SIA 777 off the rwy at EDDM

[hetfield]

However LH by far the biggest users of the airport are enthusiastic de-icers even when it appears relatively warm. Indeed....... especially when one of the Lufties starts with that nonsense. All other will follow.

[alph2z]

Stabilized Video of Landing

STABILIZED-video Missed Landing Singapore Airlines BOEING 777 Munich - YouTube
.

[misd-agin]

hard to tell for certain but it looks like the spoilers were not extended.

[alph2z]

In the video we can see a direct hit to the engine by dirt thrown up by the digging in of the nose gear. :sad:

Also, later, as the MLG goes back onto the runway, we can see gray smoke probably from the MLG as it "slides" sideways. (see photo also)

I'm impressed with the MLG and the tires :D

[lomapaseo]

In the video we can see a direct hit to the engine by dirt thrown up by the digging in of the nose gear

Not necessarily.

If the engines were damaged it could be from dirt thrown up with the reversers deployed.

The nose gear wake is designed to keep puddled water out of the engines and methinks that also applies to dirt

[CDRW]

Lomapaseo - a few points.

The reversers where never deployed.

I agree with you about the nose wheel wake being kept out of the engines - BUT - that is under normal operations. When one is on the gravel doing a 12 wheel drift in the 777, the chances of debris being ingested by the engines, caused by the nosewheel is very much higher!

[alph2z]

When the nose gear fell fast and dug into the grass, the nose gear was right of the right-MLG's longitudinal axis, thus the plane's nose whipped to the right and eventually back onto the runway with the rear of the plane whipping around the nose; thus the very curved marks in the grass.

From the MLG tire marks as it went back onto the runway I estimate that the plane's tires were moving/sliding 25 degrees off the plane's longitudinal axis !

I'd love to hear what the passengers had to say about the ride.

[M.Mouse]

The Aviation Herald synopsis of the German report makes interesting reading.

Found here. (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=445873f3/0000&opt=0)

[hetfield]

When the Boeing 777-300 descended through 30 feet AGL, the aircraft began to roll left,

I don't understand. If the aircraft, for whatever reason, isn't where I want it in 30 ft AGL..... TOGA!

No matter windshear, ****** up automatics, gusts, whatever...

[Rory Dixon]

The original status report (in German) you find here (http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_030/nn_223968/DE/Publikationen/Bulletins/2011/Bulletin2011-11,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Bulletin2011-11.pdf) on page 24 - 37.

[safelife]

They basically say that an Avro aircraft went airborne before that landing, but had not yet overflown the localizer antenna by the time the B777 touched down.
The seconds the Avro approached the antenna are the moment the B777 veered of track and eventually left the runway.
A go around was attempted, but "TOGA had no effect" (already on ground), the autopilot (roll out) was disconnected about the time the plane hit the grass.

[lederhosen]

My airline still requires us to carry out practice autolands. Yes I know a lot of other companies have stopped this including Denti's mob. But I can report from years of trying it in Munich, that it is a hopeless place to practice as the autopilot more often than not trips out on the 737 when the runway is unprotected.

Combine this with very professional but at times sporty sequencing from the tower and I am not at all surprised by the interference with the signal. Interestingly the report says that the 777's autopilot remained engaged, but steered off to the left. Another question is why the go-around did not happen as the captain says he intended. It is in any case a cautionary tale about autolanding without protection.

[bavarian-buddy]

From the report:
"Als sich aber abzeichnete, dass das Wetter in München unter den festgelegten Bedingungen lag, bei denen der Copilot die Landung durchführen durfte, übernahm der Kapitän die Aufgabe des Pilot Flying und der Copilot agierte als Pilot Monitoring (PM)"

"But when it became clear that weather in Munich was below the conditions, where the co-pilot was allowed to perform the landing, the captain took over the job of the pilot flying and the co-pilot was acting as pilot monitoring (PM)"

The FO had almost 3700 hours on type
EDDM 031120Z 07010KT 2200 BR OVC003 05/05 Q1010 BECMG 3000 OVC005
EDDM 031050Z 10008KT 2000 BR FEW002 OVC003 04/04 Q1011 BECMG 3000 OVC005
And THIS is the best CAT I weather you can get. Do I have to understand this policy? It's not about flying anymore. It's about sitting around, drinking coffee and enjoying the nice sunset... :}

[ETOPS]

Another question is why the go-around did not happen as the captain says he intended.

Easy to answer - "Automatic go-around cannot be initiated after touchdown"

That's a quote direct from the 777 Flying manual.

[parabellum]

But when it became clear that weather in Munich was below the conditions, where the co-pilot was allowed to perform the landing, the captain took over the job of the pilot flying and the co-pilot was acting as pilot monitoring (PM)"


and

Do I have to understand this policy? It's not about flying anymore. It's about sitting around, drinking coffee and enjoying the nice sunset... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif


Possibly something missing here in the translation. FOs may land the aircraft in Cat I conditions. The Ops Manual used to say, (and probably still does), that in visibility of 2000m or less an autoland is recommended.
If company policy on the B777 doesn't allow FOs to carry out practice autolands in Cat I conditions then maybe the captain was using this one to maintain his currency. All a bit irrelevant now!

[M.Mouse]

I am sure they were conforming to the rules but the event was initially down to carrying out an autoland without the protection of LVPs.

I would imagine it all happened very quickly judging by the fact an immediate go-around wasn't flown either automatically or manually after touchdown.

There are several learning points from the incident.

It is easy to criticise but the speed with which events occur can easily catch out all but the most prepared and vigilant, especially after a long and tiring flight.

I recall during my command training when on an approach into LHR my training captain drew my attention to the fact that we had a very light tail wind from around the half past four position and explained that from experience he had once found that a similar wind had blown the preceding aircraft's wake vortex over the threshold resulting in a violent roll just before the flare! I never forgot that and have once experienced the same since.

My point being that despite briefing and mentally preparing myself the onset and speed of the roll was dramatic and I was lucky not to have an embarrassing incident.

[GlueBall]

The BFU bulletin also mentions that during the initial runway excursion, the captain had applied 23lbs pressure on right rudder pedal and the copilot had simultaneously applied 41 lbs pressure on the right rudder pedal.

This may have contributed to an initial control overcompensation, enhanced at high speed [with no reverse, no spoilers]. :ooh:

[Dropp the Pilot]

'"Easy to answer - "Automatic go-around cannot be initiated after touchdown"'

It's actually a little more interesting than that. Go-around can't be done through the AFDS from just before touchdown until the airplane is once again airborne. The interesting part is getting airborne again: how is your average johnny going to do that precisely?

