QF Rejected landing?

[James4th]

Tonight was wet and misty in MEL, light and variable winds.......a 767 touches down a looooong way down 27, spoilers come up, then power goes on and round he goes.......?

Tower asks him why he went round and he bleated on about auto lands and downwinds........?

What is going on at QF??????:uhoh:

[Kaptin M]

Saves parking her on the 19th!

:ok: for a good decision to the crew :ok:

"What is going on at QF??????"
SAFETY, by the sounds of things!! :ok:

[woftam]

Sounds like a great decision to me.
What would you prefer,an A/C off the end?
:confused:
(must have been posting at the same time Kaptin, didn't see your response)
Seems you can't win these days if you make a sound decision which seems the case in this instance.

[James4th]

A safer decison would be to have gone round before he touched down, like as he passed the intersection of 16!

[lame1]

seems like the captain was doing his job and making safe decisions.B767 captains are by far the best/responsible.

[woftam]

Dear James,
I don't quite understand what you are on about mate.
A decision was made which appears from what you say to be a sound one.
You armchair experts are really getting out of control.
:mad:

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

James,
It is irrelevant when the Captain decided to hit the GO button, so long as he decided TO Go around averting a dangerous situation.

Proper AVIATING is all about PROPER decisions. An IMPROPER decision would have been slamming her on, throwing out every anchoring device, and hoping in God and Goodyear. When you start chopping down HIAL with the nosewheel, you know you made the wrong decision. Factor in that the runway was slick, and stopping distance is increased SIGNIFICANTLY.

Without knowing WHY the decision was made to abort and go around, you cannot comment. SHould he have gone around earlier? Maybe, but the decision was made to continue, and THEN go around upon making a decision that the situation had potential for problems.

[ITCZ]

james4th,

you are partly right -- the crew should have made a decision to continue to the threshold some point prior to crossing the piano keys....

but...

we have all had a crap touchdown after an excellent final approach!

before you get too hard on the captain for a 'late' go around, factor in the following.

The crew would have been aiming 300m in to the touchdown markers.

Crossing the threshold at say, 120knots IAS, they would have been doing around 60 metres per second or better.

After passing the 450m touchdown markers, they may have recognised that they were out of shape for a landing.

They then, if they followed their training, would NOT have done the GA 'fark' go around.

Someone may have announced "go around." Then whomever was flying would have smoothly increased power (or the TOGA buttons would have done so) to go around power, and the flying pilot would have smoothly rotated to the go around attitude at 3 to 4 degrees per second, as he/she had had it drummed into them!

Then the aircraft would have rotated first, and climbed second! Would not be at all surprised if a 150,000kg+ aeroplane had enough downward momentum to touch down near the intersection before the rotation turned it into a climbing aeroplane.

Would not be at all surprised if this activity took several hundred metres of runway to achieve.

And none of it a problem because I am sure they cleared the other threshold by better than 35 feet. and better than 3.3% in a 20.7.1B "twin" with all engines operating.

[56P]

Tonight was wet and misty in MEL, light and variable winds.......a 767 touches down a looooong way down 27, spoilers come up, then power goes on and round he goes.......?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the spoilers already up, he was lucky NOT to have parked it on the 19th!

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

All some people are showing here is their ignorance.

56P, you are one of them.

[Uncommon Sense]

Hmm,

well I guess we will see just HOW much the newspaper hacks read this forum over the next couple of days. I see a big headline if it becomes a slow news day sometime soon!

Might even be a comment from Dick Smith somewhere amongst it, or even behind it: IF AIRSERVICES HAD GONE WITH THE PROVEN US MODEL AND NOT ROLLED BACK TO THE 1840'S AIRSPACE MODEL, THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON THE AIRSPACE AROUND THE AIPORT AND DIRECTED THE QANTAS JET TO GOAROUND EARLIER. DONT FLY IN TO MELBOURNE - IT'S NOT SAFE ...... etc. etc.

[Capt Fathom]

For the uninformed...
Spoilers retract automatically when the thrust levers are advanced.
Automatic landings always result in a touchdown further along the runway than is normal with manual landings. It's just the way the system works.

[Agent Mulder]

Fathom,

How dare you bring facts in to this argument!!!!!!

