Pilots resign after Emirates A340-500 accident

[Rockie]

Fatigue is a very real problem at Emirates and getting worse, so I am not defending their asinine rostering practices that border on the criminal. But the A340 incident cannot be explained by fatigue.

You have a couple of conflicting statements here. You admit fatigue is a very real problem at Emirates, so how is it you can say the incident cannot be explained by fatigue?

I've always thought they calculated the Take-Off power and Vr somewhat stayed the same.

No. Takeoff power will change of course, but the heavier the airplane the higher the V1,VR and V2 as well.

[Flightlevels]

that's a lame post 330 drinking sav...

[Captain S itmagnet]

From the media excerpt above...

Fearful that its brand would be tarnished, Emirates has responded robustly, placing additional checklist safeguards including using two computers to calculate take-off settings. "The EK407 Melbourne event continues to be treated very seriously with the highest priority at the most senior level in the company," an Emirates spokesman tells Inquirer.
***************
rhetorical questions...

Doesn't this imply that there is a potential flaw in the process of making the calculations? Isn't this an acknowledgement that there is a possibility of a crew, fatigued or not, to make an error?
The carrier's reaction sounds like this is an attempt to avoid a repeat. It appears by extention that this was a failing of the SOP's as originally written which made the likelihood of a crew error higher. Or am I the only one who caught this?
CSM

[A330]

True Captain S, but the laptop procedure was not the issue. It was actually very reasonable and safe. The bottom line is that it the SOP check procedure was not followed, full stop. They made a serious oversight and missed the input error...


Thanks for your compelling response Flight levels....how's the weather in YYC today

[Flightlevels]

who cares, I'm living in the right country my friend.

[A330]

And most of us will move back when we're ready after paying no tax, and seeing the world. Don't forget to bundle up...ta

[Flightlevels]

whatever, life is too short. think about it.

[hoghead]

I am sure A330 thinks about it quite often on his 42 days of annual leave. He proabably thought about it on some YQR layover in the winter long ago as well. Take the good with the bad, I m sure he's happier there.

Personal choice and I am sure he appreciates home more than most people do and is having an experience of his lifetime(good and bad).

Its Braai season in DXB and if you dont know what that is, you should expand your horizons....think about it

or whatever

[complexintentions]

You have a couple of conflicting statements here. You admit fatigue is a very real problem at Emirates, so how is it you can say the incident cannot be explained by fatigue?

Ummm....really? I'm saying the incident cannot be explained by fatigue because not ALL incidents are caused by fatigue! It is not contradictory to state that Emirates has serious fatigue problems, that are getting worse...while at the same time trying to explain that this particular situation (MEL) cannot be attributed to fatigue as a prime factor. Sorry if that doesn't help support your case.

Small correction: if takeoff weight is higher, V1 will be lower, not higher. (Need more runway to stop, need to make the decision earlier.) VR and V2 will be higher.

I do not like to point fingers at my colleagues and I feel for the MEL guys. But the operating captain was pretty casual about getting the FO to make the performance calculations and they didn't do the SOP crosschecks. In 99% of situations they would have gotten away with it. Not this time. The holes lined up, and except for the very last one - frantically shoving in max power - they almost lined up perfectly. So the company brings in knee-jerk reaction SOP's to have two laptops (many of the aircraft have, and have always had, 2 EFB's anyway) so that it looks like they are doing something. The company as much said, that that was to placate the Australian regulators that they were "doing something", not because they actually needed to improve the SOP's. They were fine before the incident but if THEY AREN'T USED they can't do much. Incidentally this sums up the EK management and ME culture quite nicely, the desire to appear to be doing something without actually doing a thing.

And in case there is ANY doubt as to my opinion of fatigue as a whole at Emirates, I do believe that it is only a matter of time before another MEL or worse happens. It simply seems to be the inevitable trend. Seen it at other employers, and seen how it all works out. Not well. All I can say is not on my watch if I can help it.

whatever, life is too short. think about it.