[Jet Jockey A4]

If this crew had been flying an Airbus it would have been a non-event. :eek:

Sorry I could not resist seeing all the Airbus bashing there is on PPrune.:}

[Patty747400]

Parabellum

Unfortunately the term "recommended" is not used. It says an autoland "should" be accomplished in this "severe" weather.
A completely stupid SOP that created this incident. Let's hope they get rid of it now.

[parabellum]

Thanks Patty747. The word 'should' implies a bit more pressure than 'recommended'! I agree an unecessary SOP, 2000meters is not 'severe' weather!

[lederhosen]

The german report suggests there was no clear call for a go-around just the captain calling for flaps 20 and what sounded like the toga switches clicking and the speed brake handle being lowered. Both pilots seem to have been fully focussed on trying to kick the aircraft straight and from then on they seem to have been along for the ride. It is interesting to note in how short a distance the aircraft then came to a stop.

I remember a very early morning approach into Munich a couple of years ago when the weather was just within CAT 1 limits. I briefed for an autoland with the proviso that I would land manually if conditions allowed. Sure enough the fog rolled in. I had already informed the tower of our intentions and we completed a successful auto land. The A330 behind went around and was on stand next to us twenty minutes or so later.

[nitpicker330]

Dropp the Pilot----Sorry I haven't read all the thread but.......

Go Arounds shouldn't be attempted once Reverse is selected. ( all Airline crew know this )

However, If the A/C is on the ground before reverse is selected then an "Rejected landing" may be conducted safely.

1/ Apply thrust ( t/o Config warning will sound )
2/ At VRef/VApp AND thrust set Rotate
3/ Once airborne Push Toga ( Boeing )
4/ Then continue with a "normal" go around proceedures and calls.

Both for Boeing and Airbus.

Easy peezy

Most Airlines now train this very manoeuvre, at least mine does. :ok:

[CDRW]

I fear that the PF tried to initiate the GA by simply pressing the TOGA switches and doing nothing else. As nitpicker comments certain things have to happen.
1. Power must come up. If it doesn't then you push those sticks up (Boeing) towards the panel.
2. The nose must rotate up - be it 5, 7, 10 degrees its got to go up. If it doesn't then make it do so, by taking out the autopilot.

But then all this would be moot if, at the onset of center line deviation the autopilot was disconnect and manual control was taken.

[Dani]

with more and more information being handed over to the interested public, I see my initial suspicion confirmed: SIA, like many airlines from the warm weather league, does not really have a practical concept on LVP and autoland.

- LVP is when it is in force. It's the airport that decides, not the captain.

- LVP required (mostly) autoland.

- Autoland has nothing to do with visibility. It's an automatic landing. You can do it in any weather.

- Practise autoland should be done in good weather conditions. That's how you keep up your currency.

- Autoland should only be done when LVP is in force, when protected zones are granted OR when it's good weather (so you can see that something goes wrong, i.e. you have an aircraft in your protected zone).

I see here a complete mess-up of procedures, rules and principles. All in all I'm not surprised this has happened.

[nitpicker330]

Dani:- Autoland has nothing to do with Visibility? Not sure what you mean by that statement? Yes the Aircraft can't see but the Commander sure has to see something in basically all LVP proceedures. ( excluding Cat 3B with no decision ht ) So Visibility does matter........not to mention there is also a crosswind limit for the Airbus Autoland which is considerably lower than the normal crosswind limit.

Practice Autoland does not have to be done in VMC, currency is kept every 6 months in the SIMULATOR during your Sim cycles as per your Countries regulatory agency.

There is nothing to stop Autolands in marginal weather or if the crew feel tired ( for eg ) Just be aware the protected areas are not protected!! Indeed some Airlines recommend Autoland be used even in conditions which technically don't require it.

[Capn Bloggs]

Just be aware the protected areas are not protected!!
That is Dani's point. If LVPs are not in place, watch out.

[nitpicker330]

Yes I see that but it's the "Autoland has nothing to do with visibility......you can do it in any Weather" comment that I'm not sure about!! There are further limits with crosswind that certainly do effect Autoland capability.

[de facto]

1/ Apply thrust ( t/o Config warning will sound )
2/ At VRef AND thrust set Rotate
3/ Once airborne Push Toga ( Boeing )
4/ Then continue with a "normal" go around proceedures.

I believe after all wheels on ground,(thrust reversers not deployed), a touch/go maneuver is necessary and not a balked landing which for BOEING is:

1)
Thrust levers mid position,retract speed brakes,retract flaps to 15 while trimming nose around 5 units(737ng).
2)thrust stabilized,apply GA thrust and rotate using white bug.

While a balked landing in the flare area(<50ft) would require to maintain landing pitch while applying GA thrust,when VREF,retract flaps 15 and increase gently pitch to maintain your white bug,about 15 deg.

Autoland practice without prior ATC approval is plain stupid for the reasons mentionned by Dani.

[nitpicker330]

Sorry the term is "Rejected Landing" I've edited my previous.:ok:

Its an approved and trained Boeing/Airbus proceedure.

Changing the Flaps and Trim is only done during a "planned" Touch and Go with appropriate Training/Check Captains along.

This "Rejected Landing" technique is kept relatively simple so that the un- prepared crew can complete it safely without needing to reset Flaps/Trim.
KISS method!!

And more importantly you need a lot less Runway and time to get airborne again. ( not waiting for flaps and trim to run )

[nitpicker330]

After due consideration by the Captain Autolands done in VMC without bothering to advise ATC are most certainly not stupid.:D

You do keep your finger close to or indeed on the A/P disconnect button don't you!!

[de facto]

Sorry the term is "Rejected Landing" I've edited my previous.

Its an approved and trained Boeing/Airbus proceedure.

Changing the Flaps and Trim is only done during a planned Touch and Go.


A rejected landing due to bounce or float is a go around maneuver which includes retraction of Flaps to 15 at a speed not less than Vref flaps 30.

A rejected stop....also called rejected landing, when ALL (not only MaIN) gears are on the ground, a touch and go maneuver should Be used unless thrust was deployed,in which case,well hope for the best.

[nitpicker330]

Nope, wrong.

If you bounce and decide to go around its just that, a "go around"

If you have landed already and before reverse decide to reject the landing then it's called a "Rejected Landing"

Flaps/Trim are not touched. They don't need to be for goodness sake mate, the whole idea is to get the Aircraft airborne again ASAP.

Save the Flaps/Trim changes for planned trained briefed Touch and Go manoeuvres.

I suggest you look up your FCTM. It's all in there bud :ok:

In fact here it is for your reading pleasure:--

REJECTED LANDING

A rejected landing is defined as a go-around manoeuvre initiated after touchdown of the main landing gear.

