@S.F.L.Y:
Quote:
afaik AP was doing what it was supposed to do - keeping the a/c flyin to the destination.
Wrong, the AP was trying to land the aircraft hundreds of meters away from the threshold as this is where the ILS leads. Trying to maintain this path at the expense of speed wasted energy and lead to high Vz.
oups - i had an impression that the ILS was much more advanced and would actually lead the plane to land EXACTLY at the beginning of the runway - but who knows - maybe i was wrong
or maybe you have missed something ? Maybe it is just the localizer (direction guidance) that is located at the other end of the runway?
We know the aircraft had enough total energy to reach its actual touchdown point and we know a lot of kinetic energy has been wasted by the AP... instead of being used to reduce the impact Vz.
you seem to be pretty confident about this total energy but actually lets think: a/c was landing following the ILS slope, the speed and height were just right. Under normal conditions before final touchdown the engines would be giving some 50% thrust fo another 35..40 secs and this would make the a/c land exactly at the threshold as defined by ILS g/s.
So if the engines stopped some 40 secs too early this creates significant energy deficit. Exact amount of the missing energy can be calculated if needed. Just let me know if this qualitative description is not enough.
This is a little like driving your car into the garage: one do not seem to need much power to do so. But try to push your car into the garage without engine running...
Why do we need to have two pilots in the cockpit if none is able to monitor and control the airspeed through primary flight controls (which doesn't include flaps)?
could you pls remind us who did pushed the thrust levers to full? Didn't the pilots try to control the airspeed with the engines first, and only when has proved unsuccessful they have turned to the whatever else existing means were available to them: reduced flaps to reduce drag and lowered the nose to stay above Vs