nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Flightradar24 Thread Part III

Shannon757

Carnacalla wrote: »

747 inbound SNN. 19,000ft and decending.

Stobart about to turn for approach, wind 240 degrees 40kts G 49kts.

National are pretty regular visitors to Shannon.

Mod Note: New thread as 10,000 post limit attained. Previous thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057359945

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

masit

Emirates 380 into Manchester has gone around twice. Heading north now at 8000ft

JCX BXC

masit wrote: »

Emirates 380 into Manchester has gone around twice. Heading north now at 8000ft

Something mechanical? The A380 is very wind capable and the 18:50 Metar only reports a wind of 13kts.

JCX BXC

ba_barabus wrote: »

??????

I've lived under the flight path all my life and that looked far lower than normal, close enough I could read it was a National plane.

Could it be the fact that it was a 747?

ShanE90

Gone into another round of the hold again at 8000 ft!

finnharpsboy

ShanE90 wrote: »

Gone into another round of the hold again at 8000 ft!

Computer/Autopilot issues apparently

Mech1

I found this quote online

"Undercarriage problem according to post on manchesterspotters2 forum."

JCX BXC

Descended to 7,000ft.

Now looks to be making an approach.

Going around again

Gone around again.

Back up she goes

Computer saying the runway isn't long enough according to A.net. Tried both now so off to LHR.

JCX BXC

Carnacalla wrote: »

Gone around again.

Also worth noting it make an approach to 23L as opposed to 23R this time, explanation why above by Jamie2k9

finnharpsboy

Going to Heathrow

JCX BXC

Heathrow has an extra 2000-3000ft of runway.

Comhrá

Seems to have landed safely according to FR24.

Foggy43

Followed it in to LHR on VHF. Landed on R27L. Standard approach and no issues reported. Aircraft from Terminal 4 crossed behind it.

Irish Steve

Must be nice to have that much spare fuel on board, I wonder what they'd have done if fuel had been tight, that number of misses and then a diversion to Heathrow would have used a lot more than normal reserves fuel wise.

highlydebased

They must have fixed it as it's just landed back at Manchester

IngazZagni

I just find it bizarre that the computer seems to have more authority than the captain in many modern aircraft. Manchester has a ~3000 metre runway. It's definitely long enough for a landing, A380 or not.

Razor44

IngazZagni wrote: »

I just find it bizarre that the computer seems to have more authority than the captain in many modern aircraft. Manchester has a ~3000 metre runway. It's definitely long enough for a landing, A380 or not.

I'm not a pilot, but that did jump out at me. Is it company SOP or something. Seems odd they wouldn't just land it by hand. Or am I missing something??

billy few mates

IngazZagni wrote: »

I just find it bizarre that the computer seems to have more authority than the captain in many modern aircraft. Manchester has a ~3000 metre runway. It's definitely long enough for a landing, A380 or not.

Razor44 wrote: »

I'm not a pilot, but that did jump out at me. Is it company SOP or something. Seems odd they wouldn't just land it by hand. Or am I missing something??

The 'computer' does not have more authority than the crew, I think you're misreading the situation here, it wasn't a case of a computer physically preventing the A/C from landing it was probably more a case that a particular fault with a computer (or system) was preventing them from safely conducting the landing there.
Almost all approaches and landings are manually done and auto lands are usually only done in situations where you have low viz or for practise or maintenance purposes the weather last night was probably out of limits for an auto land as its not designed for use in rough or windy conditions.

