High winds at Schipol. What a landing!

[gerago]

KLM Boeing 777 plane banks sharply moments before Schiphol airport landing | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3175098/KLM-plane-banks-sharply-pilots-struggled-land-high-winds-Schiphol-airport.html)


Clap clap clap :D

OR

Frown frown frown :=

[wheels_down]

Timing was everything in this one!

[ACMS]

Having flown the 77W in winds like that a few times myself and watching I can safely say some of that wing waggling would have been PIO. ( Pilot induced oscillations )
It's very easy to over control in those situations.

I think it looked a lot worse than it really was.

[springbok449]

One of the things about Schipol is that they have a RWY to face every wind direction but you still always seem to be allocated the RWY with the most crosswind component... ;-)

[Hotel Tango]

One of the things about Schipol is that they have a RWY to face every wind direction

But not all can be used for landing heavies!

[fox niner]

EXEPT winds from 320/40G50. Which was the case here. That is the worst wind direction you can throw at Schiphol. And once the airplane reaches "below treetop altitude" you can expect anything with that wind.

[Double Hydco]

But not all can be used for landing heavies!

They can when its really blowing a gale. I've seen 777's land on 22 in high winds and I've seen 747's circle onto 24.

DH

[Aireps]

KLM Boeing 777 plane banks sharply moments before Schiphol airport landing | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3175098/KLM-plane-banks-sharply-pilots-struggled-land-high-winds-Schiphol-airport.html) This was KLM868 from Osaka. It did one go-around on RWY27 before the landing shown in the video.

Flight track: PH-BVB - Aircraft info and flight history - Flightradar24 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/ph-bvb/#6e8b7ae)

TWR reported wind shortly before landing at RWY27: 300 deg, 33 knots, gusting 48.

[a330jockey]

Been there and done that! FBW aircraft (in my case Airbusses) have a different technique while hand flying in turbulent conditions. Very easy to over control. But, that's what we're paid to do. Looks like a smooth landing, though.:cool:

[Above The Clouds]

TWR reported wind shortly before landing at RWY27: 300 deg, 33 knots, gusting 48


So they had a crosswind component of 16 knots gusting 22 knots on rwy 27. As usual the daily snail making a drama out of a non event, the landing looked normal and fairly smooth, the previous go around was the normal application of sound airmanship.

[Aireps]

So they had a crosswind component of 16 knots gusting 22 knots on rwy 27. As usual the daily snail making a drama out of a non event, the landing looked normal and fairly smooth, the previous go around was the normal application of sound airmanship.
Crosswind wasn't the problem on RWY27, many flights made go-arounds or diverted because of windshear on short final.

[RAT 5]

I was watching the rudder at the moment of the low level right bank. It did not seem to have been 'stood on' - left - to the reduce the drift and then right aileron (perhaps too much) to keep wings level. Mother nature biting you with no warning. Like all ladies she needs gentle but firm handling. No back-chat.
It is surprising to see AMS (6 rwys) reduced to single operation by NW storms. It is more common than you might think and there are very few alternates in the region. EDDK Cologne is the only NW rwy. Most other rwys are more SW'ly and thus worse X-winds. Fuel in the tanks and a solid plan are essential on such days.

[Kilda Ste Hilda]

Quote:
TWR reported wind shortly before landing at RWY27: 300 deg, 33 knots, gusting 48
So they had a crosswind component of 16 knots gusting 22 knots on rwy 27. As usual the daily snail making a drama out of a non event, the landing looked normal and fairly smooth, the previous go around was the normal application of sound airmanship.

At the previous mob I worked with, it's a FAIL if it was a sim proficiency check with landing in this fashion. The teledyne record will be replayed at your debriefing as to why you failed.

In the case, I wondered if it would show up in FOQA monitoring. Of cpurse there would be a lot of mitigating factors. Besides the 773 semi levered landing gear is very forgiving!

[golfbananajam]

@ACMS while the landing may be deemed good and a non issue form a piloting perspective, what about the poor fair (wage) paying pax in the back. I doubt they'd be anything other than delighted to be on the ground in one piece.

No I don't fly commercial stuff, just little GA stuff, so I do have an appreciation of what is going on when I'm in the back of a commercial cross-wind landing, but it's still not fun!!

[deefer dog]

Yes, nicely flown and a great job.