This is a rumour network run for the pleasure of amateur aviators, schoolkids, wannabes, has beens and other people totally unassociated with the Profession of Airline Pilot.

And you dare state facts!!!!!!

Killjoy!!!!!

:ok:

[Woomera]

Fortunately, school holidays finish this weekend.

Ahhh, next week should be peaceful! :ok:

Woomera

[James4th]

Capt Fathom, well done, you spotted one of my points:- why practice an auto land (when you really didnt need to in those weather conditions) on a shortish runway which was wet, with no headwind. Why not use 16 (which he eventually did).

I do not mean to criticise the crew at all, far be it for me to climb into someone elses cockpit (I have enought trouble in my own!) But the criticism is directed at Qantas who are very quick to point out other airlines percieved problems while ignoring their own (GS are you listening?)

I apologise to the crew if I was seen to blame them personally, they were no doubt folowing QF SOPs (?) it is those that I criticise.

We all have upset approaches but there is a point you must give the approach away, Qantas SOP says "follow G/S down the the ground" That would put you on the 1000' without a flare, so probably the 1500' markers as a touchdown point with a flare. The SOP says that if the touchdown is going to be beyond 2000', go around.

Now that is OK for international runs in big a/c on long runways but do you think it is OK for 27 on a wet night or other shortish runways?

And what are people's feelings on practice autolands? I dont know the QF SOP on that.

As a touchdown aiming point (in a jet) what do you use?

[Next Generation]

James4th

It's a pity James3rd didn't have that vasectomy a few years earlier.:D

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

sigh...

Maybe the captain required an autoland to update his recency.

Maybe the aeroplane required an autoland to update it's recency.

Who cares?

They would have ascertained that the runway length was sufficient, even when wet. (It is...)

The autoland system obviously did not have them down on the runway at the advertised point so they went around in accordance with SOP's.

I fail to see the big deal here...

[James4th]

OK, I am obviously flogging a dead horse here...... next time my autoland needs a run I'll just pick a nasty night and a wet shortish runway to do it on.

Cheers All

[RB63]

Next Generation

I think James 3rd should have taken the head job instead.:E

[PW1830]

Who needes the unqualified gentlemen of the press to beat up a non event when "professional" pilots do such a good job themselves?

[Kaptin M]

a nasty night and a wet shortish runway The "nasty night" and "wet runway" (as a result of the nasty wx) is PRECISELY the reason an auto-coupled approach, followed by an autoland is made :8 ...why they even have designations for them - CAT iii, CAT iiiA, etc.:eek:I am obviously flogging a dead horse here Agreed, it seems you don't understand the systems, and the conditions under which they're utilised by crews.

Would you have been more satisfied had the a/c slid off the end of the runway?

The result of the go-around was the BEST possible....no damage, injuries or deaths - and NO media coverage (apparently in spite of YOUR best attempts, J4!!)

[Keg]

lol. What a crack up. Thanks for the laugh J4. It certainly kept me entertained on an otherwise pretty 'nothing' day for me!! :p

NG, I think for the first time ever we may be in agreeance- although I wouldn't have put it in quite those terms! ;)

[invertedlandings]

James the 4th,
How did you determine that the spoilers went up anyway. I DID do an autoland in MEL last night (Runway 16, but that is another story)- unless you were in a safety vehicle at the runway intersections how could you have known? As for the merits of an autloand, the ATIS last night was 3000m in RA and Mist, BKN 250 ft and OVC at 300ft- despite my ego, the AUoland does a far, far more SAFER job than us. Af for a long landing- autoland usually touchdown approx 600-700m into the runway, factor 1.15 for a wet runway mmm.. The headline is "Shock Horror, Qantas Captain does what he is paid for...."

[Desert Dingo]

So you think an autoland on rwy 27 that touches down past the intersection of rwy 16 is quite normal??
I dont, but never mind, let's all rubbish J4 for asking the question.

[SMOC]

I don't fly the 767 just curious, what does the 767 look at for a take-off config warning? I know of a A330 (not QF) that floated long enough to decide to GA then touched down and got a config warning (flaps), so then aborted the GA and continued to land and taxi off. Since then rumour has we should continue to land select flap 2 and rotate at 'F' speed.

[Capt Fathom]

So you think an autoland on rwy 27 that touches down past the intersection of rwy 16 is quite normal??
I don't believe anyone here has said that, but what is normal?

