SIA 777 off the rwy at EDDM [Archive]

TopBunk

3rd Nov 2011, 14:03

MUNCHEN - EDDM - MUC
METAR:

EDDM 031350Z 07007KT CAVOK 08/06 Q1010 NOSIG=
EDDM 031320Z 08010KT 9000 FEW007 BKN230 07/05 Q1009 NOSIG=
EDDM 031250Z 08008KT 7000 SCT007 SCT230 07/06 Q1010 NOSIG=
EDDM 031220Z 09008KT 7000 SCT005 SCT230 05/05 Q1010 NOSIG=
EDDM 031150Z 08007KT 4000 BR OVC004 05/05 Q1010 BECMG 5000
SCT005=
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=

On the face of it, the wind is not significant, although a lowish cloudbase and a little bit of mist if noon local (1100Z), but nothing serious. Seems like an odd one.

BOAC

3rd Nov 2011, 14:17

Thank the Lord someone posted a METAR - I was beginning to worry.

Admiral346

3rd Nov 2011, 14:26

I flew in and out of MUC this morning, and it was CAT II for the approach, CAT I when we took off about 50 mins later. Hardly any wind and the surface was close to dry, no frozen patches anywhere. They must have arrived about an hour after we departed.
I wonder what happened...

Nic

Tom the Tenor

3rd Nov 2011, 14:39

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.

FE Hoppy

3rd Nov 2011, 14:54

whoops!

As no one was hurt can we have a good laugh and make fun of the crew please?

dicks-airbus

3rd Nov 2011, 17:45

The 777 was towed off the runway about 45 minutes ago. Rwy expected to have been reopened about 15 minutes ago (18:30).

One poster on another forum looked at the flight tracks. He said it looks like they veered left off the runway, then right and then went off on the grass on the right side. Quite strange...

At the time of landing there was CAT II/III. Fog was lifting at the time.

MilktrayUK

3rd Nov 2011, 19:00

One poster on another forum looked at the flight tracks. He said it looks like they veered left off the runway, then right and then went off on the grass on the right side. Quite strange...That would be the same as reported in the German news on the Mercur article linked above. They report that the aircraft got out of control level with the cargo terminal, went left then back across the runway and 10m into the grass.

FullWings

3rd Nov 2011, 20:35

The PF was trying to steer the aircraft forgetting that the autopilot was still engaged. I wonder whether this could of happened here...
Hmm, I've had that happen but it will try to put you back on the LOC, not the grass (unless you've already vacated and let go of the tiller...).

The photos *are* rather surreal: 200T+ of aircraft sitting on the grass like it was helicoptered in there... Normally, you'd expect the wheels to have disappeared into the ground and see dirty great ploughed tracks leading off the runway. Doesn't seem to be anything like that here; maybe German spec. verges are stronger than they look?

DonLeslie

3rd Nov 2011, 21:00

@ FullWings: as the river Isar is less than 2km to the west, the airport was built on alluvial land. There is some grass for the looks, but underneath it's pretty much all gravel. That does take a lot of weight...

Strange thing all together, though. It will be interesting to read the report.

DL

golfyankeesierra

3rd Nov 2011, 22:33

Anyone knows if LVP were (still) in force?
Automatic rollout around Cat I can be tricky when LOC signals aren't protected (and everybody is doing autolands "to be on the safe side").

dicks-airbus

4th Nov 2011, 06:46

JetPhotos.Net Photo » 9V-SWQ (CN: 34582) Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-312ER by kaese2002 (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7228366&nseq=0) => amazing how the aircraft did not sink in. But we've not had rain here for a few weeks...

The plane was pulled out by two Panther 8x8 fire trucks (!!)

CARGOJOCK

4th Nov 2011, 06:54

it was a matter of time.thankfully no fatalities.here goes another checklist item added on.

SIA mainline has been having some close shaves lately but had been lucky to avert an incident of this nature.
F/O land only in CAVOK less than 5 kts so when they grow up to be captains this training takes 9 months the time taken for a fetus to grow to a baby. no experience is showered on them after their training.

their pilots are brainwashed to fly numbers and not fly the airplane fly like it is in the book (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH SOP) and is surprised when the wind shifts or gusts pure robotics.

they bashed the cargo boys as the inferior jockeys.
i hope they learn from this.

4th floor STC must be busy lah

CARGOJOCK

4th Nov 2011, 09:49

interesting as one adds insult to injury a chief pilot of another fleet in SIA has mentioned that this aircraft was on a autoland which ended on the grass.

just goes to display ignorance and standard of training at SIA, if the crew was even unable to disconnect and manually take over.

4th floor is still buzzing with the blame game.

rumour has it that mainline will get an extra months bonus, but cargo will have to take responsibility for the incident.

solved the singaporean way ! all confused

parabellum

4th Nov 2011, 10:39

rumour has it that mainline will get an extra months bonus, but cargo will have to take responsibility for the incident.

Quite how do you work that one out CARGOJOCK? Obviously you are joking?

SIA mainline has been having some close shaves lately

Care to substantiate that with facts?

their pilots are brainwashed to fly numbers and not fly the airplane fly like it is in the book (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH SOP) and is surprised when the wind shifts or gusts pure robotics.

Certainly not the case when I flew for them, maybe you have an axe to grind CARGOJOCK?

mates rates

4th Nov 2011, 11:26

My spies in SIA tell me it's only a matter of time with the experience level of those running the place and those allowed to operate as PIC's in this company.I hope we are wrong and it never happens!!

FlyingtheLine

4th Nov 2011, 12:27

Mike-Bracknell

4th Nov 2011, 12:35

With the occurrence of runway excursion happening quite frequently recently, does anyone know whether it'd be cheaper for the airports to simply tarmac the entire area and draw a runway on, rather than keep damaging aircraft?

safetypee

4th Nov 2011, 12:48

M-B Re ‘tarmac the entire area’.
Simpler still, for crews to subtract 90m from the lading distance available and plan accordingly.

Any suggestion that a runway change was being planned after the landing?
Potential for reversed LOC beam during roll out.

Any history with 777 of autothrust disconnect problems after autoland?
Potential for one engine to accelerate to a higher thrust level and contribute to a lateral deviation.

A380 Jockey

4th Nov 2011, 13:43

My buddies in SIA tell me the captain was a local.

Admiral346

4th Nov 2011, 13:46

Just landed on 08R this morning, and we could see the skid marks quite well. It appeared to me that the 777 went off to the left at about the end of the TDZ, with both MLGs in the grass. Could have been different, I was kind of busy landing...
Then, maybe 300m further down, the skidmarks came across the entire RWY, and I could see the pulsating of the antiskid quite well. Looked like it worked fine on both gears. After that it went off to the right into the grass, only pushing the dirt away, about 30cm (1 foot) deep.

There was a SIA 777 parked at the regular gate, but one of our TECs told me that the one from yesterday is in the LH hangar.

The postion given on the avherald seems quite accurate.

misd-agin

4th Nov 2011, 14:54

Off the left side at the end of the TDZ? They'd still be moving fast so they might have gotten lucky, especially since it hadn't rained recently. :eek:

From the pictures it looks like a lateral excursion vs. an overrun. :ooh:

macdo

4th Nov 2011, 15:02

" Fo's only land if 5kts and CAVOK"
" Autoland, to be on the safe side"

Are these 2 comments above for real?
If so, I think I'll be booking elsewhere when I go to the Far East.

etops777

4th Nov 2011, 15:14

macdo

not true

CARGOJOCK

4th Nov 2011, 16:05

etops777 is making BS.

landings to FO are governed by special instructions and some of them include what was mentioned wind ,visibility, wet , so these young lads have absolutely no exposure of landing in weather.

hey etops777 you forgot to mention that the command program for a FO to captain takes 9 month at SIA. the reason is because of lack of handling experience in day to day conditions.
only given in CAVOK to CALM so the day these factors change for the minimum or high crosswinds is the day these fellas make autolands.
this is fine but then you see that you just cannot engage AP and sit and relax things do go wrong, and this day it did and the lads upfront were unprepared.

here we go to the grass!!!

it has been luck that has kept SIA out of the news,but this is the tip of the burg it has had near misses, CFIT and many more all shoved under the carpet for commercial reasons.

no one wishes any mis fortune but luck is important!!!

safe flight...........

etops777

4th Nov 2011, 16:18

Cargo jock

I don't think you know me!

You sounded bitter here in the SIA group. No one is holding a gun to you to stay in SQC.

This incidence can happen to anyone. It's not about which nationality is at control. If it it so unsafe then please find a greener pasture and don't just run but sprint.

TurboTomato

4th Nov 2011, 16:18

CFIT is quite a claim. How do you sweep that one under the carpet?

GlueBall

4th Nov 2011, 16:30

Under these tame circumstances, at least the crew had enough intuition not to evacuate. :ooh:

CARGOJOCK

4th Nov 2011, 16:34

i do not need to go anywhere, and certainly not on to greener pastures.
no need to know you your alias says it all......

sweeping under the carpet takes a whole new meaning at SIA.

we all should have the report thats if not swept under the carpet.

but heads will roll.......no happen in SIA lah!!!

Patty747400

4th Nov 2011, 16:38

Please Cargojock...

You have been here long enough to know that your post is BS. Yes, there are special instructions for FO landings and I don't always agree with them:

"For landing, the visibility is 3 km or better; the ceiling is 500ft or higher; the crosswind component is 15 kts or less"

I agree that keeping this for FO:s regardless of their time in the company is wrong. These are good starting values that should be removed with experience.

Unfortunately your ranting makes your posts look like sour grapes. If you want to give critique, be factual.

We don't know what happened but I can promise you that an uncommanded full rudder or tiller after touchdown is very hard to deal with. Ask for a try in the SIM and even when you know it will happen it's not easy to handle. Unless, of course, you are God's gift to aviation... but if so, what the hell are you doing in SQC?

7478ti

4th Nov 2011, 17:03

For modern autoflight systems, as on the B777, with filtered path definition, even if some type of transient LOC multipath interference should occur (e.g., with no LVP in place, or failed LVPs), and even if at low speed, that magnitude of apparent lateral displacement would not typically be expected. We'll likely just need to wait for the incident review findings to learn more about this one. ...as we continue to hope for early and widespread implemmentation of GLS, where multipath and related LVPs are largely irrelevant.

Regards,
ti

etops777

4th Nov 2011, 17:18

Cargo Jack

Incidence does not only happened in SQ. What happened with those at CX? a 744 nearly flew into the mountain in HKG few years ago! What about QF 744 in BKK? Aren't they well trained? Then why in the world they overshot, realised that it will be a deep landing on a wet/contaminated runway decides to continue only to ended up on the grass! Were they not senior Capt and FO?

Give us a break Cargo Jock! No one wants to get involved in any incident, moreover we don't even have the factual report yet.

Chilled dude or mate(if your from Aus)..

bracebrace!

4th Nov 2011, 17:23

FlyingConsultant

4th Nov 2011, 17:36

Maybe a practice auto-land without CAT3 runway protections and someone was given a conditional line-up behind him. I remember seeing this a few years ago at LGW when a 757 was doing one and a 747 lined behind just as he was in the flare. Became quite exciting for a short while!

Somewhat off-topic question from SLF: Do I read this right that in a CAT3 auto-land, another airplane lining up distorts the signal enough that it can become exciting? I am not 100% clear how the system works once on the ground - is the sender at the touch down end of the runway and therefore, a hunk of metal lining up is essentially the equivalent of a truck right in front of my favorite radio station?

Thanks

golfyankeesierra

4th Nov 2011, 18:34

@FC,

Yes, you see the loc-signal swing from left to right and back. Most of the time you see it when somebody crosses the signal before you (when you are on final) but it can happen when you are on the ground as well.

To operate under Cat3 you still use the same ILS as with Cat1, but with many more requirements:
-redundancies in aircraft systems (a.o. multiple autopilots; multiple and separate electrics and hydraulics)
-redundancies in ground based systems (o.a. backup power; failure monitoring)
-last but not least: LVP (low visibility procedures) for ground movements. Somebody crossing the LOCantenae can easily disturb the signal; runway incursions by vehicles occur more easily. Therefore there are a.o. restrictions on the amount of movements and extra protection areas around antennae
LVP have several phases and as vis goes down, the requirements go up.
I'm just a pilot, perhaps a controller can give you accurate info

Now the tricky point: while modern aircraft can land in almost any vis, the airports effectively lock up during low vis; capacity is decimated. Hence airports very quickly phase back their lvp when weather improves and there you are: doing auto lands under marginal weather without the protections, but with the risk for a swinging loc-signal.
For me these are the most risky autolands, especially the auto-rollout.