Irrespective of the reported runway wind, was this a stable approach?

(Not a judgement, merely a question posed following the pathetic NTSB observations in relation to the Southwest 737 landing incident at LGA)

[armchairpilot94116]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M2fZ8CfDLk

Not the same day, not the same place, not the same exact situation, but this one went around.

[RAT 5]

Looked OK to me, and mostly under control. I suspect the 100'-50' lurch was mother nature: it was corrected and a/c touched down and what seemed, considering, a normal manner.
The EVA A332 was very different and a GREAT decision. I've only flown A320 in the sim; round the circuit. It was not intuitive in pitch or roll. I've flown some nasty weather in B737/757/767 and found it natural. I suspect the AB drivers will say that with practice you 'get the hang of it', but how often do you get to practice. I found I was almost having to think what to do and then do it, and this included remembering to centralise the stick. In the Boeing you can stir the pot to keep it stable. I doubt you can do that in the AB. I'd like to hear from AB guys their techniques. In the EVA case we do not know the experience of the crew, and by that I mean how many severe cross wind landings they ha done, not how many autoland/calm day manual landings or hours. How many times had you solved this problem already: that's the REAL experience.

[Sailvi767]

I sat at CDG one day with a 38 knot wind from the south. Direct crosswind. All the Boeings landed well with no real drama. The Airbus landings were another story and two of the 6 went around. Now that I fly the bus I understand why.

[matkat]

I was on EZY 6291(from EDI) and it was indeed hairy but expertly handled never worried Skipper if you are reading this great job from one of your engineers.

[atakacs]

Admittedly no experience with the 777 here but to my untrained eyes this one was way too close for comfort... Stabilised approach, really?!
Glad everyone walked away but surprised that it does not raise more concern...

[AnQrKa]

It scares me how casual some people are about landing in conditions such as the KLM.

Youtube is chocked full of HD spotters videos of airliners flying approaches in questionable conditions and reading Aviation Herald is a reminder of how frequently windshear and strong gusty crosswinds contribute to bent planes, blown tires and runway excursions.

That was a pretty ragged approach.

[cosmo kramer]

^^^ what he said.

This doesn't look like even 10 degs of bank. Why are some of you thinking this wasn't stabile?

Looks perfectly alright for the conditions to me.

[a330jockey]

As I said on a previous reply, a FBW aircraft has a different technique when hand flying and when hand flying in crosswind conditions. On the B737 for example, you can feel the aircraft and everything it's doing. Moving the stick a lot at slow speed in bumpy conditions won't change things much..... you are pretty much still in control of the aircraft. But, on an A320.... different story. She drops a wing and you push the stick the other way. Then she starts turning the other way if you are not quick enough to stop that from happening. In other words, in turbulent conditions on approach you can very quickly get in to a rolling motion which you will only make worse the more you try to fly the airplane like a conventional airplane. The answer? Let go of the stick!!!! That's right. Immediately the airplane stops rolling and starts flying straight. So little movement is best.
On the A330, I used to let the autopilot fly the airplane down to about 300' before disconnecting. The autopilot is fantastic on that airplane! A copilot was making an approach in bumpy and crosswind conditions one day and he disconnected the autopilot about 6 miles out and hand flew the approach. I suggested he reconnect the autopilot and let it do the job. He continued hand flying and fought the airplane the whole way while I jumped nervously in my seat. After we landed and slowed down, he said next time he will use the autopilot!!

[Doors to Automatic]

At the previous mob I worked with, it's a FAIL if it was a sim proficiency check with landing in this fashion. The teledyne record will be replayed at your debriefing as to why you failed.

Why? What parameters were breached? I am not questioning just want to find out more.

[JanetFlight]

Nice KLM landing but nothing special neither deserving of a PPrune Thread,,,pretty normal regarding the WX in Europe nowadays.
You should come to Funchal to see out-of-the-ordinary...This FIN 321 explains you why...;)

http://s17.postimg.org/gdmhua4sf/Fin_Mad.jpg

[EcamSurprise]

that's a proper wing drop:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/17/article-0-1B93C7D800000578-521_634x443.jpg

[RAT 5]

On the A330, I used to let the autopilot fly the airplane down to about 300' before disconnecting. The autopilot is fantastic on that airplane! A copilot was making an approach in bumpy and crosswind conditions one day and he disconnected the autopilot about 6 miles out and hand flew the approach. I suggested he reconnect the autopilot and let it do the job. He continued hand flying and fought the airplane the whole way while I jumped nervously in my seat. After we landed and slowed down, he said next time he will use the autopilot!!