Actually, this helps express why many of us have left Canada - to experience more than we could have in the industry there, because life IS too short to not experience as much as possible. No point diving back into the tired expat vs. stay-at-home debate, but flightlevels, you do kind of sound like a redneck. "right" country?! lol Well, maybe one day I'll move back...and do the same job you do...that I used to do...that you'll still be doing...but I've realized you can't explain some things to some people!

Off for some good barbecue with my SA and Zim colleagues!

[Rockie]

Ummm....really? I'm saying the incident cannot be explained by fatigue because not ALL incidents are caused by fatigue!

Maybe I'm misreading what you said. Perhaps if you had said the incident cannot be positively explained by fatigue it would be a little clearer. But it sounded to me as if you discounted fatigue completely as a factor, which you may not have.

V1 is a function of takeoff weight, thrust used and available runway length given a dry runway. At V1 an aircraft must be able to either complete a takeoff with an engine out on the remaining runway or commence a reject and stop on the same amount of runway. Given a set runway length, an increase in weight will increase V1 as well since a higher speed will be required to complete the takeoff with an engine failure. A low VR caused by a lower weight (assuming improved climb is not used) will necessarily lower V1 as well. Of course other factors will lower V1 independently of weight such as wet or contaminated runway.

It is not correct to say a higher weight results in a lower V1 unless you are using improved climb takeoff performance numbers, which it sounds like you are.

[complexintentions]

I'm saying that fatigue is irrelevant if you decide not to use SOP's. And if you do so, you are swinging in the breeze from a liability perspective, union or no.

Now, if in this case the crew had meticulously kept to the SOP and the data entry had occurred because they were just so tired they didn't notice it, that would be different. It never got to that stage.

And I still reiterate that EK has systemic fatigue problems.

Hope that is clear enough.

Sorry, but all other things remaining constant (runway length, thrust setting), with a higher weight V1 will go to a lower speed. It's just physics. You'll have to start braking earlier to stop a 350 ton airplane than you will a 250 ton airplane on the same piece of concrete. Of course, once you're past V1 you will need to get to a higher speed to go flying (VR) or to climb away on the remaining engine (V2).

Given a set runway length, an increase in weight will increase V1 as well since a higher speed will be required to complete the takeoff with an engine failure.

This is the incorrect statement. The speeds you need to complete the takeoff with an engine failure are VR and V2. V1 is all about aborting, not flying, single engine or otherwise. You ain't going. And you better decide earlier if you're heavy, or you're doing the Canadian DC10 thing in YVR.

[Rockie]

I'm saying that fatigue is irrelevant if you decide not to use SOP's.

Fatigue is NEVER irrelevant if it is present, and it may be the reason someone fails to use SOP's. You are not a machine and neither is anybody else. I'm not saying it was a definite factor in this incident, but you cannot say it wasn't either.

It's just physics.

Agreed. The higher the weight the less capable an aircraft is of accelerating to VR on a given runway with an engine failure. So in order to takeoff successfully the aircraft needs to accelerate on all engines longer resulting in a higher V1. It isn't all just about stopping, you're forgetting about the accelerating part. But if you use improved climb calculations you would never run into it because you are always taking off at a higher speed than you need to unless you are at max weight for the runway.

Airbus tends to use improved climb, but not every airplane does.

[complexintentions]

*sigh*

The problem here is you are arguing generalities and I am addressing a specific incident. Of course I agree that fatigue is a significant factor, but I still submit that fatigue becomes irrelevant if you're going to disregard SOP's or apply them carelessly or casually. The whole fatigue argument applied to MEL is only muddying the waters, believe me there are enough legitimate examples of errors due to fatigue to try and flog this one.