FlyingtheLine

4th Nov 2011, 19:57

From a previous post:
"For modern autoflight systems, as on the B777, with filtered path definition, even if some type of transient LOC multipath interference should occur (e.g., with no LVP in place, or failed LVPs), and even if at low speed, that magnitude of apparent lateral displacement would not typically be expected. We'll likely just need to wait for the incident review findings to learn more about this one. ...as we continue to hope for early and widespread implemmentation of GLS, where multipath and related LVPs are largely irrelevant."

That means the airplane is essentially buffered against wild swings back and forth.

But let's not let that bother anybody - let the games begin.

Of course, if no one is doing what they are trained to do, like watching, then the game is anyone's call.

parabellum

4th Nov 2011, 21:00

Perhaps they are still letting FOs do the autoland. Don't think it doesn't happen there.

The best part is that whoever did it, the paxing non-flying crew (who may not have even been in the cockpit) will get to equally share in the glory. All are at fault until proven otherwise.

In CAT3 conditions the Captain does the landing. FOs have to be encouraged to do a practice autoland, they prefer manual as it counts towards their overall experience, measured in sectors,hours and landings.

If there was another crew on board, AND they were sat on the flight deck, then they will be asked to report what they saw.

bavarian-buddy

4th Nov 2011, 23:19

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/526/29641130116693657854810.jpg)

Plectron

4th Nov 2011, 23:22

"Practice" autolands are illegal for FOs. Who is minding the store? Think about this! Where does training permit this?

golfyankeesierra

4th Nov 2011, 23:32

"practice auto lands" are from the times the simulators were not capable enough and a pilot had to keep himself current - and CAT3 approved - with couple (three?) of "practice auto lands" en route every year.
Nowadays the FFS sims are good enough to keep the pilots current with the minimum required number of auto lands per year in the sim. The training dept will assure the minimum nr is met.

FR8R H8R

5th Nov 2011, 01:05

Tech log entry #01.

Autoland unsatisfactory.

fdr

5th Nov 2011, 01:34

FOs have to be encouraged to do a practice autoland

so when they do, who is monitoring what? Think any program considering FO autolands needs to be at least conversant with the certification basis of the autoflight system, and how that impacts monitoring requirements of the crews. If you need the references, feel free to PM, or contact your friendly ACO :}.

re filtering, absolutely correct for the B777. The flightpath will not be affected by transients of the LLZ at the latter stages of the approach, at higher altitudes, it will be... Somewhat different to the B757/767 and even the B744.

DoMePlease

5th Nov 2011, 01:46

Fact: SQ FOs do not do auto lands as PF, either in actual or practice. ALL auto lands are done with Captain as PF.

bekolblockage

5th Nov 2011, 02:05

Tech log entry #01.

Autoland unsatisfactory.

Tech log response #01.

Autoland not fitted to this aircraft. :E

Flap10

5th Nov 2011, 02:22

What happened with those at CX? a 744 nearly flew into the mountain in HKG few years ago!

Really ETOPS 777???? Are you starting to fabricate incidents to prove your point??? Yes agreed every airline has its shares of incidents, but I must admit, SIA is well known for brushing incidents under the carpet.

etops777

5th Nov 2011, 02:25

it is true.

lion-g

5th Nov 2011, 02:54

Dear Mr CargoJock,

It is clearly stated that the FO flying sector is at the sole discretion of the commander. Whatever stated are only guidelines.

If the captain is confident that the FO is able to handle the weather condition, he can actually allows the FO the fly in conditions above the recommended guidelines.

If you look at it more carefully, the initial SO training stated very clearly that it is a LIMIT and not guidelines. Once they attain sufficient experience, it will solely be at the training captain's discretion, that is back to the FO flying guidelines.

We are given ample opportunities to hone our manual flying skills and in my opinion, whatever was stated above is not a true representation of the SQ culture.

Do correct me if I am wrong.

etops777

5th Nov 2011, 03:00

Flap 10.

not to mentioned about a tailstrike on CX..

Cathay Pacific Airways - Hong Kong's de facto flag carrier and largest air transportation company - has grounded a Captain and First Officer pending an investigation into an Airbus Industrie A340-300 tailstrike incident at Auckland Airport.

The plane, carrying 145 passengers (59.6% load factor), left the ground too steeply as it took off. Passengers alerted the cabin crew about a shudder that they all felt after takeoff. Cabin crew alerted the junior Captain - one of the airline's first Chinese captains to be promoted to such a rank.

The Captain decided to radio to the air transportation company's headquarters to enquire about what to do and it was decided that the aircraft should continue as normal to its destination - Hong Kong.

A pilot interviewed by The Dominion Post of New Zealand said, "With something as serious as a tail strike, you would normally go straight back to the airport. It is standard procedure."

It was only until CX108 landed at its destination that the damage was discovered.

The above was found on airliners.net

Don't get me wrong. What I want to say was it does happens to anyone and any company.

Burger Thing

5th Nov 2011, 03:29

Maybe a practice auto-land without CAT3 runway protections and someone was given a conditional line-up behind him. I remember seeing this a few years ago at LGW when a 757 was doing one and a 747 lined behind just as he was in the flare. Became quite exciting for a short while! Note: The tower did warn him that there was no protections!

Unless the SIA had some sort of steering problem then it sounds plausible.

The LOC Antenna and the transmitted signal would have been in front of the landing 777. Not behind.

Flap10

5th Nov 2011, 03:40

Actually ETOPS 777 you're just re-posting an old news article that is full of misinformation of an incident that happened many, many years ago :ugh: What exactly was your point??? I thought I clearly stated in my previous post that no airline is immune to incidents. But if you're here to compare incidents between SIA and other airlines, I am afraid it would be no competition.

777boeings

5th Nov 2011, 04:32

And it's not only other aircraft that can distort the LOC signal. Even a vehicle on a perimeter road can have an effect. That is why it is so important to understand that a 'practice' autoland, when LVP is not in force, carries with it a far greater risk than when the approach is protected. The risk during rollout can be somewhat mitigated by briefing and disconnecting the autopilot very soon after touchdown.

Five Green

5th Nov 2011, 05:44

Not sure the LOC GS signal stabilization works on the ground roll as it reverts to ATT and TRK/HDG .

Etops777 you are coming across as disingenuous. You are obviously upset at your airline being slandered but you then slander another. Not too cool.

When has the media ever understood pilots and flying airplanes ?

All I can hope is that we as an industry figure out what went wrong so we can all learn from this unfortunate incident.

parabellum

5th Nov 2011, 06:19

if you're here to compare incidents between SIA and other airlines, I am afraid it would be no competition.

Why is it that people who don't work for SIA claim to know so much about what goes on in SIA? Every carrier will try to keep incidents 'in house', including CX. I very much doubt if the incident rate in SIA is any worse than most major carriers. Jealousy is a dreadful thing.

Regarding FOs doing practice autolands, don't confuse this with doing a practice CatII/III approach, it is only an autoland carried out in Cat I or better. In the event of captain incapacitation an autoland may well be the best way for the now over worked, single crew FO to go. If SIA have stopped even practice autolands for FOs then they have changed their policy.

CARGOJOCK

5th Nov 2011, 06:30

no aviator wishes harm or incident on a fellow aviator, and certainly not on the company that provides the job. but in this case stubbornness is the root cause on the part of the company.

my argument was the fundamental/base of training at SIA is flawed. you take F/O with a total of 200(we all started at this level) no sectors/handling for the fellas, then you impose limitations for their landings and then expect them to have the required experience when they become captains.

a checked out green horn should be able to land the aircraft in CAT1 min weather of 550m. trust me many of them cannot do this and keep looking at you when it is their sector.

as i mentioned earlier the command course is 9-12 months shows the poor standard of the training program and the candidate.

so all this BS about LOC/GS bending and duff is not an issue if these lads have the confidence to disconnect the AP and fly her manually or even GA.

if LVP conditions had prevailed then the airport would have had LVP procedures in effect and protections in place.

however if there was a CAT1 minimum weathe rprevailing, and the crew opted to do an autoland which is no issue,however the crew should have be aware that the protections will NOT be in place and that the LOC/GS bending and all interference could be expected and AP disconnection at some stage should have been expected.

in the absence of a report at this early stage of time it appears that the autoland was attempted(as informed by the company) and interference took place and the crew sat on it fat dum and happy, and the aircraft just followed the signals.
when she wobbled down the runway the crew disconnected the AP and over corrected and the end result was on the green.

these are the facts that will haunt SIA training.

make sure on your watch basics prevail.............

422

5th Nov 2011, 06:47

Dear CargoJock.

Misunderstanding can lead to more senseless arguments.

Please share with everyone here, your words of wisdom so that
no other fare passengers have to endure such harrowing experience.

Be it that SQ training can be weak is certain places, every big and old
organisation has this problem.

Let us all learn from each other, just like the good old days of aviation,
Over a nice bottle of Scotch.

DoMePlease

5th Nov 2011, 07:13

Cargojock: a checked out green horn should be able to land the aircraft in CAT1 min weather of 550m. trust me many of them cannot do this and keep looking at you when it is their sector.

Then help the FO out rather than feel disgust for him. What's wrong with you?

etops777

5th Nov 2011, 07:30

Flap 10

It was an old story but what I want to illustrate here is that it happens to every airline and not a competition to see who has less or more mishaps.

Five green..

You're totally wrong. You can slander anyone/airlines all you want. Again, my point was just to highlight that we can all make mistakes, even Chuck Yeager.

rain5

5th Nov 2011, 07:42

"in the absence of a report at this early stage of time it appears that the autoland was attempted(as informed by the company) and interference took place and the crew sat on it fat dum and happy, and the aircraft just followed the signals.
when she wobbled down the runway the crew disconnected the AP and over corrected and the end result was on the green."

Cargo Jock- YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALIKING ABOUT.

The Crew is a very experienced and capable Intsructor. He has had years of Flying and for you to pre judge them is un professional and childish.
Obviously flying all the boxes and horses around have not done much for your EQ and character development.

freightdog188

5th Nov 2011, 07:46

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3646159/29641130116693657854810.jpg
http://avherald.com/img/singapore_b733_9v_swq_munich_111103_map.jpg

images taken from imageshack and avherald

CARGOJOCK

5th Nov 2011, 08:17

rain5, i guess you get the idea now, after seeing freightdogs photo from above.
quite a sharp turn, and experienced too that is SIA experience, stubborn AH with SIA.

the picture sums it all.

rest my case........

SOPS

5th Nov 2011, 08:19

What is it thats lying on the runway, almost on the centre line, in between the skid marks?

liider

5th Nov 2011, 08:34

It's a car.

SOPS

5th Nov 2011, 08:36

Oh..thanks

ExSp33db1rd

5th Nov 2011, 09:26

Sad to see, and sad to read people knocking SQ, they were a good outfit when I flew for them and I've no reason to think otherwise now, If I had to start again I know which airline I'd work for considering the way my previous "Legacy Flag Carrier" is now treating their 'oldies'. SQ made us feel part of the team - might have been BS - but it worked ! ( They still do, just read the latest Staff magazine that they still send me, over dinner - my previous airline now want me to pay for theirs, Fat Chance )

SQ were not too proud to appoint some of us Ex-pats to their training section, but nevertheless one of my colleagues remarked that the wheel had turned full circle, do you remember, he said, when we started, some of the old WWII Captains that we flew with couldn't fly a decent instrument let-down to save their lives, but pop out of cloud too high, not lined up, not configured, and say - the runways' over there, Sir ( never forgetting the Sir ) and they would straighten up and fly an immaculate visual approach to a perfect touchdown, whereas now the young guys we are training, brought up on a diet of Space Invaders and Flight Sim. can fly a let-down to minima far better than we ever could, or will, but break out and have to connect the real aeroplane to the real earth and they have problems.