Once the decision is made to reject the landing, commit to the go-around manoeuvre and do not be tempted to retard the thrust levers in a late decision to execute a landing.

Apply TOGA thrust. Ground spoilers will auto-retract and autobrake will disarm as a consequence. A CONFIG warning will be generated when the aircraft is still on the runway, with thrust applied and the flaps at FULL. Disregard this warning. If the AP was engaged, it will disconnect. If on the ground, continue de-rotation. Rotate only when the PM has confirmed the thrust is set and the speed is above VAPP . When clear of the ground, with a positive ROC, select Flaps 3 if approach was made with Flaps FULL. The landing gear should be retracted when a positive ROC has been established with no risk of further touchdown. Thereafter, proceed as for a standard go-around.

If reverse thrust has been applied, a full stop landing is mandatory.

[Dani]

NP330, you can do autoland in any weather (limitations observed of course), but you cannot do a LVP in any weather. LVP autoland is autoland with very low minimas. Practise autoland require high minimas, if you have not all installations in place (no redundancy on airport installations, sensitive zone not protected). You cannot just come and say "let's make an autoland" just because the visibility is 2000m. Autolands are reasonable if LVP in force (<550m visibility) and in good weather (say a few 1000m). The "marginal" weather case is exactly the weather you should NEVER make an autoland!!! SIA's Op philiosophy goes exactly the other way around.

[de facto]

After due consideration by the Captain Autolands done in VMC without bothering to advise ATC are most certainly not stupid.

You do keep your finger close to or indeed on the A/P disconnect button don't you!!

Yes i do keep my fingers where they should be.thanks.:hmm:
Advising ATC for one would allow them to know your intensions so they can advise traffic to hold at the cat2 hold line rather than cat 1.
For two,performing an auto land implies than you will Be fully configured hence slower much earlier therefore letting ATC know is good practice.

Technicallywise,increasing the possibility of my aircraft veering off the side at low level including in the flare in a nose up trim,because some aircraft is at the cat 1 position is a risk that i find highly unnecessary.
In that case a GA should be performed,INCLUDING retraction of FLAPS.

Advising ATC for

[Denti]

For two,performing an auto land implies than you will Be fully configured hence slower much earlier therefore letting ATC know is good practice.

It does? News to me. We fly the autoland profile exactly as any normal ILS approach, there is no difference in regards to configuration. Might be different on the big Boeing, but i somehow doubt it.

[nitpicker330]

Well I can tell you that quite a lot of highly respected safe International Carriers in addition to SQ don't "require" their crew to advise ATC when Autolands in NON LVP conditions are done. They only advise that particular care be taken as protected areas are not protected and that be ready to take over manually.

Thousands of safe Autolands are conducted each year all over the Globe in such conditions. :ok:

[de facto]

Ok DAni,
My Sops stated that full config 3nm before glide in auto land.
During normal ops fully config by 1000ft.

To the other,
Flaps on a 737 to be retracted!!! Minimum speed Vref,also for a rejected landing.
Thrust,pitch maintain,vref then flaps 15,pitch increase.
Please post your info here if otherwise.
Thanks

[Dani]

NP330, so your airline does also not state a minimum for autoland practise approach? Then I shall count you also as a member of the warm weather ligue ;)

[nitpicker330]

Just looked at a 737 FCTM and here it is:--

Go-Around after Touchdown

If a go-around is initiated before touchdown and touchdown occurs, continue with normal go-around procedures. The F/D go-around mode will continue to provide go-around guidance commands throughout the maneuver.

If a go-around is initiated after touchdown but before thrust reverser selection, auto speedbrakes retract and autobrakes disarm as thrust levers are advanced. The F/D go-around mode will not be available until go-around is selected after becoming airborne.

Once reverse thrust is initiated following touchdown, a full stop landing must be made. If an engine stays in reverse, safe flight is not possible.

There is a difference, this 737 FCTM doesn't get specific but I know the 777 FCTM my company has does get specific the same as the Airbus FCTM.

[nitpicker330]

I'll keep that in mind next time I'm landing in -20c in ANC or YYZ or ORD :ok:

[safetypee]

Perhaps the industry should reflect on why some operators believe that it is necessary to fly ‘practice’ autolands. With modern, high reliability systems it should not be necessary to prove technical integrity.
Normal procedures are best learnt in simulation, normal (without failure) operations are routine which should only require minimal refreshing. The critical procedures involving reconfiguration, go around, or lack of visual cues, all involve assessment and decision making (and the use of normal procedures); these must be taught and practiced in simulation.

Any automatic landing must be aware of the need for protection. In real conditions large safety margins are applied with Cat 2/3/ holding zones (LVP), approach and takeoff spacing, dual transmitters, etc. However, in clear conditions, any effect of potential interference has to be anticipated and mitigated by the crew. Some aircraft / situations are easier to manage than others. Thus the risk in managing these vs the risk of a manual landing after a long flight or similar judgment has to be considered.
When there are incidents / accidents it probably indicates a mismatch in the risks. A key safety issue is to identify where the risks may have changed or which were mismanaged. Whatever is concluded, knowledge of the subject and the risks is always required, and this is a function of education – operator, airport, individual.

[de facto]

True the 737 fctm isnt specific,a bounced landing recovery should be dealt using a standard go around procedure and a rejected landing in the same way.
Boeing is not as precise and informative as airbus in many areas...including perf issues but you may understand that applying ga thrust while maintaining pitch until VREF is to cover the chance of losing control if the engine fails in the process.
Obviously boeing believes that full thrust and vref,retraction of flaps is ok,the only perf issue would be the landing gear up after rate of climb,in case you do a secondary touch(pilot handling more than perf issue i think).
Airbus or your company fctm may think otherwise which is ok.
My european licence issuer advised airlines via an AC to retract flaps once vref is obtained during a rejected landing.No mention when clear of ground.
There is material about low energy go around which covers this case.

[Denti]

My Sops stated that full config 3nm before glide in auto land.
During normal ops fully config by 1000ft

Ah, now i see where your comment came from. Very non-boeing procedure, but if it is your SOP you have to follow that of course.

Anyway, we do not know any "practice Autoland" limitations or rules. An autoland can be done anytime conditions are within the autoland capability of the plane, if the minima are above CAT I and better both pilots may do an autoland at their discretion but care must be taken to take over manually very fast where LVPs are not in force, with weather below CAT I only the captain may do a landing. We used to do that in MUC quite often, if advised early enough ATC was usually able to protect the CAT II/II safety zones, if not they told us so. In that case rapid localizer deviations were normal and it was usually better to do a manual landing.

