Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EK A345 MEL Incident "Near Crash"  
User currently offlineChrisrad From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1071 posts, RR: 8
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 28189 times:

Being reported in today's Sunday Herald Sun

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,25321462-2862,00.html

"Aviation officials say last month's accident involving an Emirates plane carrying 225 passengers was the closest thing to a catastrophic plane crash Australia has ever experienced.

The Sunday Herald Sun can reveal the plane, bound for Dubai, used all of the 3600m-long runway 16, but failed to become airborne until the last second, when the pilots pulled its nose up so sharply it smashed its tail into the ground at the end of the runway.

It was less than 70cm from the ground when it wiped out airport strobe lights 170m from the end of the runway.

It then took out a navigation antennae before barely clearing the airport's boundary fence half a kilometre away.

"It was as close as we have ever come to a major aviation catastrophe in Australia," one aviation official said."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,25323449-11212,00.html


"A Sunday Herald Sun investigation has confirmed that the flight - EK407 to Dubai - almost failed to become airborne and barely made it over the airport perimeter fence, half a kilometre away.

Damage to the $220 million plane is so severe that the airline is considering writing it off rather than repairing it.

The fully-laden Airbus A340-500 was believed to have been travelling about 280km/h when it reached the end of the runway without becoming airborne. "


Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
103 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLHR380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 28154 times:

Wow, I had not heard anything about a EK 340 stuck in MEL on anet?

Interesting reading in the report. Looking frwd to more info on this.


User currently offlineMadViking From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 28136 times:

Damage so severe that they are considering writing if off? Did they have to dump fuel and return for an emergency landing? I didn't read any of that in the articles or video clip. And if smoke in the cabin was detected was there an electrical fire? Sorry for so many questions but obviously if the aircraft is a write-off then it's still in MEL as it could not have been airworthy to fly back to Dubai?

User currently offlineAeroplaneFreak From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 28142 times:



Quoting MadViking (Reply 2):
Damage so severe that they are considering writing if off? Did they have to dump fuel and return for an emergency landing? I didn't read any of that in the articles or video clip. And if smoke in the cabin was detected was there an electrical fire? Sorry for so many questions but obviously if the aircraft is a write-off then it's still in MEL as it could not have been airworthy to fly back to Dubai?

Yes they dumped fuel and returned to MEL. It is currently in the John Holland hangers in MEL. Spotted yesterday in there.


User currently offlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 928 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 28103 times:

There was a very extensive thread on this incident back when the event happened, however I cant seem to find it to quote for you, maybe someone else can search it better than I.


remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 28103 times:



Quoting LHR380 (Reply 1):
Wow, I had not heard anything about a EK 340 stuck in MEL on anet?

There was a thread. It was one of the closest calls I can remember in aviation where the plane returned safely. The plane hit just about everything it possibly could on it's way up and yet still got off the ground.

The damage is extensive...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineNicholaschee From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 28086 times:

This is not the first tailstrike incident for EK on the A340s. There was another incident in JNB in 2005 where a -300 suffered a tailstrike due to poor training procedures. PF was given a non approved rotation tip during training.

User currently offlineQFFlyer From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 28044 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
The damage is extensive

Exceedingly....The damage is either side of the rear pressure bulkhead, and I have been told that under the crew rest is an interesting look. Damage won't be repaired if approved by insurance in MEL. If approved there will be temporary repairs and the plane flown back to Europe.

Quoting Nicholaschee (Reply 6):
There was another incident in JNB in 2005 where a -300 suffered a tailstrike due to poor training procedures

And catagorised by Airbus as a crash. Luck was the only reason it didn't become another major crash.

Cheers


User currently offlineOzflyer333 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 27918 times:

Very strange that this incident was not reported fully and made a big deal of when it happened "last month". What's going on with that. This was a major incident and potentially disastrous crash; it would have been the most serious in Australia's aviation history. Typically lame reporting in the news.com article "Aviation expert Dick Smith said something had gone badly wrong" and a picture of an A380 in the Yahoo report (equally lame). So far no reporting or even suggestion of what could have caused this situation. My wild guess: overloading or no flaps?

User currently offlineMHTripple7 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1107 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 27842 times:

Sorry if I missed anything in the other thread, but has a caused been determined for this incident? This aircraft should not have been anywhere near the end of the runway even with an engine out.

