Talk:Emirates Flight 521/Archive 1

Archive 1

Referencing

@Slasher-fun: and Leondz - nice start, but we need to improve referencing. As a minimum, {{cite web}} needs four parameters filled in - {{cite web |url= |title= |publisher= |accessdate=}} other parameters may be added as needed. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we please use {{cite tweet}} for Twitter posts? Mjroots (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking better now, good work! Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction?

It is stated in the opening paragraph that the cause of the airport firefighter's death is unknown; in the first section, however, it is attributed to an explosion. Is this a genuine contradiction? Ambiguity in wording? Either way, it should be amended. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed, removed lead vagueness. WWGB (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Flight

I gotta say that the 'Flight' section is written confusingly and appears to be more a collection of disjoint sentences than a coherent text. I don't really understand what this section says. There was a problem with the landing gear on the final approach, the plane attempted to execute a go-around maneuver, but failed, and instead landed flat on its belly. Is that what it's basically trying to say things look like right now? 98.212.200.108 (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Things are still unclear at the moment. Some reports state there was a problem with the landing gear on approach, others suggest early retraction on go-around before a positive rate of climb had been established. All will become clear in due course. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

After all it does say for now...

What can be gathered now is the aircraft did land, and decided to go around for reaons not yet mentioned. ATC ordered aircraft to go to 4000ft and immediately thereafter declared an emergency after ordering the next aircraft to go around. Apparently the aircraft retracted its landing gear on go around, but instead of gaining altitude slammed into the ground instead. --PremKudva^Talk 09:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This may have been due to the windshear that was reported at Dubai at the time. But if the aircraft retracted its landing gear on go-around, howcome other media reports are saying "it had a landing gear problem". This is also what the captain said to the passengers when the aircraft was coming in to land. Class455fan1 (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There are also reports that no problem with the landing gear was reported prior to landing. Looking increasingly like an early gear retraction before a positive rate of climb had been established. Of course, none of this gets into the article unless backed up by a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed much of the information now available is only coming via aviation forums only and not in news sources.--PremKudva^Talk 05:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

See also section

I've removed the "See also" section. Until such time as the investigation reports the cause, addition of so-called "similar" events is speculation and/or unnecessary padding. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Investigation

Is there any statement as to why the investigation will take months? I thought GCAA released a preliminary report about the UPS Airlines Flight 6 crash in only a matter of days. Fanyavizuri (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Months" is on the fast side. Investigations can take 8 years or more. About a year is average. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You provide a very topical example; makes sense (pulling in local meteorology, etc). Thank you! Fanyavizuri (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Fanya's point seems most apropos. Sure, as in the case of the recent Air France A330, investigations can take years if they have to, for example, spend a year or more finding the wrecked aircraft, on the bottom of the ocean, in pieces, and there are no survivors. No question there.

But. This is the total opposite. Everyone survived, so there are hundreds of witnesses, including of course the onboard crew. The FDR/CVR have been recovered intact within two days. There is lots of video, amateur of course, but still good quality, from many angles. The lower part of the aircraft, ie, where the wheels are, is available. ATC apparantly watched the flight with binoculars. Without wishing to be callous to the man who died and the passengers who were injured, in terms of a readily investigatable case, surely it can't get much better than this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.195.68 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Belly landing?

Any reason why Belly Landing was removed from the accident summary? The accident does classify as that, doesn't it? Maybe the summary should say something like 'crashed during belly landing'. ◄Sandshark23► talk♦contribs 13:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sandshark23: Maybe the summary should stick to verifiable facts and simply state "Under investigation"? Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Passenger nationalities

Why are these here? I see its need in aviation accidents where people died, or when passenger intervention is suspected, but here there's really no need. This is about a mechanical failure. TarkusAB 13:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree not something we normally list for survivors. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree, and have removed the table for a second time. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: @Mjroots: I thought we list them for every accident and incident, even those with 100% survival rates (Emirates after all released the list, and it's possible the final report may have one too) @TarkusAB: Technically someone did die but he wasn't a passenger. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: - Not where there are no casualties - British Airways Flight 9, Eastern Air Lines Flight 855, the Gimli Glider, TACA Flight 110 etc. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I recalled watching the Mayday episode on Air Transat Flight 236 and they gave a breakdown of the pax, even though it was a flight where everybody survived WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Injury numbers?

The wiki article, and several news reports have contradicting information on (passenger) injury numbers, with some saying 13 and others 14. Does anyone know what the true number is?A340swazzen (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In this situation, it might be better (for now) to report both figures, with sources. The final injury toll should be taken from the official report into the accident, when it is published. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Similarity to BA 38 incident?

Well obviously this is very speculative, but is there any possibility that this incident happened due to the same reasons as BA38? Sure, BA38 flew very high over the Himalayas in extremely cold air, whereas EK521, flying India -> Dubai, would have flown in the tropics and mainly over the ocean. Also, the engines are not exactly the same - Trent 892 versus Trent 895. Is all or even any of this significant???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.103.12 (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, but wait until the GCAA release their report and all will be revealed. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

58.96.107.130

Ip editor 58.96.107.130 appears to me to simply being disruptive and a little grumpy over their insistence that the nationality of the cockpit crew (latest edit [[1]] - information which appears referenced and of noteworthy value top the article. The IP editors reasons for their deletions is unclear at least to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewgprout (talk • contribs) 03:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

S/he is also in breach of 3RR for which I have warned and reverted him/her. WWGB (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Eyewitness accounts

There are some eyewitness accounts becoming available which I think we should discuss before they are included or excluded.