Not a new scenario and getting worse in todays' automated world regardless of the logo. on the tail. I always thought that handling the auto-land was much harder than flying the beast ! Flying the thing was the easy bit.

Commiserations to all concerned, I hope that any action towards the crew is not just 'pour encourager les autres' and everyone can learn from it.

Best of luck.

poser

5th Nov 2011, 09:52

can you tell the experience level from the sharp turn? :rolleyes:

Non Zero

5th Nov 2011, 09:58

SQ were not too proud to appoint some of us Ex-pats to their training section, but nevertheless one of my colleagues remarked that the wheel had turned full circle, do you remember, he said, when we started, some of the old WWII Captains that we flew with couldn't fly a decent instrument let-down to save their lives, but pop out of cloud too high, not lined up, not configured, and say - the runways' over there, Sir ( never forgetting the Sir ) and they would straighten up and fly an immaculate visual approach to a perfect touchdown, whereas now the young guys we are training, brought up on a diet of Space Invaders and Flight Sim. can fly a let-down to minima far better than we ever could, or will, but break out and have to connect the real aeroplane to the real earth and they have problems.

So true ...

Question: What is the Company procedure in case of a NO ROLL OUT?

shinkai744

5th Nov 2011, 10:01

C-J is just another typical SQ basher while working for very same outfit that he loves to bad-mouth about. Why dont they just --- L E A V E Singapore altogether. Undesirable Employee.

FBW390

5th Nov 2011, 10:10

Yes, in the airlines where I've flown from the Gulf to India and SE Asia, I have seen FOs with "low" training standards, knowing the book by heart be barely able to fly or to have good airmanship; however at 3000 hrs they are sure they can be captain! In these airlines the number of incidents is huge! Due to poor training and lack of serioussness in the state oversight; :(

However for the 777 in MUC I don't know, let's see...

rain5

5th Nov 2011, 10:31

Yes from the comments made by CJ- he fits into the "Wannabe" mainline Cargo boys-.
If you think so lowly of the Airline that pays you- please leave. I am sure you dont need the Job, being the "ACE" that you are.

hapzim

5th Nov 2011, 10:42

Pretty good parallel parking :ok:

DonLeslie

5th Nov 2011, 11:34

I must say I'm thoroughly astounded by some things I read here.

Any F/O MUST be able to manually fly a stabilized ILS approach down to CAT I minimum in any wind conditions the airplane is certified for. Otherwise he/she has no business sitting in a cockpit at all! :=

Just my 2cents,
DL

FBW390

5th Nov 2011, 12:29

DL, I agree 100%! And I can assure you that in some countries, some percentage of FOs CAN'T; yes, they shouldn't be in that cockpit!

It's not a surprise if these countries have a high rate of incidents and accidents.:ouch:

FBW 390

O'Neill No6

5th Nov 2011, 12:31

rain5-I'm sure Cargo Jock is big enough and old enough to support himself, but your remark that he is "flying boxes and horses" gives away your own arrogance and contempt (how about your own EQ?).

My own experience at SIA, flying with both mainline and Cargo pilots, was that the LVP training was scant in demonstrating "gotchas" -like the one discussed here (whether or not it is found to be the case that the AP has caused this incident). Previous airlines have been far more thorough in my experience and on the line pilots in other airlines were always expecting that the AP may not perform as expected.

O'Neill

DIBO

5th Nov 2011, 13:24

OK, can anybody fully qualified to answer, explain to me what we (think to) see in the picture of the S-shaped skid marks ? These are the last 2-300 metres, so speed being quite low and then managing (surely while overcorrecting) a 90° turn onto and over the runway. As breaking action (and directional control) on the grass must have been poor, what speed would he have had when crossing the runway (from LH grass to RH grass)? And any pilot on top of the situation, wouldn't he be able keep the ac more one the runway (differential braking). My (untrained-unqualified) guess would be that during the roll on the LH grass, nosewheel steering would have overcorrected, but while on the grass without much effect, until on the concrete when the nosewheel regained grip making the plain turn sharply? The initial exit on the LH grass was only 10-20° off track, so how comes one can overcorrect so much to the right?

FlyingtheLine

5th Nov 2011, 13:43

Facts are:
No one currently employed at SQ is going to very interested in making any critical remarks. If you don't know why you don't know Singapore. Laudatory and defensive comments will be loud and vigorous and supported. Don't expect an avalanche of information related to past very close shaves either. CFIT or otherwise.

There are no procedures for the switching of the roles from Captain to FO for an autoland. Who is doing the call-outs? Who is looking out the window? Who is calling "Flare" or "No Flare" or "Centreline"? You think the Captain is not going to be looking at the runway? Who is going to disconnect if things go awry?

In spite of this, SQ FOs were routinely landing using the autoland feature. Why? Because sometimes it was too gusty or too much crosswind (it didn't take much) and they, the Captain, or both were uncomfortable.

But, no one knows why the airplane went off the runway - it is way too early
for anyone to make accusations here. Frankly, I would like to believe the crew did a great job and saved a bad situation and I will hold that opinion until I learn otherwise.

lederhosen

5th Nov 2011, 14:17

Our operations manual, like many others, requires us to carry out at least one autoland per month. For obvious reasons most of these are practice autolands. I understand that a long haul operation may have other priorities given the very few landings per pilot. Personally I find the practice helpful, particularly as most of the autolands in the sim focus on failures and go-arounds with minimum conditions. Daylight real conditions can be very different.

The skid marks are hard to believe....I wonder how that almost ninety degree right turn felt at the back of the plane! Welcome to the Oktoberfest's newest ride.

Union Jack

5th Nov 2011, 14:56

The skid marks are hard to believe....

The aircraft's, the flight deck crew's, the cabin crew's, the passengers', or all of them?:)

Jack

Jetjock330

5th Nov 2011, 15:07

In most cases with a long aircraft wheel base, the nose wheel is outside of the main gear tracks in turns. We can see the nose wheel track marks are on the inside of the turn, indicating the aircraft was swerving around for the main wheel to over take the radius of turn, like most of my simulator landings of mine.
Eisch! poor guys:bored:

rain5

5th Nov 2011, 15:21

Hey O neil.

You joined SQC in DEC 04 if im not mistaken and recently left this year.- which means YOU COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ON THE MAIN FLEET.!!- No point trying to convince me of that- I have been in the industry too long.
That explains your defence of Cargo j as you fall in the same category.

From my sources , all u did was complain about the rosters and the airline in the last 2 years.Would you like me to elaborate?

My Point is: that no professional Pilot and decent human being would pass judgement on another Pilot or the Training establishment- WITHOUT ALL THE FACTS AND FINDINGS.
CJ s comments were totally unacceptable.

As for "other airlines LVP training being more superior than SQ s- well thats your opinion.
What were you flying before SQC gave you the golden opportunity to fly a 747-400??- im guessing 757/767??:D

:=

etops777

5th Nov 2011, 15:34

Rain5,

Very well said. :ok:

I do not understand CJ being miserable in SQC, why not just pack up and leave? Go somewhere where you will find your sanity and to an airline with a top notch training/standard.

Cmon CJ, life is too short...just leave

Dani

5th Nov 2011, 15:50

Regarding FOs doing practice autolands, don't confuse this with doing a practice CatII/III approach, it is only an autoland carried out in Cat I or better. In the event of captain incapacitation an autoland may well be the best way for the now over worked, single crew FO to go. If SIA have stopped even practice autolands for FOs then they have changed their policy.

I agree with some very experienced posters here that SIA is a fine company but I do not agree that Autoland is a useful tool for single pilot operation except in an emergency. The autoland system on any aircraft is a very delicate part of the aircraft, and even smallest deviation can lead to catastrophic outcomes - as one can easily recognize here.

Autoland - as in Cat III or Cat I weather - is maneuvring very close to ground and needs a perfect supervision by both of the crew. It is therefore a two pilots operation with fine tuned procedure. Every move of the two at the controls has to be known and trained. Because there is very little lead time and very little time to react.

Autoland, as it has been designed, is never intended to replace doubted landing skill of a junior crew member. Even training and trial autolands have to be made in the exact same crew configuration as in 75m RVR.

Autoland done by the FO is therefore a very unique procedure in SIA. I'm sure it will be removed as soon as more news are upcoming.

Dani

DoMePlease

5th Nov 2011, 16:04

FlyingtheLine

5th Nov 2011, 16:11

Oh, really? Guess again.

lomapaseo

5th Nov 2011, 16:20

Just a thought (is there any data yet?)

When/if asymetrical thrust gets into this the aircraft skid marks will probably track differently.

Historically, there have been numreous events where thrust asymetry on landing has taken an aircraft off the runway.

The wierdest ones where too much thrust was present (runaway engine)

Denti

5th Nov 2011, 16:31

@lederhosen: you still have the requirement for practice auto lands in our manuals? I still remember it, but it was removed from ours around, hmm, 8 or 9 years ago.

Autolands done by the FO on the other is not unique. While the FO cannot do a LVP approach he is free to use an auto land whenever he feels like it in my company. Often (mis)used when too damn knackered to be bothered to land manually. EU-OPS rostering can be very very tiring indeed. With somewhere between 20 to 40 landings a month the odd auto land isn't a big concern handling wise though. The main aim is to ease the transition during command course.

lederhosen

5th Nov 2011, 17:19

Denti I cannot be sure whose manual you are speaking of. But our manual requires us to be current, defined as 3 per quarter. If you remember to do one a month you cannot go wrong. It is not at all arduous if you do 30 landings a month, although now with other activities I probably do rather less.

DoMePlease

5th Nov 2011, 18:12

Flyingtheline: Oh, really? Guess again.

There is no guessing involved. It's a fact. You need to recheck your information source.

O'Neill No6

5th Nov 2011, 18:35

Hi rain5,

You just get more and more jumped up ("your sources"-Ha!).

Well you have me confused with someone else, because I wasn't in a position to complain about rosters before I left. I left on excellent terms and had no problem with rosters.

I just stick by my post re LVP training at SQ/SQC. It was a general comment which may or may not relate to this incident but I consider relevant to the general theme of the thread.

dessas

5th Nov 2011, 18:58

Hi Guys,
I used to fly for a 3-world airline on long haul.
I smell a rat here.
As is usual there is no single main reason but a combination of factors, the proverbial "Swiss cheese hole allignment".
1. A company that probably saves on LVP training.
2. Bad call on behalf of the captain (most likely conducting an A/L w/o protection). Knowing the culture of the folk there, probably didn't even ask/inform ATC for an A/L.
3. Most of us know the limitations of modern A/L systems, but are these properly highlighted in a company where probably you will not shoot a real CAT II/III approach and A/L in 5 years?!
4. What about monitored approach? Did the F/O keep his head down and call any deviation from the LOC?
5. And last but not least - what about the "Playstation Generation" pilots who are brilliant on your everyday boring 12 hours flight but **** themselves every time the wx is marginal...
It's the Big Shots' times...
Watch out.
:mad:

misd-agin

5th Nov 2011, 19:44

post #68 - looks like large scrub angles on the tires...it will be interesting to see the headings, slip angles, and speeds that they occurred at. :eek:

ExSp33db1rd

5th Nov 2011, 19:45

Any F/O MUST be able to manually fly a stabilized ILS approach down to CAT I minimum in any wind conditions the airplane is certified for. Otherwise he/she has no business sitting in a cockpit at all!

Obviously I can't comment about the present day, but when I left SQ they had one of the best Airline training regimes going, they had ab-initio in house training and had set up an advanced training section with a fleet of Lear Jets fitted with a glass cockpit - fairly uncommon on those days - that the students would eventually graduate to when they moved to Line Training. They used instructors from a variety of the Worlds' "Legacy" carriers so gained from a variety of very experienced personnel. SQ did their best to address the problem of experience.

Unfortunately there is no experience like experience, and this can only be realistically gained on the job, and no airline is totally safe from the unexpected, first time problem as technology advances. ( the World was better off before computers ! but I don't expect anyone to agree with me ! )

This thread has drifted into personal attacks and 'knocking' SQ, can we get back to, maybe, reasoned discussion of the technical aspects of what "might" have happened - if that is what you want, which is all we can possibly do at the moment - if we can't wait for the FACTS.

