SA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 2930 posts, RR: 20 Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3576 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Emirates Airline's training and rostering practices have been criticized by South African investigators, in their report into a take-off accident involving one of the carrier’s Airbus A340-300s at JNB in April 2004.
The A340 was seriously damaged after its wheels hit the approach lights on the overrun of runway 21R before it climbed away. The aircraft returned to the airport for an emergency landing in which none of the 260 passengers and 14 crew on board was injured.
HS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3511 times:
'For both pilots it was only their second flight in an A340-300, and it was the captain’s first flight in the type as pilot flying (PF)'
Whilst I'm sure both pilots were competent, it seems a little scary to think that neither of the pilots had any real operational experience on the type. Surely most major airlines would have supervised line training before releasing pilots to fly unsupervised.
MichaelJP From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 179 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3417 times:
I know with Qatar there is a line check pilot in the cockpit for either the F/O's or Cpt's first 10 rotations and landings.
Andz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8306 posts, RR: 11 Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3242 times:
Quoting YOWza (Reply 3): I Thought that the take-off had been aborted and that the plane never left the ground
I recall reading at the time that the Airbus "rode the turf" before lifting off. I am just thankful that it was 21R and not any other runway at JNB or there would have been a flaming wreck with loss of life. 21R is the only runway with any overrun area at all. 21L and 03L have 6 lane highways immediately beyond and 03R a residential area.
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3165 times:
Quoting YOWza (Reply 3): Interesting sutff. I Thought that the take-off had been aborted and that the plane never left the ground. Is EK taking any action against the pilots?
If their training procedures are at fault, maybe not.
Quoting FlyEmirates (Reply 4): I know Airbus aircraft are meant to be very similar but i find the above statement quite alarming. I will be watching this thread with interest.
“During a lesson to standardise rotation techniques across all Airbus fly-by-wire [FBW] types operated by Emirates, and to avoid a tailstrike, he had been taught that the positive selection of two-third stick back was a requirement. The position could be more accurately obtained by placing the SSOI to 9° nose up on the PFD and that this would transition the aircraft to flight correctly.” The report relates that the captain had subsequently used this technique successfully during recurrent A340-300 simulator training, and line operations with the A330-200.
Are they assuming too much commonality in operations?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31228 posts, RR: 58 Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2927 times:
Quoting FlyEmirates (Reply 4): 'For both pilots it was only their second flight in an A340-300, and it was the captain’s first flight in the type as pilot flying.
Isn't there a more stringent requirement in their SOP.
regds
MEL
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2840 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 6): “During a lesson to standardise rotation techniques across all Airbus fly-by-wire [FBW] types operated by Emirates, and to avoid a tailstrike, he had been taught that the positive selection of two-third stick back was a requirement. The position could be more accurately obtained by placing the SSOI to 9° nose up on the PFD and that this would transition the aircraft to flight correctly.”
In a separate FI article, there is another description of what happened on that takeoff, here's an excerpt:
Quote: “During the take-off roll the captain applied an improper rotation technique by referencing the Side Stick Order Indicator to the 9° position on the primary flight display [PFD]. This caused the aircraft to de-rotate and not to lift off as expected. When the aircraft overran the end of the runway with the associated noise, the aircraft was rotated further and became airborne with the application of take-off/go-around thrust.
ZKNEA From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 151 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2736 times:
Interesting thing about this is that IIRC it was never reported in the media in the UAE.
Is this report recent? Because I had heard about what had gone wrong quite a while ago through people at EK. Aparently, in relation to the question about action against the pilots, there was a huge shake up at the training facility with many instructors looking for new work
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2731 times:
Quoting ZKNEA (Reply 9): Is this report recent? Because I had heard about what had gone wrong quite a while ago through people at EK.
The formal report, all 68 pages of it, is brand new. But Airbus had already put out an operator telex, several months ago, pretty much detailing the pilot's screw-up.
Planeboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2071 times:
If I am not wrong, the registration of that A343 was A6-ERM. Coincidently I travelled the same a/c to JNB (from DXB) a week after that incident. When I asked the cabin crew about that incident, they refused to comment on it. On my way back, I had an A332.
Andz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8306 posts, RR: 11 Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2039 times:
Quoting Planeboy (Reply 16): Coincidently I travelled the same a/c to JNB (from DXB) a week after that incident.
I don't think so, the plane sat at JNB for many weeks after the incident, the damage was quite severe. Main gear and flaps were damaged in the incident.
I am quite sure of not seeing any other EK aircraft at JNB. I went early to airport to do some spotting. Saw loads of SA aircrafts and BA, AF, LH, IB overnighters, CX, ET, KQ, MK and some LCCs. But I am quite sure there wasn't any EK 343 sitting anywhere.
Andz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8306 posts, RR: 11 Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1980 times:
I checked some more archived threads, there was a post that I made on May 20th that I saw it in the SAA technical area when flying that day. Not sure when it eventually left after repairs.
777boi From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1845 times:
It was actually A6-ERN involved in this incident. Apparently the 2 pilots were dismissed, but then asked to come back, but were not allowed to fly until the full incident investigations were revealed!
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1748 times:
Quoting 777boi (Reply 20): It was actually A6-ERN involved in this incident. Apparently the 2 pilots were dismissed, but then asked to come back, but were not allowed to fly until the full incident investigations were revealed!
Am I understanding this correctly: the two pilots were sacked for this but then got rehired? This almost sounds like they're denying their culpability.
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1690 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 21): Am I understanding this correctly: the two pilots were sacked for this but then got rehired? This almost sounds like they're denying their culpability
How are they culpable? The problem was actually a training issue that Airbus had advised operators about months prior to the JNB incident. The crew did exactly what they were advised to do by the training received at EK. IMO they were made scapegoats for the short comings of the training dept.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7772 posts, RR: 73 Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1647 times:
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 22): How are they culpable? The problem was actually a training issue that Airbus had advised operators about months prior to the JNB incident. The crew did exactly what they were advised to do by the training received at EK. IMO they were made scapegoats for the short comings of the training dept.
Phil, well said, crew followed company SOP, company SOP at fault.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2698 posts, RR: 48 Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1603 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 23): Crew followed company SOP, company SOP at fault.
Indeed, most of the blame should be for Emirates' in-house training, which advised their crews to look at the SSOI to make the plane rotate.
The Side Stick Order Indicator is displayed over the PFD to allow the PNF (Pilot Non-Flying) to supervise the inputs given by the PF (Pilot Flying) through his side stick, because the PNF has no physical feed back through his side stick. As such, the SSOI is of importance for the PNF only, to keep him in the loop.
However, Emirates seems to have taught the PF to look at the SSOI to make the plane rotate! I wonder who is looking out at that moment then? The PF is heads down to check to SSOI vs the Pitch of the plane for several seconds, whereas the PNF is also supposed to be heads down too, checking and calling out speed, thrust and other vital parameters....
Very weird and potentially dangerous procedure indeed.
Emirates2005 From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 237 posts, RR: 1 Reply 25, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1536 times:
OK... let me recap and get this right:
1. Training issue - Not listening to the people that BUILT the plane
2. SOP not updated - Quality Management
3. Probably overweight and..... (drumrolls please)
4. 2 pilots looking down and NOT at the runway
hm.....
Any passanger reading this must be very happy knowing that neither of the pilots had their eyes on the "road". Is that the reason why TO/GA was initiated only AFTER they hit the dirt???
Sponsor Message: 
From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 2930 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 179 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4788 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31228 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 151 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7772 posts, 
From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 4919 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, 
From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2157 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 133 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2698 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