Since simulator training focuses on real CAT IIIb conditions in which only the captain may do an autoland the only chance at practicing an autoland for any FO in my outfit is during CAT I or better conditions during normal line operations. It is however extremely rare that one chooses to do so, but it is perfectly possible and even encouraged by our flight OPs department to do so from time to time.

[Dani]

but care must be taken to take over manually very fast where LVPs are not in force

This is the key statement.

The actual case showed that it might be very difficult to react on such deviations in "poor" weather (slightly above Cat I). They didn't have enough visual cues to determine that they where off the center line until it was too late. Otherwise they surely would have disconnected.

A minimum weather for practise approach is a no brainer in my opinion. If you don't agree, walk along the skidmarks in MUC...

[safetypee]

Dani, your concluding assumptions may be hard to substantiate (#294).
A PF in Cat 3A should have sufficient cues to assess aircraft position, flight path, and deviation from the norm – it’s the point have having visual requirements. Thus it is difficult to understand how Cat 1 or better results insufficient cues.
However, it is possible that the cues available were either not used, or not understood. Alternatively if the situation was known then the action was delayed or incorrect; the latter could be affected by alertness etc.
Thus, a decision to use autoland after a long flight, or when landing in lower than normal visibility, relies on good alertness. Perhaps as much as for manual flight?
IMHO, this incident has contributing factors originating much earlier;- in management, SOP advice on vis limits, not requiring declaration of A/L intent, and crew, an awareness of preceding traffic and the hazard/risks involved.

[Dani]

A PF in Cat 3A should have sufficient cues to assess aircraft position, flight path, and deviation from the norm – it’s the point have having visual requirements. Thus it is difficult to understand how Cat 1 or better results insufficient cues.

It might be counterintuitive to you that practise autoland above Cat I WX requires quicker reactions than Cat III autoland, but this is exactly the case, and the actual case shows us the reason why: In practise landings you have no protected zones, thus the deviation is much faster and heavier.

Of course you also need cues in a Cat III approach and must be able to disconnect or abandon the approach, but there are many more redundand systems in place to avoid such deviations. I agre that a deviation like in MUC might be possible (if for example someone violates the sensitive zone), but in real Cat III WX you can't do anything about it, you are more or less doomed or can hope you get away with it. Chances are relatively low though that something like this happens. TWR should get a warning if someone violates the sensitive zone.

So, to reiterate, yes, I strongly suggest that everyone should have relatively good WX - several 1000m visibility for a practise autoland. Autoland to relief a tired pilot is surely not intended by the inventor.

[lederhosen]

The german report specifically refers to an avroliner that took off just before the 777 and was a few hundred feet over the localiser antenna around the time all this happened. Obviously nobody yet knows for sure what happened. But this incident has raised some interesting points.

[FullWings]

Safetypee,
Perhaps the industry should reflect on why some operators believe that it is necessary to fly ‘practice’ autolands. With modern, high reliability systems it should not be necessary to prove technical integrity.

Normal procedures are best learnt in simulation, normal (without failure) operations are routine which should only require minimal refreshing. The critical procedures involving reconfiguration, go around, or lack of visual cues, all involve assessment and decision making (and the use of normal procedures); these must be taught and practiced in simulation.
I mostly agree, technically, but out in the real world I like to know exactly how the aircraft actually performs and it's not quite like the digital simulation you get indoors.

It's good to get a 'feel' for how the aeroplane flies the last 100' so you can get a heads-up when it's having a bad day and not be totally surprised when you have to take over.

I've done 'practice' i.e. no LVPs autolands when approaching directly into-sun late in the day on wet runways - I think the A/P has a better chance of a getting it right than I do after a 12hr flight.

Also, CATII, III training is but a small part of the syllabus and there is only a limited amount of time to practice normal operation. We get one landing a year in the sim. Not really enough to be familiar...

[White Knight]

So, to reiterate, yes, I strongly suggest that everyone should have relatively good WX - several 1000m visibility for a practise autoland. Autoland to relief a tired pilot is surely not intended by the inventor

Absolutely right Dani!!!!!!! I think some of these muppets posting here have no concept of how and why we pros use AUTOLAND:=:=:=

[parabellum]

Perhaps the industry should reflect on why some operators believe that it is necessary to fly ‘practice’ autolands. With modern, high reliability systems it should not be necessary to prove technical integrity.




But it is! For a proper LVP Cat II/III autoland to be carried out there are three requirements:

1. The runway in use must be equipped Cat II/III and LVP in force.

2. The crew must both be current Cat II/III

3. The aircraft must be cleared and current Cat II/III, a satisfactory autoland having been carried out within a previous subscribed period, possibly 28 days, operators will vary, (also, if an aircraft has been 'snagged' and lost it's Cat II/III capability, when rectified, a practice autoland must be executed before Cat II/III capability is restored).


I think some of these muppets posting here


Bit strong White Knight! Having a bad day/beer?:)

[nitpicker330]

Morons.

I've been a "pro" for nearly 30 years flying in the real world.

I've never done an Autoland for "practice" that's what the Sim is for. Any I've done are for a good reason, weather related or not for weather.

Boeing and Airbus spent zillions perfecting their fantastic reliable Autoland systems and I for one intend to make good use of it whenever I feel safety is improved for whatever reason.

My company agrees and has done it this way since Autoland was first brought in over 30 years ago AND HAS NEVER HAD AN INCIDENT DOING ONE. All runways we Autoland on must be approved for it, some like WMKK are not.

Like the poster above said, the Captain must always be in a position to assume control if the autopilot runs away!!

[BOAC]

practise autoland above Cat I WX requires quicker reactions than Cat III autoland, but this is exactly the case, and the actual case shows us the reason why: In practise landings you have no protected zones, thus the deviation is much faster and heavier. - a bit of a disjoint in your thinking there? Since all the 'excitement' of which you speak will be in the last 100 feet or so, why the need for '1000s' of mtrs vis? Surely we are all 'prepared' for that unexpected A/P quirk during a real Cat III, so what is the difference?

I am also surprised at the lack of autolands carried out by some operators here in Cat I or better. I must have done 10 or 15 in my career to clear Cat III tech log restrictions. How do the airlines involved do this?

[Baywatcher]

The Muppets were the SQ ones who weren't on the ball!

[Marktabs]

I have come to this topic late, and I haven't waded through all the posts above, but I thought I'd put some of the latter comments into perspective.

I actually landed on the parallel runway minutes after the incident. Trust me, the weather was nowhere near as good as the weather mentioned above. We were flying an Airbus A320 and briefed to carry out an autoland due to the weather. On the radio, we heard the tower hassling aircraft to move up to the CAT I holding point. On very short finals the aircraft began to veer off the ILS centreline - ILS scales flashing, etc; we were - just - visual and the autopilot was disengaged and the aircraft landed manually. Sure enough, an aircraft was seen to be taxying on to the runway as we passed the threshold.

