Smoke fills cabin before plane dumps fuel in Port Phillip Bay

[oz_mark]

With some minor background in physics, I would have thought the pure mechanics of a plane sitting still would make an on board sensor very prone to error with a high source of error. A weigh bridge would probably be more accurate I would think.
Taking human error out, you would only be accounting for a fairly small source of error as all these things do combine to create the complete error such as the error witnessed with the take off weight for the EK flight

A weighbridge would be more accurate, but then you would get weather effects happening as well. Strong gust and suddenly you have a lighter plane You would then still have the issue of getting the number correctly into the computer.

 

[browski]

A weighbridge would be more accurate.

I don't think they need to re-invent the wheel here. They may introduce the same system that now exists on the A380.
That is: Pilot and Co-pilot work out their specs on 2 separate laptops independant of eachother! .....and then match results/differences before entering in the final calculations. Genius.

 

[mannej]

Oz_mark and Browski, you have hit the nail on the head. I am guessing the final buck stops with the op here, as they can work things out. It is not a fail safe system, but with appropriate training it can be overcome. I guess Gimli Glider was another human error scenario wasn't it?

 

[straitman]

Oz_mark and Browski, you have hit the nail on the head. I am guessing the final buck stops with the op here, as they can work things out. It is not a fail safe system, but with appropriate training it can be overcome. I guess Gimli Glider was another human error scenario wasn't it?

Correct.

All the CRM training and the checks and procedures are meaningless if the HUMAN element does not follow them appropriately :!:

It does not matter why they were not followed just that they were not followed.

 

[oz_mark]

Article about Melbourne Airports handling of the emergency
Airport cops blast | Herald Sun

MELBOURNE Airport has been blasted for its bungled handling of the Emirates emergency after failing to call ambulances for an hour.

Paramedics were called just five minutes before the plane returned to the airport.

 

[mannej]

Has anyone heard about the fate of the plane involved in this accident? I seem to remember that it was getting repaired, but there have been a couple of sites off the top of my head suggesting that EK will write it off.

 

[Nigelinoz]

The last I heard was that it was still in the John Holland hangar and that Emirates are still planning to fly it back to Toulouse.

 

[oz_mark]

....and they've decided to fix the plane

EMIRATES will pay an expected $100 million to repair a jet severely damaged in a near disastrous take-off incident at Melbourne Airport.

A team of French pilots and engineers, which has been working on the jet for the past five weeks, plans to ferry the plane at low altitude to Toulouse next week.

$100m repair bill for damaged Air Emirates A350 | Herald Sun

A four day flight no less....

 

[samh004]

They list it as an A350... strange, seeing as they're not in production yet!

Anyway, if they can get one second hand for the same price, why bother, but if it's significantly more expensive I can see why.

 

[docjames]

They list it as an A350... strange, seeing as they're not in production yet!

More nonews quality. No wonder none believes a word they say - there's only about a million sources to check which a/c it was (press releases, atsb website etc etc).

Anyway, if they can get one second hand for the same price, why bother, but if it's significantly more expensive I can see why.

You'd think the resale on an A340 would be such that they'd be better off parting out this one, and buy another. Although it may be an insurance thing - their premium may go up so even though to buy a new may be <100m, it may increase the premium sufficiently over the long term they're better off repairing.

 

[Dave Noble]

More nonews quality. No wonder none believes a word they say - there's only about a million sources to check which a/c it was (press releases, atsb website etc etc).

And no-one here would ever make a typographical error on such a thing?

Dave

 

[NM]

You'd think the resale on an A340 would be such that they'd be better off parting out this one, and buy another. Although it may be an insurance thing - their premium may go up so even though to buy a new may be <100m, it may increase the premium sufficiently over the long term they're better off repairing.

It is an A340-500, which is a relatively new aircraft and quite likely worth repairing. Keep in mind that at then moment EK is not short of aircraft so they can likely afford to have it out of action for an extended period while its repaired without causing much utilisation grief for the rest of the fleet.

Certainly if it was an older A340-300 then it likely would not be worth repairing.

Airbus are also likely to prefer it to be repaired. If it was written off then it will always show as an accident resulting in hull loss as a blemish on the record of the A340. And of course Airbus will receive some nice revenue from the insurance company for the work they undertake to complete the repairs.

 

[samh004]

And no-one here would ever make a typographical error on such a thing?

Dave

The funny thing is they didn't just list it as an A350, they actually linked it to Airbus' website where it specifically says it's not in production yet. So they went to the link, but didn't read.

Love their work!

 

[straitman]

And no-one here would ever make a typographical error on such a thing?

Dave

A typo is very possible but in most cases here people do at least a little research to check their accuracy prior to going to print :!:

 

[NM]

The funny thing is they didn't just list it as an A350, they actually linked it to Airbus' website where it specifically says it's not in production yet. So they went to the link, but didn't read.

Love their work!

They have fixed the reference in the article to now read A340-500, but the hyperlink still goes to the Airbus web site for the A350.

 

[docjames]

And no-one here would ever make a typographical error on such a thing?

Dave

I think the standard of typography for a newspaper (which it is, even if it's their online portal) should be higher than a(n amateur) bulletin board.




Right, now to book my next flight on an airbus 797.

 

[NM]

And no-one here would ever make a typographical error on such a thing?

I think the standard of typography for a newspaper (which it is, even if it's their online portal) should be higher than a(n amateur) bulletin board.

So my reputation for lysdexic tpying is acceptable here .

 

[serfty]

So my reputation for lysdexic tpying is acceptable here .

... with the proviso that any hyperlinks are accurate/representative ...

 

[NM]

... with the proviso that any hyperlinks are accurate/representative ...

hehe, I am sure I have managed to get a few of them wrong too

 

[medhead]

I think the standard of typography for a newspaper (which it is, even if it's their online portal) should be higher than a(n amateur) bulletin board.

I think you're giving newspapers too much credit.