Emirates B773 Burns On Landing

[Grahame Hutchison]

All passengers and crew apparently safely evacuated.

7 NEWS

An Emirates plane has caught fire on the runway at Dubai Airport after an apparent crash landing.
Gulf News is reporting all passengers on board the Boeing 777 were "safely evacuated".
Aircraft would appear to be Boeing B777-31H A6-EMW (32700) built 2003.

Full Article (https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/32228523/emirates-plane-catches-fire-at-dubai-airport/#page1)

[Andrew P]

My twitter app has gone into overdrive

[Rowan McKeever]

Landing gear collapsed on landing, according to a UAE news source and avherald. Known issue prior to landing, it seems, as emergency services were already activated.

[David Knudsen]

The latest update on avhearld indicates it may be a botched go-around?

According to ATC recordings the aircraft performed a normal approach and landing, there was no priority or emergency declared. Upon contacting tower tower reminded the crew of lowering the gear and cleared the aircraft to land. Another approach reported on tower frequency. About 2 minutes after EK-521 reported on tower, the crew reported going around, tower instructed the aircraft to climb to 4000 feet, the crew acknowledged climbing to 4000 feet, a few seconds later tower instructs the next arrival to go around and alerts emergency services. The position of the aircraft is described near the end of the runway.

[Michael Cleary]

Given that the Airport is still closed (nothing moving on FR24), the Aircraft must have ended up between the two runways. Good that all appear to have got out safely.

EK415 which departed Sydney at 06:00 today was diverted and has landed at Jebel Ali Airport in Dubai.

EK413 due to depart Sydney tonight at 21:10 is showing as delayed to 22:30.

QF1 returned to Sydney for other reasons (see other thread).

[Joseph Saragozza.]

A few pictures from the incident today.

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/transport/emirates-flight-catches-fire-on-landing-at-dubai-airport---in-pictures#1

http://www.thenational.ae/storyimage/AB/20160803/GALLERY/160809716/AR/0/&NCS_modified=20160803131746&MaxW=960&imageVersion=default&AR-160809716.jpg

[Rowan McKeever]

Ouch. That hurts! So sad to see such a miserable end to such a beautiful machine :( :(

[Rowan McKeever]

Much sadder than the sight of that B777 is the news that a firefighter died while helping pax to evacuate (see latest update on avherald.com). No further details given. RIP and my thoughts to your loved ones ��

[Martin Buzzell]

The latest update on avhearld indicates it may be a botched go-around?

For me, that raises two questions. Did the crew have any knowledge that the gear wasn't extended? Also, did they mismanage the missed approach procedure and suffer the same fate as the Asiana Airlines 777 at San Francisco?

[Rowan McKeever]

I think 'botched' is a stretch at this point. For all we know the crew attempted to go around but the aircraft failed to respond, which is how I read it.

News.com.au has a pax video from inside the cabin and down the slide. I've two problems with that... one, filming during an evacuation and two, the usual 'grab your bags' attitude.

[MarkR]

Unverified data suggests 1000fpm descent when she hit the ground, would not be surprised if she was hit with wind sheer at the wrong moment in transition to TOGA.

[Greg Hyde]

Hard to believe that hand luggage is more important than your own life.

Where in the safety video does it show:

Evacuate, Evacuate, Stand-up, Block Aisle, Open Overhead bin, Remove hand luggage, die...

It was reported that the co-pilot might be an Aussie.

[Zac M]

The co-pilot was Australian, he was pilot not flying at the time, I found a scratchy ATC recording and its definitely an Australian on the radios for EK521

[Andrew P]

Hard to believe that hand luggage is more important than your own life.

Where in the safety video does it show:

Evacuate, Evacuate, Stand-up, Block Aisle, Open Overhead bin, Remove hand luggage, die...

It was reported that the co-pilot might be an Aussie.

it will continue to occur, the only solution is to ban hand carry, which will never occur.

[MarkR]

it will continue to occur, the only solution is to ban hand carry, which will never occur.

I agree, it's human nature to prevent loss, even if it's personal effects at the risk of your life or others. Was somewhat amused to read certain press expressing shock at the video showing panic and asking if certification takes into account panicked pax when it comes to evac times. It's not a new thing, and yes, it's taken into account, people do the weirdest things, USAir 1493 at LAX was a case in point, where two pax fought at the exit door blocking others from escape.

[Greg Hyde]

In the UK several years ago Uni's were doing simulations on aircraft evacuation.

To instill some realism 5/10pound was paid to the first subjects out the door.

The incentive payment was found to be a success.

When the A380 was going through certification they did several full scale simulations with a full pax load. This was shown on several docos at the time.

[Mark Grima]

Just a thought regarding the absurd scramble for bags. If a similar incident occurred in Australia, why should the passengers not face criminal charges?