When on the ground I heard about what had happened to the SIA 777, I had my suspicions immediately that it was an autoland gone wrong due to lack of ILS protection.

FWIW!

[Capn Bloggs]

- a bit of a disjoint in your thinking there? Since all the 'excitement' of which you speak will be in the last 100 feet or so, why the need for '1000s' of mtrs vis? Surely we are all 'prepared' for that unexpected A/P quirk during a real Cat III, so what is the difference?
Surely a SIA manoeuvre wouldn't be 'expected' during a real CAT 3? I hope you are very 'prepared'...

I think Dani wanted good vis so he could see if any aeroplane was in the protected area...like 146s.

[lederhosen]

Amazing how ppruners can work themselves up into a frenzy about very little (muppets/morons etc.). Nobody is arguing that one size fits all. For instance if you only do a couple of landings a month and in places like Australia then mandating everyone who is auto land qualified must do practice auto lands in the aircraft is hard to justify.

However if you operate short haul in northern europe it is no big deal. If your OM requires it then you do it. That the sim is the only place to practice might also be used as an argument against raw data flying. Most of us would disagree. I think it is self evident that if you only do auto lands in the sim (in the worst case three approaches twice a year) to be legal, then you are going to be much less familiar and when things go wrong as in this case arguably less able to cope.

Lets share information that makes us all better pilots and try and cut down on the judgmental point scoring stuff (says he being judgmental but hopefully polite).

[BOAC]

Surely a SIA manoeuvre wouldn't be 'expected' during a real CAT 3? I hope you are very 'prepared'...

Yes, I would be, but never experienced it apart from in the sim. There is no absolute guarantee (unless YOU have one) that the system will perform flawlessly.

I think Dani wanted good vis so he could see if any aeroplane was in the protected area...like 146s. a) I would 'assume' potential problems with no LVP protection
b) I would probably have picked up the take-off clearance of the preceding and quite probably have seen it during its departure
c) I would have 'noted' the presence of a/c at the Cat I hold.

Is this not just standard airmanship?

[Waspy]

In my current company, very few autolands per pilot are performed as the company policy is to perform autoland only if the airport has applied LVPs. Some guys even don't want to perform autoland if the vis is still aceptable for CAT I but LVPs are on ??? Example in CDG you are very likely to see LVPs on with an RVR of 2000m.
This has a consequence: very few pilots go over 10 autolands per year, which to my taste is not enough. I feel it in the sim and in the real world too, when I have to perform CATIII.
In my previous companies, autoland was perfomed for practice about 1/2 times a week, at pilot discretion, unless NOTAM prohibited those. I felt then a lot sharper in detecting anomalies and deviations of the system. In other words, ready to take over.

Question: I could never find a JAR document legislating on the matter. Why are some companies encouraging practice CATIII and others telling you it is prohibited (which I doubt very much) ? Is it a company responsability or a CAA decision country by country ?

[BOAC]

Too big a question, Waspy! I could never find any regs that required an Autoland in Cat II either but several companies have that restriction, even when it is cloudbase related with good vis, which often prevented an approach in a strong crosswind and required a diversion. I can fully understand the logic when there is fog around, of course, but then unless you fly at '40kts of fog' RAF Brawdy.......................

[By George]

SQ have a requirement of 8 auto-lands within 12 months and the aircraft requires one every 28 days. Each Sim (every six months) gives out 4 auto-lands and any real Cat111 is a bonus. I averaged one real one a year, although when the fleet had ZRH it wasn't hard to pick up a couple extra there in winter.
The real lesson from this incident, is to tell or ask ATC if a coupled approach is required when LVP is not in force and get protected.
I find it distasteful to call the crew names. They got caught out very late in the flare. Should have disconnected etc but we were not there. There is a culture to lean on the automatics in some outfits, maybe this will change things.

[bekolblockage]

tell or ask ATC if a coupled approach is required when LVP is not in force and get protected.


I can tell you now, in Cat I or better conditions, we are not going to do anything special to protect you. You know the limitations and the mitigating SOPs, so you need to deal with it.

Providing 6 miles spacing between arrivals and holding departures back at the Cat 2/3 holding point is just not feasible unless you want to explain to the company and airport operator why the runway movement rate dropped by 30%.

[Centaurus]

There is a culture to lean on the automatics in some outfits, maybe this will change things.

I doubt it. t doesn't matter what incidents or accidents occur, automation dependency is here to stay.

[Gretchenfrage]

Most companies boast in their OMA the aspiration of best use of equipment.

Some go as far is prohibit NPA and are extremely repressive concerning visuals, as long as an ILS is available.

Funnily enough it's often the same companies who do and actively demand these practice autolands.

An autoland on a non-LVO enabled runway/ILS is not best use of equipment.

To practice autoland, or testcycle on board equipment in conjunction with ground equipment that is not certified or suited to do so, is oblivious.

Thus practice auto land for CatIII on CatI ILS is futile because it does not prove zilch.

It simply should not be done because it's useless and not very intelligent, quod erat demonstrandum.

[SpaceNeedle]

Had some extra time on a T-7 sim after a fairly straight forward LOFT session with 2 guys who did really well ( eventhough it's still January they might already had tips about the LOFT scenarios! ). Decided to use the extra time for " SPOT " exercise. Gave them a simple Cat 3 B approach ( with Cat 2 visibility minimums programmed ) with a loss of ND on PM ( first officer's )side; the crew was sharp, continued approach with ND selected on lower MFD.

As our sim had no facility to simulate a scalloping localizer, I programmed in a low level gust of crosswind at 50' AGL. After flare engaged, the aircraft ( sim ) drifted off the centerline, the two very sharp guys were suddenly caught out. I guessed there must have been a lag in the crosswind gust kicking in as the touchdown occurred outside the runway! The PM attempted a balked landing but like the SQ crew, he commanded the normal go around procedures, i.e TOGA, Flaps 20, etc. He did push the thrust levers up, but a quick disconnect of the autopilot and a hasty pitch up caused a tail strike as he flew away.

They came back for an uneventful Cat 1 landing after all the checklist for the tailstrike was accomplished ( they did this admirably ). At the debrief I showed them that during the Cat 3 balked landing, they had taken out some HIRLs and the transmissometers.

They looked utterly chastitized; I then explained to them that I was simulating the SQ B777-300ER incident at EDDM. They then understood how that in a short few seconds things could really go pear shape despite how good one thought one could be. The captain confessed to being quite judgemental about the SQ crew's performance until this exercise!

