I'm a far too long ex-A320 P1, haven't had time to read all 33 pages (relaxing retirement? forget the idea), and really, should not comment, but a couple of questions nag at 3am.
This event recalls the fuel gauge malfunction double engine flameout in the 767 into the disused WW2 strip in Canada some years back, where both flight crew were current glider rated. They pulled off the classic out-landing beautifully, with only a bent nose oleo in the freshly dug ditch across the strip. BUT, their double failure was at height. (Cruise height rings a faint bell. Shear bluuddy lookshury.)
Q. Anyone know if these 777 lads are glider rated, or current light A/c instructors?
Reason I ask is that the reported low approach & hi alpha at touch so remind me of my ancient past, when, doing first practice forced landings onto home strip, I misjudged, and would have obviously worn the fence from an approx 80-100' undershoot. Boss said 'go round' but I said 'OK. But what if this was a real situation? What could I do?' He said 'mine' lowered the nose to gain maybe 5-6 kts from about 300', sat it (26' span Victa) in ground effect, & we watched as the speed very slowly bled off. He eased it up over the (sheep) fence and we dropped like a bag of the proverbial on the other side.
Not what I would have ever demonstrated when I got to instruct, but he made a point I never forgot, and which I at least passed on verbally.
When I went gliding, the hairy late afternoon 'I >will< get homer's' at my (flat land) club would tuck down into ground effect quite a way out, and proceed to make it.
This lad's approach seems a fairly similar example of such a technique. Comments?
The reason for the event will certainly surface, but some time in the future.
Let's be patient and kind, and especially congratulate the cabin crew on a fine following_of_procedures. Fire-ies also spot on. Excellent work all round. T.G.