LSZH34 wrote:

tienlp wrote:

i've read some replies that say that the 50 degrees makes it harder to gain thrust, can anyone help me understanding why that is ?

The hotter the air, the lower the air-density, the less air for the engine to "suck" in and less air for the wings to produce lift. Hairy indeed....

I've read somewhere that the density altitude was similar to an airport at an elevation of roughly 4500ft and DXB is basically sea-level. Figure yourself...

Very true. The Harrier jump jet has a 5 gallon water tank which can spray water into the engine intake to cool the air and thus increase lift on vertical take off.

Todays event is either a major problem lowering the under carriage or pilot tiredness and forgetting to lower the gear. The towere informed them the gear was not lowered and they tried to go around but didn't have the thrust due to heat and so crashed with the gear up. Concerns on pilot tiredness at sister airline Fly Dubai could lead to Emirates being avoided by future passengers.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Flighty wrote:

I am no pilot but 50C and windshear sounds like sub optimal conditions under which to attempt a hairy go-around. It sounds like it was already quite hairy because the gear had a problem, and destabilized the aircraft. Sound accurate?

This is Murphy's Law in action, folks: When things go wrong, they go wrong at the absolute worst possible moment.

AF4590-Strip punctures tire, hits fuel tank, catches fire, plane takes off, fire spreads, loses lift, crashes.
SQ006-Rainy weather, high winds, typhoon, confusion causes takeoff on wrong runway with construction.
AF447-Pitot tubes iced, readings messed up, disoriented in night, crashes in ocean.
US1549-Both Engines fail on takeoff over New York City, forced to ditch in the Hudson.
BA38-Both engines fail on landing above a residential area, barely clears a gas station.
OZ214-Inexperienced pilot in training on difficult landing pattern, child subsequently hit by truck.
MH370-Went missing in a such a remote and virtually untraceable manner, still not found.
MH17-Military aircraft mistaken for passenger jet, shot down-that's really bad luck after MH370.
VU9525-Pilot is locked out of cockpit, plane is crashed into Swiss Alps by depressed man.
QR 778-Barely clears runway, almost hits fuel farm, rips hole and flies across the Atlantic to Doha.
BA2276-Plane accelerates to takeoff speed, engine explodes right before V1 rotation.
FZ981-High winds, low visibility, night landing, disorientation, crash on go around.
EK521-Last minute go around in hot weather with gusty windshear and gear failure.

What are the odds?

You're forgetting the millions of flights that didn't have anything go wrong. Or the number of flights that did have something go wrong but it wasn't at the worst possible moment.

Air crashes are almost always a complex set of factors together that cause the accident. There are thousands of issues that come up that don't result in an accident. You just happened to list the extremely small percentage where a set of factors together caused an accident.

Remember on 214, all three of the victims were NOT wearing their seatbelts as they should have been. Everyone who followed instructions and had their seatbelts fastened for landing survived. Doesn't take away the tragic loss of three young women, but it should have been avoided.

All Boeing airplanes have two different alerting systems if your Landing Gear is not down during final approach. At 800 feet, you'll get a CONFIG GEAR warning message on EICAS accompanied by the warning siren (737s have a horn). This is required by CFR 25.729. Then the GPWS system gives an aural "TOO LOW GEAR" at 500 feet. I presume this is true for other airplanes too.

All Boeing airplanes also have two different Windshear detection systems: A Predictive Windshear detection in the WXR system, and a Reactive Windshear detection in the GPWS system. I also presume this is true for all other manufactures.

We'll wait and see what the investigators conclude happened.

audian wrote:

I think the airlines should emphasize on "not taking the bags" while in emergency. And it should be declared as a punishable offence. If you see the video, there are hardly any one who are communicating in English. Most often times, they may not have an idea what the FA is trying to tell. As a fellow member suggested, the overhead bins should only be unlocked when seat belt signs are off.

I think people would be more inclined to leave their luggage behind if they felt reasonably assured that there belongings wouldn't be looted through and that they wouldn't have to wait weeks to get it back.

