kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11993 posts, RR: 36 Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 17159 times:
A landing A332, inbound from India, aborted after landing, to avoid another aircraft on the runway. The identity of the other aircraft is not disclosed (anyone know?)
cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 17003 times:
Quote: Dr Ashok said the plane circled the airspace for another 20 minutes, before it landed “in a different area from where we normally land; the bus ride to Terminal 3 took another 20 minutes”.
There is a difference between touching down and landing.
I've always tended to use those terms interchangeably ... perhaps wrongly, but there you go! Anyway, quite an unnerving experience, nonetheless. I'm trying to get a little more info on what happened; I suspect that the 332 landed on 12R (they usually use the 12s in the morning) and an aircraft that had landed on 12L was crossing, but I'll wait until I have confirmation.
Quokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16433 times:
Interesting that many of the passengers, according to the report, were "still asleep". My experience is that as soon as is it announced that we are about to make our final approach, everyone wants to suddenly go to the toilet. But I guess that it is lucky that they all had their seat belts fastened, as they should have.
Seriously though, as DXB becomes more congested we can expect more close landings. Until the new terminal and the new airport becomes available DXB will suffer too many aircraft arriving and departing at the same time.
readytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 2626 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15926 times:
Who requested the go around/abort, pilot or tower?
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
baguy From UK - England, joined Mar 2006, 533 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15848 times:
Quoting AR385 (Reply 3): Probably went something like this for the passengers?
Does this aircraft actually touch down though? According to the article the aircraft 'touched down momentarily'. But - we all know how accurate news agencies are when it comes to the aviation details! I mean it's not as if go-arounds are that uncommon! (I had one last week at STN) you could say a disaster has been averted every time an aircraft goes around!
71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2762 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15753 times:
Quoting baguy (Reply 6): Does this aircraft actually touch down though?
A lot of quotes in the article say that it did.
Quote: Flight from Kerala took off after touchdown to avoid another plane on same runway
A major air disaster was averted on Sunday morning in Dubai when an Emirates flight took off mere seconds after touching down because another carrier was already on the same runway.
The aircraft initiated a go-around sequence at the time of landing, after momentarily touching the runway.
Yet, as soon as the plane touched down, it was airborne again within seconds.
Good thing reverse thrust was not used as soon as touching down or there could have been no go around after that.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15701 times:
My question is how do you get so close to touching down and NOT see the other aircraft on the runway?
Let's think about this: The touchdown area is very close, if not the same as the take off area. Therefore, the plane which caused the go around had to have been on the runway for sometime, and somewhere further down if this is accurate. Therefore, the plane that actually touched down is in some major fault here for not seeing the other aircraft on the runway.
Either the article is wrong, and this was just a simple go around, or someone was an idiot.
anshuk From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 480 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15491 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 8): Let's think about this: The touchdown area is very close, if not the same as the take off area. Therefore, the plane which caused the go around had to have been on the runway for sometime, and somewhere further down if this is accurate. Therefore, the plane that actually touched down is in some major fault here for not seeing the other aircraft on the runway.
It may be possible that a plane had landed just before this flight and had not cleared the runway, right? In that case the aircraft would be much, much further down the runway. The crew should have been in a position to notice it (and probably did) but it would be less obvious than an aircraft lining up or lined up for take off!
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15439 times:
Quoting anshuk (Reply 9): It may be possible that a plane had landed just before this flight and had not cleared the runway, right? In that case the aircraft would be much, much further down the runway. The crew should have been in a position to notice it (and probably did) but it would be less obvious than an aircraft lining up or lined up for take off!
No, they should have noticed it way before they touched down, and should have been informed by tower to go around way before they touched down, regardless of where the other plane was on the runway. Someone was reckless here, unless DXB is notorious for snowstorms, heavy dense fog, or hurricanes. And even then, someone should have noticed before the wheels of this aircraft touched down.
So it makes me question the validity of the details of the story.
Timboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1247 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15383 times:
Unless it was a runway incursion, i.e. the a/c which was already on the ground did not pose a problem to the landing a/c until right before/after touchdown?
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11993 posts, RR: 36 Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15349 times:
Quoting Timboflier215 (Reply 12): Unless it was a runway incursion, i.e. the a/c which was already on the ground did not pose a problem to the landing a/c until right before/after touchdown?
I think that's the most likely; the aircraft holding short presumably taxied too close to, or onto, the runway. No doubt they saw the other aircraft holding short and then saw it move; cancel spoilers, cancel autobrake, TOGA power and away we go ... (whee*!)
(*This callout does not appear anywhere in the EK Ops manual.)
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4932 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 15232 times:
Just guessing here but the go around would probably have started before touchdown. If not then spoilers are up, reverses are out, and all bets are off !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11429 posts, RR: 50 Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 15149 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 10): Someone was reckless here, unless DXB is notorious for snowstorms, heavy dense fog, or hurricanes.
No, but sandstorms are common, and, at this time of year, early morning arrivals would be landing directly into the rising sun. Visibility at DXB is often poor.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14225 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 10): No, they should have noticed it way before they touched down, and should have been informed by tower to go around way before they touched down, regardless of where the other plane was on the runway. Someone was reckless here, unless DXB is notorious for snowstorms, heavy dense fog, or hurricanes. And even then, someone should have noticed before the wheels of this aircraft touched down.
I know you're just trying to be cute, but DXB is notorious for poor viz and sandstorms.
captain777 From Kuwait, joined Dec 2003, 315 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13211 times:
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 17): I know you're just trying to be cute, but DXB is notorious for poor viz and sandstorms.
