How can such athing happen? What do they mean by “didn’t respond for six or seven seconds”? Simply too slow? Faulty speedometer?
From Flight International
Pilots forced to apply maximum thrust after aircraft failed to respond to control inputs
An Emirates Airbus A340-300 ran 150m (490ft) off the end of the runway before getting airborne at Johannesburg airport on 9 April after the aircraft initially failed to respond to control inputs for rotation, according to an aircraft safety report (ASR) filed by the crew.
The pilots managed to get the aircraft airborne from the overrun area of runway 21R by applying take-off/go-around (TOGA) thrust, but only after the A340 had struck threshold and approach lighting, damaging its tyres, brakes and flaps. The crew dumped fuel and returned to the airport, where they landed safely on runway 21L.
Emirates says the aircraft (A6-ERN) began its take-off roll on runway 21R with normal flap set, bound for Dubai with 14 crew and 216 passengers on board. Air temperature was 15°C (59°F).
According to the ASR filing, at the rotate call, “the pilot flying applied rearward sidestick, and for approximately six or seven seconds the aircraft nose did not move upward”, so the crew selected TOGA. Johannesburg’s Jan Smuts airport has long runways because of its elevation (5,560ft/1,700m). Runway 21R from which flight EM764 took off is 4,420m long.
The airport says 25 runway threshold and approach lights, and part of the runway surface, were damaged as the aircraft went over the end of 21R, which has a relatively clear, level overrun. Once airborne, the initial climb and thrust reduction routine proceeded normally, but as the crew selected flap retraction the electronic centralised aircraft monitor (ECAM) warned that the flaps had locked while still partially deployed. The aircraft’s safety system is designed to prevent damaged flaps becoming asymmetric.
Air traffic control reported that runway end lights had been damaged and the A340 appeared to have travelled 150m across unpaved ground in the overrun. The crew says there was no other ECAM warnings, so they returned to the airport, having used the checklist for an approach in a non-standard configuration. During the landing run, when the speed was “about 70kt [130km/h]”, the main braking system failed and the A340 halted just before the runway end.
Emirates says the South African Civil Aviation Authority is overseeing an investigation, aided by Airbus and the Dubai authorities. The seven-year-old ex-Singapore Airlines A340 entered service with Emirates in February and was last week still under repair.
DAVID LEARMOUNT / LONDON & HILKA BIRNS / CAPE TOWN
By: Mark L - 27th April 2004 at 13:09
You can also take off on FLEX power, which is a type of derated take off that reduces engine wear, but can only operate in certain conditions.
I would not have thought JNB would be one of the places it would be commonly used?
By: Tim Green - 27th April 2004 at 13:06
OK, now I am totally confused……
My understanding is that:
V1 is a go/no go call (point of little, or no return). This would be followed by a ‘Rotation’ call and then a V2 (Blue line – Minimum assymetric control speed) call. On a long runway in favourable conditions the V1/Rotate call would be simultaneous whereas MTOW in hot-and-high conditions might result in quite a long period between them.
Secondly: Why wasn’t the power already set at TOGA? Did they attempt to abort and then change their minds? Or did the on-board systems apply a less than adequate power setting? :confused:
Many years ago a friend used to fly BMA 707’s on wet leases in Africa. He alway used to have to factor in a 200 Knot (?) maximum tyre speed into calculations flying out of Nairobi (also on the ‘Hot-And-High’ list of world airports).
By: Tempest - 25th April 2004 at 00:45
41 = all planes, wide and small.
Maybe the pilot on that A346 had a bad bedside manner and really managed to freak everyone out, glad it wasnt twin:D
Or maybe the journalist was trying to get a byline.
By: greekdude1 - 24th April 2004 at 20:31
“The aircraft is one of 41 that will replace SAA’s Boeing fleet at a cost of $3.5-billion (about R29-billion) in the biggest deal in South African aviation history”
I’m assuming this large number represents the total number of aircraft that SAA are scheduled to take, and not just widebodies? Also, Is this type of panic normal by pax resultant from turning around just 25 minutes into a flight due to one (out of four not two!) engine going out? I’m pretty sure if I was on that flight, I would not have been trippin’. Tell me all 4 engines have gone out, then I’d be in a frenzy!
By: Selsport69 - 24th April 2004 at 13:54
I have flown on BA 744, AF 342, SN 743, SA A300 & KL 744 from Jnb all the aircraft seem to take for ever to get in the air. Its a high altitude airport with alot of heat.
