Read the forum code of contact
By: 19th December 2009 at 08:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Wonder where the pilots are now?:D
By: 19th December 2009 at 09:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Wonder where the pilots are now?:D
They're driving Camels across the Dubai desert...Captain at the front co-pilot at the rear...no computers to muck up :D
By: 22nd December 2009 at 01:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I personally don't understand your glee with the unfortunate situation this crew now finds itself in. You must admit that they obviously only came to occupy those seats after many years (in the case of the captain, certainly) of hard won experience and after careful vetting by quite a selective hiring board at Emirates.
They must have demonstrated more than ample aptitude and delivered many years of safe, professional service under varying and occasionally trying conditions in probably a slew of different types before their takeoff that day in Melbourne.
That normally competent and conscientious crews can still somehow manage to sometimes "screw the pooch" so badly as to endanger lives should be a source of puzzlement, sure, or lead to calls for the circumstances to be thoroughly studied to find any possible systemic contributions, if any, to the errors--yes, these are appropriate reactions to a detremination of "pilot error" (and who expected any other verdict, really?). But to mock these men who've had years of good work cast aside to be branded by this one incident to the point their careers are essntially at an end (I certainly hope not) is terribly uncouth and classless.
Especially when many on this forum are probably never exposed to anywhere near the level of continuous professional scrutiny in their own fileds that the gentlemen they diegn to denigrate endure (with a fair measure of professional pride, I can attest).
Sorry, this has touched a nerve with me. These guys made an honest mistake but, unlike most other professions, they will probably not be allowed to profit, learn and grow from thier experience and continue to earn their keep. It is sad to add insult to this terrible injury.
By: 22nd December 2009 at 02:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I personally don't understand your glee with the unfortunate situation this crew now finds itself in. You must admit that they obviously only came to occupy those seats after many years (in the case of the captain, certainly) of hard won experience and after careful vetting by quite a selective hiring board at Emirates.They must have demonstrated more than ample aptitude and delivered many years of safe, professional service under varying and occasionally trying conditions in probably a slew of different types before their takeoff that day in Melbourne.
That normally competent and conscientious crews can still somehow manage to sometimes "screw the pooch" so badly as to endanger lives should be a source of puzzlement, sure, or lead to calls for the circumstances to be thoroughly studied to find any possible systemic contributions, if any, to the errors--yes, these are appropriate reactions to a detremination of "pilot error" (and who expected any other verdict, really?). But to mock these men who've had years of good work cast aside to be branded by this one incident to the point their careers are essntially at an end (I certainly hope not) is terribly uncouth and classless.
Especially when many on this forum are probably never exposed to anywhere near the level of continuous professional scrutiny in their own fileds that the gentlemen they diegn to denigrate endure (with a fair measure of professional pride, I can attest).
Sorry, this has touched a nerve with me. These guys made an honest mistake but, unlike most other professions, they will probably not be allowed to profit, learn and grow from thier experience and continue to earn their keep. It is sad to add insult to this terrible injury.
I'm sure everyone agrees with your sentiments my friend as i do...but for Christ's sake lighten up...don't you recognise an attempt at humour when you come across it...this forum is a mixture of serious and humorous banter between like minded aviation enthusiasts and nobody is attempting to discredit these two professionals in any way shape or form
By: 22nd December 2009 at 09:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-What I can't understand is why onboard systems didn't detect the error.
To my mind, and in it's simplest form, a zero fuel weight is the aircraft weight + payload . To this you add your fuel load to give you your Take-off weight. In this instance, the F/O entered a Take-off weight which was 100 tons less than it should have been.
Now, the onboard software knew the zero fuel weight. It also knew the fuel load. How come it didn't detect that the Take-off weight was way below the correct figure.
Standing by to be corrected.
By: 22nd December 2009 at 11:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The report is purely factual, and is the "Interim" report, gents. The "Real" fireworks will come out in the final report, trust me on that account. The fact that the crew were not required by procedures at Emirates, to independently enter the figures into the computer, shows poor set of procedures on EK's part.
Also the slight fact that EK changed a swathe of procedures (on all fleets) after the accident, is in my books an admission that something on their part was at fault.
Emirates resigned (forced) the pilots to leave their jobs, which wouldn't happen in the real world!
Always easy to blame the pilots, eh!
DXB Driver
By: 22nd December 2009 at 12:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Also, I'm sure I read that these poor pilots were fatigued, having only gotten minimal sleep between their last couple of flights before this one?
By: 22nd December 2009 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Also, I'm sure I read that these poor pilots were fatigued, having only gotten minimal sleep betweel their last couple of flights before this one?
I'm sure I read somewhere they had a 2 or 3 day layover in Oz before flying back?!
Paul
By: 22nd December 2009 at 13:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Might not have been enough to combat the time difference?
By: 22nd December 2009 at 16:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Quick look of the report shows that the operating crew arrived in MEL @ 0613 local on the morning of 19th, 13hours after leaving DXB. They then departed again at 2230 local on 20th. That's fact, going by the report.
So say around 36 hours of rest, plenty if you work regular shifts in one time zone. But for globetrotting around the world, going east one trip and west the next...? I can imagine even the most well adjusted jetlagged folk's body clock would be in turmoil.
By: 22nd December 2009 at 18:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Quick look of the report shows that the operating crew arrived in MEL @ 0613 local on the morning of 19th, 13hours after leaving DXB. They then departed again at 2230 local on 20th. That's fact, going by the report.So say around 36 hours of rest, plenty if you work regular shifts in one time zone. But for globetrotting around the world, going east one trip and west the next...? I can imagine even the most well adjusted jetlagged folk's body clock would be in turmoil.
Don't forget that there is paper work and pre flight planning to do, that can take a few hours all in. So not all of the 36 hours was spent sleeping.
By: 22nd December 2009 at 21:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Also, I'm sure I read that these poor pilots were fatigued, having only gotten minimal sleep between their last couple of flights before this one?
They had only 2 hours sleep in the last 24 hours before the accident from what i'm told by my friend at Qantas
By: 22nd December 2009 at 21:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Hmm... To quote the article linked above:
"Emirates head pilot Capt Alan Stealey said both the pilot and first officer of the damaged jet had said they were "well rested" before takeoff, after a 38-hour layover."
38 hours sounds like a long enough rest to me, change of time zones or not.
Paul
By: 22nd December 2009 at 21:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Hmm... To quote the article linked above:"Emirates head pilot Capt Alan Stealey said both the pilot and first officer of the damaged jet had said they were "well rested" before takeoff, after a 38-hour layover."
38 hours sounds like a long enough rest to me, change of time zones or not.
Paul
Paul... ...that's a beat up by Emirates...apparently the Captain told people in the industry here that they'd both only had a couple of hours sleep prior to the accident...there was an article in one of the local papers here I'll see if i can find it
By: 22nd December 2009 at 21:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Paul... ...that's a beat up by Emirates...apparently the Captain told people in the industry here that they'd both only had a couple of hours sleep prior to the accident...there was an article in one of the local papers here I'll see if i can find it
Hmm... Well as there seem to be several conflicting stories here maybe we shouldn't speculate on this any further until we know the facts?
Paul
By: 22nd December 2009 at 22:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Hmm... Well as there seem to be several conflicting stories here maybe we shouldn't speculate on this any further until we know the facts?Paul
Posts: 12,842
By: steve rowell - 18th December 2009 at 23:37
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/pilot-error-blamed-for-emirates-near-disaster-at-melbourne-airport/story-e6frf7jo-1225811893555