In my years of conducting sim training and checks, I have seen many many amazing incidences where crews got caught out and I have also had an amazing number of times where crews managed to pull off admirable performances. Many a times, poor management of the automatics led to things going awry, especially when one was too fixated on a task at hand.

[Centaurus]

It is all nice and well, you can always create a scenarion which is unrealistic and catch a crew out


Dead right. The other day I lined the 737 crew up (simulator) and cleared them for a visual take off, circuit and landing without the FD or autothrottle. To my astonishment the captain said he had never done circuits and landings in the simulator.. It had always been radar vectors for an eventual ILS. He had some real problems with manual flying without the goodies to help him. Same with the F/O....

I suppose you could call a circuit and landing "unrealistic" in today's world of automation? :sad:

[BOAC]

studi - what procedure does your airline use to clear a/c back to CatIII status after downgrading? It would appear you have another way than flying an autoland in CatI or above - this would, I'm sure, be of interest to many operators.

[BOAC]

I'm surprised you don't know. If the a/c has a tech log entry 'Cat I only' does your airline just carry on with that or do they carry out a 'practice autoland' to clear the entry? As I said, in my time I must have done 14-15 of these to clear the entries but you have never heard of it? Can you ask someone who does know?

I'm not convinced you understand the procedure in question? This has nothing to do with crew 'practice' or 'number of a/lands in 6 months' etc.

[Dani]

When on the ground I heard about what had happened to the SIA 777, I had my suspicions immediately that it was an autoland gone wrong due to lack of ILS protection.

Thanks, Marktabs for your insights, which are completly congruent with my expectations and experiences. MUC is very famous for its "jumping" localisers as well as its inhomogenious fog conditions. Locals or people flying regularly to MUC can completly understand that your localizer will do strange things because seperation provided by local ATC is not such that you are protected - unless in real LVO.

So as a far flown captain from the "warm weather league" you might want to build in some extra margins if you are not completly familiar with the local conditions.

Marktabs, just also for info for you: You are not legally protected if you brief a LVP autoland on a non LVO-in-force airport. Remember that you have to stay on Cat I minima, if you cannot make it, you have to go around. Soon after that, ATC will send some fliers in the holding and issue LVO in force. After that, everyone can do Cat III autoland to their likings. But NOT BEFORE! You might also try your luck by negotiating with ATC before your go around but be reminded that German ATC does have its own way (like they do it in UK, France, Switzerland, Australia...).

[de facto]

My previous company asked crews coming early september to practice cat3 approaches.
We had a form to fill in including weight,speed,wind condition,airport,runway,and touch down location and to write whether the autoland was done successfully or not.
When the mid september fog started to roll in,our aircraft did the required amount of autolands and could be used when LVP were in force.

[BOAC]

Well, studi - I'm amazed you can get to be a Captain and never have seen an aircraft with a degraded autoland status - certainly an impressive serviceability record you have there. I would suggest next time you have time in the cruise you look back through your tech log and see how autoland defects are handled in your company - assuming, as I say, that you ever have any:confused:

[Denti]

There is another issue there. Before we can use a new runway in our route network for real life LVP approaches we have to fly a certain number of autolands during CAT I conditions or bettter for evaluation. If memory serves right it is about 20 or 30 autolands with each aircraft type, there is a reporting form for each autoland and we do track every autoland through our journey log anyway.

And of course the normal autoland to get the aircraft back to CAT II/III status after maintenance action or degradation of the autoland system. Apart from that as noted above we can do autolands at the PF discretion at any time, however i probably wouldn't try that in MUC as their localizer deviations are know to be pretty violent. Except during non-peak times where one can actually get ATC to keep the protected areas clear.

What marktabs observed above is pretty typical for MUC. There is often a very big difference in visibility between both runway, in my experience the northern runway is usually worse off than the southern one, but there is always the odd exception where it is the other way round.

[Akali Dal]

BOAC...you must also be amazed at the lengths a con pilot go to to push a point!

[BOAC]

Thank you, Denti - I had left this particular need for 'practice autolands' out of my posts lest it further confuse some of our contributors, but as you say, yet another example of why A/L's in Cat I or better 'happen'.

Yes, I go on 'learning', studi, as all aviators should, but what am I learning here?

[BOAC]

(unprotected) practice autolands which are hell of a risk. - I'm sorry, but that is rubbish. Any Captain who knows how to command an aircraft will be able to do this with NO RISK. I just cannot see this phobia that exists.

[max nightstop]

3 dimensional motion at 140 kts involving an impact with the ground ALWAYS carries a risk.

[White Knight]

3 dimensional motion at 140 kts involving an impact with the ground ALWAYS carries a risk.

Very true, but totally missing BOAC's point:D


Quote:
Originally Posted by studi
(unprotected) practice autolands which are hell of a risk.

- I'm sorry, but that is rubbish. Any Captain who knows how to command an aircraft will be able to do this with NO RISK. I just cannot see this phobia that exists.

Here, here... It's called the autopilot disconnect button. We used to have to do 5 autolands between LPCs to keep current - often done in Cat 1 plus conditions without LVPs in force. Neither I nor any of my colleagues went off the runway!!!!!!!

[Clandestino]

MUC is very famous for its "jumping" localisers

It's typical for MUC because of 4000m runway and dense traffic. Any localizer is capable of producing low-level bends as the departing aeroplane overflies it, it's just due to shorter runways and more spacing elsewhere that the traffic departing ahead of you is usually well beyond the LOC antenna as you descend below 200 agl. I've seen bends at FRA and VIE 34, however, they were of no concern to me as I was a) visual with runway at the time b) flying aeroplane with no autoland capability.

Is there something about B777 that makes it particularly difficult to notice it has started veering from the centerline towards the edge and the grass beyond?

[White Knight]

autoland on unprotected runways during normal ops has no justification, as there is nothing to be gained from.

Except of course, training and currency old chap... I've done dozens of autolands in Cat I for training purposes -you know, new F/Os have to see these things.

Besides, as I said in my last post we were REQUIRED to do 5 autolands between LPC/OPC. Have a go at my old Flight Ops if you're unhappy with that. But like I said none of my colleagues ended up in the grass:D:D:D

[White Knight]

What is the gain in safety to justify the risk of going off the runway?


I thought you Germans were better than this!!!!!!!!! have you heard of ze autopilot disconnect button???


Seriously........... I wonder about some of you out there:=:=

[Capn Bloggs]

Our AIP says:

Pilots should inform ATC about any intention to conduct:
a. an approach with minima less than CAT I; or
b. an autoland procedure.