1. A pilot's account has been reported in The Australian (subscription required), but repeated on Pprune (6th para). If used, we should use the original reference from The Australian.
2. A passenger has posted on the Aviation Herald in the comments section (datestamp Monday, Aug 8th 2016 20:25Z). The problem with this anonymous statement is that the provenance of it cannot be determined for sure. However, it does seem to corroborate the statement by the pilot.

Are either or both statements useable? Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My problem with this is that the author is advancing a theory. He may have an axe to grind regarding systems automation, and he may be writing as someone who is a friend of the pilot/s of the aircraft - we don't know. He is apparently very experienced in operating B777s into DXB and his theory is very plausible, but he wasn't there. I think it would be safer to wait for an interim report, and/or reportage arising from said report. YSSYguy (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The preliminary report has been published. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Prelim Report - possible contributory factors?

Section 1.17.2 of the Report examines the B777's documented go-around procedures, and it is apparent that these can vary markedly depending on whether or not the aircraft has actually touched-down at the point of GA initiation. I suspect this issue may be highly significant in the final findings, but am unsure to what extent we can mention these issues here at this early stage?

My understanding is that in aircraft such as the B777, a go-around would usually be initiated by pressing the TakeOff/GoAround (TO/GA) switch(es) on the throttle quadrant, immediately resulting in:

• aircraft attitude changing to a nose-up climb
• throttle settings changing to go-around thrust

This doesn't look to have happened, as the Report notes that the power levels remained unchanged at the landing/idle setting throughout the attempted execution of the go-around until just 3 seconds before impact, at which point they were (hastily) advanced to full. It appears to me to be of great significance that the Report notes that, in the B777, the TO/GA switches are inhibited if the aircraft is actually on the ground when a TO/GA switch is pressed. In fact it notes that the Flight Crew Training Manual says that: An automatic go-around cannot be initiated after landing.

Given all this, I find it very odd that the Report makes no mention of the TO/GA switch settings or their use. How did the aircraft's attitude change to climb-out? Were the crew following the Flight Director (which may possibly(?) still indicate a GA attitude if the TO/GA is pressed, even if on the ground), or did they rotate it manually? If they had pressed the TO/GA and were following the FD, did they then assume that the power would advance automatically?

In summary, it appears possible that the GA execution was unsuccessful because the main wheels had already touched-down, thereby disabling the mechanisms usually employed to initiate GA. In the subsequent attempt, the engine thrust levels weren't set appropriately.

Note: I am not a B777 pilot, and so hopefully someone with relevant experience or knowledge can correct or clarify all the above!
Geekstreet (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Prelim Report - most evacuation slides unusable

Section 1.15.2 of the Prelim Report, Cabin Safety and Evacuation, higlights an alarming sitaution with the escape exits, where the majority of the slides were unusable for evacuation (!!). This was mainly due to the wind strength at the time, which resulted in many of the slides being blown up back against the aircraft as soon as they were deployed. Reading the report I am amazed that all the passengers escaped unscathed, and it appears that the cabin crew must have done an amazing job in the circumstances.

To summarize the Report, of the 10 evacuation slides fitted to the aircraft (5 on Left, 5 on Right):

• L1 deployed but separated from the aircraft & couldn't be used;
• L2 deployed but blew back against the aircraft and couldn't be used;
• L3 wasn't deployed due to smoke outside;
• L4 deployed but blew back against the aircraft and couldn't be used;
• L5 deployed and was used until near the end of evacuation, when it blew back against the aircraft and couldnt be used;
• R1 deployed but blew against the aircraft, was used briefly for a period until it deflated;
• R2 deployed but wasn't used for some time due to smoke outside;
• R3 wasn't deployed due to fire outside;
• R4 deployed and was used briefly until it was filled by firefighting water;
• R5 deployed but blew back against the aircraft and initially couldn't be used until a firefighter held it down.

So only the 5 slides L5, R1, R2, R4 and R5 were usable, and even some these only partly-so!

I'm not sure how we can cover this, but it seems pretty a significant issue which should be mentioned, not least in the interests of improving things in the future.
Geekstreet (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

References

There is something weird over here

How can plane crash and explode like Emirates flight 521 all because of belly landing? They were too high to land safety and touch down on mid-runway. If you think this is true go look at something like LOT flight 16 and the collapse gear on Air Canada flight 143. There is only smoke when they land.Matthew Wiguna (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC) <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOT_Polish_Airlines_Flight_16<ref> Go to these links if you don't believe me.

References

The two flights are NOT comparable. The Lot flight was a planned gear-up landing and was flown to a properly executed belly landing by a pilot who had excellent "Stick & rudder" skills.

It is apparent the Emirates 777 pilots were not doing their job correctly and made the same kinds of errors that we saw in the Asiana crash at SFO in July, 2013. The ONLY safe way to fly ANY approach is by the pilot keeping one hand on the thrust levers, with the other hand on the yoke and the thumb immediately below the auto-pilot disconnect button. All the while, BOTH pilots are to constantly scan their instruments to ensure the proper speed, descent profile and eng power is maintained. Had they followed that proper and required method of flying the plane, it would not have stalled and they would have known that the thrust levers had not AUTOMATICALLY advanced to Go-Around trust levels.

The Emirates 777 crashed on the runway because it stalled. Not comparable in any way to a planned and properly execute belly landing,, which would always have adequate airspeed above the stall speed. FYI, I hold six Specific Capt's Type ratings on Boeing aircraft, including the B-777. EditorASC (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)