This is a slight thread creep: and I suggest we've sorted out the merits of the KLM 'good job done' and agree to disagree if we have to.
The statement above however invites a discussion, and it might be type specific. At AMS some years ago there was a runway excursion in a B757. OK, the report calculated that the X-wind which hit the a/c was much more than ATC was giving. I can't remember whether it was decided the a/c was controllable or not. It may have been outside 'demonstrated limits' but that's not a absolute limit. One main criticism was that PF left the A/P engaged until a low height and then had too short a time to "get used to the conditions and the a/c's behaviour". For a direct control B757 I would agree with that. For an A330 I defer to the more experienced PF's. However, back to my previous comment about 'experience = the number of times you have to solve a problem', it was sad to come across this attitude from low time B757 F/O's. When asked "which sector you'd like?" the more adventurous/confident ones chose the 'sportive weather', only then to leave the A/P in CMD until DA + 100'. Did this enhance their experience? Not much.

[Kilda Ste Hilda]

Quote:
At the previous mob I worked with, it's a FAIL if it was a sim proficiency check with landing in this fashion. The teledyne record will be replayed at your debriefing as to why you failed.
Why? What parameters were breached? I am not questioning just want to find out more.

1) more than 5 degrees of bank below 100ft RA.

2) downwind gear contact ground at touchdown first.

3) rapid alternating wheel and rudder inputs ( hard to see in the video, but in the sim teledyne display, the PIOs would come out exactly as that )

Many of the sim checkers have actually never physically flown the B777, so they just depend on the teledyne or their " own judgement " to FAIL you if you pull off a landing like that. They have no real world experience flying an aircraft with triple wheel bogie. So they only trust the " sim " sensation... In a crosswind landing without a full decrab, the three wheel bogie gives a funny twisty sensation and those blokes think that you have broken a leg!:ugh:

[OldLurker]

Not sure what a stabilised approach would have looked like in these conditions. This one gets progressively more interesting in the last few seconds before touchdown! Here's another video – the Boeing 777 under discussion is at 2:12 onwards: www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4o01IOF3NM

[RAT 5]

People are still asking if this B777 was a stabilised approach. I've looked at a video from another angle. Given that the conditions were turbulent it would never be calm and steady. Were the criteria met at 500'? It looked like yes. Were they maintained down to 100'? It looked like a handful, but broadly yes. From the other angle the wing drop looked like it occurred at a height where the downwind rudder might have been applied and the into wind aileron over applied and then quickly corrected. This could have been pilot induced or it could have been a sudden decrease in X-wind as the de-crab was applied. Either way the wing drop was corrected and a controlled landing was made. The a/c didn't seem to rock & roll, nor bounce from mains to nose gear and back again. From videos of many other landings done in that period it seems mission accomplished in an acceptable manner. Debrief in the pub, not CP's office. Perhaps any guys & galls up front at the time on that afternoon can enlighten us. I'm happy to have been an armchair pilot on that day. Nuff grey hairs.

[FullWings]

That looked reasonable to me in gusty weather. It’s not the absolute crosswind component that causes issues, it’s the variation. If that was on 27 with the wind from the right, then the wind is gusting off the runway.

I have yet to fly in a simulator that accurately reproduced the sort of conditions you get above. “Grading” people as Kilda says on sim replay is ridiculous: basic technique is all you can judge. OK, I only have about 14,000 hours on the 777 so am not in a position to comment... :rolleyes:

[Calvin Hops]

FullWings That looked reasonable to me in gusty weather. It’s not the absolute crosswind component that causes issues, it’s the variation. If that was on 27 with the wind from the right, then the wind is gusting off the runway.

I have yet to fly in a simulator that accurately reproduced the sort of conditions you get above. “Grading” people as Kilda says on sim replay is ridiculous: basic technique is all you can judge. OK, I only have about 14,000 hours on the 777 so am not in a position to comment...


I think Kilda was referring to a case of a failure on a proficiency check in KAL by an alteon checker on someone who pulled off a gusty crosswind landing in an almost similar situation but with no such bank or downwind gear touchdown. The only fault was a residual crab angle resulting in the " twisty sensation " perculiar to the t7. The alteon checker put down that as a " hard landing ".