When the cloud ceiling at or above 600FT or the visibility is 2,000M or more, such information must not be taken as a request for or expectation of the protection of the ILS but to enhance the possibility for ATC to inform the flight crew of any known or anticipated disturbance. If necessary, ATC will use the phrase “ILS CRITICAL (and/or SENSITIVE) AREA NOT PROTECTED”.
Protection occurs automatically below 600/2000.

[CDRW]

By far the best post is http://www.pprune.org/members/111800-gretchenfrage

I wonder what the Tech Log entry was at the "end of the flight"

Autoland Unsuccessful or Rollout Mode tended to go a little left???

When in fact, the autopilot did exactly what it should have done.

[CARGOJOCK]

the PIC of the grass cutter was a check airman. many of the check airman at SIA are untouchables and a law unto themselves.

they harass students and new DEC with their BS.

the training at SIA is all about flying numbers. what is for cruise, approach etc. they are robots.

when there is a cross wind whooooo heeee you can see the guys taking a few panic pee's and totally in pensive mood trying to get through the crosswind. it is an experience to be with these fells in the flight deck.

FO are given to land only in CAVOK less than 5 knots of wind. the command upgrade is a minimum of 10 months. all this adds on to the pressure on the individuals.

this incident is the tip of the iceberg..... i hope i am wrong!!!!!!

[parabellum]

Studi - I think your experience of CatII/III operations and autoland practice has a few gaps in it. When doing practice Cat III in the Sim it is common for only the first landing to be without some kind of fault. Executing a safe GA from 20' to 50' feet is common, usually triggered by a major localiser deflection, or, if no lights at 20' (747), GA etc. There is no requirement to 'forecast' a bent localiser but a definite requirement to deal with it safely when very close to the ground.

Your statement:


I stand my point: autoland on unprotected runways during normal ops has no justification, as there is nothing to be gained from.

only serves to emphasise the gaps mentioned above, practice autolands are definitely the 'norm' in just about every other airline except yours, honest!:)

CARGOJOCK - Glad to see you are still as bitter and twisted as ever, with little or no grasp on reality, keep it up!:ugh:

[M609]

As a controller I have seen some iffy attitudes to LVO from crews, that is stating that they want to fly "CAT3 for practice" or some such in marginal CAT1 conditions. Flying them in cavok-ish conditions is one thing, but doing it in marginal CAT1 conditions seems to add more risk than you need to.

Airports are under pressure to stop low viz ops as soon as possible, as CAT1 can often near double the hourly capacity. Thats why LVP gets cancelled as soon as ceiling/viz creeps above CAT1, even by the slimmest of margins.

In such condtitions I have had crews asking for CAT3 at visibility 1000 meters, and after they got the "CAT1 one only, no LVP safeguards in place" stated they would do a "CAT3 for practic".

[BOAC]

M609 - as most crews on here know, doing an autoland on either a CatI approach OR on an 'unapproved' autoland runway for evaluation purposes is by no means unusual nor beyond the abilities of a capabale and trained crew. What IS contrary to procedures is to use the CATIII minima 'for real' as part of the approach in those situations (except, of course, in an emergency). There is, of course, nothing wrong with practising the Autoland.CATIII procedure 'call's' in the cockpit.

The crews you describe in your post should not use the words "CAT3 for practice" as that kind of gives the game away, really.:) There is actually no need for any 'information' to ATC for an autoland UNLESS you are asking for LVP protections for the autoland for any reason (then you'll be popular!).

[CARGOJOCK]

amazing how many of the chaps on this forum are exchanging BS on the bending of the LOC and the protection of the ILS blah blah blah........

hey, the bottom line is these chaps, on the "GRASS CUTTER" just lost it and was slow to react or did they react at all?
apparently not so do not waste your BS arguments on this forum.

this is far deeper than any of you blokes realise.the entire, SIA, LVP training program is to change and already crews, advised to beware of bending when doing autolands.i thought they ought to have known that already!

the senior check airman is already promoted and the entire accident has been omitted from the company safety bulletin.just as i had predicted a total hush hush and cover up.

no hard feelings "the truth hurts"

[lederhosen]

Picking between the usual dross there have been some interesting points made and I have learned a few things from the discussion of this incident.

The first thing is that there are amazing differences in attitude towards auto landing. They seem to range from don't do it unless it is absolutely necessary to it being no big deal.

Whatever various parties would like us to believe autolands in better than low visibility conditions occur frequently. This seems to be the only serious incident. At least nobody has cross referenced to anything similar. Why might this be?

In this case a fail operational aircraft veered off the runway while in rollout mode. As Clandestino agrees an aircraft overflying the localiser antenna could have caused the interference. This appears to have occurred at the precise moment the 777 was transitioning into rollout mode. In this mode the automatic go around function is disabled, which is not something that seems to have been the focus of training (in Singapore airlines at least).

So the holes in the swiss cheese line up. Had the runway been shorter the interference would have occurred at a height where the pilot would in all likelihood have avoided this happening. Had the aircraft been fail passive the autopilot would have dropped out rather than heading for the grass. Had the crew been trained for this eventuality they might have responded more appropriately. All supposition of course, but it has made me think a bit.

[BOAC]

Interesting supposition, Leder - I am not familiar with 'roll-out mode', but what was to stop the crew disconnecting, correcting and if necessary/possible (reversers permitting) aborting the landing?

[lederhosen]

I think it is fairly clear that the captain was trying to abort the landing but using inappropriate actions. The report (in german) says there was no call for a go around instead the captain commanded flaps 20.

There were noises sounding like the speedbrake handle being retracted and Toga trigger clicking. The video also shows the nose raising. Both pilots kicked the rudder hard right which then disconnected the autopilot.

In rollout mode the autothrottle kept idle power and the aircraft rapidly decelerated. As they were now down there was no obvious benefit from taking off again. However I am not sure what stopped them steering back onto the runway.

As others have pointed out the appropriate actions which I am sure will feature in many people's next sim would have involved clicking everything off selecting go around thrust manually and rotating appropriately.

[parabellum]

you still fail to justify why it is worth the risk to do it without protection


Studi - I think you are over emphasising the 'risk' element, crews, (including SIA crews), are trained to cope with last minute changes to the autoland status and are expected to cope with them, this is where correct monitoring is vital, particularly at and after the handover point when the handling pilot goes visual, (20' minima Cat III in a B747, so around 100' the HP should be looking out, NHP looking in). This is a procedure that requires continual practice, not just in the Sim, it is going on all the time and as lederhosen says, there are extremely few reported incidents or accidents.

[CDRW]

BOAC - well asked - the most simplest of questions that, possibly, only one person can answer.

CJ - for all his piss and wind does have a valid point in his last two paragraphs of his latest post!

