Back to Squawk list
  • 31

Typo Blamed for Emirates Failed Take-Off

eklendi
 
Remember to double check those numbers! Otherwise, this might happen to you... (www.theage.com.au) Daha Fazlası...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


FedExCargoPilot
In 10 years from now, it will be computer geeks as pilots! Bad decision making on the pilots side, he should have determined there needed to be more thrust.
preacher1
preacher1 0
He did but it was too late and somebody not paying attention. Weight should have been crosscheck. Critical if you are using auto thrust. That's why I like my hand on the throttles. That way I know where they are at.
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 0
A simple solution would allow both manual control and an automated check. Instead of engaging the automation during take-off, do it during taxiing. The plane should respond as expected when accelerating on the ground. If it does not, the warning could be generated prior to take-off procedures.
preacher1
preacher1 0
As Wesley Grady says above, this one is pure and simple pilot error. There was no crosscheck of the setting as there should have been for various reasons, BUT, they did mention distractions in the cockpit, and if that be the case, it makes a wonderful example for the STERILE COCKPIT, as that is when you need to be on your game. Let the damn thing fly itself in the air, but as a PIC, you are responsible, automation or not, for getting it off and back on the ground.
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 0
Looks like you're the thread moderator. You don't really need to reply to every single post. I think we can tell what your position is.
upchucked
OK, we chalk this one up to pilot error in not checking and cross checking and not just flying the plane, but with newer planes coming on the market and more complicated systems on the horizon, is no one bothered by the Airbus statement, "Furthermore, an Airbus take-off monitoring system to compute required acceleration rates and to trigger an alert if a plane is accelerating too slowly "is under feasibility study for a certification targeted to be available in 2015 for A380 and between 2015-2020 for A320 and A330/A340 families," the aircraft maker said."? It is going to take up to 7 years to develop a program to determine the plane isn't accelerating fast enough?
preacher1
preacher1 0
Wes, I saw that and it bothers the hell out of me. It tells me that their current system is not foolproof and way too complicated,AND by all certification agencies being cool to the idea to boot, they are trying to tell AB that, that one of their better ideas ain't so good.Somebody at some Airline figured something like AB has would save fuel and all this/that & other and AB said we can build it. Boeing knew better.
mpradel
Marcus Pradel 0
it scares me when the pilots are told to give up control of the take-off procedure to save Fuel.
sflso
David Kay 0
One paragraph in the article says there was insufficient lift under its wings. Huh. That could be the problem!
preacher1
preacher1 0
Caused by not having enough engine thrust caused by an improper takoff weight setting.
champ19
jan burden 0
Pathetic airmanship on the part of this crew. At what point did they realize they were not going to make it? Airspeed crosschecks, EPR, weight and balance, a very heavy airplane. Oh, I guess we're going to do a reduced EPR take off to save fuel.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Seems like the Captain realized it close to the end of the runway according to the article and I kinda think that's when that "Oh S#$%" moment came along.lol
bishops90
Brian Bishop 0
Another example of letting computers make decisions about critical aircraft operating parameters.

"[The agency] has found the idea of these systems, with all of their inherent complexity to be more problematical than reliance on adequate airmanship," the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.

Interesting comment from the agency that just issued revised stall recovery procedures recommending what we're all taught in our first 10 hours of training. That same statemnet could be made about a lot of things.

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for "adequate airmanship".
preacher1
preacher1 0
I guess they are paying the bills, but as far as me, a pilot gets paid to fly it out and fly it in. Automation ain't bad once you're in the air and settings should be made ready on the ground so when you hit the AP or whatever, it's all there, BUT, like I said, fly it out, fly it in.
jkudlick
Jeremy Kudlick 0
I agree that reliance on computers to perform mundane tasks has led to over-reliance on them to perform complex tasks. I'm all for reducing workload and such, but sometimes good old pencil-and-paper do the trick!
provri
Rand Huck 0
Sure, but in the same way one could typo a value, as they did here, one could just as easily forget to carry the one and be in the same predicament. No matter whether you are typing your values into a computer or doing long division in your head, the lesson is the same: Double check your answer, especially if there's lives at stake. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is not the use of computers per se, but the attitude one makes towards computers. Even in a hypothetical world where computers are infallible, they still rely on the correct input.
preacher1
preacher1 0
You are correct in "Garbage in, Garbage out". Crosscheck, Crosscheck, and Crosscheck again on that part especially.
sflso
David Kay 0
Sorry to bother you with the basics, lads, but lift is generated above an airfoil, not under it. I seem to remember something about having enough thrust to get the lift you need, quite correct.
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 0
Pressure is reduced above the airfoil and increased under the wing. I see nothing wrong with saying lift is generated under the wings. Similarly, when you suck a soda with a straw, it's the pressure on the surface of the soda that pushes it up the straw, not the suction in your mouth pulling it up.
preacher1
preacher1 0
This would sound strange to the public but as with a lot of other things related to flying, very true and correct but bass ackwards to conventional thinking
preacher1
preacher1 0
Actually, it's all a matter of semantics; if you don't have the speed(thrust) to get in the air, you are fixing to have an "oh s$%^" moment.lol
bishops90
Brian Bishop 0
After thinking about this one for a spell, and admittedly not being the brightest light in the Christmas Tree, am I the only one who thinks the concept of a take-off roll being done on anything less than full power is just a bit dumb? The first thing that comes to my mind is the first of the three most useless things to an airplane pilot - "runway behind you". Get 'er moving and get 'er UP.