Now in those days without the teledyne, the sim gives a " crash " signal if any of the parameters are exceeded ( bank angle, over G touchdown, drift angle, etc ). None of those happened and no " crash " manifested on the sim screen. The alteon checker maintained the " fail " because it is " HIS DECISION, PERIOD " . His " JUDGEMENT ".

Mind you, the other alteon instructors who came to know about it thought it was ludicruous, but Alteon as a company had to support that decision. It was a political decision. Many Korean pilots were failed during that year, and the Korean pilots raised hell at training meetings...the alteon instructors were told to fail a couple expats as well ( should a good situation and a weak link present ). It was to appease the Koreans.

Two expats were failed in quick succession. One of them was in the situation above. The other was failed because of a momentary " sink rate " exceedence in final approach.

I spoke to a few alteon instructors, they were disgusted. 2 left alteon korea shortly after, not wanting to be associated with that kind of farce. Hard to take but sometimes business decision trumps everything else.

BTW, that alteon checker never flew a t7. He was 757 driver hauled up well beyond his station. " nuff said!

[7478ti]

Good landing. Very very good jet. Tough Conditions. No APC/PIO was obvious or evident. From control surface positions, rates, and phase angle, it appears the late flare wing drop was probably both gust and momentary lateral vector shear drift induced. That happens. Been there done that in similar or worse conditions, and occasionally even with one shut down for testing. This jet has most excellent control capability, arguably the best in the industry, and can handle it. Good preparation and training too, and perhaps lots of practical experience also was evident. Nice job to the crew.

[ACMS]

7478ti---after 8 years flying the 777, 8 years on the queen 744 and seeing plenty of PIO in conditions like that I don't agree with you. I'd be surprised if some of that wobbling wasn't from PIO. The Ailerons on the mighty triple are quite sensitive and easy to over control causing PIO. Been there in those weather situations more than once and have the Tee shirt to prove it...

Still much prefer it over the A330......

[Good Business Sense]

There's only one thing for it .... when the wind gets above 5 kts we ground all aircraft !! :O

[ACMS]

I just watched a 10 min YouTube of Aircraft landing on 27 including the KLM 777.

The 777 wobbles were partly caused by PIO ( IMHO ), you can actually see the left outboard aileron move full up a couple of times and also see the right inboard aileron rapidly moving up and down.....

I still think they did a good job though. :ok:

[Mikehotel152]

In the context of the other landings in that 10 minute clip, it was one of the least 'stable' but it's unfair to judge the pilot's competency when you have no access to the instantaneous wind readouts.

Some of the approaches, even from the medium jets, were uncannily smooth; still others looked fairly stable but still led to go-arounds. I'd say the conditions were fairly variable.

The 777 wing drop in the flare was significant and I'd guess was related to a gust. The pilot's instant and probably instinctive reaction was successful in levelling the wings and once complete the aircraft was pretty much on the ground. Not much point in performing a go-around at that point, unless you fancy going through the whole process again?

[RAT 5]

There would be a school of thought that a G/A at the wing drop would be more dangerous than what they did = land safely. To perform the G/A in a stable manner would require the wings to be levelled. Guess what; that's what they did and found the runway right in front of them. Damn, let's land this sucker.

[Aireps]

Go-arounds in order of occurrence on EHAM RWY27, on July 25, from 11:20 UTC till 14:10 UTC :

KLM1640 (2x)
TRA3K
KLM52Y
KLM1414
KLM88B
QTR275
DLH9PK
AFR071M
DAL74
KLM54W
AFR471U
KLM686
KLM90S
EZY58JA
KLM18G
EIN60J
KLM868
KLM74G
ABW604

[bubbers44]

7478ti---after 8 years flying the 777, 8 years on the queen 744 and seeing plenty of PIO in conditions like that I don't agree with you. I'd be surprised if some of that wobbling wasn't from PIO. The Ailerons on the mighty triple are quite sensitive and easy to over control causing PIO. Been there in those weather situations more than once and have the Tee shirt to prove it...

Still much prefer it over the A330......

The rhythm of the repeated banks look Like PIO to me. Turbulence wouldn't cause that steady wing rocking.