With the intended closure of Rwy 16/34 for some time next year, it is probably not a bad idea to get out there and practice some wet runway, tailwind component autolands down the hill on 27! Or maybe some visual approaches onto 09 over the gully! :E

[itchybum]

CAT iii, CAT iiiA ???

;)

[SMOC]

Silberfuchs....that Sir, is complete rubbish!

I suggest you break out the dictionary! that should be a good start!

Obviously you're unsure of the meaning of "rumour"

Here let me help you out.....

Rumour n. a circulating story or report of DOUBTFUL truth.

Your 'rumour' on how to do it is no where near SOPs (NPs).

Screaming be'jesus!:{ that's why I said rumour. You could have just quoted the Airbus NTC and FCTM to dispel the rumour :ok:

[woftam]

Next Generation,
ROTFLMAO
That is a great call.
Cheers
:D

[N2000]

Sounds like the go-around was the better option..........especially if he was half way down 27.

Out of interest, do QF have a Flight Data Recorder monitoring program in place?

[woftam]

N2000,
Yes,QAR program in place,
Cheers

[gazumped]

Am I missing something? Are auto lands now approved in Australia?

As for the decision to go round, good job! Maybe could have been made a little earlier, however the crew kept it shiny side up and the outcome was a good one.

cheers

[Keg]

Gazumped, autolands have been approved in Australia for yonks. Specific runways require specific operator approval.

However, don't get confused with assuming that just because we can autoland that we can go to Cat III minima. We still have to use Cat I minima. SOPs require us to plan to autoland (if possible, aircraft, runway, etc) when wx below certain criteria.

[*Lancer*]

Desert Dingo, of course it's not 'normal', but not everything that is planned within applicable (and acceptable) safety margins occurs as planned. That's why we have established procedures to abort landings... and take-offs, and approaches, for whatever the reason.

[Desert Dingo]

*Lancer*I agree with what you say. However, I think the point being discussed is just when should a landing be aborted according to SOPs.
As Kaptin M says The "nasty night" and "wet runway" (as a result of the nasty wx) is PRECISELY the reason an auto-coupled approach, followed by an autoland is made This is because the auto pilot can guarantee that the approach will be flown right on the numbers and generally be more accurate than if manualy flown. ( OK I know some of you aces reckon you can fly better than the auto pilot, but I am speaking in general terms ;) )

If James 4 is correct and the touchdown was past the rwy 16 intersection (ie some 700meters past the aiming point if I remember the distances correctly) then I seriously doubt an autoland was being performed at all. As someone who has done CatIII approaches in anger, I would expect the touchdown to be just a short (flare) distance past the aiming point EVERY TIME. If it doesn't happen then it is time to hit the TOGA buttons and get the hell out of there. Remember, the landing distance required on a limiting runway has a 40% buffer over the actual distance required, and sailing on down past the rwy 16 intersection would be rapidly eating up this margin.
Obviously the crew did the right thing with a go-around instead of persisting with the landing. What all us armchair experts are pontificating about is perhaps the go around decision should have been made a lot earlier.

ICTZ's scenario that this happened and an airbone go-around decision was made...
Then the aircraft would have rotated first, and climbed second! Would not be at all surprised if a 150,000kg+ aeroplane had enough downward momentum to touch down near the intersection before the rotation turned it into a climbing aeroplane.
does not stand up to what J4 reported
spoilers come up, then power goes on and round he goes...
because if the power was up before the touchdown then the spoilers would NOT have deployed, and contradicts what J4 said about spoilers up THEN power applied.

I will bet that this has nothing to do with an autoland, but is more likely a landing that got stuffed up in the flare (as happens to all of us :{ ) and the embarrassment was covered up by blaming the aircraft. :ok:

[Capt Fathom]

Don't lose sight of the fact that autolands in Australia are done onto runways that are only CAT 1. There is not all the safeguards and protection that you get using a CAT 3 system.
Also, the autopilot stops using the Glideslope at around 50' and starts to flare based on certain parameters. A lot can happen between 50' and touchdown.

[gaunty]

Why do you think that the certification rules require the optimum and best landing distance the factory test pilots can do during the certification test flights to be factored by 1.67.