FlyingtheLine

5th Nov 2011, 21:05

Well said former BA colleague.

alph2z

5th Nov 2011, 21:13

Looking at the tire marks, wow, those tires got a beating !

If you look at the MG (main gear) tracks before the runway crossing, the grass is heavily torn and when the MG got onto the main runway you can see the very dark lines. Also, you can see the MG tires "skipping" as the MG is going sideways on the runway.

And from the nose gear marks (relative to the MG) one can say that the back of the plane whipped around. :eek:

I'm impressed with the tire and MG design :D

cresmer

5th Nov 2011, 23:03

I hope your airman-ship is better

etops777

6th Nov 2011, 00:18

Cresmer

Thanks for your comment.

You do not need to worried about my ability to converse in English. As with my airmanship, that won't be your worries either.

Airmanship and language ability are 2 different things dude! So with what your saying is it only people from an English speaking country knows how to fly airplane?? Dude, if that's your perception then you have a long way to go:=

What a shame:=

torquemada60

6th Nov 2011, 03:14

Can't argue with anything that has to do with singapore or singaporeans. nasty place where the top will always blame the bottom. And when you arguie with them all they can say is leave leave....
:ugh:

rain5

6th Nov 2011, 03:46

This thread is not about Singapore, or Singaporeans.

Bashing the people,country and the Airline is only reflective of yourself torque. Sounds like sour grapes to me- im assuming you lost your job with SQ? sob sob.:D

p.s torque- heres your post 25TH JUNE 2009

(Keltic
Don't worry. Singapore airlines is one of the best in the world. Pilots are great. I fly regularly around the region and trust me you have nothing to worry about. Relax!
I just got back from Manila a few days ago, nasty TS around, cathay crew were great flying around those CB's.
Thank you guys!!!)

:D

inconsistency is akin to ignorance and shallowness.

rain5

6th Nov 2011, 04:07

Cresmer - looks like you are the Authority on the English language.

heres your post from 23rd june 2011
"Wrong wrong wrong!
Listen to the tapes, as I have. The ATC's English is atrocious. Note how BA carefully and slowly repeat what ATC have uttered."

That was your post on JFK s atc .
Its time to Drop the British Colonial attitude . The English language has nothing to do with Airmanship and your comment to Etops only shows your arrogance and ignorance.

This thread is about the Munich Incident and not for pompous individuals like yourself -Cresmer - who cant resist from spewing your British arrogance.

ExSp33db1rd

6th Nov 2011, 04:29

This thread has drifted into personal attacks and 'knocking' SQ, can we get back to, maybe, reasoned discussion of the technical aspects of what "might" have happened - if that is what you want, which is all we can possibly do at the moment - if we can't wait for the FACTS.

Post #100

Guess I'm wasting my time ?

Enjoy yourselves. ( there's a Microlight to be flown, much more fun. )

Goodbye.

boofta

6th Nov 2011, 04:51

Mr ETOPS777
Was there not an SQ incident in AKL you forgot to mention.
How many people have SQ killed compared to the airlines
you have so blithly grouped as being equal to or worse than SQ.

shinkai744

6th Nov 2011, 04:53

ExSp33db1rd (http://www.pprune.org/members/214455-exsp33db1rd)

I guess we are..... How sad.

Awaiting some positive discussions / speculations. Would be much better than watching anti SQ sentiments and publications of false facts about their training information.

rain5

6th Nov 2011, 05:06

Totally agree with you Sinka 744

jackx123

6th Nov 2011, 05:33

Well you know what they say about brits........ the greatest asset they possess is ... the english language.

break_break

6th Nov 2011, 06:03

I have to say, too many, have too much to grind and understandably, against an Airline that somehow doing extremely well utilizing their very own ab initial system. The city state Airline is clearly not for everyone, but did win considerably a fair bit of admirations worldwide.

So far, no factual posting has been made, only a clear picture of runway excursion. Shouldn't we at least wait for final findings before the bashing begins?

As for the quality of SIA's pilots, I very much doubt that they are as bad as some posters claimed them to be. I had flown with couple of their chaps here in the sandpit with my previous fleet and I will fly with them anytime again. And seriously, enough with the language policing. If he gets the points across, I say that's good enough for me. We don't really know how many languages some of these blokes do command and English is probably the fourth or fifth down the list.

river7

6th Nov 2011, 06:03

Looking at the photo, was this really an incident, or were they perhaps executing the Elk (Moose) Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose_test)?
(For which the automotive industry now has a solution (http://www.cardor.de/humor/bilder/aklass2.jpg). For aircraft, perhaps this (http://files.air-attack.com/MIL/b52/b52guam_2_20080228.jpg).)

Although EDDM would be a strange choice of location for that...

:ok:

Seriously, what can have been their residual speed, for the gear to survive those turns, and no wing strike(s) happening?

Class_Y

6th Nov 2011, 06:57

Ghoti, ghoughphtheightteeau, tiogh.

Try to figure it out for yourselves...

And now let's go back to the topic!

422

6th Nov 2011, 08:09

Past few post are prime examples of senseless bickering.

Hope none of these blokes are 'real'
Airline captains.

poser

6th Nov 2011, 08:15

How long does it usually take for the reports to be announced for an incident like this?

B737NG

6th Nov 2011, 08:27

There is no fixed timeline. It depends how many diffrent Authorities are involved and how effective they work together to find the real cause despite the fact that the finding is not pleasant. One of the biggest problems is that those findings are usualy taken later to "activate" the lawyer to claim back the losses. Now go and find out who want´s to take the blame.

A partially or early version of such a incident can be found shortly in such a process, two weeks later the direction should be found and then evaluated.

Final report, maybe under the Christmas tree in 2012....

Fly safe and land happy

NG

break_break

6th Nov 2011, 08:44

422
Care to elaborate what is so senseless about my posting?
I assume when you said "past few posts", and being 2 postings prior, I fell into your accusation?

CARGOJOCK

6th Nov 2011, 09:23

many postings have come on after this incident.

SIA is now experiencing a paradigm shift in its core business.majority of the singaporeans are vulnerable to change many stay within their comfort zone as a result of this.they are reluctant to experience adventure.

their idea of adventure is to go to a mall and have a poor sense of humour.money is king....thats all they know and talk and whereever they go it is soup noodle.

their training is a direct reflection of this social behavior. the photo by freightdog is a clear result of expecting the AP to handle everything and all is well. many in this forum had mentioned about their CAT2/3 training which is a joke just a formality.genuine appreciation for automation is not discussed just routine.

SIA is so vulnerable now that it has down graded the service to SCOOT to harness the growing budget sector.

you should fly with some of the new F/O, their line training starts with you.
basic requirement to fly to CAT1 in CAT 1 weather is a serious challenge for these lads.read my previous postings this incident was the result of this complacency.

each of you are entitled to your opinion and i am not interested if you agree with me or not but i have mentioned the facts which are hard on some of the locals and readers.
but the truth hurts........sorry lah!

fly safe !!!!

Patty747400

6th Nov 2011, 09:38

"this incident was the result of this complacency."

Great! No need for an investigation. CJ in his almightiness has concluded it already. Let's close this thread and wait for next accident/incident so he can show us his supremacy...

DIBO

6th Nov 2011, 09:49

If there is still somebody interested in an ontopic posts, well I'll give it one more try (yes, long before the official report is out). It looks to me that the AC came to a halt in around 1500 meters of rwy (and a bit of grass). Apart from the hefty tail swing during the final S-maneuver, deceleration must also have been impressive, especially the sideways deceleration on the last bit rwy crossing. As already stated: I'm impressed with the tire and MG design

millerscourt

6th Nov 2011, 11:34

Cargojock makes some valid points regarding most of the local F/O's in SIA. Through no fault of their own and due to the nature of the flying in SQ they do not get many sectors in each month and therefore are somewhat timid.

If I gave a F/O a sector into say Bali where the landing was on RW 27 with an ILS and where radar always vector the aircraft on a long right downwind to finals so the F/O has the RW on his side I used to say shall we tell them we have the RW in sight and we will go visual, not once did any F/O say yes despite having the ability to extend the centre line and know exactly the miles to touchdown.

I doubt if any of them would cope with a night visual into say Heraklion or a circling approach at Corfu to RW 17 or at Porta Plata circling to RW 09 at night.

A380 Jockey

6th Nov 2011, 12:02

Such a very sad incident could happen to anybody at any point in time. Lets not flog a dead horse here. It's just a question of the level of preparedness for this kind of a glitch at the end of a long Duty period and at the fag end of that too.
At no point will I deny the 'monitor and disconnect' mode of LV ops. But how does any one of us here know that he didn't do just that!
By what I see, the initial excursion on the LHS of the rwy occoured at low speed. Probably less than 60 kts. The rudder aerodynamic control must be close to zero at this point in time. He therefore chose to use the tiller, i reckon.
Over steered, cause obviously he saw the excursion a nano second too late(probably due low the vis/fog), and over reacted.
I, however, am of the firm belief that ALL of us here are in some learning phase or another, irrespective of the level(s) of experience we wield.
This incident should positively be highlighted as a learning experience for all of us here rather than the proverbial finger pointing attitude we choose to adopt. And in the process, grind our very old machettes.
I, for one, am changing my attitude for myself and my pupils from this moment on, towards LVP and Cat-2/3 training.
Needs some hard re thinking. Too many holes lined up already.
Off now..

lomapaseo

6th Nov 2011, 13:11

How long does it usually take for the reports to be announced for an incident like this?

Depends on the magnitude of the incident. (fatalities, injuries, cost to repair and public interest)

If there is a mechanical or systems fault, that all other operators need to know, then within weeks.

If its a CRM issue and or training, then it depends on the investigators workload to create a public report (mostly long after the public has forgotten about it.

as a PPruner, if this thread doesn't reveal the answer via leaks within a month, then you really don't need to know :E

meanwhile the "could ofs/ should ofs" among us will have a field day of posts to extend the thread life :)

BOAC

6th Nov 2011, 13:24

(probably due low vis/fog) - A380 (and all 'LVP'ers) where do you see this 'fog/low vis' at EDDM?

A380 Jockey

6th Nov 2011, 13:59

Corrected my post BOAC.
I assume it would suffice..
;)

shinkai744

6th Nov 2011, 14:13

We do not know the facts and the findings at this point of in time.
Autopilot failure? GS? antiskip?(unlikely) or failure to disengage, whatever?
But much have been speculated about unprotected ILS signal.
Have we ever questioned ourselves that "at which point" exactly - the localizer/lateral signal deviated and the RATE at which it deviated?

The results would be very different between at say-- 200ft and "just touch down" with reversers deploying? or charging down the runway at 130 knots with full reversers? etc.
Also not forgeting how fast or slow the rate of deviation is?

I can just imagine no pilot (although guarding controls at all times expecting the worst "at all times" like most pilots will) will be anticipating a; say; full force lateral deviation ; say;...at touch down? (imagine your FO suddenly went mad and kicked full rudder/bank at flare or at 100 knots?) Are we train for that? Hmmm... Why not just train a pilot for every god damn scenerio we can think of...(a mosquito nailing and sucking your di#k at roatation? a little humour wont kill)

I guess the pilot given the situation at THAT point in time did what he had to. Whether Hero or Zero... he had to face whatever it was with everything he had. Who are we to criticise what their training department;the pilot, their FOs their country did etc was it even RELEVANT? Come on guys... Assumptions are mother of all F###UPS. None of us know the facts but some are just quick to point the guns as if "Oh, it will never happen to me when i am at the controls(THE FAMOUS LAST WORDS)..
Utter Disgust for some.

BOAC

6th Nov 2011, 15:11

Corrected my post BOAC.
I assume it would suffice. - not really - I was wondering if you (and all the others who talk of 'LVPs'/ poor vis/;fog' etc) had seen a METAR showing that?

O'Neill No6

6th Nov 2011, 16:59

A380

Just for completeness of information and to allow people to judge what they read and understand here correctly. This is not a long flight duty. They fly MUC-MAN-MUC (fairly quick turn around in MAN). The aircraft is then re-crewed for MUC-SIN as SQ327. I would be surprised if they were fatigued. Just my input.