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 27647 times:

Any reason why it did not generate the required lift.
regds
MEL.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineChrisrad From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1071 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 27650 times:



Quoting MHTripple7 (Reply 9):
Sorry if I missed anything in the other thread, but has a caused been determined for this incident? This aircraft should not have been anywhere near the end of the runway even with an engine out.

There were suggestions last month after it happened that the aircraft was overweight.



Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
User currently offlineZanadou From South Korea, joined Nov 2000, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 27623 times:



Quoting TN486 (Reply 4):

This thread: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4357459

It's also mentioned in the "Australian Aviation 26" thread: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4367912


User currently offlineChrisrad From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1071 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 27602 times:

I found the article that mentioned the aircraft weight

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25232117-2862,00.html

Emirates airbus weight issue under scrutiny

"AIR safety experts will investigate claims the Emirates plane at the centre of last Friday's emergency was carrying too much weight.

There were also reports yesterday that the plane missed a brick building on takeoff by just 50cm."



Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3224 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 27530 times:



Quoting MHTripple7 (Reply 9):
Sorry if I missed anything in the other thread, but has a caused been determined for this incident?

Not sure but pretty certain the pilot and co-pilot resigned immediately which could speak volumes or at least a couple of pages.

Quoting MHTripple7 (Reply 9):
This aircraft should not have been anywhere near the end of the runway even with an engine out.

Yeah, that's the freaky thing to me. I remember at the time reading was just a tail strike, but clearly it was so much more than that.

The main runway at MEL is very long, 3.65km, and for the plane to have got that far without the pilots having aborted take-off or taking emergency procedures much earlier is very concerning.

MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4840 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 27507 times:



Quoting Ozflyer333 (Reply 8):
Very strange that this incident was not reported fully and made a big deal of when it happened "last month". What's going on with that.

Gee I wonder why.... its Emirates with their big advertising budget in newspapers etc in Australia....
and the media are too busy reporting about Qantas that has to divert because of bad weather  Yeah sure


On a further note and as mentioned in the other thread, both pilots from this flight have effectively been forced to resign by EK. Now if the reason for the incident is not their fault then these two pilots did an amazing job of flying this aircraft...
the ONE concerning thing for me though is that if the aircraft was not achieving satisfactory acceleration prior to V1 then why was the t/o not aborted?!



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineAFGMEL From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 27450 times:



Quoting Ozflyer333 (Reply 8):
Very strange that this incident was not reported fully and made a big deal of when it happened "last month".

It was well reported here in MEL, but Aussie news seems to be very parochial indeed, so perhaps it wasn't reported elsewhere much. The tabloid news channels (7,9,10) were practically foaming at the mouth.



B 727-44/200 732/3/4/8/9 767-3 742/3/4, 772/3, A319/20/21 332/333 342/3 , DC3/4/10, F28/50/100, ATR72
User currently offlineFlood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 27369 times:

An article in flightglobal's blog 4/7 suggested (unconfirmed) the FO input an incorrect number into laptop for TO calculation resulting in weight selection 100t less than actual.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/un...o-what-did-happen-to-the-emir.html


User currently offlineTrent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 27131 times:

Are there any pics of the damage?

User currently offlineYWG From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 1146 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 26958 times:



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 10):
Any reason why it did not generate the required lift.



Quoting Chrisrad (Reply 11):
There were suggestions last month after it happened that the aircraft was overweight.

I can't think of any other reason! (apart from incorrect flap/slat setting or reduced thrust)

Quoting Flood (Reply 17):
An article in flightglobal's blog 4/7 suggested (unconfirmed) the FO input an incorrect number into laptop for TO calculation resulting in weight selection 100t less than actual.

That's a pretty big screw up.



Contact Winnipeg center now on 134.4, good day.
User currently offlineFlood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 26803 times:



Quoting Trent1000 (Reply 18):
Are there any pics of the damage?

These were initially posted on pprune 3/20 and were linked to in previous thread on a.net as well. Credit to ZK-EBC on pprune.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1558/a6erg2.jpg
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6858/a6erg.jpg
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1420/a6erg3.jpg


User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 26563 times:



Quoting Flood (Reply 17):
An article in flightglobal's blog 4/7 suggested (unconfirmed) the FO input an incorrect number into laptop for TO calculation resulting in weight selection 100t less than actual.