Landing is the least accurate form of flying we can undertake, unlike take off which can the most accurate. There are so many variables during the most stabilised approach that it is possible to suggest that most landings are randomly variable within a strict set of parameters. The greaser is as much a function of good luck as it is for high level of skill.

That extra 67% might a number that mathematicians, statisticians and scientists might recognise as being the result of a standard deviation calculation which reveals how spread out numbers are from the average, calculated by taking the square root of the arithmetic average of the squares of the deviations from the mean in a frequency distribution.

That is by forcing the issue you might be able to do better than the factory test pilot or pilot of average ability but you may well go "out to the other end" on the average. Being the conservative lot we are we assume the worst case in a statistical sense to calculate our required landing distance, i.e. the best we can do under the best conditions with a 67% fudge factor just in case.

If we were to require a gauranteed landing at say a 95% probability we might see runway lengths doubled.

Expedience suggests that the averagely proficient pilot doing the right thing according to the AFM should be able to meet the landing distance required most of the time, at least enough to be "routine".

So why do we get twitched up when every one of the factors involved in what should be a succesful landing gets pushed up the "long" end of the list and the HIALS at the other end are hove into a closer view than is healthy.??

We do what is prudent, we accept that we didn't get it "right enough" this time and go round, from wherever that becomes apparent.:cool:

It only becomes a problem when it becomes a habit. :{

I'm not suggesting for a minute that we do the "oh well, thats fate routine" but if we have not developed any nasty habits then, we also need to accept that sometimes sh!t just happens and not expect to get done over here or anywhere else for it. :sad:

[Desert Dingo]

Gaunty: There is nothing particularly magical in the 1.67 or 67% fudge factor you mention. It is just a nice round 40% buffer calculated from a different viewpoint.
Actual landing distance x 1.67 = required runway length is the same as saying that 60% of the available runway length should be the distance you plan to use. It probably goes back to the same person who decreed that performance calculations only count 50% of the headwind and 150% of a tailwind. They could just have easily been 49% or 151% but round numbers must look neater to the boffins.
I guess that if a pilot had set the rules it would have been a 1.7 or an even better 2.0 factor calculated your way. :ok:

Capt. Fathom:
Also, the autopilot stops using the Glideslope at around 50' and starts to flare based on certain parameters. A lot can happen between 50' and touchdown.
Like about 700 meters of overshoot ?? :confused: You will have to pull the other one, mate. :E

Edited to be cheeky to Capt. Fathom

[gaunty]

Ding

Of course glass half empty glass half full, chicken or egg.:D

[VH-Cheer Up]

Gaunty

You are clearly an accomplished statistician!

The point about standard deviation being that given a normal distribution of landing distances (same rig, same place), 68% of landings should occur within +/- one standard deviation, while 95% should fall within +/- two standard deviations.

Bet Boeing doesn't have a graph for that...

Cheers

[max AB]

I think some of you are missing an important point here, Capt Fathom is quite correct.

An auto land is not always safer than a manual landing. It is when you are approaching a runway with LVPs in force, but during a practise approach to a Cat 1 facility...no! There are no protections in force and the aircraft's behaviour can be unpredictable. The 767 in this thread sounds exactly like an autoland without protections. Sometimes its perfect and othertimes its not. Be aware that this is possible and pre-brief your response.

ITCZ you have an interesting understanding of climb gradients etc. I dont have a Jepp plate of SYD 27 to look at but clearing the upwind threshold by 35' and climbing at 3.3% on a go around guarantees you absolutely nothing. The approach climb gradients on the go around are worked from the MAP. Now if you flew the SID....that might be different.

SMOC I hope you don't fly an Airbus.

[mr hanky]

Ding

Before you start betting that it wasn't an autoland - have you experienced many 767 autolands?

Some aircraft can be relied upon to produce beautiful autolands with robotic precision just about every time. The 767 isn't one of them. Most of the time it's adequate. Sometimes it isn't.

[gaunty]

VH-Cheer Up :ok:

Maybe QF can help. :p

Seriously though, :uhoh: unlike TO in which the energy state arrow is only going, hopefully, in one direction, the problem with landings, is in which direction the total energy state was trending when you finally closed the taps.
That is was/were the airframe/engines accelerating or decelerating at the time, apart from the sheer inertia of the airframe, there is that of the big fans as well. :eek:

It's like dancing, business, sex etc, all in the timing.:D :E