[deefer dog]

We are all "mission orientated" and want to land, especially if the given wind is within crosswind limits."

My points, or rather questions, are simply these;

What would the report have stated if it hadn't worked out as well?

Where do we stand when considering strong GUSTY crosswinds?

At what point do we initiate the go-around to give the potential investigator nothing to cite?


Surely these are the questions that all of of should be asking? The guys in question did a good job, so they won't be answering any questions.

[misd-agin]

Turbulence doesn't cause left/right rolls at the exact same roll rate.
Turbulence doesn't cause the elevators(stick) to go nose up/nose down.
Turbulence doesn't cause the rudder to go left/right.


Tough day but cycling the controls back and forth doesn't help.

[deefer dog]

Turbulence doesn't cause left/right rolls at the exact same roll rate.
Turbulence doesn't cause the elevators(stick) to go nose up/nose down.
Turbulence doesn't cause the rudder to go left/right.


Tough day but cycling the controls back and forth doesn't help. Of course you would have done much better wouldn't you misd-agin? The controls would hardly have moved!

Personally I though the guys/girls did a great job, but like you I was not in the airplane, so I have no idea what inputs were called for, or what winds the aircraft was actually experiencing! Analyzing the control deflections, and taking up the role of a mickey mouse investigator with your infinite wisdom of what control deflections are caused by turbulence, and which ones aren't, doesn't really answer the question.

I won't ask what you are rated on.

[A and C]

As far as i could see this was a well flown landing in challenging conditions and demonstrates the skill level that I would expect from someone in command of a large airliner.

Some of the stuff writen above is indicative of the de-skilling that is going on in the airline business, I am finding myself constantly flying with FO's who feel the need to ask me if it is OK to hand fly the aircraft past 400 ft on the way up and 500 ft on the way down.

Im not sure if this is them just being polite, but I get the feeling that hand flying skills are under practiced, the result of this being a downward spiral as confidence is lost in the hand flying skills.

There is a time and place to practice these skills, and also a time and place to go some other place if the weather is bad, but I forcast much more disruption in the business if hand flying skills are not regularly practiced and the children of the magenta line become fearfull of a bit of low level turbulance.

[RAT 5]

A & C. I agree with your sentiments. The airline managers have the idea that pilots do not need these skills. A/C are very redundant reliable, loads of back ups. The A/P's are more capable, ATC radar is more prevalent as are ILS's. Manual skills are not required as much as they were. Then there are days like this. It is not uncommon for storms to affect huge areas and all airfields are influenced by the winds and weather.
First you need the thinking/planning/command process before you take to the skies: then you need the continuation of that process as events unfold and Plan B-C-D come into play. Finally you need the skills to handle conditions that are outside the A/P capabilities.
If all these are not in place with all your crews then you are defrauding the pax and their expectations.

[aerobat77]

OK, I only have about 14,000 hours on the 777 so am not in a position to comment...

such threads with such comments are the real entertainment to read this forum. :ok:

[halas]

I suspect whoever is driving the T7 came off the 737.

See it many times at work when FO is hand flying and induces turbulence and PIO.
Did you fly the 73 before here? :rolleyes:
Yes! How did you know? :sad:

halas

[misd-agin]

deefer dog - Of course you would have done much better wouldn't you misd-agin? The controls would hardly have moved!

Personally I though the guys/girls did a great job, but like you I was not in the airplane, so I have no idea what inputs were called for, or what winds the aircraft was actually experiencing! Analyzing the control deflections, and taking up the role of a mickey mouse investigator with your infinite wisdom of what control deflections are caused by turbulence, and which ones aren't, doesn't really answer the question.

I won't ask what you are rated on.


************************************************************


You don't have to be 777 qualified to see the control movement.


And yes, none of us were in the aircraft. But most professional pilots have seen enough landings to realize that that much control movement isn't necessary. Randomly? Sometimes but very rarely. Randomly several times in a row without a break in pitch, roll, and yaw? No.


But you can ask my experience if you think it is important.

[bubbers44]

The continuously increasing banking nearing the landing is common in PIO's because of the white knuckles tensing even more just before touchdown. We have all seen it when a pilot is anxious flying an approach when he is not comfortable.

[billabongbill]

Many wannabes make the mistake in assuming that the T7 is just a supped up version of the B737, B757 or B767. They think they know all there is to know about flying the T7. The B777 has characteristics which can bite you in the arse during landing in strong crosswinds.