Can someone explain the technical details behind this? Is it a case of you enter in the magic number and the plane "adjusts" the amount of power you will need to get airborne? If this is the case, why would you restrict the power on take off when I would have thought it is one of the most critical times to have access to all power?

Also, being off by 100t is a pretty hefty amount, is there any kind of double check to ensure the right numbers are put in? Could this be something to be addressed as a result of what happened? Knowing full well here that anything from the crew not paying attention, not being fully alert etc could have them ignore/accept/etc the prompt to confirm the data entered.

Just trying to get enlightened on how it all works.


User currently offlineM11Stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 25784 times:

Wow, unlike the majority of the "accidents" the Australian media reports, this one actually sounds serious.


My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12519 posts, RR: 35
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 25666 times:

The crewmembers apparently criticised EK during their initial interviews with Australian investigators; this got back to EK, which didn't appreciate it. They were basically given a choice: resign or be fired.

If the FO did indeed put the wrong numbers into the FMGS, it sounds like a very similar situation to the SIA 744 accident at AKL a few years back.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 25662 times:



Quoting Flood (Reply 20):
These were initially posted on pprune 3/20 and were linked to in previous thread on a.net as well. Credit to ZK-EBC on pprune.

See, the damage looks extensive, but I don't see fuselage buckling or other things that would lead me to think it's a write-off. Just a hefty repair bill.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 Kaitak : Are the nationalities of the two pilots known yet?
26 Post contains images Cpd : Well the numbers govern a lot of things - among those the "V" speeds (v1, vR v2, vZRC) and may also determine how much power is used - (if indeed the
27 PITrules : Power is not "restricted"; if full power is desired at any time during takeoff all the crew has to do is push the thrust levers up from the Flex dete
28 JerseyFlyer : This would explain why the acceleration was slow, but not why the take off was not aborted by the pilots as a result of that.
29 TN486 : " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...67912 Thank you for finding the original thread. That says a lot, plus if you all look at the
30 Boeing747400ER : This has taken very long to come out. I was out of the country when this happened. I believe the a/c is still in the hanger in MEL?
31 TN486 : Yes, still there, if they have the doors open, you can see it from the road that goes up the RH side of the hanger (ex AN maintenance hanger).
32 Acabgd : Not really, it was already out and there was a thread about it with all the detailed information. Some news outlets either had a bad day, or they mis
33 SASDC8 : Which is probably why the pilots are not employed by Emirates anymore...
34 AvroArrow : Shades of the MK Airlines 747-200 crash at CYHZ a few years back. Incorrect weigh numbers entered into the computer and incorrect EPR value used for t
35 Archer : Probably 25 years ago (or more) a Pan Am 747 did a similar thing taking off from San Francisco. It seems to me a pole or fence post came up through th
36 Post contains links Acabgd : http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19710730-2 The Pan American Boeing 747 struck the Approach Light Structure (ALS) at the departure e
37 Pilotaydin : As an A340 pilot, i can tell you, that I've seen the end of the runway a lot and im not kidding, sometimes we takeoff at near max at 275,000 kg.....a
38 Speedbird128 : It was a tad more than a tail strike... several hundred metres of approach lights destroyed, damaged flaps they tried to retract, multiple burst tyre
39 TN486 : Off topic I know, but why the problems mentioned in this post, is the A340 underpowered?? or is it just a dog of an ac (aesthetically they look great
40 Mgmacius : So when you input correct numbers it will set engines power and tell you when to rotate? Semi-automatic take-of procedure?
41 G-CIVP : I'm surprised that the take-off weight wasn't cross checked, if this transpires to be the cause of the accident. As for the crew resigning, let's face
42 DocLightning : As I understand it, it's not that the A340 is underpowered, but that the 747 is overpowered. The A340 has a very efficient wing, much more so than th
43 Pilotaydin : Aircraft are designed for their specific purpose....the A340, isn't designed to lift off the runway in a short span, or to climb to altitude in a qui
44 Jbernie : Thanks for the responses, will be interesting to see more details as they are released.