Each state here has some type of 'Act Endangering Life' offence. Ignore any state/commonwealth jurisdiction complexities for the purpose of discussion.

In my mind, the actions of those in the video is very disturbing and legislation should cover the blatant disregard of cabin safety protocols.

Cheers

M

[Ash W]

I don't condone people evacuating with bags, but don't think the issue is as simple as many make out here. Criminal charges? Seriously? Do you think in the heat of the moment that would deter someone? Very easy to say sitting in the comfort of your own home judging the actions of others. And what about the videoer, maybe lock him/her up and throw away the keys?

There are a whole raft of other issues to consider, and differing cultures is a big factor. In this case the flight was from India, and generalising here but I reckon many pax would be workers in the UAE who get paid bugger all and what they were carrying would probably be the extent of their life's belongings. So much more valuable to THEM, compared to say what I carry around in my hand luggage.

And as others have said evacuation policies and regulations take into account a percentage of people doing the wrong thing etc.

[Greg Hyde]

The problem is that humans don't remember the bad old days when planes burnt and people died.

For example:
* British Airtours Flight 28M Manchester 55 dead
* Saudia Flight 163 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 301 dead
* Air Canada Flight 797, Kentucky, 23 dead
* ....

As aircraft get safer we forget about previous disasters and the need to get out.

[Mark Grima]

Couldn't agree more with the basis of your reply Ash. That is there are a number of reasons passengers reach for bags in this type of scenario. It's certainly not something I have first hand experience with.

I don't think that and charges are the sole answer to this, however I think they could play apart in the answer.

Let me ask the question this way. In the current times where civil litigation occurs frequently and everyone is looking to apportion blame and negligence, if this situation saw the worst occur why should the airlines level of negligence not be reduce, to take into account the actions of passengers?

In thinking about this, I'm only thinking about the Australian system and our culture. I appreciate that in the present example there is a vast difference.

Cheers

M

[Rowan McKeever]

I'm sure the airline's liability would be diminished, Mark. In this particular instance, there is one video on youtube in which you can clearly hear a FA repeatedly yelling "leave everything behind, get out", and I'd be very surprised if a court didn't find that some or all of the airline's liability is discharged as a result.

I'm less sure how the airline, regulators, etc. would actually go about laying charges against pax who essentially compromise an evacuation to take their belongings (or, for that matter, don't remove high-heeled shoes). What I can say is that, in Australia, "disobeying a lawful direction from a member of the crew" (or words to that effect) is a federal offence and, therefore, no jurisdictional issue... it would fall under CASA's remit and they would refer to the AFP.

I completely agree with everything others have said that there are many factors which 'make' people stop to gather their belongings... culture, panic, heat of the moment, the works. Something needs to be done about it, though, before it does cost someone their life, assuming it hasn't already.

[Radi K]

I'm not one to defend what happened but I will comment that if every single time you leave and aircraft you take your bag with you, in an emergency you go into autopilot mode in a sense and your brain just does what it's used to. There has been talk of auto-locking overhead lockers for dep/arr. I think there are some ideas to be explored.

Still, BA, Asiana and this, all impacts close to the ground and in all cases everyone survived the impact! Solid jet.

[Robert.M]

There has been talk of auto-locking overhead lockers for dep/arr.


Though cost will likely win out. Most airlines will not do it unless they have been mandated. This also doesn't address carry-on that is placed under the seat.

[MarkR]

Some interesting opinion in today's OZ, which has a number of aviation stories, and remarkably well written IMHO.

The crash of an Emirates B777 during an attempted go-around in Dubai last Wednesday was always an accident waiting to happen.

It was not the fault of the pilots, the airline or Boeing, because this accident could have happened to any pilot in any airline flying any modern glass cockpit airliner — Airbus, Boeing or Bombardier — or a large corporate jet with autothrottle.

It is the result of the imperfect interaction of the pilots with supposedly failsafe automatics, which pilots are rigorously trained to trust, which in this case failed them.

First, let us be clear about the effect of hot weather on the day. All twin-engine jet aircraft are certified at maximum takeoff weight to climb away on one engine after engine failure on takeoff at the maximum flight envelope operating temperature — 50 degrees C in the case of a B777 — to reach a regulatory climb gradient minimum of 2.4 per cent.

The Emirates B777-300 was operating on two engines and at a lower landing weight, so climb performance should not have been a problem. I have operated for years out of Dubai in summer, where the temperature is often in the high 40s, in both widebody Airbus and Boeing B777 aircraft.

Secondly, a pilot colleague observed exactly what happened as he was there, waiting in his aircraft to cross runway 12L. The B777 bounced and began a go-around. The aircraft reached about 150 feet (45 metres) with its landing gear retracting, then began to sink to the runway.