We all operate with SOME level of fatigue, it's about managing it. EK is NOT applying good risk management in my opinion by increasing their pilots productivity quite drastically, in an operation that has some pretty extreme sectors, while using ridiculous rostering patterns. Ultimately it's up to each pilot to decide whether we are fit to fly and if not, report sick or fatigued.

As far as the Great V1 Debate, maybe someone with more of an instructor background can explain it better. But I can assure you, anything that makes it harder to stop, such as higher weight, contaminated runway, short runway, tailwind, hot brakes, runway downslope, MEL braking items....all lower V1, not raise it. You are absolutely incorrect, prior to V1, it IS all about stopping!! After V1, the calculation is calculating to see if the single-engine performance is enough versus the remaining runway/obstacle clearance/climb gradient/etc to get safely airborne. But there is nothing about reducing the aircraft's performance, either braking or flying, that would cause the amount of time to make a decision to increase!

Improved climb (which is used on the Boeing, at least the B737, don't use it on the B777) has to do with climb gradient, and happens well beyond V1 so really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It is simply trading energy gained on the extended takeoff roll for climb performance. Whether using it or not, before V1 you are stopping and after V1 you are going flying - with improved climb you are just delaying the rotation.

I don't mean to be rude, but I just don't want misinformation being spread to other newer pilots!

[Rockie]

As far as the Great V1 Debate, maybe someone with more of an instructor background can explain it better. But I can assure you, anything that makes it harder to stop, such as higher weight, contaminated runway, short runway, tailwind, hot brakes, runway downslope, MEL braking items....all lower V1, not raise it.

I do have an instructor background and I am fully aware of the effect weight and speed has on stopping an aircraft. I'm also fully aware (and have taught) of the effect weight has on accelerating, but you seem to think it's not part of the takeoff equation.

Any takeoff is a balance between being able to accelerate from Vef to VR with an engine fail and still takeoff on the remaining runway, and being able to stop. An increase in weight for a given runway results in an increase in Vef, or if you prefer V1. You're also correct in saying it results in a lower V1 for the purposes of stopping.

Except for a balanced field condition there is not one single V1, there is an allowable range of V1's. For a given runway at a light weight there is a gap, or allowable range, between minimum V1 for engine fail takeoff purposes (further limited by Vmcg) and maximum V1 for stopping purposes. As the weight increases the two converge until they meet resulting in a balanced field takeoff, and consequently your maximum weight allowable. So, for an increase in weight your minimum V1 also increases (along with a decrease in maximum V1). You are forgetting the accelerating or minimum V1 part of the calculation and it is not all just about stopping.

Normally takeoffs are conducted toward the lower end of the range if the aircraft is light unless you use improved climb, then it is conducted at the higher end of the range.

Talk to your training department and see what they say.

[Flightlevels]

complex, you and 330 have big watches too?

[A330]

Have to agree with Rockie on this one, seems to have a good handle on it...

Now FL, get out your Tim Hortons coupon and enjoy a double double today.

Of course we have big watches, mine's a Breitling emergency with a build in ELT, just in case i need to save the world !

[complexintentions]

arrgh!

I was really trying to avoid getting bogged down in a discussion about V1min, V1bal, V1max, etc etc because that stuff makes me want to kill myself! lol There are entire books written on runway analysis and V speeds. So I will just say this: I agree with you Rockie and your explanation of theory. But in reality, I have found that for all practical purposes, on heavy aircraft the limiting factor is always braking ability, not lack of thrust (ie acceleration). So you will get the exam question right, and I will stick to what I use daily - when takeoff weights increase, V1 decreases. YMMV.

hey Flightlevels, since you like big things you can kiss my GE90-115B's!

[Flightlevels]

well that solidifies it in my mind. It's all relative. But you know that M.

[Rockie]

Well, like you I don't think about it when I'm actually doing it. When you're hurling yourself down the runway and haven't commenced a reject by V1 then you are going flying. That's all you need to know when you're doing it in anger, and simple is better at 150kts in a 230 tonne airplane with 2000 feet of runway left. On that point I'm sure we are completely in agreement. But a proper understanding of the whole picture is pretty important for new and old pilots alike as you point out.