45 Comorin : Ignoramus here! Some questions regarding automation: 1. Why doesn't a airplane know its own weight? With 3 points of contact on the ground, you should
46 Ikramerica : I always wondered this too, but it would have to be calibrated constantly I would imagine.
47 Hotelmode : Flying multiple types on the same rating cant help. We all have numbers in our head regarding weights, speeds, power settings etc. I'm lucky enough to
48 Luvflng : Your statement is a bit scary especially if you are a pilot. I am sure your training has ensured that you check the TOGW before you take off and do n
49 Ikramerica : Which is an argument against multiple type ratings?
50 Post contains images DingDong : Perhaps a bit scary but certainly very realistic. Training does that, yes, but there is a human element called 'confirmation bias' -- where the brain
51 Kukkudrill : Not to mention flying journalists to Dubai for free holidays. At least they do it in my country, guaranteeing plenty of favourable coverage for thems
52 Jbernie : Assuming you wouldn't be revealing too much information etc etc, could you provide us with a rough list of what you go through (relavent to this inci
53 Hotelmode : What checklist response would pick up a simple number transfer? If it looks right to both pilots (used to flying another variant) then the response i
54 Wukka : I was under the impression that the 747 and the 340 were both quads?
55 Ikramerica : Why does the flight computer even allow an entry of 220t on a flight of the length of MEL-DXB? Is this even a valid figure for anything but a ferry fl
56 Hotelmode : Good point. I tried entering 100t as zfw on my aircraft and it accepts the figures and calculates V1, VR and V2 even though theres no chance of it be
57 TodaReisinger : Very frightening event. It must have been a terrifying experience for the passengers...... But has any of them spoken to the media? I haven't seen any
58 Chrisrad : Are you comparing the A340-300 to the A340-500? because it seems to me you are a pilot for TK which only fly the A343, the A345 has almost double the
59 Ikramerica : It's an obvious flaw in the software if that's the case. There should be simple safeguards like this considering the tragic results that are possible
60 Antskip : It has to be a typo - the A345 is being compared to the B777 (surely)
61 DocLightning : I think that's a good point. Why doesn't an A/C know its own weight? It would hardly be a major modification to add some sensors to the shocks on the
62 QANTAS077 : what stuns me is that there is no fail-safe, the plane "knows" its doing MEL-DXB nonstop, yet it appears that there is no mechanism in place to quest
63 KiwiinOz : It's chilling to know how close this was to something big. Looks like there are some very tangible learnings from it though - no doubt there will be i
64 TN486 : Gents, thank you for your responses, one learns something every day. Its ok Doc, I knew what you meant I am with you mate, I would now expect some fa
65 Ikramerica : Just as there were things to learn from the Gimli glider incident. In that situation, part of the problem was that pilots were still used to relying
66 DocLightning : You knew what I meant? That's alarming...
67 Post contains links Flood : There's a new article at theage.com.au also indicating incorrect data input. http://www.theage.com.au/travel/trav...r-runway-mishap-20090412-a418.html
68 Ikramerica : The heavy landing on top of the tail damage may be why it is considered a write-off candidate. If they were 30 minutes short on fuel dumping, it may b
69 Post contains links Mr airnz : Not the first time EK crew's have slipped up during pre-departure preperations. This event (whilst slightly different) still has similar ring tones. h
70 EBGARN : An interesting idea came to my mind... Do you think they realized they were so much overweight while landing? Did they know that they had entered the
71 CX777Fan : I've been wondering about this as well. As a previous poster mentioned, the pilot of a Qantas flight just has to sneeze at the moment for the media t
72 SunriseValley : I assume this software is part of Boeing's electronic "Flight Bag" and the Airbus equivalent. Is it approved by regulators ?. If not it would appear i
73 G-CIVP : I always thought take-off figures were cross-checked, one pilot prepares, another checks. I can only surmise that the 'checker' has checked the accura
74 Chrisrad : I just find it hard to beleive that they were 3/4 down the runway and obviously must have realised that something was wrong???
75 JayinKitsap : The structural engineering program I use the most has me enter the individual weights and the total weight. It will squak if they don't add up to with
76 Ikramerica : As it should. Either there is more to this story than a simple bad entry, or the Airbus flight software needs a revision immediately before one of th