Ugly51 wrote:

Do we know who was Flying the 777 and who PNF was?

The Liveatc recording has an Australian on the radios talking with atc. So the PNF was the first officer, a foreign national from Australia.

Re some other posts here, I commented earlier this morning about the transcript that was posted but that got deleted?, which shows no emergency was declared or any problem mentioned. And aircraft before this one were going around for windshear, but the media did not do basic research before posting their catch headlines and scare stories. Sad.

BobMUC wrote:

747megatop wrote:

Folks, i was looking at flightradar24; there seems to be heavy traffic approaching/departing DXB. Does any body know if flights are delayed inbound/outbound due to reduced capacity or is the airport back to full capacity?

I don't think so. Looking at FR24, there is now traffic on 12L. Only one runway is open.

12L is already open? Damn they're good!

KTPAFlyer wrote:

BobMUC wrote:

747megatop wrote:

Folks, i was looking at flightradar24; there seems to be heavy traffic approaching/departing DXB. Does any body know if flights are delayed inbound/outbound due to reduced capacity or is the airport back to full capacity?

I don't think so. Looking at FR24, there is now traffic on 12L. Only one runway is open.

12L is already open? Damn they're good!

12R is in service. 12L is closed. FR24 is showing an airport vehicle on 12L

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Ugly51 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

I believe the QR pilots of the 77W incident at Miami also lost their job.

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... es-pilots/[/quote


Yes you are correct both pilots at QR lost there jobs after the Miami incident.

But QR fired the pilots because they were grossly at fault, as did Asiana for the 214 mishap. There have been instances though where the crew have been allowed to walk free despite hull losses, for their commendable actions. BA38, LOT 767, US1549 are a few of the high profile ones that come to mind. At first glance, ditching a plane in a river or crashing into a field doesn't seem like a situation where a pilot can get away unscathed. But in the end, the plane was at fault in all 3, and who knows, if this proves true for this one, EK may be honest with itself and recognize the crew by keeping them if they are found not to be at fault.

I think you need to take of the rose colored glasses. Peter Burkhill, the pilot of BA38, was so harassed at BA that he quit, even though it was pretty well established that the flight crew had clearly prevented a major disaster by their actions. He thought he could find another job easily at a Middle East or Asian carrier, but nobody would touch him because he had an accident on his record. But by this time it had become clear that he was in fact the hero of BA38. BA eventually took him back, but I think it was a couple of years later. Everything I have heard about the ME3 says to me that they have no compassion at all for individuals, and I would be very, very surprised if these pilots ever fly an airliner again, anywhere, even if it turns out that they were not at fault at all.

SEPilot wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Ugly51 wrote:

Everything I have heard about the ME3 says to me that they have no compassion at all for individuals, and I would be very, very surprised if these pilots ever fly an airliner again, anywhere, even if it turns out that they were not at fault at all.

Rumour has it that the FO was one of those that Qantas seconded to Emirates. If Emirates terminate his contract I am not sure what the contractual provisions are for his return to Qantas.

YYZYYT wrote:

zeke wrote:

Tristarsteve wrote:

A lot of false statements in this thread about engine acceleration and hot weather.
Jet engines will accelerate from approach (flight) idle to maximum thrust in 6 seconds. Maximum thrust at 50 deg C is lower than at ISA, but it is still maximum. If you are approaching the runway, six seconds is a very long time, and all the thrust increase comes in the last second.

I would just like to link your post, prior one by CX Flyboy, an observation by an eyewitness, and one of the photos.

If they did a rejected landing as suggested by an eye witness next to the runway, the aircraft in all likelihood was below flying speed. You will need to factor in the acceleration of the engines and the aircraft to accelerate the whole airframe.

Then there is the observation of the rear of the aircraft in the photos displaying the dark areas where one would expect white paint which may suggest rotating early which is a high drag state (aerodynamic drag and the fuselage scraping the runway) reducing acceleration.

