Wheels up landing?

Today an Emirates 777 made a wheels-up landing in Dubai. The plane caught fire as a result, but apparently the passengers and crew managed to evacuate without any fatalities.

Upon first reading the news this morning, I found no more relevant detail than that above. The Aviation Herald, though, provides more. Apparently the pilots asked for a go-around, retracted the landing gear, but did not manage to climb and consequently hit the runway with the wheels up.

Wheels up landings are not that uncommon, though usually they involve only one gear up, not all of them. Usually, too, these types of landings are not urgent, and crews take the time to burn or dump fuel beforehand. Lastly they take care to minimize damage. A plane landing without the front (nose) gear, for example, will keep the nose up as long as possible while it sheds speed on the runway. Then the crew will try to bring the nose down gently.

What happened today sounds more like an accidental crash landing. I'm sure if the crew noticed they were going to hit and they had any time to do anything, they did what they could. But the incident warrants a full investigation, as something evidently went wrong.

Quote: Nareed

Today an Emirates 777 made a wheels-up landing in Dubai. The plane caught fire as a result, but apparently the passengers and crew managed to evacuate without any fatalities.

Upon first reading the news this morning, I found no more relevant detail than that above. The Aviation Herald, though, provides more. Apparently the pilots asked for a go-around, retracted the landing gear, but did not manage to climb and consequently hit the runway with the wheels up.

Wheels up landings are not that uncommon, though usually they involve only one gear up, not all of them. Usually, too, these types of landings are not urgent, and crews take the time to burn or dump fuel beforehand. Lastly they take care to minimize damage. A plane landing without the front (nose) gear, for example, will keep the nose up as long as possible while it sheds speed on the runway. Then the crew will try to bring the nose down gently.

What happened today sounds more like an accidental crash landing. I'm sure if the crew noticed they were going to hit and they had any time to do anything, they did what they could. But the incident warrants a full investigation, as something evidently went wrong.

I don't think it is accurate to characterize it as a "landing" The plane crashed.

Agreed that it is very odd for the pilot not to burn off all the fuel before coming in. I wonder if they just forgot to put the gear into position in time, then couldn't drop them in time after realizing their error. Since the crew lived, the transcript of their debrief will be very interesting.

Seems strange that they would retract the gear before the plane begins ascending. I would assume adding thrust would be the first thing on the checklist and you wouldn't retract until after gaining a little altitude.

Quote: DRich

Seems strange that they would retract the gear before the plane begins ascending. I would assume adding thrust would be the first thing on the checklist and you wouldn't retract until after gaining a little altitude.

Maybe if I add my flight sim based possible misinformation here, it'll force Babs to chime in ;)

Speed = life. I don't know the intricacies of real life, but in-sim, "gear up" is one of my priorities. Hell of a lot of drag with wheels down and those doors open. Wheels up and full thrust are both immediate, as well as the obvious speed brake off and flaps out.

FWIW, I also much prefer a belly landing vs an odd amount of wheels down. Assuming I have some systems remaining and ain't coming in at 300knots, bellies go just about how I always plan. Just make sure I'm heading the way I want to go and the craft generally stays straight. Odd wheels usually pull me off the tarmac as I decelerate, and unless I'm in an Su-25 with a drag chute, I can't slow enough and end up tumbling ass over teacup to my fiery death.

Quote: Ayecarumba

I don't think it is accurate to characterize it as a "landing" The plane crashed.

Agreed.

Quote:

Agreed that it is very odd for the pilot not to burn off all the fuel before coming in. I wonder if they just forgot to put the gear into position in time, then couldn't drop them in time after realizing their error. Since the crew lived, the transcript of their debrief will be very interesting.

We need more information.

We know there was an attempt to go around, and the wheels were retracted. Then the crash for some reason. It's infuriating to know so little.

For one thing, why the go-around? there are many possible reasons, one of them being some kind of gear trouble. But there are many other reasons, from mechanical troubles, to shifts in wind, to pilot error, to foreign objects on the runway, and more still.

If there was a problem, I'd assume it was noticed close to landing, therefore no burning off of fuel beforehand. We also don't know what the crew intended to do after ascending. Would they just re-position for landing, or try to work out some issue? Next, how high up were they when they started to ascend, and what brought them down? All unknown as yet.

But given that the crew is intact, the plane is all there, they were under coverage of ATC, and the black boxes ought to be fine, I expect answers rather soon.

If you want a wild guess: wind-shear while the wheels were retracting. No time to do a damn thing.

Quote: Face

Speed = life. I don't know the intricacies of real life, but in-sim, "gear up" is one of my priorities. Hell of a lot of drag with wheels down and those doors open. Wheels up and full thrust are both immediate, as well as the obvious speed brake off and flaps out.

