircraft...with people very possibly dying......and there....leaving it...are people pulling their bags as though they are about to get on an escalator.
        it SHOULD be a criminal offence to take your bag with you when there is an emergency evacuation of an airliner.
        Worth considering automatically locking non-essential lockers when an emergency evacuation is declared?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          C'mon, you know (not as well as Evan) that these aircraft systems are complex and interwoven, thus the need for good procedural knowledge.
          Not just procedural knowledge, ON-TYPE system's behavior and system's limitations knowledge...

          There are rumours that the FO was a Qantas pilot. Wait you say, Qantas doesn't have any 777 pilots. Apparently Emirates is providing type-training to their borrowed pilots. I have every reason to believe the Emirates pilot training is top-notch, but how much on-type experience did the FO have and was he PF?

          Even if the PIC was flying, the 777 has a dazzling array of blended automation options that must be well understood. Remember, a lot of accidents occur in this 'blended' area when the pilot thinks the aircraft is going to do something and the aircraft is awaiting pilot input. Then there are the particular systems behaviors that need to be well-understood. For instance, the air / ground sensors are in the main gear beams. If the mode switches to 'ground' during a hard bounce the TO/GA switches are inhibited above 50kts and remain so until 400ft. The switches won't work. Thrust has to be advanced manually and kept there. Or, if the landing was flown manually with the A/T switched off (not armed, which I highly doubt was the case here), the thrust levers must be moved manually during a go-around. Woven into all of this are certain pitfalls that require a good understanding of these systems behaviors in full automation, manual flight and blended applications.

          If you know the aircraft well, go-arounds are no big deal (even under windshear, the 777 AFDS can handle this automatically by prioritizing pitch until a positive climb is established). If you don't, I think anything could happen.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            If you know the aircraft well, go-arounds are no big deal (even under windshear, the 777 AFDS can handle this automatically by prioritizing pitch until a positive climb is established). If you don't, I think anything could happen.
            Wrong...

            Very wrong...

            BECAUSE

            The real issue is that when you are landing for the 10-zillionth time and know EXACTLY what's going to happen next; to be able to quickly turn off the low-silicon autopilot, adjust the higher-silicon autopilot, power up, kind of critically manage attitude, airspeed, altitude and a couple of other things, without a brain fart, and waiting a few important seconds to do it right, instead of mindlessly running the memory checklist which has gear up and flaps to go-around...(or remembering to push an Evan TOGA acronym button)...

            That is what the stats contain...

            ...and that is what the Sage, Beloved, Nice-Guy, Domestic, Super Genius, Pilot of the Millennium was alluding to...
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Brainsys View Post
              Worth considering automatically locking non-essential lockers when an emergency evacuation is declared?
              And the odds of that system having a short circuit and causing an on-board fire? (let alone, the odds that it will fail in a crash landing?)

              In spite of my propensity for razzing, there is a certain amount of scientific engineering that comes into play.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Brainsys View Post
                Worth considering automatically locking non-essential lockers when an emergency evacuation is declared?
                I'm afraid this would just result in the sheeple banging on the bins until they succumb to their own selfish idiocy.

                It also needs to be considered that people from more deprived parts of the world really cannot afford to lose their belongings and would probably choose to die trying to save them.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  Much like the incident/NEAR TOTAL DISASTER with Air Florida at BNA where some 'dump switch' wasn't working so the PNF popped the CB, however it was 'interlocked' with the automatic spoiler system, so the spoilers popped up on short final and some approach lights were clipped and some structural stuff was bent...the pilots went around (go-arounds are no big deal, you know) and then landed safely.
                  Which accident was this? I'm intrigued. But then I've always been fascinated by incidents/accidents caused by pilots pulling fuses when they're not supposed to.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    "It also needs to be considered that people from more deprived parts of the world really cannot afford to lose their belongings and would probably choose to die trying to save them."

                    this is called chlorine in the gene pool, which i wholeheartedly advocate.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Brainsys View Post
                      Worth considering automatically locking non-essential lockers when an emergency evacuation is declared?
                      Seems very reasonable to me, perhaps also overhead lockers 'autolock' if airbags deploy (which seems to happen in most of these runway incidents).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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)
                        Last edited by brianw999; 2016-08-06, 12:59.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          [QUOTE=obmot;641767]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
                          Last edited by brianw999; 2016-08-06, 12:59.
                          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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)
                            Interesting thoughts.

                            We're talking 209 vs. 242 feet in length.

                            As a comparison a DC-9-30 is 119 ft while the intial MD-80's were 147 feet- somewhat similar difference.

                            Ass hat parlour talking: You'd be ~15 feet further from the 'pivot point", I'm not sure you'd get that much more of a rising sensation from the nose-up rotation???
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              Interesting thoughts.

                              We're talking 209 vs. 242 feet in length.

                              As a comparison a DC-9-30 is 119 ft while the intial MD-80's were 147 feet- somewhat similar difference.

                              Ass hat parlour talking: You'd be ~15 feet further from the 'pivot point", I'm not sure you'd get that much more of a rising sensation from the nose-up rotation???
                              In any case WAY too early for gear retraction.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by obmot View Post
                                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.
                                Interestingly, one of the comments on the avherald page for this incident claimed that there were pictures of the plane showing damage from a tailstrike (although whether damage sustained during this incident or a historic one wasn't clear). However he was unable to post the photos on the avherald comments section and after 3 failed attempts to do so, said to just google for it. I couldn't find any such photo in the few minutes I spent looking.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X