The triple wheel bogie with a steerable aft wheels require unique handling which many choose to ignore. The auto brakes and the auto spoilers can surprise you at the wrong time. The auto flight systems in capture mode at light weights/high power combination, height weight/low thrust combination can lead to scary moments too.

The PF on that KLM flight was probably not properly trained in the real B777 ways. Most likely he/she came off a ZFT sim program straight to line training. Not many originally B777 trained pilots left to pass on handling qualities; most are no longer trained by Boeing factory pilots. What we have now a glorified box panel operators.:{

[misd-agin]

"The triple wheel bogie with a steerable aft wheels require unique handling which many choose to ignore. The auto brakes and the auto spoilers can surprise you at the wrong time. The auto flight systems in capture mode at light weights/high power combination, height weight/low thrust combination can lead to scary moments too."


None of these apply to crosswind landings.

Other than the triple bogey gear, which is a non issue on landing, the 757/767 have the same systems. If anything the 777's autobrake system is slightly better (pitch related delay in activation).

[gerago]

"The triple wheel bogie with a steerable aft wheels require unique handling which many choose to ignore. The auto brakes and the auto spoilers can surprise you at the wrong time. The auto flight systems in capture mode at light weights/high power combination, height weight/low thrust combination can lead to scary moments too."


None of these apply to crosswind landings.

Other than the triple bogey gear, which is a non issue on landing, the 757/767 have the same systems. If anything the 777's autobrake system is slightly better (pitch related delay in activation).

Talking very much like someone who got an easy ride up to the t7 on a abbreviated conversion course! No wonder the new t7 pilots are being dumbed down further.

:=

[misd-agin]

gerago - oh, this should be good.


What did they teach you at your 777 course about the impact of the auto brakes, auto spoilers, third wheel bogie, or capture mode on auto flight when flying towards the runway or when doing crosswind landings???

[gerago]

They taught me not to fly the 777 the way the 757/767 was flown, like the way some misd.....sorry, pardon my spelling, miscreant flew it!:ugh:

[piratepete]

Hand on heart, with total honesty, and after 20,000 plus hours, 14000 hours as PIC on heavy jets, 4000 plus hours as a simulator/line/base/ground instructor, TRE TRI etc bits-of-paper in my Navbag, almost 40 years as an AIRLINE PILOT, .......I HAVE NEVER EVER MADE A SINGLE MISTAKE, NEVER EVER!......

[MoodyBlue]

gerago (and billabongbill), I'm very much with misd-agin here: PLEASE enlighten us all as to what impact the steerable aft bogie (definitely not operating inflight and during roll-out), the autobrakes, the autoflight capture modes etc. have on the crosswind landing technique on the 777!
Having come out of 'some ZFT-program' and with just a measly 2000 hours or so on the 777 I would very much like to know.
Standing by to be impressed!

[RAT 5]

with just a measly 2000 hours or so on the 777 I would very much like to know.

So would we all. It sounds interesting to someone who is steeped in B737/757/767. (on a side note: I tried to fly the L1011 sim in the only way I knew how = B732. On approach it didn't like it. B747 was not too bad, but I don't think the landings were assessed too sharply.)
Just a note, and this relates to so many threads, experience needs to be relevant. Considering the questions asked and the systems being discussed it will be the number of PF takeoffs & landings that is relevant, not total hours. If someone was punting around Asia on short haul 4 sector days they would have more takeoff/landing experience than the ultra-longhaul jockeys who might do 4 a month. I say this because it is relevant to this topic in that people talk about experience on types. On days like this the relevant experience is how many times you've landing is such testing conditions; on any a/c. The we can discuss type specific. Total hours mean little. If we were talking about CRZ related problems and systems malfunctions then total time is a factor. I do not mean to any of this in a negative way and I hope y'all get my drift.

[MoodyBlue]

You are absolutely correct RAT 5. Checked my logbook, actually only 1500 hours yet on the 777 and only 75 landings as PF on the aircraft. That really IS measly. And that is one reason I am actually interested in the wisdom of others with more experience. I'm not going to buy anything about the steerable aft bogie however.

But this is a problem with long haul-operations. The PF during this landing at Schiphol may have been flying the aircraft for 2 or 3 years and never have encountered conditions even remotely close to these (on type!).