This suggests that the pilots had initiated a go-around as they had been trained to do and had practised hundreds of times in simulators, but the engines failed to respond in time to the pilot-commanded thrust. Why?

Read more at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/emirates-b777-crash-was-accident-waiting-to-happen/news-story/ada045343f0fe335bebc4e1e4b08665a

(And enjoy the readers comments :) )

[Nigel C]

Subscriber-only article unfortunately.

[Kent Broadhead]

His theory is that the aircraft's sensors detected a touchdown, therefore restricting auto TOGA and that the pilots, being drilled to trust the flight systems weren't able to override quickly enough to spool up before impact.

Not entirely clear what he thought should be done in future.....

[MarkR]

His theory is that the aircraft's sensors detected a touchdown, therefore restricting auto TOGA and that the pilots, being drilled to trust the flight systems weren't able to override quickly enough to spool up before impact.

Not entirely clear what he thought should be done in future.....

I thought it was very clear, pilots need to be trained for scenarios where computers can be fooled and not use them if there is a doubt, ie if you touch the runway don't hit TOGA and expect the aircraft to manage the throttle, go manual.

[MarkR]

Interesting reading from flight.org somewhat elaborating on training for such scenarios:

While it’s far too early to determine the exact cause of EK521 ‘s demise, it’s perhaps germane to re-visit a topic that I wrote about in our Procedures and Techniques document quite some time ago – the Rejected Landing. As a reminder, the text of that entry into my tome is below, along with Boeing’s paragraph from the FCTM.

The Boeing text on this fairly unique maneuver is short and bland, and it provides little guidance. In no way does it hint at the hands and feet going everywhere this exercise can become when it’s taught to pilots during their initial simulator training onto the aircraft type. For this reason, when introducing the exercise to new crew transferring onto the 777, I’ll always ensure that each trainee has at least two goes at it: one to make the mistakes, one to learn and apply the lessons… and sometimes a third to turn it into a maneuver that holds no mystery and less challenge. That’s both the beauty and the trap of the simulator. It’s actually quite a challenge to introduce this maneuver into a simulated training environment in such a way that the sequence takes the pilots under training by surprise. However, you’re not really trying to do that in transition training anyway; the lesson plan in full is pre-briefed and the techniques and procedures that will be used in response to pre-programmed events are discussed at length so that everyone involved can get the most from their time in this expensive device.


Read more:http://www.flight.org/the-b777-rejected-landing

[MarkR]

Flight Global has some more info on the investigation:

The crew opted to execute a go-around and the aircraft became airborne 4s after the warning.

Its flaps started to retract to the ‘20’ position – the normal go-around setting – some 4s after that, and the landing-gear lever was activated 2s later.

Crucially, the inquiry does not mention whether the take-off/go-around switch, normally used to command go-around thrust from the engines, was activated.

But the investigators point out that these switches on the 777 are inhibited once the aircraft’s landing-gear touches down. In this situation, the crew must manually advance the thrust levers to command go-around power.

The inquiry indicates that the Emirates aircraft was still operating with idle thrust, and decelerating, as it attempted to climb away.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/emirates-777-long-landed-before-idle-power-go-around-429061/

[Grahame Hutchison]

Here is the link to the Preliminary Report (http://yssyforum.net/board/by the General Civil Aviation Authority) by the General Civil Aviation Authority.

Apparently the aircraft remained at idle thrust for 12 seconds after the Go Around was called.

During the final approach, the headwind turned to an 8kts tail wind component that then increased to 16kts.

Aural cockpit messages were "LONG LANDING, LONG LANDING" followed by "DON'T SINK, DON'T SINK".

If TO/GA is activated before touchdown it remains activated and the Go Around continues. On touchdown the TO/GA is deactivated and requires manual Go Around power to be applied ("The F/D go around mode will not be available until go around is selected after becoming airborne").

I was surprised by the number of Emergency Slide problems, mainly caused by the wind lifting them back up and covering the doorway. A couple of doors had smoke/fire outside and were not opened, and slide another did not touch the ground.

Also interesting to note :- "Full control of the fire was achieved approximately 16 hours after the impact".

[MarkR]

I was surprised by the number of Emergency Slide problems, mainly caused by the wind lifting them back up and covering the doorway. A couple of doors had smoke/fire outside

Also interesting to note :- "Full control of the fire was achieved approximately 16 hours after the impact".

It's a good example of how the regs got it right re time for cabin evacs. When things go wrong it's not normally one thing, but many combining, that's been my experience in the incidents I have been involved with previously as an ATC and SARMC.

By the sounds of it the tech crew were lucky to get out, Vis was so bad they could not locate the ropes.