The retraction of the gear results in additional drag due to the gear doors.

What would happen in a situation like this if you add windshear? Such as a gust that takes away some airspeed at a critical moment - could it cause an aircraft to stall after it had started to climb out? If so, that could potentially result in the aircraft settling after the pilots had selected gear up.

Yes that could potentially happen.

So this would be the third time in recent years - if you include the BA LAS incident - that a 777 has ended up in a fiery inferno, yet everyone has evacuated ok.

This is immensely reassuring. Exiting a 777 is always a pleasurable experience, and a fire only marginally worsens pax comfort from what it is already; but it's nice to know getting out safely in an emergency is a high likelihood event.

jumbojet wrote:

audian wrote:

I think the airlines should emphasize on "not taking the bags" while in emergency. And it should be declared as a punishable offence. If you see the video, there are hardly any one who are communicating in English. Most often times, they may not have an idea what the FA is trying to tell. As a fellow member suggested, the overhead bins should only be unlocked when seat belt signs are off.

I think people would be more inclined to leave their luggage behind if they felt reasonably assured that there belongings wouldn't be looted through and that they wouldn't have to wait weeks to get it back.

You're running for your life, in an aircraft that has experienced a crash landing and is clearly not in a normal position, it's panic around, and you think about stuff like this ?

Aesma wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

audian wrote:

I think the airlines should emphasize on "not taking the bags" while in emergency. And it should be declared as a punishable offence. If you see the video, there are hardly any one who are communicating in English. Most often times, they may not have an idea what the FA is trying to tell. As a fellow member suggested, the overhead bins should only be unlocked when seat belt signs are off.

I think people would be more inclined to leave their luggage behind if they felt reasonably assured that there belongings wouldn't be looted through and that they wouldn't have to wait weeks to get it back.

You're running for your life, in an aircraft that has experienced a crash landing and is clearly not in a normal position, it's panic around, and you think about stuff like this ?

um, actually no. I am thinking about it while sitting down at my desk having my afternoon tea and biscuit.

CX Flyboy wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Everything I have heard about the ME3 says to me that they have no compassion at all for individuals, and I would be very, very surprised if these pilots ever fly an airliner again, anywhere, even if it turns out that they were not at fault at all.

Rumour has it that the FO was one of those that Qantas seconded to Emirates. If Emirates terminate his contract I am not sure what the contractual provisions are for his return to Qantas.

I would concur that Qantas is much more likely to be reasonable about the situation than EK would, but still, remember what happened to Peter Burkhill, and he was the hero of the situation. I would still rate his chances at no better than about 25%. If it turns out it was pilot error, I would put it at less than 1%, and zero if he was PF.

Is there a standard SOP across the industry for WHO initiates the emergency evac, or does it vary from airline to airline? Do FAs have to wait for the specific instruction of the Captain or can they initiate it themselves?

From what I´ve seen it seems to me to be all over the map.

The AF A340 that went off the runway at Toronto had its evac initiated when an FA saw fire outside, as I recall reading on the final report. But then again the Captain was hurt and trapped below his seat.

The IB A346 that did same at UIO did not evacuated. Then again there was no fire.

Then there´s the recen SQ 777 that had a massive fire in its wing. Honestly, if I had been an FA I would have started getting people out, but I´m not an FA so I don´t know.

So who has the final decision for initiating one?

bucadoX wrote:

Airboe wrote:

New video of passengers who just has left #EK521

https://twitter.com/SteenFoldager/statu ... 2091053056

So I see PAX with bags and all kinds of cabin luggage. That tells me that the evacuation firstly wasn't executed according to protocol and therefore secondly the urge to get off the airplane was not of paramount importance.