[tbaylx]

Better not let the company see that pic Complex..you might get resigned for taking it

[Obbie]

ZINGGGGGGER !!!!!!!!

Ouch........that one was right on the money !!!!!!!
So funny because it's true, you can't think that $hit up !!!!!!

Emirates, "it's a beauty", I think they should switch from
"Keep Discovering" and instead go with "The Tradition Continues" !!!!!!!

[flying4dollars]

Although discussing it really does give everyone a learning curve, why not just check your manuals, or look at what happens in flight with respect to V1.

I don't know about larger aircraft, but go back to your turbo-prop days and you'll remember with take-off weight increases, V1 and VR respectively increase as well. For ex. a 1900C with a takeoff weight of 15,000 lbs will have speeds of 105, 112 and 125. 16,000 lbs is 107, 114, 125. The gap between V1 and Vr is not increased in this situation.

Funny thing is complex and rockie both bring up good points (and thank you both for sharing your theories). Braking a heavier airplane would require more runway theoretically, however V1 doesn't stand for "braking safety speed". It has to do with a failed engine recognition/decision speed. Think about it this way:

An aircraft is rumbling down a runway at a take-off weight of 100 tonnes vs it's average t/o weight of say 60 tonnes. If by complex's explanation, V1 is lowered for the aircraft because of it's heavier weight, then that means it has longer to accelerate to Vr on one engine, eating up more runway than if it had a higher V1 speed.

We can all agree heavier take-off weights means a higher Vr. So if the gap between V1 and Vr is increased for a heavier take-off weight, then the time and distance needed to accelerate on one engine between those two speeds would be far greater than the same example with a higher V1 (rather than a lower V1), thus shortening the gap between V1 and Vr, thus resulting in less time and distance to accelerate the aircraft on one engine to Vr and life off the ground. As for braking, the aircraft was designed to still be able to safely come to a stop with a higher V1 speed. The manufacturer would not publish a decision speed that the brakes wouldn't manage to accept for a given runway length/condition.

I hope I explained that well enough for anyone to understand. It made sense to me as I was typing it out

I'm by no means as experienced as many of you, but this is my way of understanding it. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I enjoy learning about the physics of flying.

[jjj]

Flying4dollars,

What is wrong with a large gap between V1 and VR. I see it all the time even on my little '37 as it gets heavier. It's not a big deal and we do it in the sim all the time.

V1 - lose one - keep it straight - wait a few seconds for VR to show up and away you go.

No, V1 does not stand for "braking safety speed," but it is part of the equation and why one generally can't leave it on the runway with a failure at VR with 10 000 feet of runway in front of you.

[flying4dollars]

Flying4dollars,

What is wrong with a large gap between V1 and VR. I see it all the time even on my little '37 as it gets heavier. It's not a big deal and we do it in the sim all the time.

V1 - lose one - keep it straight - wait a few seconds for VR to show up and away you go.

No, V1 does not stand for "braking safety speed," but it is part of the equation and why one generally can't leave it on the runway with a failure at VR with 10 000 feet of runway in front of you.

I'm just saying the larger the gap between the two speeds, the longer it will take to reach Vr on one engine vs a smaller gap. The longer it takes, the more runway is being used up.

I guess it's different in jets? In props, V1 increases with weight, not decreases. Or maybe it's just a manufacturers detail. Either way, makes sense that a higher V1 is required for a heavier weight.

[Four1oh]

V1 is the 'go' or 'no go' decision speed. It's your last chance to stay on the ground and deal with a problem without going off the end of the runway. Many factors contribute to the value of V1. For instance, on a slippery runway, V1 could be 20 kts lower than Vr due to increased stopping distance required in the case of a reject. Bottom line, if something happens after V1, you are not aborting the takeoff or you'll end up in the weeds.