Without implying this happened here - I do remember overcontrolling in roll during my first gusty approach on the 777. As someone else stated in this thread, it can be touchy in roll.

[atakacs]

Not at all qualified for heavies but I still fell that at some point the wingtip was way to close to the ground for comfort. Yes camera angle can be deceiving but I guess everyone would agree that there was very little margin for error or unexpected wind gusts... In my book safe aircraft operations is all about minimizing risks: unless they were critically low on fuel they should have gone around, even if it was for the second time.
Just my 2c obviously

[Heli-phile]

The footage of the KLM asia looks sped up. The roll rate near the flare seems extreme.

[misd-agin]

In general you can fly the 777 just like you fly a 727, 737NG, 757, or 767. Twenty plus years ago a newbie asked "how do you land the 727?" Uh, just like any other airplane? It's not a monster. "Well guys have been telling me all sorts of techniques." Uh, slow down on the roll inputs, fuselage alignment and zero drift, start flaring and bring the power to idle. "You land at idle? Guys said to NEVER do that." Yes, every landing is at idle, it's an airplane. Guys talk themselves into believing it's some seven headed monster. It wasn't. It only had two heads, the happy one or the sad one if you didn't fly it just right.


Basic flying - have the fuselage aligned with the runway and zero drift(almost always downwind, very rarely upwind). Drift = lateral load. Landing on the downwind landing gear ruins a decent sink rate touchdown.


If you're landings are 'close' but are 'harsher' than you'd expect verify that you have no lateral drift and the fuselage is tracking straight at touchdown. In this sense they ALL fly the same. The 727 and 737NG(with flaps 40) punish the landing quality the most if track/drift isn't perfect. 757/767 are nicer, and the 777 is the easiest. It just absorbs less than sterling track/drift or sink rates. It makes everyone look good at touchdown.


Now there are a couple ways that the larger jets, IMO, are different.

The 767 and 777 are more roll sensitive than the smaller jets. Not completely sure why. Friends have talked about it but we're not sure if it's a fuselage flex issue (ie wings move fractionally before the fuselage which attempts to 'catch up'), the size of the engines creating a greater mass that is offset from the roll C.G., or perhaps a gyroscopic effective from the large N1's? We don't know. But we do know the w/b a/c tend to have a bit of a sideways 'lurching' or 'bump' if you make large, or rapid, opposing roll inputs. The 777 in particular gets a sideways bumping motion (hate to say this but it's probably the easiest way to explain... similar to braless lateral motion...). More than the 767 it requires a slight pause before changing the roll rate request or reversing the roll request.


The 727, 767, and 777, to my recollection more than the 737 and 757, get a wing dropping sensation if large roll inputs are made. At larger roll control inputs the roll spoilers start deploying and with large inputs it literally feels like the wing is falling as opposed to rolling. And the typical reaction, sometimes called 'startle reflex(?)', is to counter-act that roll input with a large roll command to the other side, to correct the drop/roll, and the 'drop' is now done to the other side. And the over-correction starts towards the first roll direction, and back and forth it goes. If you feel that look at the wing. If you see large spoiler movements that is some of the motion. It could also be caused by gusting/shifting winds. And if you're in a 777 and feel a slight sideways lurching movement, look at the ailerons and see if they're going up and down. If they are you've found the source of the motion. It's not uncommon to feel it on the 777. So it that sense I'd agree, you can't fly a 777 like a 757/767. It will exposure less than smooth control inputs while the 767, and especially the 757, aren't quite as roll sensitive.


Due to the FBW the 777 flies slightly differently. It's not night and day. After a couple of flights I completely forget what my initial impressions were. I just remembered it was different. The 777 is very nice flying. But it requires gentle roll inputs to avoid shaking the airplane.


I just watched the 777 landing again and again. You can see the right wing inboard aileron and the amount of roll inputs being made. You can also see some of the pitch inputs (large screen helps). Right before the last right wing drop you can see that a significant right roll input (aileron up). Without FDR data, or being in the cockpit, it's hard to tell how much of the wing drop is from a roll command vs. a possible wind gust.




Navy friend said 'spoiler bumping' was actually a technique used getting onto the aircraft carrier. 'Golden hook' winner, he said it was a 'cheating' way to get the F-14 to drop slightly - rapid left and right roll inputs would result in some roll spoiler deployments. Done fast enough he said it would result in a slight altitude reduction if you felt you were going slightly long.