C-J. Glad to see that you agree with me on the level of LVP training in SQ(C). 777 and 744 fleets (particularly freighter) do find themselves operating in LVO's quite frequently.

A380 Jockey

6th Nov 2011, 17:13

BOAC--Nope I haven't seen it. Was assuming marginal Cat-1/2 ops. You have intel...?!
Neill--Am sorry. Assumed it was the Sin-Muc run. A lil jetlagged am I...:p

misd-agin

6th Nov 2011, 18:01

A380 jockey - you think the a/c generated all of that rubber/side loads/skidding, and traveled that far, from less than 60kts?

I don't, which is why we'll have to wait for the investigation. :ok:

slayerdude

6th Nov 2011, 19:03

fact: LVP not is effect(ils not protected)
fact: autoland used for landing
fact: toga use to initiate go-around... a/c veered violently to the right.
to be confirmed: why toga? and when was toga used initiate???

also to be confirmed: no FLARE capture during autoland... thats why hard landing and the need for go-around

always happens to the good guys....cruel world.....

DoMePlease

6th Nov 2011, 19:17

What is the information source on the use of TOGA?

Capt Kremin

7th Nov 2011, 01:03

Hard Landing?? Immediate loss of directional control???

A thought occurs to me.... Did they actually have the autoland engaged?

Just a thought...

freightdog188

7th Nov 2011, 01:40

ok, just my thoughts on slayerdude's NO FLARE followed by TO/GA "facts":

FLARE activates between 60 and 40 ft radio alt.

so, if you watch the modes you should notice it's not there by about 30 or 20 ft, which gives you enough time to disconnect and land manually or
if you don't watch them, you'll notice it on impact with the runway.

The TO/GA weren't pressed in the air, as this would have ended in a go-around, maybe with a brief touchdown during the procedure, but they would not have landed from this situation.

now if you then press TO/GA after touchdown you'll get nothing, as TO/GA is inhibited and Autothrottle is not available. Only way to reject a landing after touchdown is manually add thrust and hit the TOGA after getting airborne again.

So unless there was a severe malfunction (of TOGA inhibit, A/T inhibit, and you'd need 1 Eng failure followed by a Thrust Asymmetry compensation failure) I can't understand how pushing the TO/GA leads to a runway excursion....

Do you have any more details, as so far this TO/GA "fact" only creates more confusion...

from the picture it looks like a slow departure to the left followed by a violent correction to the right, not an immediate right turn...

so maybe a undetected no "ROLLOUT" only corrected after it got apparent that she won't come back to the centerline all by herself?

B-HKD

7th Nov 2011, 02:23

http://i39.tinypic.com/11rx0uv.jpg

slayerdude

7th Nov 2011, 02:57

freightdog.... no flare... boeing says hit toga ..... boeing also says do not disconnect autopilot in no flare situation during autoland.....
however this I can only verify for the 777 training manual for low vis ops.

the source of info is as close as the fingers that hit the toga buttons....not offering any opinions... juz letting the forum know what i know.

still plenty of facts to be established...

a rumour heard is the uneven spool up of the right engine .... cant confirm fact yet but .... also it was a new right engine that just got slung under the wing the week before last... again to be substantiated.

and please gents ...really no need to reply to wind ups by CJ.... he needs a new thread call bash the mainliners.....nothing really of substance to think about with the CJ rave

fly safe blue side up.

lomapaseo

7th Nov 2011, 03:46

Is the assumption that they were in reverse mode and slow enough for nosewheel steering ?

That would certainly place them in a dicey situation if at the same time they had significant asymetrical thrust.

Similar effect on PA flt 45 A310 landing at DTW (while in reverse it went in one direction and when reverse was cancelled it went in the opposite direction.)

freightdog188

7th Nov 2011, 05:17

thanks slayerdude.
I think the "no FLARE -> hit TOGA" and "do not disconnect the AP during Autoland" are valid only for actual LWMO ops, where it is required since you can't land manually without forward visibility.
Any other time you can disconnect and land manually, if you have the necessary visual clues..

slayerdude

7th Nov 2011, 09:01

frieghtdog....agreed ...being a boeing...one has manual control at anytime...and the do not disconnect autopilot for no flare is in the LVP procedures and nothing said about an autoland....so how this happened... jury still out...plz be advise that am speculating as the crew now have a gag order in force.....so information presented about the slow spool up was a rumour....

fly safe... blue side up

slayerdude

7th Nov 2011, 09:07

boofta.... SQ has killed 78 people in 64years of operations.....all 78 killed on a taxi way masquerading as a runway in tpe

ITman

7th Nov 2011, 11:05

Suspect you will never know why, the incident has been kept off all the media here in Singapore.....

FR8R H8R

7th Nov 2011, 11:20

Incident?

What incident?

69flight

7th Nov 2011, 12:07

The skid marks might come from a "fight" between the autopilot being in rollout mode and the pilots trying to steer the plane manually. They might not have realised that the autopilot was still engaged when they applied asymmetric brake forces or nose wheel steering inputs.

FlyingConsultant

7th Nov 2011, 12:31

@GYS - thank you for the long and clear answer, I learn something new ever yady.

Yes, you see the loc-signal swing from left to right and back. Most of the time you see it when somebody crosses the signal before you (when you are on final) but it can happen when you are on the ground as well.

A380 Jockey

7th Nov 2011, 12:38

Slayer,
Correct me if I am wrong here. But a 'No flare' situation during a planned autoland would reflect at 500 ft Agl with a 'Land 2' or above 500 ft Agl with a 'No Autoland' message right.
Like I said correct me.
And FWIW, the correct procedure for a 'No flare' at 40 ft RA is a simple TOGA. Tail may strike, but that's the flea with the dog.
Any other malfunction after successful touchdown, disconnect the A/P.
And freightdog is right about the abort landing procedure. IF in fact that happened here for whatever reasons.

flynerd

7th Nov 2011, 12:47

@69Flight

The skid marks might come from a "fight" between the autopilot being in rollout mode and the pilots trying to steer the plane manually. They might not have realised that the autopilot was still engaged when they applied asymmetric brake forces or nose wheel steering inputs.

My take on that is that it would take more than just the nosewheel steering to generate the turning moment as shown by the skid tracks. perhaps a stuck reverser.

FN

Carbon Bootprint

7th Nov 2011, 13:28

all 78 killed on a taxi way masquerading as a runway in tpe
In fact, it was a closed runway (5R) choked with construction equipment, not a taxiway. And the pax death toll was actually 79.

Airbubba

7th Nov 2011, 14:18

In fact, it was a closed runway (5R) choked with construction equipment, not a taxiway. And the pax death toll was actually 79.

Well, it was indeed normally used as a taxiway and had non-standard runway markings. Seems like it had circles instead of stripes in the touchdown zone. It is now strictly a taxiway, designated NC.

Tank2Engine

7th Nov 2011, 14:39

Correct me if I am wrong here. But a 'No flare' situation during a planned autoland would reflect at 500 ft Agl with a 'Land 2' or above 500 ft Agl with a 'No Autoland' message right.
Like I said correct me. The "flare" mode is indicated as armed at 500', but if this mode does not properly engage at 60'-40' (B744) then you still need to take some sort of action: either TOGA, or if enough visual clues are available take over manually.

I suppose it's not much different than on the A(irbus)380.

A380 Jockey

7th Nov 2011, 15:23

Thanks Tank.
I assumed if there was a malfunction detected at 500' which would not let the flare mode engage at say 50', then the flare armed would not indicate. Therefore triggering the 'Land 2'.
I however say this from memory ..
:)

Tank2Engine

7th Nov 2011, 16:58

I assumed if there was a malfunction detected at 500' which would not let the flare mode engage at say 50', then the flare armed would not indicate. Therefore triggering the 'Land 2'.How are you going to do any sort of autoland (Land 2 or 3) without a properly working and indicating flare mode? :confused:

Dani

7th Nov 2011, 20:42

That is exactly the problem in SIA's FO autoland procedure: Nobody is checking the FMA and the AP. They both look outside and are merely passengers.

That's why this procedure has to be removed. The investigation will hopefully show who was at the controls.

btw very unlikely they tried a go around. A 777 climbs from 0 ft even with only one engine.

A380 Jockey

7th Nov 2011, 20:57

'Land 3' annunciated > 500', fault detected in flare mode, will revert to 'Land 2'.
Then at 500' if flare fault remains, 'No Autoland'.
However this sequence will only be initiated once 'Land 3' is annunciated on the AFDS.
'No flare' then at 40' RA is a simple TOGA procedure. Provided of course(and this is a very important provided)the PM catches it AND announces it on time.
With ground effect altitude loss is about half the height at which GA is initiated. Therefore you still might get away with no tailstrike(especially on the -300 variants),if GA initiated exactly at 40' RA(impossible humanly).
But there is a very very small number of things that can go wrong in the flare mode IF the AFSEM has not annunciated 'No autoland' by 500'. There ARE some component malfunctions that still can't be caught in a fail operational system for a no flare fault. But they are very very few and can be counted on the fingers of one hand or less(the failable components that is).
Hope I managed to make some sense.

DoMePlease

7th Nov 2011, 21:11

Dani :
That is exactly the problem in SIA's FO autoland procedure: Nobody is checking the FMA and the AP. They both look outside and are merely passengers.

That's why this procedure has to be removed. The investigation will hopefully show who was at the controls.

btw very unlikely they tried a go around. A 777 climbs from 0 ft even with only one engine.

How many times must it be stated on this thread that SIA FOs DO NOT CONDUCT AUTOLANDS AS A PF. IT IS ALWAYS THE CAPTAIN WHO IS THE PF, BOTH FOR PRACTICE AND ACTUAL AUTOLANDS.

parabellum

7th Nov 2011, 22:30

Do-Me-Please - Is it written in the Ops manual that FOs are not allowed to do an auto-land in Cat 1 or better weather, or is that just a habit that has developed? In my time on the B744 FOs were allowed, but rarely did do an autoland, they needed the manual landings for promotion. They were encouraged to do them for the Capt. incapacitation scenario but this was sometimes addressed in the SIM. Quite important that an FO can carry out a satisfactory autoland as in the Capt. incapacitation case he may have to if the weather is crap, can't go flying all over the globe looking for an alternate that is VMC with a possibly dying colleague in the other seat.

R/W 05R TPE - At the time of the SQ006 accident this runway was promulgated as a runway and NOTAM'ed as 'closed - under repair', it became a taxiway when the repairs were completed. On the night in question there were no crosses at the threshold and the runway lights were on.

Dani

7th Nov 2011, 22:46

In the first Operations Manual of Tiger Airways, which was a 1:1 copy of SIA/SLK procedures, there was a very strange paragraph, saying that CMD should let the FO make autoland if they don't want to give him the landing - for whatever reason.

I don't know if this paragraph has been lifted in SIA/SLK, in Tiger it never came to execution and was deleted very soon, like many other non-western things coming from SIA...

poser

7th Nov 2011, 23:27

that is a really strange policy. dani, did you manage to find out the reason for it?

Akali Dal

8th Nov 2011, 01:54

The only reason why this thread remains is that it involved an Asian airline; all the skygods are trying to find fault and gloat about an Asian carrier. Had it been a western carrier this thread would have been merged with an existing one on the SEA forum and all would have been forgotten. There are many failed skygods who just can't live down the self perceived insult of having not been able to con their way into plum positions in SQ that they keep having the axes primed for grinding.