I don't think it has anything to do with automation, but I'm not sure. See, modern passenger jets have a "go-around button" of sorts. it's a selector switch for the auto-throttle, with the options Take Off and Go Around, which for obvious reasons is often called the TO/GA switch.

Hasty research tells me all it does is increase engine power and either disengages the autopilot or prevents the autopilot from following the ILS (instrument landing system) setting. A lot varies between manufacturers and models. Some can be set to execute a turn around maneuver (climb and turn). So it would be trivial if it also raised the gear. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Airplanes are not that resistant to impact. Therefore we can conclude the Emirati plane either didn't fall very far or not very fast. But I can't picture a go-around that close to the ground, that would allow 15-20 seconds for the gear to be raised, and not eat up so much runway the "landing" is a complete disaster.

But as I told someone else regarding a different airplane accident: it happened as it happened, not as you can imagine it did.

So let's try: perhaps they tried to climb and couldn't, ergo they retracted the gear and still descended until plane met runway. Why wouldn't they climb? Wind-shear, tail winds, miss-set trim, insufficient power, and not least failing to pull back on the controls (the reverse of what happened to the AF plane over the Atlantic).

If anything goes wrong and you select TOGA, you raise the gear right away so as not to put up with unnecessary drag the gearis of no use to you.

The plane was too low to either Pump OR Dump fuel. It could have burned fuel load off.

They always say there are two kinds of pilots: those who have landed with the wheels up and those who have yet to land with the wheels up.

Someone failed to do a formal check list and go through the gear down and lights indicate that gear is down and locked into proper position.

The fly by wire is not supposed to let you do that sort of thing.

It was an improper landing. Just about ANY pilot knowingly landing with all the gears up is going to ask for the runway to be foamed and the "trucks" to be standing by. Even if the pilot does not request foaming of the runway, he most certainly will tell the tower to "Get The Trucks Rolling" and they will race down the runway behind him ready to start throwing foam.

Here it seems simple: over complacency and ignoring a check list.

Its a landing. An unsafe and unintended landing, but a landing.

Lets see how honest and open the airlines there are going to be.

It sounds like there were wind sheer warnings at the airport prior to the "landing".

Quote: DRich

It sounds like there were wind sheer warnings at the airport prior to the "landing".

Fine, maybe that justified the original TOGA and was a problem on the "final" approach but if they encountered a micro burst or some sort of windsheer again then they were at the wrong speed and did not adjust it fast enough.
Radar tapes and CVR going to be critical here.

It was the first major accident involving a Boeing 777-300 in over 18 years of operation with various carriers worldwide.

The plane is considerably older than most of the planes in Emirates fleet. They had a fleet of 12 B777-300's and were due to retire 2 at the end of the year. Emirates also has 120 Boeing 777-300ERs in their fleet and is the largest operator of that type in the world.

One report says the aircraft, registered as A6-EMW, was operating as Flight EK521 from Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Planespotters list A6-EMW as one of 12 of this type plane.

256 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMM Emirates F12C42Y310 12. Nov 1999 Active
262 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMN Emirates F12C42Y310 23. Dec 1999 Active
300 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMO Emirates F12C42Y310 26. Sep 2000 Active lsf AerCap
326 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMP Emirates F12C42Y310 22. Mar 2001 Active lsf AerCap
396 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMQ Emirates F12C42Y310 24. Apr 2002 Active lsf AerCap
402 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMR Emirates F12C42Y310 19. May 2002 Active lsf AerCap
408 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMS Emirates F12C42Y310 02. Jul 2002 Active
414 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMT Emirates F12C42Y310 03. Sep 2002 Active lsf AerCap
418 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMU Emirates F12C42Y310 30. Sep 2002 Active
432 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMV Emirates F12C42Y310 27. Feb 2003 Active lsf AerCap
444 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMX Emirates F12C42Y310 24. Jun 2003 Active lsf AerCap
434 Boeing 777-31H A6-EMW Emirates F12C42Y310 28. Mar 2003 Written Off lsf AerCap

It would not particularly surprise me if Emirates retires this entire group (or terminates the leases early). They had intended to retire 15 planes by the end of this year (including 2 from this group), so this will tax their schedule. Maybe they can get some B777-300ER early deliveries.

The stretched 777-300 has a maximum range 11,140 km and was delivered to Cathay Pacific on May 21, 1998. Over 60 were ordered by all airlines through 2006.

The 777-300ER ("ER" for Extended Range) has a maximum range of 13,650 km and was first delivered to Air France on April 29, 2004. A total of 660 have been ordered to date.