I'm no expert on anything aeronautical. But I was in a deadly house fire once, and knowing how badly panic affected me during that event, I now realize that I could easily do something as dumb and "irresponsible" as grab my cabin baggage on the way out of an airplane in a serious crisis moment. No doubt that some do it cynically, second-guessing the authorities. But maybe not all. It can be very difficult to think in any way other than "automatically" in a serious emergency.

tienlp wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

So, is this the first EK accident for the records?

not the first one, but the first one with a written off aircraft afaik

And the first fatality (a firefighter).

Boeing document with rescue and firefighting info for the 777 series:
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... rff777.pdf

Viscount724 wrote:

tienlp wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

So, is this the first EK accident for the records?

not the first one, but the first one with a written off aircraft afaik

And the first fatality (a firefighter).

Obviously people aren't reading the whole thread before posting. There have been multiple posts discussing the firefighter's death.

My heart goes out to Jasim Issa Mohammed Hassan and his family.

DDR wrote:

Viscount724 wrote:

tienlp wrote:

not the first one, but the first one with a written off aircraft afaik

And the first fatality (a firefighter).

Obviously people aren't reading the whole thread before posting. There have been multiple posts discussing the firefighter's death.

Few people have time to read in detail a 7-part thread with 310 posts.

Ugh! Passengers opening the overhead bins to retrieve their carryon luggage.

Life vs luggage?

The plane is on fire! Leave everything behind! Go! Go! Go!

Regarding the education of passengers with respect to not taking hand luggage when evacuating, you'll be pleased to know that thanks to you all, I am a better educated passenger. For the last several years, I have flown with a jacket with many pockets, which I keep on during my flights, so I don't have any carry-on.

I hope the photos can inspire other passengers. It's 2 sizes larger than my size, and I'm hoping to have a bit of time in the future to sew another 2 pockets in the inside, and add velcros to the buttonned pockets. For summer climates, it goes over my T-shirt, and for winter climates, under my large leather coat. It looks terrible for fashion, but I couldn't care less. In the case of my plane having to evacuate in an emergency, I will have everything useful without having to put other passengers' lives at risk.

I can stuff the following in this jacket:

- Front outside pockets: passport, driving licence, boarding pass, car hire paper, 3 phones, 1/2 packs cigarettes, 2 biros, 1 camera, 1 GPS with wire, cigarette lighter adaptor and hooks for fixing to hire car windscreen, 1/2 fully charged spare battery and wire, sweets for take-off and landing, 2/3 purses with change for 2/3 countries, 2/3 wallets with banknotes for 2/3 countries, 1 wallet for.current credit card, 1 wallet for spare credit cards, current medicine tablets, small soap, toothbrush and small tube of toothpaste (in clear plastic bag), sun glasses in hard casing, home and car keys. A small mouse if taking my computer.

- Front inside pockets: toilet paper, tissues, soft items like gloves, scarf or socks, if needed for a cold country.

- Back outside pocket: one small computer or 2 ebooks, important paper files, newspapers or books, or a strong plastic bag for airport purchases.



Can't seem to post the image. It's at http://imgur.com/a/OMvGp

AR385 wrote:

Is there a standard SOP across the industry for WHO initiates the emergency evac, or does it vary from airline to airline? Do FAs have to wait for the specific instruction of the Captain or can they initiate it themselves?

From what I´ve seen it seems to me to be all over the map.

The AF A340 that went off the runway at Toronto had its evac initiated when an FA saw fire outside, as I recall reading on the final report. But then again the Captain was hurt and trapped below his seat.

The IB A346 that did same at UIO did not evacuated. Then again there was no fire.

Then there´s the recen SQ 777 that had a massive fire in its wing. Honestly, if I had been an FA I would have started getting people out, but I´m not an FA so I don´t know.

So who has the final decision for initiating one?

No - there is not an industry standard.

And you forgot one - the FAs in the US Airways plane that ditched in the Hudson River initiated the evacuation, not Captain Sullenberg. He has stated that when he opened the cockpit door, he was relieved to see the evacuation was already underway.

The final decision always rests with the captain - legally.

There have also been several passenger initiated evacuations. When the parents of one of my high school classmates were on DL-1141 at DFW, when the plane came to a stop, the fuselage was broken, and the passengers started getting out and away from the burning plane.