Dani

8th Nov 2011, 08:11

you mean like the Air France accident... ;)

By George

8th Nov 2011, 09:02

Akali I think it is a shame you feel the way you do. I have just retired from SQ and have many Indian friends that I flew with. Great Guys and good pilots. As an Aussie I have never acted or felt like a "Sky God", far from it. We are all in this business together. As an ex-SQ employee I will not comment on this incident, except to say the FO never did the Auto-Land it was always the Captain, regardless of the weather. I go back to '98 on the 743. Sounds like you have met an Australian A-Hole, all nations have a few of them, we have a few in Parliament, it's called 'Human Nature'. Life would be dull without them.

richard III

8th Nov 2011, 11:42

great post BG!!
It will never cease to amaze me the behavior of some colleages, Cargojock has been bitching and moaning on this site since 2006, and he still with SQC, wonder if he makes the same statements he posts here in front of his bosses which is precisely where they should be heard, very manly attitude. You just DON'T badmouth the company that feeds you and your family, much less your colleages. No wonder why expats are being questioned in SQ. Do a favor to the fellow expat pilots in your outfit, that may want to stay, and keep the bitter comments about your company for yourself. And for god's sake do not place the blame on anyone until the enquiry is over. Don't know what's worse for the fellow pilot that was involved in this incident, the enquiry that's coming or having treacherous colleages like CJ. Whatever the outcome my solidarity goes to the pilot responsible for the aircraft and crew....my best wishes to him.

woo hoo

8th Nov 2011, 12:03

Correct me if I'm wrong but an ex SQ colleague of mine told me that SQ authorize autolands on any ILS runway. CAT II/III protections not required:=

overmars

8th Nov 2011, 12:34

I'm still trying to figure out who Cargojock is...

Most likely I've met him before, but he probably kept his mouth shut to the rest of us First Officers, only to come online to complain about us.

rain5

8th Nov 2011, 13:02

CJ wont be hard to spot -

Just look for the guy with the big chip on his shoulder , slagging off the main line guys up in the lounge in Dubai. You know the one huddled up in the corner , loud as hell- complaining about his roster and the Cop s .

99 % of our Expats - be it Mainline or Cargo are top guys . It is unfortunate that there exist characters like CJOCK in the Airline.

I suggest we dont waste anymore time on these guys who are quick to point fingers and blame at a fellow colleague. For the FO s ,- CJ is an exception to the rule./May he rot in hell.

CARGOJOCK

8th Nov 2011, 15:32

sorry folks it is hard to stomach that one of our aircraft had veered off.
especially by a LIP/IP or whatever, what to do lah!!!

to the FO i have no issue with your fellas just the fault of the almighty training at SQ/SQC.

to some of the fools on this forum, admitting ones mistakes is the first step to correction. in SQ no way lah we our always correct!! now you have a 773 on a grass patch landed by a LIP/IP or some big personality.

i hope the training will be corrected to better the present system, a critic is not a bad person we have to learn from it NOT COVER IT UP like it is done in SQ/SQC.

a bigger fate awaits us if these small red flags are not addressed.

ps: i am not one of you noodle boys that stay in the dubai lounge to eating free food and drinks and yap on COPs, wrong number lah

golfyankeesierra

8th Nov 2011, 19:08

I have no interest in your internal affairs (BTW What's an LIP/IP?), only why such a beast comes to yoyo along the runway.
One would think the inertia wouldn't make such tight turns possible; pity there's no video of it..
When does the BFU get into the picture, there is no info on their website?

wozzo

8th Nov 2011, 21:12

When does the BFU get into the picture, there is no info on their website?
There is a short press statement (http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_030/nn_223532/sid_73DD50411082B3D66A7C671D678AA987/nsc_true/DE/Aktuelles/Nachrichten/Aktuell/111103__Pressemitteilung__B777__MUC.html) which basically says, yes, there is an investigation, and no, there is no information and they won't react to media queries.

There will be some information in the monthly bulletin for November (published probably in January or February 2012), and then after several years, a report. That's the way they roll. Only hope: Media, journalists and leaks.

in my last airline

8th Nov 2011, 21:48

Had a B738 go from FLARE back to GS once. The nose dipped at around 20ft and we hit quite hard. Absolutely no time to take over manually especially as it was an up sloping runway. Can't remember if it was a genuine low vis protected signal. Don't think it was but was a good wake up to all things electronic! Come on GLS.

shinkai744

8th Nov 2011, 22:33

golfyankeesierra (http://www.pprune.org/members/47954-golfyankeesierra)

No need to pity, whoever said there was no actual video of it? ;)

shinkai744

8th Nov 2011, 22:58

Heard SQC/SQ is just gathering enough evidence to do a *EY* case on CJ soon. So just sit back, ignore his post and enjoy the show.

Publication of false SQ training facts;

But I do find his names calling, entertaining.
Mainline pilots = mainline rats
Singaporeans = noodle boys(sense a racist?)
Not sure how SQ views it though.
:eek:

Man, I love this guy. Thanks for the entertainment :ok:, back to discussion already.

etops777

9th Nov 2011, 01:59

CJ will be easy to track down. It's going to be interesting. Sit tight CJ

Patty747400

9th Nov 2011, 03:41

"How many times must it be stated on this thread that SIA FOs DO NOT CONDUCT AUTOLANDS AS A PF. IT IS ALWAYS THE CAPTAIN WHO IS THE PF, BOTH FOR PRACTICE AND ACTUAL AUTOLANDS."

Practice and actual autolands? I assume you mean practice or actual CAT2/3. If that's the case you are correct. Captains will always do the actual or practice CAT2/3 landings.
But, there's nothing in our manuals preventing the FO from doing a autoland. I have had FO:s doing it "just for fun".
It's not common, I can agree on that since if you want to do an autoland you might as well have the captain doing it so both pilots can record it towards their required LVP recency requirements.

"In the first Operations Manual of Tiger Airways, which was a 1:1 copy of SIA/SLK procedures, there was a very strange paragraph, saying that CMD should let the FO make autoland if they don't want to give him the landing - for whatever reason."

Don't know about SIA but in SIA Cargo (and the manuals were a blueprint of SIA) no such thing has existed since 2004.

777vs330

9th Nov 2011, 04:51

In my previous life with SIA, ever since the FOs found out that they are not able to record autoland as their PF sectors that count towards their upgrade criteria, I never had one who's interested in doing an autoland, and Patty is right, if there's a need to autoland, we might as well do it for the sake of recency.

Back to the topic, it would be interesting to find out whether did the incident happened as a consequence of autopilot deviation, or as a result of manual intervention in attempt for landing.

SWQ is quite a new 773ER that I had not flown prior to leaving Singapore, but I did recall on 2 occasions I had to disconnect the A/P and landed manually during practice autoland. Once was due LOC deviation that was becoming significant, and the other was G/S deflecting causing A/P to pitch nose down too quickly too close to ground at less than 200'. I was lucky that I'm old school and paid close attention to any deviation, and sadly, on both occasions, both the FOs did not catch the deviations. In this sense, I think perhaps CargoJock has made some valid observations on the operational aspects in SIA. Though Cargojock ought to get out and not be a pain to everyone, if he is in fact, the same style when he's in uniform.

And whilst everyone is still waiting, my old friends told me that there's no need to worry about the PIC as he's very well connected and slated to be one of future Chief Pilots (well not sure of his chances now..) and the important thing is no one was hurt and we all could learn something from it.

kinteafrokunta

9th Nov 2011, 06:42

See, my dear " in my last airline ", you are a bit slack in not able to take over manually and had to do " after thumping checks ". But look here, just the post before this, we have a super duper expat ace at SQ who saved the day twice!:D:D despite the non performance of the 2 local slacky F/Os. The local boys must cringe in shame!

And SQ is not grateful enough to make him a " somebody ", how insulting!

nicholas.nickle

9th Nov 2011, 06:54

7770vs330...oh dear:O not so subtle, are you?

kaikohe76

9th Nov 2011, 07:19

Folks,

I can make no comment regarding the Munich incident, except that, possibly there by the grace of God go us all?
My former company, as a matter of `Standard Operating Procedure`, certainly on the 75 anyway, had the F/O allways as the handling Pilot during an Auto Land. At decision height the Captain would take over for the landing, unless a go around was performed & this was still handled by the F/O. This procedure worked very well indeed & it had the added advantage of keeping the F/O fully in the loop during LVP approaches. I used to quite enjoy doing the handling on an LVP & the 75 did well every time. I can't fully see why this system is not used by a number of other large carriers, unless the F/O might be low on experience & hours.
I still use SQ as my International Airline of choice, my only slight bitch is that, with the Munich tech stop now, the SVQ - MAN flight is that much longer in time & starting from AKL, it makes for a very long day.
Regards.

rain5

9th Nov 2011, 08:28

777vs330,

You are absolutely right . Your old friends have their info correct. Well let's see how SQ top guns handle one of their own. Interesting to see the outcome.

777vs330

9th Nov 2011, 09:49

kinteafrokunta
Wonder why the hostility? If you speak to the local chaps, they will have a story or 2 to share with regards to flying with inexperienced FOs. They are not unsafe, it's just that the 2 scenarios I had both FOs did not detect it early enough and it was indeed, my responsibility to get it right to manually land, or go around. Bear in mind, 2 failed practice autoland in unprotected airports, in the spate of 8 years with SIA, is not too bad a stats. Your rather unfriendly gesture speaks of only couple of reasons that I do not wish to dwell on, but you can spare me the expat ace nonsense, you find the best and the worst in all carriers including the one that I'm working for right now, it's just a matter which get their SOPs right in taking care of the weakest links.

nicholas.nickle
Was really a career cross road around 2000 that I had to move on to the bus or take up the 777 offer with SIA. Hence the screen name. ;)

rain5
I have heard more, just like you did. I will not disclose any more unnecessarily just like the rest who're still with SIA. Despite the fact that nobody is glad of any incident, in this case the outcome would be quite interesting to keep tab consider the fact that 4th floor was rather harsh on normal line crew after some noticeable incidents.

datogu al MONA

9th Nov 2011, 21:23

for that capt rain-who bolakrishnan who prowl this forum whenever SQ is in the news, he has an axe to grind too. not forgetting the tens of million suit against MH too. interesting to see how a black adder operates in this humid tropics!

DoMePlease

10th Nov 2011, 10:58

Looks like tire failure to me. I'm almost sure of it, as seen from the black smoke.

So much fuss over blaming the FO over a botched auto land. Shame on you all.

Edit: the was a link to the video just before this posting. It's missing now.

hetfield

10th Nov 2011, 11:19

Looks like tire failure to meDon't think so. A single blocked/damaged tire wouldn't change significantly the direction of motion on a 777 .

A Comfy Chair

10th Nov 2011, 12:17

Yes, because a tyre failure will do that... :confused:

Ignitionon

10th Nov 2011, 12:29

Any link to the video
Thanks

lomapaseo

10th Nov 2011, 12:58

Looks like tire failure to me. I'm almost sure of it, as seen from the black smoke.

Well if aybody can view the video, how sure are we of chicken vs egg regarding the smoky tire?

DoMePlease

10th Nov 2011, 13:27

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://m.youtube.com/?appcache_off=1320914322&reason=1&errmsg=E-SER%3AQUOTA_EXCEEDED_ERR%3A%20DOM%20Exception%2022#/watch?v=EK7J1HTy3XY)

DoMePlease

10th Nov 2011, 13:29

Black smoke from the nose tire as well???

Why did the film stop there??? There has to be about 15secs of useful footage left.

Dani

10th Nov 2011, 14:09

Crews who fly regularly in and out of MUC know that the Localizer on this runway (both directions) is very easy to deflect. As soon as something approaches the antenna, the signal does this S twist.

I fail to see a tire failure. If you see that your autoland doesn't guide to on the correct path, switch it off and go manual.

shinkai744

10th Nov 2011, 14:13

Looks like that plane spotter finally released the vid.

My pure observation:

Well, you can see the plane:

1)Last 30-20 feet suddenly bank left, left main wheel touch down first and HARD for quite awhile before right touch down. AC more to left of runway centerline if you observe the tarmac visual.

2)The black smoke is from the Grass debris kicked up from left main boogey going on it first BEFORE the nose wheel.

3) Nose wheel RE-airborne for 1-2 seconds and land again eventually hitting grass debris (coincides with attempt go around when nose veering off ?)

The whole veering seems quite linear rather than a violent swing. (more like JAY CHOU initial D mountain SIDE DRAIN-LOCK smooth Drift.:ok: He saved the day.

A380 Jockey

10th Nov 2011, 14:55

Around the 17th second is the nose being pulled up...??!
Also no reversers, even at idle? And I don't see the ground/spoilers either.
Something not right here.
If the vid is to be believed, aircraft never got into 'ground' mode. And then an attempt to abort the landing vs someone stepping on the brakes maybe..?!

millionaire

10th Nov 2011, 15:56

Wow, you guys will make excellent accident investigators ! So observant and so sharp, right down to the micro seconds... I have informed Boeing and SIA to look you guys up for your expert opinions, advice and conclusion to the incident... By the way, cj has been pretty quiet lah.. No bitching for a while lah...