Sandstorm in November ? check your sources again.... I landed many many many times in DXB and it was never LOW VIS.....EVEN if it was LOW VIS I don't think an airplane is even allowed to commence an approach whilst another is still on the runway because it will interfere with the ILS transmission....even TAXING aircrafts won't be allowed near the ILS sensitive and critical areas....
the sky is the limit.............actually FL410 is the limit
Sandager From Denmark, joined May 2007, 95 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10406 times:
Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 17): I know you're just trying to be cute, but DXB is notorious for poor viz and sandstorms.
In the past 2 years I have flown in and out of DXB 62 times, and only once have we been delayed due WX in DXB. And that was the only time I have seen fog and bad weather in DXB.
Pure speculations from my side regarding the incident. But usually landing runway is the left one, either 12L or 30L. In the morning they usually use 12L for landing. Most of the time we vacate 12L via M9, then Twy M and hold short rwy 12R on twy M13B. Could it be the Emirates were landing on 12R, and the aircraft missed the taxi to M13B and hold short of the Rwy-clearence? In this there is a change of frequency as well.
As i said above, pure speculations. I guess we will find out what actually happened.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9390 times:
Quoting captain777 (Reply 18): Sandstorm in November ? check your sources again.... I landed many many many times in DXB and it was never LOW VIS
Quoting Sandager (Reply 19): In the past 2 years I have flown in and out of DXB 62 times, and only once have we been delayed due WX in DXB.
Good grief, hostility.
The point of my post was that there are certainly factors that can reduce visibility at DXB.
Haze and the rising/setting sun can certainly reduce visibility and distort field of view/screw up depth perception.
Well, I've actually landed many many many airplanes and I'm saying it's possible that visibility could have been a factor in a "late" go-around. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.
DanVS From Brazil, joined Jul 2009, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8626 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 8): What were weather conditions in Dubai?
According to the article, the incident took place at 0722 local time (0322Z):
OMDB 070400Z 08007KT 030V110 CAVOK 26/10 Q1014NOSIG
OMDB 070300Z 08008KT 020V100 CAVOK 25/12 Q1013 NOSIG
OMDB 070200Z 11006KT 050V140 CAVOK 24/13 Q1013 NOSNG
KiNgFrIdAy013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1278 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7968 times:
Back in 2008 (actually it was the morning of January 1st, we took off December 31st) I flew CO 2 HNL-IAH, when we were landing in IAH we touched down and then went back up, apparently another aircraft entered the runway area or something like that. The 767-400 is one powerful jet!
Anyway it wasn't really a big deal to us on the plane. Didn't make the news or even the AvHerald. I guess kudos to the CO and EK pilots... for doing their job.
I've recently experienced 2 go-around's, both a LHR in BA 763's. I actually found that both times many pax were quite worried and were anxious to land.
downtown273 From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 264 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6521 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 15): Just guessing here but the go around would probably have started before touchdown. If not then spoilers are up, reverses are out, and all bets are off !
That was my belief too. Once the wheels are on the ground, isn't it better to apply full reverse, spoilers etc... than full power and up again?
25 Sandager: No hostility at all. The thing is you wrote that DXB i notorious for poor viz and sandstorms. In the past 2 years I have experienced no sandstorms in
26 PapaChuck: What we have here is a go around, and that's all we know. Most of the passengers were asleep? Come on, should we really be trusting this media hogwash
27 AustrianSimon: EK-523 was too fast on approach to runway 12L not slowing down early enough and came too close to the preceding landing EK-76. When the lateral distan
29 anshuk: Thank you for that. So much for the eyewitness' version that the wheels touched down before they went around!
30 413X3: This makes absolutely no sense at all. And you are a pilot?
31 Aesma: What I was saying is that the pilots would have initiated the go around before touchdown (but barely a few feet above the runway), canceled the spoil
32 captain777: In what way does this not make any sense to you ? Unless you know what you're talking about i hope you didn't just post your reply on the fact of wha
33 413X3: You said if an airplane is on the runway another can't commence its approach. Which is wrong. Slight fluctuations are common with weather as well as
34 captain777: educate your self please with the following :- http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio...ions/tp1247-part2-part2-5-1446.htm http://www.navcanada.ca/Conte
35 JBirdAV8r: I held back from replying to this gem, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. This and subsequent replies demonstrates a basic lack of knowledg
36 captain777: I agree,,, but the above replies are what got me speaking about the ILS to show my point of view that weather conditions was'nt the cause for this GO
37 413X3: Educate myself on what? You made a claim that until an aircraft has landed and cleared the runway, no other airplane behind it is able to be on the g
38 gr8circle: I've lived in that part of the world for a few years....sandstorms generally occur any time of the year.....and even otherwise, as mentioned by other
39 DocLightning: I have heard that EK can be quite harsh with their crew, firing them for the smallest error or irregularity. I very much hope the crew of EK 523 are
40 JBirdAV8r: Good question. I don't know any pilots flying for EK but I've heard stories alluding to that. To be fair, though, the only pilots I know that are "no
41 aerobus12: Because the other aircraft was unknown, that suggests it was in a place it was not meant to be?
42 captain777: True they are tough on them in regards to safty, as any airline SHOULD be, now even if it was an ATC mishandle...there is no excuse what so ever for
43 DocLightning: Not when it's overdone. Part of a culture of safety is that you don't fire people for making mistakes. When you do that, you encourage people to lie
Sponsor Message: 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11993 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 4923 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 2626 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2006, 533 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2762 posts, 
Since they build that ski palace it's freezing in Dubai.
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4932 posts, 
From Kuwait, joined Dec 2003, 315 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2007, 95 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Jul 2009, 221 posts, 
From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 264 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