Every airline has their own procedure, priorities, but the culture of the nation, individuals involved can impact how decisions are made. In some cultures, the crew will not make a decision to evacuate - that is the captain's call is drilled into them. Even if the Captain is dead from the impact.

Some FAs are experienced enough, and are willing to bet their career, or rather not bet their lives, that an immediate evacuation is necessary. Even if the cockpit has not announced an evac, their assessment is that survival means get out now.

audian wrote:

I think the airlines should emphasize on "not taking the bags" while in emergency. And it should be declared as a punishable offence. If you see the video, there are hardly any one who are communicating in English. Most often times, they may not have an idea what the FA is trying to tell. As a fellow member suggested, the overhead bins should only be unlocked when seat belt signs are off.

It will be worse if overhead bins can be locked, pax will spend much more time trying to retrieve the items despite being told to leave everything.

Worse if during the landing some locked bins opens by itself prompting other paxs to force open bins containing their belongings.

Titania wrote:

Regarding the education of passengers with respect to not taking hand luggage when evacuating, you'll be pleased to know that thanks to you all, I am a better educated passenger. For the last several years, I have flown with a jacket with many pockets, which I keep on during my flights, so I don't have any carry-on.

Sorry to disappoint you, but, you will never be on a plane where you have to evacuate.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

This is Murphy's Law in action, folks: When things go wrong, they go wrong at the absolute worst possible moment....

That's not Murphy's Law. Murphy's Law states that: 'Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong'. You are actually referring to Finagle's Law of Dynamic Negatives.

Quite sad to see quite a few stupid people in the cabin going for their belongings in the overhead bins...

SEPilot wrote:

Everything I have heard about the ME3 says to me that they have no compassion at all for individuals, and I would be very, very surprised if these pilots ever fly an airliner again, anywhere, even if it turns out that they were not at fault at all.

Even more reason to avoid those scumbag-run airlines.

It's still early in the investigation, but we have the following info:

"A passenger, Iype Vallikadan, said the pilot had announced there was a problem with the landing gear as the plane neared Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and he would make an emergency landing, the Associated Press reported. "

This leads to all sorts of questions. If an emergency landing was anticipated, what - if any- preparations were made in the cabin? If it was as simple and as a down and lock indication, wouldn't that be encountered far enough from the threshold to ensure a successful go around?

Early reports don't all add up .... a fairly typical situation.

downdata wrote:

Titania wrote:

Regarding the education of passengers with respect to not taking hand luggage when evacuating, you'll be pleased to know that thanks to you all, I am a better educated passenger. For the last several years, I have flown with a jacket with many pockets, which I keep on during my flights, so I don't have any carry-on.

Sorry to disappoint you, but, you will never be on a plane where you have to evacuate.

Can you explain that statement a bit better? Because I have been on two.

Gatorman96 wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

This accident told how stupid it was in the SQ incident in SIN where passengers were required to remain on the plane when the wing was burning after it has came to complete stop.

EK521 showed that a plane can be burned seriously within a short period.

Completely different scenarios. EK521 had significant structural damage which most likely ruptured the center fuel tank, quickly releasing the remaining fuel on the tarmac. The pilots of SQ368 were well aware of the fact that they had an emergency situation and I'm sure notified ATC and emergency services of this fact. It's hard to fault the flight crew, let alone call them "stupid," when all passengers on board survived without any injuries.

I just want to point out how fast the fire can burn a plane seriously.
EK521, together with the CI's 738 in OKA, where fire started after the planes have came to complete stop, when compared to SQ's 77W where fire was already burning the wing (where the fuel boxs are located) when it landed.

I noticed in an image of the crashed Emirates B777-300 with the Large Emirates Aircraft Hangars in the background, that the nose landing gear doors, not the small doors positioned adjacent to the nose landing gear pylon, but the larger doors that cover the nose wheel well are in the open position, suggesting that a possible gear retraction had been initiated in line with a go-around. There is no mention of hydraulic issues, although a hydraulic issue would also result in the larger doors on the nose gear and main gear being in the open down position seen in the crash photo, which would add extra parasitic drag.