O'Neill No6

10th Nov 2011, 16:07

Thanks for the video.

Can anybody see whether the speed brakes extend? Couldn't be sure. If reversers not deployed (as someone else noted) and speed brake not armed there wouldn't be an awful lot of friction to control the aircraft as it commenced it's detour.

Glad I wasn't on board front or back!

shinkai744

10th Nov 2011, 16:08

Think CJ is being investigated by SQ. Might have bark up the wrong tree this time round. Let's see what happens to the guy. Becoming tougher or perhaps digging a bigger hole for himself.
Interesting nevertheless.

lomapaseo

10th Nov 2011, 16:15

I thought the observations above were spot-on.

As to what caused them ?.... just speculative.

Back to the orignial tire-track photo.

Could The appearance of the sharpish swerve be due to fore-shortening from the camera lens distance?

rain5

10th Nov 2011, 17:17

No tire failure

Precautionary change by MUN eng after event.

mrdeux

11th Nov 2011, 04:01

Does anyone who is familiar with Munich know if the taxiway just prior to the initial excursion to the left might have been of interest to the crew?

in my last airline

11th Nov 2011, 08:39

Accidental TOGA push followed by a, 'I have control, no I have control, no the auto-pilot has control,' moment. Anybody wanna wager?

decimal86

11th Nov 2011, 09:23

thks for the link

KABOY

11th Nov 2011, 10:08

Nosewheel was firmly placed on runway then a new rotation commenced, which was abruptly cancelled.

Accidental TOGA push followed by a, 'I have control, no I have control, no the auto-pilot has control,' moment. Anybody wanna wager?

Think that might be close to the truth. Last time this happened a certain 747 ended off the runway in BKK.

hetfield

11th Nov 2011, 10:10

Accidental TOGA push followed by a, 'I have control, no I have control, no the auto-pilot has control,' moment. Anybody wanna wager?

Looks like....

Oakape

11th Nov 2011, 10:18

It might have been simply an attempt to get the weight off the nose wheel to avoid damage when the aircraft went into the 'rough'.

kookaburra

11th Nov 2011, 10:29

Ho many times do I need to watch a Bu... Sh... fight sim video and have others think it is real?
Isn't this a professional forum?
I have no doubt 'the crew' input massive directional control inputs for what ever reason based on the rubber marks on the runway.

Can we as professionals please see past the rubbish on the internet and the 'wannabes'.
Am I the only one that gets really pizzed off when I watch a u tube video only to see a few seconds in that it's only a 'flight sim' b... sh.. 'recreation'?!

hetfield

11th Nov 2011, 10:33

Bu... Sh... fight sim video What are you talking about?

one post only!

11th Nov 2011, 10:57

Well in that case the graphics on MS flight sim have got rather amazing. I am particuarly impressed with the amazing detail that MS have gone to so that the background looks just like a real airport. The clarity and resolution was excellent. Congratulations MS on an excellent product...!

kookaburra

11th Nov 2011, 11:36

O'k, Now I'm doubting.

The more I watch that video, the more I can't see it being other than original.

It just looks soooo wrong like all the other Microsoft u tube posts.
No reverse selected during ground roll.

I've aqua-planned a loooong way down the side of a runway keeping it as straight as possible in the wet, wet, wet and lots of cross wind.
Can't see just low vis or what ever causing an excursion/event like that.

smiling monkey

11th Nov 2011, 11:39

He fooled us all. Kookaburra is right

I disagree. A Microsoft flight sim video will not be able to do reproduce the mist that you see above the wings during the flare as seen in this video.

Capn Bloggs

11th Nov 2011, 11:46

Attention!
Kookaburra is right
Windup alert! :=

kookaburra

11th Nov 2011, 11:55

Attention!

Quote:
Kookaburra is right

Windup alert

Ok. I'll take a step back.

I'll happily admit I might be wrong, probably am....

1. I do get the sh1ts with flight sim videos on the net purporting to be the 'real thing'. All u tube vids should state if flight sim.
2. I don't get why the thing got so side ways in such 'minor' met conditions.
3. No reversers?

Any way. No wind up. Back to my life.

B744-B777

11th Nov 2011, 13:31

This is a genuine video, so is the photo. Luckily no damage to the aircraft and German investigators in Singapore for the interview

moredrag

11th Nov 2011, 13:57

Shoot..... it looks real....spoilers not armed and no reverse, two very tired pilots?:confused:

vested interest

11th Nov 2011, 15:06

not a pilot, but live in Munich, and can confirm 100% that the video is Munich airport.

suninmyeyes

11th Nov 2011, 15:19

As a professional airline pilot I would say it looks real.

Although it is possible I don't think the nose was raised due to an accidental push of TOGA nor an intentional attempt to manually rotate into the air. There was no increase in thrust evident and you certainly wouldn't rotate with the intention of getting airborne without having goaround power.

I suspect the nose was raised when the left wheels dug into the grass and the rapid deceleration pitched the nose down compressing the nose oleo. There would be an instinct to pull back to reduce the weight on the main wheels and make them less likely to dig in to the grass. If it was an autoland the autopilot may still have been engaged in which case more force than normal would have been required to move the control column aft. Once it had been moved back a bit the autopilot would disconnect with a lurch and with the same force still applied the control column would then rapidly move back thus producing an abrupt nose up pitch until back pressure was reduced or reducing airspeed meant it was no longer possible to keep the nose in the air.

After the rotation the nosewheel came down into the grass where right rudder fine or tiller input would be less due to skidding, then when it made it back on to the tarmac and the nosewheel suddenly gained grip it would turn to the right rapidly.

All conjecture until the facts come out.

in my last airline

11th Nov 2011, 16:11

How many times have you seen a crew 'too overloaded' to select reverse! Dozens of times by me. If thrust levers were in any position other than closed, spoilers won't deploy and reverse locked out. The most likely scenario is thrust is UP either because of TOGA selection or a manual selection. Thereafter it is a bun fight as to who is flying. Interestingly there doesn't seem to be much rudder deflection during the video. Nosewheel steering would have been hyper sensitive at that speed which may explain the severe skidding.
To me, it looks like the plane may have been accelerating after nosewheel touchdown. It certainly wasn't decelerating.

FullWings

11th Nov 2011, 16:40

Watching that vid, it seems like a normal landing in terms of descent rate, flare, touchdown and initial rollout. What stands out is the subsequent lack of spoiler deployment and reverse, followed by an excursion onto the grass and the nosewheel raising briefly.

The speedbrakes should auto-deploy if a) they are armed, thrust levers at idle and on the ground or b) if reverse is selected on the ground. They are re-stowed if the thrust levers are moved forward towards takeoff thrust.

The nosewheel lifting appears to coincide with the left gear going onto the grass, judging by the dirt being kicked up. I wouldn't have thought that could cause any significant pitch up, more likely the opposite, so that leaves the possibility of an attempted go-around from after touchdown, aborted soon afterwards. Possibly the engines spooling up at different rates leading to a directional problem? TAC *should* have dealt with most of that as they were most definitely >70kts. A bit of a poser, this one. I wouldn't want to point any fingers at the crew until I knew what was working/failed in this particular instance.

As far as the aircraft shooting off trying to follow a false localiser, from the 777 manual:
The autopilot flight director system (AFDS) can detect significant ILS signal interference due to service vehicles or aircraft. If localizer or glideslope signal interference is detected, the autopilot disregards the ILS signal and remains engaged in an attitude stabilizing mode based on inertial data. Most ILS signal interferences last only a short period of time, so there is no annunciation other than erratic movement of the ILS raw data during the time the interference is present. If the condition persists, the annunciations described above for Autopilot and Flight Director Mode Degradation are provided.
I would presume the filtering carries on during the landing roll.

Replaying the clip (which I think is almost undoubtedly genuine), I have to say how lucky they were not to have had a major accident. I've never seen anything that size in a 14-wheel drift from the grass, across the runway and back on the grass again. If it had dug in a little more or pulled in a different direction, it could have gone through rows of parked aircraft or even into the terminal. Once something with that sort of rotational inertia starts spinning, all bets are off...

Chuck Canuck

11th Nov 2011, 17:11

Without any intention to seem too harsh wrt Shinkai's posts, I hope that if SQC is done with CJ they should alert other operators of such undesirables so that they do not hop onto another outfit only to recreate their ****ty show. When I was KAL we had some really irritating ex SQC fellas who were totally PIAs with their whining, whinging and downright uncouth ways of putting down their former fellow pilots. These " cheats " signed agreements with SQC which they reneged on; got their 744 ratings and ran off to KAL virtually conning their ways into that poor airline with it's clueless recruitment team. I am sure SQC have their faults and it is certainly not the best freight dog outfit in town, but these pilots are not school boys when they signed on.

O'Neill No6

11th Nov 2011, 18:48

Chuck Cannuck-

You're just brilliant! You have managed to make a post that doesn't even come close to making a comment about this incident. All you do is make uninteresting remarks about SQC pilots! Why? Are you attempting to ingratiate yourself with the "knock CJ" gang?

I don't agree with all that CJ says, but we are now descending into an utterly boring drift.

I know I will be hammered for this (Awaiting rain 5-ugh!) but we are now discussing whether the speed brake was armed. Not arming the auto speed brake and not deploying reverse idle (second channel to deploy spoilers) leaves the aircraft very unstable on the ground. IF, the you tube video is accurate.

shinkai744

12th Nov 2011, 04:26

Another few interesting observation if it's contributes to any constructive discussion that is.--

1) Based on YouTube timing( that's what we have anyways) the nose wheel was back on the runway Tarmac ( after veering off left) for a good 6-7 seconds (make it 5, to be very conservative) before going off to the right.

2) Main wheel boogey visual transition from black mud/grass debris to smoking white rubber in an INSTANT.

With these, a best educated opinion 6-7 seconds on the Tarmac (5 at the very minimum on 197'/60 m wide runway with whatever speed it was, is hardly a violent swing on the nose wheel by the crew's input as so many of the forumers were predicting.
Also the black dirt to instant white smoke was probabily due the main boogeys already lose grip of the grass surface and in a sliding mode (impossible for the crew to have felt it until the wheel hit Tarmac - gripping force back again and locking in the direction and swing marks u see on the photos.

Metaphorically speaking: A driver sitting at the front of huge long base trailer transport truck turning slowing without realizing his tail has lost grip already. What looks like still in control for the first few moments... Until the rear gripped again, leaving the driver split second to either crash into the road divider, brake in time or do a further hard turn to avoid.

Lastly, if the rumour of an attempted go around was true or considered, as seen with the nose wheel lifting off or otherwise; why would the reversers be pull? I understand most operators commits to LANDING once the reverser sleeves are out from lock.

Like I said--- just making observations, not conclusions.

Ps, I like the "conclusion"by a forumer who so clearly states that the vid is a fake from flight sim although he corrected himself later. Must be a Steve jobs apple software game to counter pc games.:ok: one thing I have learned for sure is never to judge and conclude without knowing all facts.
Afterall, this is an industry where we have to LEARN FROM; rather than JUDGE each other's experiences .

in my last airline

12th Nov 2011, 11:42

TOGA may have been pushed before touchdown!

millerscourt

12th Nov 2011, 11:59

Chuck Canute

I very much doubt if any SQ Cargo Pilots broke their bonds and joined KAL as you suggest as in my experience those who chose to leave whilst in bondage always negotiated their exit. I recall an A340 South African leaving to join EK as a management pilot some years back and another joining Atlas as an F/O as he got a green card in a lottery. Another Ethiopian B744 Captain joined and paid off his bond as he wanted to be based in NY.

SIA would get to hear where any bond breakers went to in that region so I doubt your claim is correct.

An Amercan who got fired because he had one too many in First Class and mouthed off to a Local big wig sued SQ successfully when they tried to keep his bank guarantee money after sacking him.

vested interest

13th Nov 2011, 14:56

Just in the off-chance that there is still lingering doubt about the authenticity of the video, yesterday I found the spot where it was obviously filmed. Tor 125 on the south side, where I saw a group of spotters.

