Boeing and Rolls-Royce provided technical assistance.
Such cooperation is normal in major aviation investigations involving aircraft, engines, operators, and authorities from different countries.
The objective is to bring together relevant expertise and identify safety issues that may affect aviation beyond the country where an accident occurred.
For Flight EK521, investigators needed to explain several critical questions.
Why had the aircraft impacted the runway during an attempted go-around?
Why had the engines remained at idle when the pilots were attempting to climb?
What role had the aircraft's automation played?
How had the crew interpreted the aircraft's behavior?
Were weather information and training procedures adequate?
How effective had the evacuation been?
And what additional protective measures could reduce the risk to firefighters responding to aircraft emergencies?
These questions formed part of an investigation that extended well beyond the immediate crash.
What the Final Investigation Revealed
On January 20, 2020, the United Arab Emirates Air Accident Investigation Sector issued its final report on Flight EK521.
The report provided a detailed account of the accident and identified safety issues involving flight crew actions, aircraft automation, operational procedures, training, weather-related information, and emergency response.
One of the most important findings concerned the attempted go-around.
The captain had decided to discontinue the landing because he believed the aircraft would not touch down within the appropriate runway area.
The aircraft briefly touched down before becoming airborne again.
Because the pilots were unaware of the touchdown, they did not recognize that the TO/GA switches would be inhibited.
When the captain attempted to use the switches, the expected automatic increase in engine thrust did not occur.
The thrust levers remained at idle.
The pilots did not promptly identify this condition.
The aircraft climbed briefly but lacked the performance required to continue ascending.
By the time the thrust levers were advanced, the aircraft had descended too far to avoid impact.
The investigation highlighted the importance of monitoring actual aircraft performance rather than relying solely on the expected response of automated systems.
Modern passenger jets incorporate sophisticated automation to reduce workload and assist pilots.
These systems contribute substantially to aviation safety.
However, automation must be understood within the limits of its design.
A system may behave exactly as programmed while producing an outcome that surprises a crew unfamiliar with a particular operating condition.
The Flight EK521 investigation illustrated this distinction.
The issue was not simply that an automated system failed to function.
Rather, the system's behavior under specific conditions was not adequately anticipated and managed during the attempted go-around.
Investigators also examined crew training and the information available about the TO/GA switch inhibition.
The report addressed how pilots were trained for go-arounds, including situations involving touchdown or unusual aircraft behavior.
The accident demonstrated why training must include scenarios that differ from the conditions pilots encounter most frequently.
A procedure that is familiar in one context may require different actions when the aircraft has briefly transitioned from flight to ground mode.
The investigators also examined communication and monitoring within the cockpit.
Commercial aircraft are operated by crews expected to cross-check critical information and identify deviations from expected performance.
Effective communication becomes especially important during time-sensitive maneuvers.
The accident showed how quickly a developing situation can overwhelm the available margin for correction when altitude is limited.
Why Aircraft Automation Matters
The Boeing 777 is equipped with advanced systems intended to support flight crews during normal and abnormal operations.
Automation can help manage engine thrust, navigation, flight guidance, and other aspects of aircraft performance.
These capabilities have played an important role in making modern commercial aviation highly reliable.
But automation is not a substitute for pilot understanding.
Pilots must know what a system is expected to do, when it may not respond as anticipated, and how to recognize a mismatch between commanded and actual aircraft behavior.
Flight EK521 offers a particularly clear example.
During the attempted go-around, the crew expected a response associated with activating the TO/GA switch.
Because the aircraft had touched down, the switch did not command the expected thrust increase.
The engines remained at idle, and the aircraft began climbing without enough energy to sustain the maneuver.
This situation developed close to the ground, where the time available for identifying and correcting the problem was extremely limited.
The aircraft initially gained altitude, but the climb did not mean that sufficient engine thrust had been established.
This distinction is fundamental to understanding aircraft performance.
An aircraft can briefly rise because of its existing energy and aerodynamic conditions without having enough power or speed to continue climbing.
Maintaining a safe climb requires appropriate airspeed, thrust, aircraft configuration, and flight path management.
When these factors are not maintained, altitude can be lost rapidly.
The final report emphasized the importance of thrust verification and effective flight crew monitoring during go-around procedures.
These lessons extend beyond the Boeing 777.
As aircraft become more sophisticated, the relationship between human operators and automation becomes increasingly important.
Automation can reduce workload during routine operations, but pilots must remain prepared for situations in which system behavior differs from their expectations.
Training should therefore address not only which buttons to press but also how to confirm that the desired aircraft response has occurred.
Flight crews need to understand the logic behind automated functions, particularly those that change depending on whether an aircraft is on the ground or in flight.
The Flight EK521 accident demonstrated that the interaction between automation and human decision-making can be as consequential as the reliability of the hardware itself.
The Role of Weather Information
Weather was another important area examined during the investigation.
Early coverage often focused on wind shear, but the final findings were more nuanced.
The airport had issued information indicating a moderate wind shear warning affecting its runways.
At the same time, the aircraft was approaching under tailwind conditions that remained within its operational limits.
The captain's decision to go around was associated with his perception that thermal conditions were interfering with an appropriate touchdown.
This was different from responding to a clearly identified wind shear encounter.
The distinction matters because aviation procedures may vary depending on the hazard being addressed.
Pilots are trained to respond to different types of approach instability and wind-related threats.