Assuming, if the Emirates B777-300 had landed near the touch down zone, which is 1000ft from the thresh hold, had bounced once then become airborne again, resulting in the decision to initiate a go around, my understanding is the normal sequence of events is to press TOGA on the thrust quadrant, select flaps 20. Once a positive rate of climb is observed by the Pilot Not Flying in this case the Co-Pilot on his Primary Flight Display, Vertical Speed Indicator he would announce "positive rate" and the Captain would confirm with his own observation on his PFD VSI with the call "gear up."

My question is, to those out there who are in the know, in terms of the time line of a Go Around, would the action of selecting the gear up, having observed a positive rate of climb (even if it wasn't exactly a high rate of climb, given the ISA 50 degree C temperature) have occurred while the aircraft was still flying over the runway, or would an aircraft have flown clear of the other end of the runway well and truly in terms of time line in a normal go around, before initiating the "gear up" selection announced by the Pilot Flying in this case the Captain.

There are no youtube clips where you can usually see the runway and the aircrafts position in relation to the runway with its landing gear transiting to get a good idea of how many seconds would lapse between the applying of TOGA power, flap transiting from landing setting to go around setting followed by the landing gear transitioning i.e. landing gear doors beginning to open, increasing drag, all of which have an influence on a landing aircraft in a low energy state, high ISA, wind shear environment.

Also it would be interesting to ascertain from those in the know, what they think the position/setting of the wing landing flaps were, i.e evidence of transiting in a go around from any post crash photo's on the net.

Thanks in advance.

RIP for the fireman who lost his life. On the other hand it is humbling to see the payoff of crews training when emergency was declared. As for the comments regarding pax taking time to recover belongings it is unfortunately human behavior at its worst. These behaviors have no borders and we have seen these in first world or third world airline emergencies.

KarelXWB wrote:

Evacuation video from inside the cabin.

Just watch how many people are grabbing their bags:

https://twitter.com/rehanquereshi/statu ... 9490040833

And at least one grabbing his phone/camera to tape the whole thing.

People-leave your bags behind.........

521: Tower, hello, Emirates 521
ATC: Good morning or ah, good afternoon Emirates 521, maintain approach
521: Continue climbing M9, Emirates 521
ATC: Emirates 521, runway 12L, traffic at 2000ft, cleared to land
521: Cleared to land 12L, Emirates 521

Go-Around:

ATC: Emirates 521, climb and maintain 4000ft
521: Maintain 4000, Emirates 521

Does not sound like any kind of emergency prior to the go-around. Likely caused by wind shear, gear retracted too early, further wind shear, well you know how it played out from there.... (we all know there is a significant delay from when thrust is applied, to when thrust is delivered)

Then again, this is still speculative

Courtesy of youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR3KhUH1mHw

Hillis wrote:

People-leave your bags behind.........

It's actually quite a difficult issue.

People aren't stupid (well actually they are, they just think they're not). They find themselves in a scenario like this one, and instinct tells them they're going to get off the plane ok. They're not seeing flaming bodies around them, no-one seems in *that* much of a hurry. You want to try, as a foreign national being stuck in DXB without a passport, cash or credit cards? Screw that! So you think "well I'm able bodied, I'll just quickly grab my carry-on, won't get in anyone's way, and that guy over there is doing it...... the crew don't seem to mind.........."

Which is, of course totally flawed logic. The situation could change in an instant where that two second delay caused my *your* carry on costs lives.

How you go about educating/scaring the travelling public, I don't know. But I suspect we need strategies cleverer than going "don't take your bags, duh".

