Emirates B777 gear collapse @ DXB?

[RAT 5]

Ref Buzzbox: Many thanks; finally some facts about what will happen and what should happen; i.e. be done. Plus some insight into training for these scenarios.

I make 3 comments.

1. A rejected landing after wheel touch down and speed brake up is not an EASA mandatory manoeuvre. The 'wave off' at 50' is. However, on the LST form this is called a 'rejected landing'. IT IS NOT. It is a low level GA with engines probably at medium thrust levels and sufficient height, perhaps, to avoid ground contact. It is a STANDARD GA.
2. If a real rejected landing, as per FCTM definition, there are some significant notes of difference. PF will call Go Round and increase thrust; speed brakes & auto brakes should stow & disconnect; accelerate and at Vref PM calls Rotate; do not change flap on the runway.
3. rotate should be commenced no later than 2000' from the end of the runway.

This manoeuvre can be executed for a number of reasons including a long landing with insufficient runway to stop. How many events have there been in the world where this manoeuvre executed correctly would have avoided tragedy? Is it a mandatory trained Manoeuvre? NO. WHY NOT?
It has been said many times that the all engine GA is one of the most screwed up, least practiced manoeuvres of all. This variant has huge potential for screw up and yet is often not trained at all, nor practiced. XAA's & training depts need to look at themselves very closely.

I had always assumed that landings were conducted with the thrust levers in hand and held with vigilance should their immediate use be required.

Precisely. Many over-runs might have been avoided if the landings had been conducted with a GA, even rejected landing, mentality other than a 'must land-itis' thinking. That is why I beat their knuckles when I saw cadets, even seasoned F/O's, flaring with their hands on the Thrust Reversers. It required quite an eye-opening discussion to explain why it was NOT a good idea, and a further refresher of the braking system to explain why it achieved zilch. What was worse was the panic s election of reverse accompanied by disarming of the auto brakes with feet after a F30 landing to make a short turnoff; even on a damp runway.

Back to the point of why is rejected landing not a mandatory trained manoeuvre? It is all very well to make a simple statement that a Go Round can be made from the runway up into the TR's have been deployed. It is quite another not to train crews to do it, both mentally & physically, especially as it is different from a GA. In various NTSB reports there has been criticism of airlines who had not trained crews in certain manoeuvres, which would have helped avoid an incident/accident, or trained them incorrectly; e.g. AA rudder failure after wake turbulence. In these cases training programs were changed. It will be interesting to see what recommendations are made after this report is concluded and if this manoeuvre replaces the 'normal GA from 50' in the LST.