By an amazing co-incidence, just as I arrived, a Singapore Airlines 777 was beginning its take-off roll - on the same runway. I checked later, it wasn't the same aircraft.

I took a quick video of it, and you can clearly see it's taken from almost the same spot as the original.
Munich Airport, 12.11.11 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/GOJS4kiWZkQ)

joelnthailand

13th Nov 2011, 17:07

I flew private aircraft in Singapore about 8 or 9 years ago out of Seletar, and lived in Singapore for a few years during that timeframe.

In my experience:

The state of aviation training (when i was there at least) was a complete joke. Generally speaking, following the book was the only acceptable approach - no matter the consequences, since there was a complete lack of any ability to think out of the box.

When SQ 009 happened, there was little acceptance of the fact that SQ messed up. Ask anyone on the street in Singapore, or go back and review all the governemt did to fight the findings of the accident investigation. An inability to admit mistakes is a recipie for more of them.

SQ is not a particularly dangerous airline, but one might not conclude it is all that safe either, SQ and Silk Air fatalities aside. The ability to admit issues is the principle first step in addressing them.

faheel

13th Nov 2011, 18:52

WOW ! don't you just love armchair psychologists, especially the ones who "flew private airplanes "

Completely off base statements like that together with the witch hunt others have been conducting from the comfort of their lounge chairs just drives home the point that you should wait for the facts to emerge before putting ones foot firmly in mouth .:ugh:

Phantom Driver

13th Nov 2011, 18:57

I flew private aircraft in Singapore about 8 or 9 years ago out of Seletar, and lived in Singapore for a few years during that timeframe.

In my experience:

The state of aviation training (when i was there at least) was a complete joke. Generally speaking, following the book was the only acceptable approach - no matter the consequences, since there was a complete lack of any ability to think out of the box

I guess flying your PRIVATE aircraft really does qualify you to comment on PROFESSIONAL aviation matters. I am curious to know quite what facts your judgements are based on with regard to the obvious insinuations about training in SIA in particular? With due respect, I would beg to differ:suspect:

parabellum

13th Nov 2011, 19:48

joelnthailand - Since you chose to go the private route in Singapore we can reasonably assume you know absolutely nothing about the training system in SIA, your post confirms that. A large part of the initial training of Singapore cadets takes place in Australia with non Singaporean instructors, the cadets don't get to fly within SIA until they have achieved their basic CPL/IR.

I was working for SIA when the accident involving SQ6, (Not SQ9), happened and there was no denial, just a deep sense of shame and embarrassment, not the sort of thing one shouts from the hill tops,
it might help if you made some effort to understand the culture of the people you choose to criticise.

Since about 92% of all accidents/incidents are blamed on pilot error it is possible that this incident involved handling errors too. The German regulating authority and Boeing will establish exactly what happened and other operators will be advised so that lessons may be learned, that is standard practice, it won't be 'swept under the carpet' as so many of the anti SQ brigade will claim.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, it won't surprise me if, within a few weeks of the report being published, there is as much deliberate mis information here on PPRuNe about this Munich incident as there is about the SQ6 accident.

joelnthailand

14th Nov 2011, 01:26

> Since you chose to go the private route in Singapore we can reasonably
> assume you know absolutely nothing about the training system in SIA, your
> post confirms that. A large part of the initial training of Singapore cadets
> takes place in Australia with non Singaporean instructors, the cadets don't
> get to fly within SIA until they have achieved their basic CPL/IR.

LOL.. I knew a fair amount about the SIA training (i am not saying that i am necessarily up to date), but the SIA flying club, and their offshoot (cannot remember the name) is but a part of what I am referring to. ATC in Singapore was also a big comedy. The whole thing was a mess.

If you don't like my opinion - that's your issue.

joelnthailand

14th Nov 2011, 01:30

> I guess flying your PRIVATE aircraft really does qualify you to comment on
> PROFESSIONAL aviation matters. I am curious to know quite what facts your
> judgements are based on with regard to the obvious insinuations about
> training in SIA in particular? With due respect, I would beg to differ

Yes - i would say that flying in Singapore for a few years and living there DOES qualify me to make the statements i did make. If you don't like that - well, frankly, I am sorry. But I will stand by what I said, SQ9 (not 6), was excused as anything but incompetence by SQ, when in fact - it was exactly that.

take care.

joelnthailand

14th Nov 2011, 01:41

> WOW ! don't you just love armchair psychologists, especially the ones who
> "flew private airplanes"

Armchair? dude, i lived it... It was somewhat painful, mostly funny.
Sorry i hurt your feelings.

parabellum

14th Nov 2011, 02:27

ATC in Singapore was also a big comedy. The whole thing was a mess.

When your opinion is unqualified rubbish it is hard to like it joelnthailand.

How many visits did you make to ATC so that you could ascertain how it works? None?

Please tell us more about SQ9, I remember the accident in Taipei to SQ6 but Don't recall any accident/incident to an SQ9.

rain5

14th Nov 2011, 02:34

Joeinthailand.

Please tell us more about SQ 9- /

Think you should start a separate thread with CJ and do your sq bashing there.

ecureilx

14th Nov 2011, 02:42

parabellum: I beg to differ. There was a sense of "NO, we can never do such a mistake" among the GENERAL POPULATION. And that was not the reflection of the SIA's people ..

And the subsequent reports only showed that there was good Cockpit CRM .. unlike our friend here suggests ...

I too am keen to know about the SQ 009 .. is that the flight that never happened ?? Or one of those conspiracy flights ?? :E :E

PS: joelnthailand (http://www.pprune.org/members/53110-joelnthailand): did you get spited in Singapore ? Or did you get kicked out of Singapore ? You have painted Singapore as a place of crime, and also that SIA is a safety-suspect airline .. I just looked up your old posts .. speaks volumes .. been here for 10 years and am yet to loose my wallet, even when I was drunk to the gills .. and more ..

aviator_38

14th Nov 2011, 04:33

" the SIA flying club, and their offshoot (cannot remember the name) is but a part of what I am referring to. "

Joeinthailand.

Will need to correct you here: The SIA Flying Club,renamed the Seletar Flying Club, is not where SIA does ab initio training.That starts at the SIA Flying College,before progressing to Jandakot and Queensland. The SIA Flying Club is very much a social club,and trains members of the public for their PPL licence.

Cheers

Orangputi

14th Nov 2011, 05:57

Sorry Parabellum I was working and living in Singapore during the SQ6 tradegy and there was a deep sense of denial in the company and Singaporeans generally. They handled it much better than Silk Air but it was still quite strong. whilst I dont agree with some of the unqualified statements here I think this one is quite true (rightly or wrongly!).

overmars

14th Nov 2011, 07:08

There is no SIA Flying Club, or SIA Flying College.

There are:
1. Republic of Singapore Flying Club
2. Seletar Flying Club
3. Singapore Flying College

The Singapore Flying College have established their presence at:
1. Seletar Airport (WSSL)
2. Jandakot Airport (YPJT)
3. Sunshine Coast Airport, Maroochydore (YBSU)

Haven't heard of any accident or incident regarding SQ009. Please, enlighten us.

shinkai744

14th Nov 2011, 09:28

Gents, i wouldn't waste my effort replying or furnishing details to a guy who calls himself a pilot that have operated out of seletar and YET cannot get any establishment names over there right.
Not to mention he is unable to read 9 and 6 the right way up. Makes you wonder?

Cheers.

A380 Jockey

14th Nov 2011, 14:43

Guys like CJ and JIT surprise me at their uncanny ability in winding a thread to its demolition, and causing an absolutely uncontrollable drift.
Both have machetes to grind with SIA and both are masters of the infamous witch hunt tactic.
Let's not play into their lure and get on with our thread.
Thanks guys ..

Dani

14th Nov 2011, 14:46

it's not CJ and CIT who destroy the thread but people who feel the need to answer them...

slayerdude

14th Nov 2011, 14:51

We deviate... However with regards to sq6... There was a televised press conference made a few days after the incident in which former CEO ... Dr. CHEONG said verbatim" this is our airplane, these are our pilots and we take full responsibility", and I remembered this clearly..... Indeed this admission saved SIA public image as the payin public though sq6 as a one off incident...

And now for Munich.. Can confirm no rev thrust

slayerdude

14th Nov 2011, 14:53

Cj aka joethailand....... Wind ups ,,,,,
Flay safe.. Blue side up

vested interest

14th Nov 2011, 18:08

please excuse the dumb question, Slayerdude, but how can you tell from the video that reverse thrust wasn't activated?
Thanks.

VNAV PATH

14th Nov 2011, 19:33

LtF6lC2iLI8&feature=fvsr

You ' ll see the difference on engines cowls ..

vested interest

14th Nov 2011, 20:06

thank you.

Activated within 3 secs of main gear contact, and before the nose is down. Cool :8

lomapaseo

14th Nov 2011, 20:29

please excuse the dumb question, Slayerdude, but how can you tell from the video that reverse thrust wasn't activated?
Thanks.

are we discussing activated or commanded :confused:.

The pilot does the commanding but the reverse only activates once all the aircraft systems are satisfied.

To my knowledge all the contributing factors in this regard are not yet known to us.

slayerdude

15th Nov 2011, 01:07

Vested.... The pilot has to manually put engines in rev.... N m not makin observations ... M confirming No rev selected....

380 .... Auto land available in land 3 or land 2 verified at 500ft(fail passive system).... Flare capture at 40ft, idle at 25 ft n rollout in gnd mode...all 3 annunciations wont be available with no autoland eicas msg

Fd system has 3 sec memory of last track to take care of scalloping..... If loc signal was to the left for more than 3 secs.... Yep ... Fd will take last signal reference ..... Hence veering left.... To correct might hav used tiller ... N tiller to be used only below 30 knots... High speed tiller used might hav created the violent swing to the right..... Speculation only .....

Dynasty Trash Hauler

17th Nov 2011, 14:51

" a few days after the incident in which former CEO ... Dr. CHEONG said verbatim" this is our airplane, these are our pilots and we take full responsibility"

Yep, a few days is a long time following an accident.

SQ were forced to make this admission after totally botching the PR immediately following the accident.

alph2z

20th Nov 2011, 00:42

... To correct might hav used tiller ... N tiller to be used only below 30 knots... High speed tiller used might hav created the violent swing to the right.....

An AF346 747 captain wrongly used the tiller (Aug 8th 2008 at CYUL) and caused the plane's nose to go off the runway.

totempole

20th Nov 2011, 17:06

An AF346 747 captain wrongly used the tiller (Aug 8th 2008 at CYUL) and caused the plane's nose to go off the runway.

Can you elaborate on that? I have never heard of it; and doubt that such a senior pilot ( to be a B747 skipper I guess one should be fairly senior within the ranks ) would use the tiller at high speed. And AF is a good reputable airline from the first world, is it not?

hetfield

20th Nov 2011, 17:35

And AF is a good reputable airline from the first world, is it not? Off topic,

but I'm not sure latest AF incidents/accidents can proof that...

lederhosen

20th Nov 2011, 17:48

May not be relevant but the Munich Atis today included a warning that the runway might be slippery due to de-icing fluid. In Munich the de-icing is carried out immediately before the runway. A russian A310 coincidentally slipped of the runway close to this point some time ago on take off with asymetric spooling up of the engines. It has never seemed paricularly slippery to me, but then you might only notice it when it is too late and were not expecting it....food for thought.

slayerdude

20th Nov 2011, 18:57

Leder..... Certainly relevant info....and pertinent ... However don't think de icing was required on said day of incident.....

Dani

20th Nov 2011, 19:07

and if it's slippery it slips along the approach axis. Slippering makes corrections (left, right, deceleration) more difficult. Not making it going left and right!

lederhosen

20th Nov 2011, 20:15

I was not flying that day so I cannot say if anyone availed themselves. However LH by far the biggest users of the airport are enthusiastic de-icers even when it appears relatively warm.

I am not quite sure about your point Dani. If the aircraft was for some reason already heading off to one side a slippery runway would definitely make things more difficult.

The high speed excursion in Denver was another example of a captain misusing the tiller at high speed by the way Totempole.

The de-icer fluid is probably not relevant. But the Atis message did make me think.