On Australian media , there are pictures of passengers leaving the scene with hand luggage in tow !! is carry on worth yours or somebody else's life
An767

soectre99 wrote:

521: Tower, hello, Emirates 521
ATC: Good morning or ah, good afternoon Emirates 521, maintain approach
521: Continue climbing M9, Emirates 521
ATC: Emirates 521, runway 12L, traffic at 2000ft, cleared to land
521: Cleared to land 12L, Emirates 521

Go-Around:

ATC: Emirates 521, climb and maintain 4000ft
521: Maintain 4000, Emirates 521

Does not sound like any kind of emergency prior to the go-around. Likely caused by wind shear, gear retracted too early, further wind shear, well you know how it played out from there.... (we all know there is a significant delay from when thrust is applied, to when thrust is delivered)

Then again, this is still speculative

Courtesy of youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR3KhUH1mHw

A number of flights before EK521 initiated go-arounds. Why the tower did not warn each aircraft of windshear reported and acted like nothing was going on, only mentioning the high speed exit they should plan on taking, I still have no answer to. The early reports of emergency before arrival a journalist could double check by listening to the recordings as we all have, shows the sad state of affairs in news today. Quickly getting information out there no matter how wrong. They might as well hire all of us since we can post speculation on this forum. I am available for hire!

rfields5421 wrote:

And you forgot one - the FAs in the US Airways plane that ditched in the Hudson River initiated the evacuation, not Captain Sullenberg. He has stated that when he opened the cockpit door, he was relieved to see the evacuation was already underway.

Considering the crew and passengers already knew they would be making an emergency water landing, why would the crew wait for the captain to order an emergency evacuation? Everyone onboard knew there would likely be little time to evacuate the plane before it would sink.

CF-CPI wrote:

It's still early in the investigation, but we have the following info:

"A passenger, Iype Vallikadan, said the pilot had announced there was a problem with the landing gear as the plane neared Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and he would make an emergency landing, the Associated Press reported. "

This leads to all sorts of questions. If an emergency landing was anticipated, what - if any- preparations were made in the cabin? If it was as simple and as a down and lock indication, wouldn't that be encountered far enough from the threshold to ensure a successful go around?

Early reports don't all add up .... a fairly typical situation.

I can't say anything on the validity of the alleged passenger's claim, but from the ATC recordings, I don't think an emergency landing was initiated as ATC instructions were very typical twenty minutes prior to its landing.

Another flight, EK565 was immediately following the EK521 on approach, and only had to perform a go-around over Deira, (a maximum of 4km/2NM away from threshold point). If it were an emergency landing, no aircraft would have immediately followed EK521's approach.

All are assumptions based on the liveatc.net archives, and flightradar24.com flight information on EK521 and EK 565.

Zero chance there was an emergency declared before initial landing attempt; ATC would have placed all traffic in a hold until emergency resolved. There was clearly traffic movements in the ATC recording.

Viscount724 wrote:

DDR wrote:

Viscount724 wrote:

And the first fatality (a firefighter).

Obviously people aren't reading the whole thread before posting. There have been multiple posts discussing the firefighter's death.

Few people have time to read in detail a 7-part thread with 310 posts.

To be fair, it might not be 310 posts if something wasn't repeated 10 times. While I appreciate when someone posts an update, it'd be nice if they first looked to see if it was indeed new information. Reading "And now we're hearing that a firefighter has died" 15 times gets old. Seeing the same photos posted repeatedly is unnecessary. I'm not trying to criticize contributions, but honestly anyone can jump into a 300 post thread and throw out information that's already been shared perhaps a dozen times or more in some cases. Personally, as someone who does try to read every post to stay up to date, I'd rather not have such duplication to sift through.

rfields5421 wrote:

AR385 wrote:

Is there a standard SOP across the industry for WHO initiates the emergency evac, or does it vary from airline to airline? Do FAs have to wait for the specific instruction of the Captain or can they initiate it themselves?

From what I´ve seen it seems to me to be all over the map.

The AF A340 that went off the runway at Toronto had its evac initiated when an FA saw fire outside, as I recall reading on the final report. But then again the Captain was hurt and trapped below his seat.

