EK 521 Interim Report Released

[Eric Janson]

[url=https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublication ... A6-EMW.pdf]https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublication ... A6-EMW.pdf[/url]

[Colonel]

pdw was right!!!

[quote] as the Aircraft descended through a radio altitude (RA)
of 1,100 feet, at 152 knots IAS, [b]the wind direction started to
change from a headwind component of 8 knots to a tailwind component[/b].

As the Aircraft descended through 700 feet RA at 0836:22, and at
154 knots IAS, [b]it was subjected to a tailwind component which
gradually increased to a maximum of 16 knots[/b]. [/quote]

Variable tailwinds on final!

[Colonel]

People say I'm not too bright, but ...

[quote]At 0837:23, the Aircraft became airborne in an attempt to go-around and was
subjected to a headwind component until impact.

At 0837:27, the flap lever was moved to the 20 position.

Two seconds later [b]the landing gear lever was selected to the UP position[/b].
Subsequently, the landing gear unlocked and began to retract.

The Aircraft reached a maximum height of approximately 85 feet RA
at 134 knots IAS, with the landing gear in transit to the retracted position.
The Aircraft then began to sink back onto the runway.

At 0837:35, three seconds before impact with the runway, [b]both
thrust levers were moved from the idle position to full forward[/b]. [/quote]

I'm just a stupid aerobatic pilot but I think
[b]these guys retracted the gear with the throttles
at idle[/b], and six seconds later, pushed them
forward.  That can't possibly be true.  No one
retracts the gear in ground effect with the
throttles at idle.  No one.

When I teach overshoots in anything, it's:

-Throttles forward
-Flaps set
-Positive rate of climb, THEN gear up

The above is true even in a lowly 172RG.

Again, I'm pretty stupid, but aren't those things
light at the end of a flight?  With hundreds of
thousands of pounds of kerosene burned off, it
probably could have climbed nearly vertically
during the overshoot, if anyone bothered to
push the levers in the center forward.

[David MacRay]

I did not read much but they touched the right gear 1000+meters from the runway threshold.

[b]meters![/b] That's 3000+ feet. A full runway in some places.

Then attempted a go around without power. I know, "shut up"  :'( I never flew a jet.

At least they got the read back right. Climb out straight ahead to 4000'...

Communicate, navigate and there was one more that I should know.

After reading the colonels post. I was talking about retracting the gear in a previous large jet go around procedure but I would have gone for the throttle first.

[Colonel]

I suspect we may hear more about automation
and this accident, as well.

Like any [b]BAD PERSON[/b], I would turn that shit off
and hand-fly, that close to the ground, but what
would I know?

Asiana 214 taught us all that auto-throttles
always do what you want.

[David MacRay]

The problem seems the auto throttles are getting turned off but these guys are not noticing. I'm not onboard but that seems like a glaring omission.

[Colonel]

One has to wonder how many 777's need to get
crashed during landing before someone notices
the pattern about the auto-throttles.

[pdw]

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=4138.msg11033#msg11033 date=1473177446][b] throttles
at idle[/b], and six seconds later ... [/quote]



Incidentally the exact same as the San Fran 777. There were  see-saw winds btw 2-4 miles out over the Bay ... they were first appraoching very steep (after got too high 5 miles out) then flat approach where fast-occurring slowing moments happened just after going flat/slower after having been so fast ... so there again, we get into barely "six seconds" delay for instructor/student to see an autothrottle leave them high and dry [i]just entering VTneg over the bay short final (see easterly smoke in crash video) [/i]... as Dave says the "autothrottle" delay (got them right there) .The ' "Captain! Sum Ting Wong! "accident ... I'd checked out in wx hist, .. the FAA intern gets fired for setting up that news anchor "ho lee ...wee low ... bang ding". That actually should have been an investigation in itself who set the intern up for doing that  >:D embarassment. Fact is I'd researched every weather station available there around the bay over a few months to figure 'something was indeed rong' .. just "six seconds" inattention to power seems here to be the typical time-frame for a death sentence setting itself up in such associated "V"-situation .. just 5-6 sec to lose it (speedwise succumbing to it) going so flat ... so quickly gets power deficient into that high drag and also V/T (negative side [i]light shearing[/i]) just as throttle overlooked. So it ends up truthfully/ironically summarized in that intern's famous roundabout way; maybe time to come clean and give him/her a medal ?


As the Col says there "Throttles forward" first, no matter what. One has to hone such simple / vital habit for sure .. then a non-issue for that less-fortunate day where the perfect scenario relative winds dreamed-of are V/T instead ...so typical to happen without warning.


IMO a feeble excuse to blame it on the autothrottle lagging or off; it used to be hand on the throttle lever. Where does that time-tested wariness for throttle position get lost anyway ?


Edit: ( Dave ..I'd buy that idea in a second ... that whoever put the fake names on the tele-prompter were the real pranksters)

[David MacRay]

I call bologna sandwich on the intern getting in trouble. They obviously thought, "This is a prank call, I'll go along with it." "Yes, those are the pilots we have on file. You're welcome. Have a good day."

This should be a bit easy to address with random silent auto throttle failures in the sim once in a while.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Do you need power to fly?