Secondly, seems to me that an experienced pilot in a particular type, with just a casual observation of engine data during the take-off roll, would have noticed less than normal thrust readings for the known configuration (correct me if I'm wrong Wayne). I mean I would think that if I flew that same kind of plane day in and day out, and knowing that thrust is managed based on the data input by me, I would recognize pretty quickly that the thrust was not up to where it should be, way before the end of the runway. That ain't exactly a Cat-Shot launch, there should be plenty of time to notice that kind of thing. Of course we already realize the PIC was somewhat complacent because nobody cross-checked the data input.

Anyway, those are my thoughts of the day. Cheers!
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, see my comments above. Personally I think your observations are pretty correct but that goes back to distractions? and no crosscheck and I will add that is what auto thrust and automation will do to you. Some damn bean counter has figured out that it will save money. Most of the Airlines nowadays, even if no auto thrust, have rules in place for their pilots to only use a % of thrust based on AC takeoff weight. Personally I think it's a crock cause I want that heifer to fly and I'll pull it back on top, BUT, they have put the pencil to it, it does work and they save fuel
bishops90
Brian Bishop 0
Yep, reality bites sometimes don't it Wayne! Hey Merry Christmas to you and yours my friend.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Same to ya'll. Have a good one.
Cessna582
Mark Gandy 0
Remember in the 1940's-1950's when flying was done primarily by hand?

Relying on computers entirely to do everything means you aren't flying. You are just traveling
preacher1
preacher1 0
You can come a little further forward into the 60's and even earl 70's, especially into the latter part of the 707/727 era. You had to know how to be a pilot to take one of those up and get 'er down. Automation is nice on a lot of the rdedundant, mundane stuff, but as you say, relying on them for everything, you fool yourself, lulling yourself into a false sense of security, because the ones we read about are generally the ones where there is an upset of some type and you ain't got time to pull down a long checklist to figure out what to do. A PILOT GETS PAID TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WITHOUT HAVING TO LOOK AT A BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!
bill54494
Bill Menzel 0
It seems to me that in the '40s, '50s, '60s and '70 there were also a lot more accidents and deaths. Clearly the present reliance on computers and automation isn't perfect, but the safety record is surely better than in those earlier decades.
preacher1
preacher1 0
That much is true, but I personally think a big part of that is due in part to evolving of the different systems in general. Pilots from that era knew how to fly the plane but a big part of them are now retiring and as has been stated by some, this new generation is being told what to do by MBA's that haven't ever seen a flight deck, let alone fly a plane.
As I have said here many times before, you just hear about the ones that have a bad ending. What you don't hear about are the thousands of upsets that seem to occur routinely that a PAX will never know about; from which a pilot recovers and it is filed away in som Airline Office somewhere.

Giriş

Hesabınız yok mu? Kişiselleştirilmiş özellikler, uçuş uyarıları ve daha fazlası için şimdi (ücretsiz) üye olun!
Bu web site tanımlama bilgileri kullanmaktadır. Bu web siteyi kullanarak ve bu sitede gezinerek, bunu kabul etmiş olursunuz.
Kapat
FlightAware uçuş takibinin reklamlarla desteklendiğini biliyor muydunuz?
FlightAware.com'dan gelen reklamlara izin vererek FlightAware'in ücretsiz kalmasını sağlamamıza yardım edebilirsiniz. harika bir deneyim sunmak adına reklamlarımızı anlamlı ve öne çıkmayacak şekilde tutmak için yoğun şekilde çalışıyoruz. FlightAware'deki whitelist adsreklamları güvenilir olarak görmek hızlı ve kolaydır, veya lütfen premium hesaplarımıza geçmeyi düşünün.
Kapat