By: Tempest - 24th April 2004 at 10:55
The SAA A340-600’s are flying to New York, Atlanta and Hong Kong at the moment. Sydney/Perth is expected soon. I’ve no idea how they are rated by pilots. SAA have said in official press releases that they are well pleased with their performance. That’s the official company line anyway. SAA have also been talking about buying more A346’s to replace their 744’s which were recently sold to a lease company. SAA now leases their 744’s as opposed to owning them
As far as the A346 goes, this should of interest:
Engine failiure:
http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/2003/02/16/news/news12.asp
Passenger complaints:
www.sundaytimes.co.za/2004/04/18/business/companies/comp08.asp
As far the Emirates A340 experiencing hydraulics failiure: I thought Airbus used FBW with electrical servos which have back-ups on critical control surfaces. Also I doubt the flight computer would be at fault because there are supposed to be four or three seperate computers and if one doesnt agree with the others, it is excluded.
By: greekdude1 - 24th April 2004 at 09:48
Re: Re: A340 incident
Originally posted by Jeanske_SN
Why should that happen? They are trying thel out on the Johannesburg-Cape Town route, but I don’t know they are flying long range routes yet. But Iberia is not happy with them.
I heard they will do Jo-burg/CapeTown, then off to ATL. Why is Iberia not happy with them?
By: Distiller - 24th April 2004 at 09:45
Don’t know. The tires are the weak point. Maybe 200kts?
By: MEA380 - 24th April 2004 at 00:08
By using TOGA (take-off/go around), what’s the reachable ´ground speed? approximately how many knots (or km/h) ?
By: Jeanske_SN - 23rd April 2004 at 22:50
Re: A340 incident
Originally posted by omar
I wonder after all this,how SAA’s A340-600 are performing.Does anyone know of any incidents?
Why should that happen? They are trying thel out on the Johannesburg-Cape Town route, but I don’t know they are flying long range routes yet. But Iberia is not happy with them.
By: wysiwyg - 23rd April 2004 at 22:38
Jeanske, Airbus employ ECAM rather than EICAS.
By: omar - 23rd April 2004 at 18:54
A340 incident
I wonder after all this,how SAA’s A340-600 are performing.Does anyone know of any incidents?
By: Jeanske_SN - 23rd April 2004 at 15:22
How about a temporary or partly loss of hydraulic pressure, which didn’t move the elevators? But that should give a message on the EICAS.
By: Tempest - 22nd April 2004 at 20:53
Good point Whiskey Delta
By: Whiskey Delta - 22nd April 2004 at 10:51
Hey, how about that. 🙂
By: Hand87_5 - 22nd April 2004 at 08:09
BTW , happy 1000Th post WD 🙂
By: Whiskey Delta - 22nd April 2004 at 03:51
I don’t think it was windshear. Being that the initial report indicated that they commanded rotation but got no response. A shift to a tailwind would also drop the indicated speed which would mean that the crew wouldn’t have seen the required IAS for rotation. Without the guages showing the required IAS, they wouldn’t have tried to rotate. Since they attempted to rotate they would have been showing the right airspeed.
Wind shearing to a tailwind would show a large decrease in IAS as well as decrease in performance.
There were some onboard failures that we don’t know about that lead to this. The braking system failed on the landing roll and another (possibly related) system had failed on the takeoff resulting in the failure to retract the flaps.
By: Tempest - 22nd April 2004 at 00:46
Hand,
The windshear explanation makes sense.
Thunderstorms and the like are quite common at this time of the year at JNB. So it was quite possible the wind could have been blowing one direction at one end of the runway and another direction 4km’s away at the end, like the Minereve ORY example you gave.
A headwind of, say, 20 knots at the begining of the roll and and tailwinds or so of say, 20 knots, at V2 sounds lie a good candidate for retarding the rotate by reducing the take-off speed by as much 40 knots.
The question is: Don’t most airlines specify maximum available thrust in these kinds of weather situations? Certainly Emirates was doing it here.
By: wysiwyg - 21st April 2004 at 21:36
Exactly…which is why the UK charters like the 330 for Florida, Carribean, etc.
Hand, I think you may be barking up the right tree with the weather situation. Let’s see what the report brings.
By: greekdude1 - 21st April 2004 at 21:20
Originally posted by Jeanske_SN
Why then did Airbus build the A330-300 and the A340-300, It’s only a different engine?
Airbus believe in “4 Engines 4 Long Haul.” The A340 was designed for longer routes. The A330 for was designed for slightly shorter, thinner routes.
Sign In
April 21, 2004 at 8:32 am