[Dani]

Question for the 777 guys:

Where is this GA button and how do you initiate the GA? It appears to me that a go around is the simplest thing to do: Kick the throttles to max. At least that's what you do in an Airbus. Seems to me that the so much preferred moving throttes do have some quirks involved. Even if you are on the ground you might have to be able to initiate a go around. It is after starting deceleration devices (brakes, autobrakes, reversers) you should not attempt it anymore.

Thanks for the answer.

[millerscourt]

White Knight

You say none of your colleagues have ended up in the grass as yet. That is as maybe but your colleagues on the A340 at least seem to have an attraction to R/W approach lights as in JNB and MEL instead:sad:

[vested interest]

not a pilot, and can't begin to understand the technicalities of Autoland, but Munich is my home airport, and I can't help wondering (or worrying?) more about the gap between departing and arriving aircraft. From the report, this seems to have been a factor in this incident. Was also intrigued by the description of the Munich tower by a previous poster, on being "professional but sporty" on separation.

I have witnessed it myself, watching approaching aircraft, pretty close to the perimeter, while another is still taking off. Have always thought "these guys obviously know what they're doing". Not so sure now.

[White Knight]

White Knight

You say none of your colleagues have ended up in the grass as yet. That is as maybe but your colleagues on the A340 at least seem to have an attraction to R/W approach lights as in JNB and MEL instead

Not me sunshine (well, not yet at least, ahem....Aren't you glad you've retired:cool:)

Anyway - the discussion is about falling off the tarmac on an unprotected Cat III.................

[parabellum]

I have witnessed it myself, watching approaching aircraft, pretty close to the perimeter, while another is still taking off. Have always thought "these guys obviously know what they're doing". Not so sure now.


vested interest - You can sleep safe tonight and every other night. Viewed from the side it would be hard to distinguish between departures from the RIGHT and LEFT runways as well as arrivals on either, unless you are in between! In which case they are a long way apart, as in Charles De Gaul etc.

In any major airport using parallel runways, the picture can be confusing to the most seasoned professional not involved in ATC at the time. ATC are a highly professional crowd who have no intention of risking your life and their job. If you have any faith in statistics take a look, accidents in which ATC played a significant part very few, pilots planning to be involved in an accident, somewhere between 0 and 0+, a very little.
Enjoy your flights, it is the safest form of transport on Earth!

[Frank321]

When doing Cat II aprch,do I need confirmation wz ATC about LVO procedure in force?Tks.

[JW411]

For sure you do; otherwise you might wake up dead!

Incidentally, I am re-reading a book from my library called "Angel Visits" by Gp Capt Frank Griffths who was very involved with the development of autoland during WWII.

The huge problem then was how to get hundreds of bombers into their home airfields quickly when they came back from Germany damaged and their base was covered in fog.

When the USAAF came to "England" they were appalled by our lousy weather and lots of them considered that this was a bigger problem than flying over Germany.

Sperry invented the ILS system as we know it now. It was brought to UK as the "Signal Corps System 51" in early 1944. The team leader was Lt Col Francis Moseley who had been the development engineer for Sperry. He had an idea that combining an auto pilot with ILS signals could result in automatic landings.

The Americans didn't want to know but we did. So it was that he came to the RRE at RAF Defford which was a happy mixture of aircrew and boffins with great ideas. I quote:

"After he had been at Defford about a week demonstrating in our usual atrocious winter weather how the American ILS system worked he asked if he could wire up his breadboard (a plank of wood with all of the boffin's circuits wired up) to the autopilot and ILS instrument in our Liberator (4-engined bomber) to see whether the autopilot would bring the aircraft down the beam to the runway automatically".

Moseley had made up a coupling circuit on his breadboard in the cellar of his house inOsborne, Ohio with just four wires hanging from it; two to the autopilot and two to the instrument (what we would call a zero reader).

To cut a long story short, it all worked beautifully in the Liberator. The captain tripped the autopilot at the last possible second to complete the landing.

The date was February, 1944.

What exactly have we learned since?

[vested interest]

vested interest - You can sleep safe tonight and every other night. Viewed from the side it would be hard to distinguish between departures from the RIGHT and LEFT runways as well as arrivals on either, unless you are in between! In which case they are a long way apart, as in Charles De Gaul etc.


thanks parabellum, but I'm talking about standing at the perimeter fence at the end of one runway, watching aircraft land and take off on the same runway.

And I'm sure ATC are an extremely professional bunch, was just intrigued by the "sporty" remark on separation.

[slip and turn]

Another late final report - this one from BFU issued seven years after the incident?: https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Investigation%20Report/2011/Report_11_EX010_B777_Munic.pdf

[AviatorDave]

Some posters on airliners.net are reporting that their relatives were aboard the flight to Munich. The common remark being used is that the landing was on the hard side - whatever that may mean. Read for yourselves, I guess.

Kind regards.

I usually don‘t give a hoot about a „hard landing“ assessment by pax. For most of them, every landing that is not greased is a „hard landing“.

[slip and turn]

Aviation Herald perhaps reminds us more succinctly what this one was about: Incident: Singapore B773 at Munich on Nov 3rd 2011, runway excursion (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=445873f3)

[ManaAdaSystem]

Aviation Herald perhaps reminds us more succinctly what this one was about: Incident: Singapore B773 at Munich on Nov 3rd 2011, runway excursion (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=445873f3)

It looks to me like the pilots of this flight were passengers during this landing, and not pilots.
From the very first moment I learned to do autolands, we started to train for upsets at low level. Primary focus, localizer deviations.
This aircraft actually landed on the runway, but they failed to take proper action when it weered off to the left. Stepping on the right rudder is not your first action, disconnecting the autopilot is.
Then they continued off to the left, followed by another runway excursion to the right.
Was the autopilot engaged the whole time?

[punkalouver]

It is a good idea to let ATC know if you plan to do an autoland. The Munich controller stated that he would not have cleared the other aircraft for takeoff if this had been done. Aside from that, always keep you thumb/finger close to the disconnect switch for near immediate removal of the the autopilot, if required.

[wiggy]

This aircraft actually landed on the runway, but they failed to take proper action when it weered off to the left. Stepping on the right rudder is not your first action, disconnecting the autopilot is.
Then they continued off to the left, followed by another runway excursion to the right.
Was the autopilot engaged the whole time?




To find the answer to that you need to look at the full report (the pdf that slip and turn provided a link to, not the avherald précis ) ...it’s all there in it’s ugly details but page 9 reveals that the Autopilot disengaged during the first excursion due to rudder pedal inputs.

[oliver2002]

Chilling similarities to the EK situation in DXB. Also the TOGA button not working after touchdown...