2005 Atlas overrun at EDDL; final report: pilots not to blame

[Kerosene Kraut]

This is about some Atlas Air landing accident Boeing 747-200 overrun at Düsseldorf in 2005. Crew of three unhurt, airplane written off.

The final report of the german BFU ("NTSB") is out. Pilots had been told about "medium" runway conditions and braking action right before landing but experienced way worse due to heavy snow and winds. BFU clears the pilots in their final report now says technology to measure current rwy-surface conditions is not sufficient.

(pic)
BFU spricht Atlas-Air-Piloten von Schuld frei (http://www.flugrevue.de/zivilluftfahrt/airport/bfu-spricht-atlas-air-piloten-von-schuld-frei/549192)

full german report:
http://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/2005/Bericht_05_AX001_B747_DUS.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

This pprune-thread about it had been closed:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/160430-747-off-rwy-dus.html

[JammedStab]

A good time to go Autobrake Max.

[742]

Max autobrakes would not have made any difference. This was a matter of braking action, not runway length.

To put it in terms of how the 747 autobrake system works; if medium brakes were not able to achieve their targeted deceleration rate, then max would not have done any better.

[Desert185]

^^^That's my impression.

[Hussar 54]

Not the first time that I've said this, here on this forum....

How FFF can it take the BFU, what, seven or eight years to put out a report for an over-run ???!!??!

It's not even as though this investigation actually required much digging for missing / destroyed evidence or applied scientific / human behavioural research....Meanwhile, the crew have had this hanging over them for seven or eight years....

Now absolutely convinced that the BFU exists only to counter the myth of world beating German efficiency....

[Kerosene Kraut]

The BFU is a relatively small independent authority. By size it is NOT another NTSB. It's not looking for legal guilt but just for the scientific, functional reasons behind certain mishaps and accidents. Many times they need to get experts from the outside to do specific research. That can easily take years. They certainly do take themselves time but they feel no need to rush. Only when they feel they are done they are done.

I'd dare to say they are as independent as it gets. That's a big plus. Their judgement has a value.

[GlueBall]

Be careful with that on a contaminated pavement, because 3000psi simultaneous brake pressure on all 16 wheels will intermittently lock up some wheels due uneven contamination, and get you off centerline. :{

[one dot right]

A good time to go Autobrake Max.

FFS all autobrake does is select a RATE of retardation, as has already been said here, if it couldn't achieve it with medium due to a lack of braking action then selecting a higher rate is not going to change anything.

I am baffled at the amount of so called professional pilots that don't understand this:ugh:

[GlueBall]

Are you also baffled why Boeing does NOT recommend "Max" autobrake setting on contaminated runways? ...but rather settings "3" or "4" (747-400)

In the case of the 747 classics, "Max" autobrake setting is not governed by deceleration, only "MIN" & "MED" settings are.

[Intruder]

Reading the entire "Wheel Brakes" section of the Boeing 747 FCTM in context, that is not a "recommendation", but a MINIMUM use level that reflects their advice to use the minimum braking required to achieve the landing distance required. That combines the considerations of brake life, brake heating, and safety.

[GlueBall]

If I read this accident report correctly, it involves a B747-200 (Classic) version, about what the subject matter of this thread is about.

My response in particular was to captain "one dot right" to be aware about his take on "Max" autobrake setting being governed by deceleration, or "retardation" as he had inferred, as in this case, of the Classic, is incorrect.

[JammedStab]

"Some manufacturers recommend the use of the highest available auto-brake setting allowed for landing as it avoids any in-built delays of the lower settings and ensures the prompt application of wheel brakes."

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/20120801OperationsOnContaminatedRunways.pdf

[mustangsally]

These guys did everything by the book. Maybe the only thing that may have prevented the overrun was a very firm landing. But I doubt it. Back, way back, the Saberliner did not have anti-skid brakes. To check out one had to demonstrate a lose of fifteen knots at touch down. On a dry runway that produced a firm plant, not hard, but firm. On a wet runway it was a smooth touch down. Now the Vref was usually either side of 120. But not even that, would have helped these professionals.

[ShotOne]

The key facts here seem pretty straightforward; did it really take nearly nine years to come to this finding?