Many airlines forbid a third approach to the same airfield so even if conditions improve a diversion is mandatory. Likewise they often decide to divert for operational reasons if for example the diversion station has a better spares holding or more suitably qualified staff on site. Better to have a quick diversion to LHR followed by a positioning flight to MAN than an AOG in MAN and a panic to get the people and parts up to MAN.
I don't know what happened in this case but things aren't always as they appear...

smurfjed

Taken from http://avherald.com/h?article=495fd1b1&opt=0

Incident: Emirates A388 at Manchester on Mar 26th 2016, FMS decides runways too short

By Simon Hradecky, created Saturday, Mar 26th 2016 22:40Z, last updated Saturday, Mar 26th 2016 23:02Z
An Emirates Airbus A380-800, registration A6-EOP performing flight EK-19 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Manchester,EN (UK), was on approach to Manchester's runway 23R (length 3048m/10,000 feet) when the crew went around from about 1300 feet MSL due to a computer warning the runway was too short for landing. The crew positioned for another approach to runway 23R but went around from 1100 feet MSL again due to the same warning about 14 minutes after the first go around. The aircraft entered a hold at 8000 feet, the crew requested runway 23L (length 3050 meters/10,007 feet) and attempted an approach to runway 23L about one hour after the first go around but went around again from about 1100 feet due to the warning runway 23L was too short too. The crew decided to divert to London Heathrow,EN (UK), climbed to FL190 and landed safely on Heathrow's runway 27L (length 3660m/12,000 feet) about 2:10 hours after the first go around.

The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground in Heathrow for 2 hours, then departed again for Manchester and completed a safe landing on runway 23R on its first approach after diversion and total 4th approach to Manchester.

Logically one would think that the FMS won't overrule the crew if they decide to do a manual landing using manual brakes, so I'm guessing that this is something to do with their SOP's rather than the aircrafts capabilities.

Gaoth Laidir

Bizarre. So they may not have been allowed to land a perfectly serviceable plane an a more-than-long-enough runway just because of company SOP? If they had chosen to make an executive decision and overrule the SOP in this case, having taken all things into account, would there be repercussions? If so, then it seems a case of Health & Safety gone mad.

smurfjed

Health & Safety gone mad

Nothing to do with H&S, its standard ME managerial style.

billy few mates

smurfjed wrote: »

Taken from http://avherald.com/h?article=495fd1b1&opt=0

Logically one would think that the FMS won't overrule the crew if they decide to do a manual landing using manual brakes, so I'm guessing that this is something to do with their SOP's rather than the aircrafts capabilities.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Bizarre. So they may not have been allowed to land a perfectly serviceable plane an a more-than-long-enough runway just because of company SOP? If they had chosen to make an executive decision and overrule the SOP in this case, having taken all things into account, would there be repercussions? If so, then it seems a case of Health & Safety gone mad.

smurfjed wrote: »

Nothing to do with H&S, its standard ME managerial style.

Nothing to do with any of the above, this should be seen as an example SOPs being strictly followed and adhered to which is the absolute minimum we should all expect.
I don't know the exact details of this problem but at a guess I would say it probably has something to do with the anti skid where the FMGC has decided that there is insufficient runway length for the prevailing conditions and the weight of the A/C at that moment in time. This could be due to many factors like a wet runway, shifting or gusting winds, the weight of the A/C or the serviceability of a related subsystem necessary to complete the approach (reverser, flaps etc) or even the availability of a runway turn off which may have necessitated a 180 on the runway which the A380 might not have been capable of making.

Imagine the discussion we'd be having this morning if the crew had ignored the warning and continued with the landing and then skidded off the end of runway....?

As someone more cleverer than me once said...
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men....

Mech1

Learjet holding at Dalkey, probably for rising fly over.

airbusa320

Raven formation are up as well

The tax man

airbusa320 wrote: »

Raven formation are up as well

Holding pattern right over the house. Great sound as they turned.

arubex

Rather poignantly Brussels Airlines are persisting with their inaugural flight to Belfast City, having switched it to operate through Antwerp instead of Brussels.

RJ100 OO-DWF operating, just airborne westbound:

https://www.flightradar24.com/BEL1551/93913b3

A rather unfortunate start to a service that has been widely advertised in the north, hopefully it will work-out in the end.

Oscar Bravo

N43PR, 737-500 on finals for knock now.