77 Richierich : Something had to be very wrong - I'm just not sure what it is. I am from the camp that believes it is always too easy to blame the pilots but the rea
78 DingDong : Close... but it's probably better framed as: "Does Emirates' insurer want it repaired?" If it exceeds a certain percentage (guessing 70% to 80%?), it
79 SEPilot : From what I can see I can easily see this as a write-off. The point is not the damage you see, but the damage you don't. The bottom surface that actu
80 Ikramerica : If nothing else, it could be a redundancy.
81 Frigatebird : Forget "almost", it was totally uncontrollable. The sudden decompression was so explosive, it caused most of the tail fin, and everything under it to
82 Pilotaydin : there are two issues here as well first off....we can calculate the weight...then the speeds according to the weight... now the real problem hits when
83 PITrules : If it was so easy, wouldn't it be done? The struts are pneumatic - that means some sort of gaseous substance is involved (nitrogen). Being a gas, it
84 Ikramerica : That's why I figured that it wasn't so easy...
85 DingDong : Thank you, PITrules, for putting it such so succinctly. SEPilot, I know you honestly mean the best, but quite frankly... if this was feasible, this w
86 SEPilot : In this case it is not at all so complicated. Altimeters are subject to all of the factors you list because what they are trying to measure is a comp
87 Revelation : I believe Airbus has the back half of an Etihad A345 in its spare parts bin...
88 SEPilot : I thought it was an A356. But it might be the same; the difference in length is likely just the cylindrical part. If they decide to fix it that would
89 G-CIVP : Again, I'm speculating, the crew probably did realise something was wrong but were rapidly running out of runway, didn't have an awful lot of decisio
90 Post contains links PITrules : But altimeters measure absolute pressure, no? The measurement of "differential pressure" you speak of would be more like a vertical speed indicator (
91 SEPilot : Yes, they do. The differential I was referring to was the different pressure at different altitudes. The point is that this difference that you are l
92 Comorin : Assuming that we can indeed measure the weight of the aircraft either through pressure in the struts or strain gauges, measure air pressure/density wi
93 PITrules : The effects of atmospheric conditions was the point I was trying to make. Seems like a contradiction. I disagree with your first statement that the a
94 Nomadd22 : The system might not know the weight of the plane, but it does know the velocity. Shouldn't it have responded with full power when it detected the pla
95 Ikramerica : True, and temp is quite easily measured. The point here is that it may not be accurate to within even 2 tonnes, but that's hardly important as a redu
96 Remcor : Dude, you're all making this a much more complicated problem than it is. Atmospheric pressure, temperature, etc have nothing to do with it. Really, o
97 Remcor : I have a question. Are the runway lights, poles, etc. designed to break in the event an aircraft hits them? I mean I'd think it'd be obvious that you'
98 DingDong : Yes, they're frangible.
99 Zkpilot : Sorry if someone has posted this I read through some replies but wasn't going to read all 98 of them... I was not aware until recently that EK actuall
100 Chrisrad : I don't think any EK pilots would dare to comment on this, especially in the current climate. And we know EK's attitudes towards their staff.
101 Pilotaydin : what would that be? im curious cuz i dont know
102 Comorin : Exactly! Unless some portion of the weight was borne by springs, which we would need to factor that in. I just don't see why measuring the weight of
103 Post contains links Flood : According to avherald EK plans to repair the aircraft to a point where it can be ferried unpressurized to Toulouse for full repair. Investigation is s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Near Miss" At LCY: Video posted Sat Feb 21 2009 23:36:08 by Bdak
E170 From Feb CLE Incident Gets New "Head" posted Mon Sep 10 2007 23:37:02 by Rampkontroler
How Will EK Distinguish Between 77W And 777 "ulr"? posted Mon Jul 30 2007 07:07:36 by LPOZ
EK CEO A380 "vital", A350 "Simply Must Build" posted Wed Nov 29 2006 21:08:47 by TheDiplomat
"Incident / Possible Hijacking" In Cape Town posted Fri Oct 6 2006 13:23:52 by SA707
Microlight "crash Lands" Near Sellafield posted Sun Jun 5 2005 19:55:03 by Planespotterx
News Article Calles DL Incident "plane Crash" posted Fri Oct 29 2004 04:53:18 by Flairport
Any News On EK "new" Business Class posted Mon Mar 29 2004 19:04:48 by Nflippa
Will Mel Gibson's "Passion" Be Shown Inflight? posted Thu Feb 26 2004 00:14:40 by Jmc1975
CO "near" Agreement With Boeing On 757-300s posted Thu Oct 16 2003 22:53:59 by STT757