The IB A346 that did same at UIO did not evacuated. Then again there was no fire.

Then there´s the recen SQ 777 that had a massive fire in its wing. Honestly, if I had been an FA I would have started getting people out, but I´m not an FA so I don´t know.

So who has the final decision for initiating one?

No - there is not an industry standard.

And you forgot one - the FAs in the US Airways plane that ditched in the Hudson River initiated the evacuation, not Captain Sullenberg. He has stated that when he opened the cockpit door, he was relieved to see the evacuation was already underway.

The final decision always rests with the captain - legally.

There have also been several passenger initiated evacuations. When the parents of one of my high school classmates were on DL-1141 at DFW, when the plane came to a stop, the fuselage was broken, and the passengers started getting out and away from the burning plane.

Every airline has their own procedure, priorities, but the culture of the nation, individuals involved can impact how decisions are made. In some cultures, the crew will not make a decision to evacuate - that is the captain's call is drilled into them. Even if the Captain is dead from the impact.

Some FAs are experienced enough, and are willing to bet their career, or rather not bet their lives, that an immediate evacuation is necessary. Even if the cockpit has not announced an evac, their assessment is that survival means get out now.

Most airlines have a policy that the command to evacuate comes from the Captain (in effect the flight deck) in a LAND emergency.
However in a DITCHING most airlines have a policy that it is the cabin crew that initiate the evacuation (since time can be even more critical due to sinking).

Long time lurker, first time poster.
Condolences to the family of the fireman involved. Terrible way to go.

soectre99 wrote:

.... (we all know there is a significant delay from when thrust is applied, to when thrust is delivered)

We do, do we? I don't consider 8(+/-) seconds to basically full thrust a "significant delay", the totally inaccurate 50 seconds mentioned by other posters would be. In fact, if he'd been doing a coupled approach and selected a go-around the throttles would have given him just enough to maintain a 2000 ft/min climb, nowhere near full thrust at his weight.

Just because I don't have 7 hours of free time to read everything here, sorry if this has been discussed before here, but I read that it could have been just a failed go around attempt. But there are the reports of a fire or LG problems. Do we know what actually happened?

Some of you point out what I am thinking about the people taking the luggage. In case of an emergency you don't think but act, and people will do whatever comes up in their mind. I am doing quite some building evacuations, and I am always surprised to see employees just leave through the main entrance when the alarm goes off. Some even take off their belt and pass through the metal detector.

In my opinion airlines should be aware of the security risks carry-on luggage brings with itself. Not only can it delay evacuation when people try to grab it, but also the "be carefull when opening the bulkheads as luggage may have shifted during the flight". There could be some trolleys falling out.

It should be time for the industry to find a way to make luggage in the hold more lucrative than carry-on luggage.. it could prevent a lot of issues in aircrafts but also at airports.

Nothing like an accident to bring out the typical ME3 bashing on this site. To call them scumbag airlines takes a special type of character though.

F/A Training at Hawaiian Airlines instructs that the captain is responsible to initiate evacuation. F/As can (and should) initiate evacuation in the following scenarios:

The aircraft has impacted
Smoke or Fire is Present
Structural Damage
Captain Incapacitated/Cockpit not responding

Once one F/A starts yelling "EVACUATE," ALL F/As are to start evacuation since crew in a certain part of aircraft may be aware of fire, smoke, etc that is not visible or apparent to rest of crew.

Aloha!

For the benefit of those who do not start at the beginning of the thread, the single most useful comment on the whole thread is from Zeke (@reply 6). Combine this info from a reliable witness with the ATC transcripts a few replies above mine, and it seems clear there was no emergency declared, gear was down for initial touch-down, and the go-around failed.

zeke wrote:

Initial report from another pilot very nearby.

Landed very hard
Rejected landing
Airborne
Go around actions commenced
Gear retraction commenced
Settled back on the runway


It's on fire got a pic standby





Added pic and description