And mistakes? Ha. Who said they're perfect? Flew two legs recently. Arrival and departure at the first stop were under difficult conditions. We did well. Next arrival was in clear skies...and we ended up missing a step down so we ended up high on profile and ended up capturing the glide slope from above. Quickly fixed, but three pilots, with 40,000-50,000 hrs TT, and at least 15,000+ hrs in type, flat out missed it. No excuses. But rapidly corrected.

[FullWings]

Due to the FBW the 777 flies slightly differently. It's not night and day. After a couple of flights I completely forget what my initial impressions were. I just remembered it was different. The 777 is very nice flying. But it requires gentle roll inputs to avoid shaking the airplane.
This is true. Due to the long and fairly stiff wings, sudden roll inputs send a sort of reverberating ripple across the airframe. It’s amazing how “turbulence" stops sometimes as soon as the AP is engaged. :p

As far as the landing into AMS goes, it seems like they hit a rather gusty patch and some over/under controlling is inevitable in those kind of conditions. The camera angle I think made the roll angles look more dramatic than they actually were - ground contact with the wingtip and/or slat needs something more than 13/14degs in a normal landing attitude. It did skip a little bit from one main gear to the other during touchdown but that’s more because the rate-of-descent was low and it took a while for the ground spoilers to trigger.

It’s very easy to criticise when you weren't there but it was gusting to 50kts at the time (and probably some nasty lulls as well) and it looked like they landed on the centreline in the right place at the right speed. If it had been me, I would probably have requested a FDR playback to see exactly what happened and whether I could have done anything about it, otherwise job done.

Remember the definition of a good landing? One you can walk away from. An excellent landing is when you can use the aircraft again...

[aguadalte]

a330jokey: On the A330, I used to let the autopilot fly the airplane down to about 300' before disconnecting. The autopilot is fantastic on that airplane! A copilot was making an approach in bumpy and crosswind conditions one day and he disconnected the autopilot about 6 miles out and hand flew the approach. I suggested he reconnect the autopilot and let it do the job. He continued hand flying and fought the airplane the whole way while I jumped nervously in my seat. After we landed and slowed down, he said next time he will use the autopilot!!

I'm not surprised with that quote, but would totally disagree.

The best way to land an A330 in difficult/crosswind conditions is to disconnect the AP and the ATHR and fly the bird with minimum stick and power changes.

At 300', in very poor conditions, the pilot has no time to "feel" the weather, nor the reactions of the aircraft. The best way to get a grip to what's going on (especially after a long-haul night flight) is to start working out the landing, as soon as we have visual contact, and while mistakes are still manageable.

Also, if one disconnects the AP at 300', one looses a great opportunity to gain experience on how to hand-fly the aircraft in bad weather...

No wonder pilots are loosing their skills. The more they rely on AP, the less they feel comfortable to take control, when things go wrong.

[RAT 5]

aguadalte: totally 100% in agreement. See my comments reference the accident report into HV B757 runway excursion at AMS many years ago. Late A/P disconnect was high up their list of comments about actions that didn't help. They were at max X-wind and gusts a little beyond.

[bubbers44]

Good to see some posts backing flying skills being important again. Obviously they could have been used to make this landing just another landing instead of being an exciting news report. Seems like a lot of the old school posters here have left in the past year. Wonder why?

[misd-agin]

Read the NTSB SW 345 @ LGA incident. VFR light winds, a/p disconnected at 500', and divergent flying started shortly afterwards.

[Giolla]

All I can say is that rwy 27 wouldn't be my choice in NW BFT 7-8 conditions.
No idea why one might choose a runway almost at 90 angle on 28-33 knots crosswind.
Wind was later on veering between NW and SW with terrible blows now and then.Schiphol has its own microclimate and the name is derived from Ship's Hell, a name when the Haarlemmermeer was still an inland lake.
I was with my yacht last wednesday and thrursday travelling from Hoorn to SPL and the conditions were far from normal.

[wingview]

Giolla.

EHAM 251125Z 29032G43KT 250V320 4500 RA BKN008 OVC020 OVC018 15/14 Q0996 RERA TEMPO 30032G48KT 7000
EHAM 251055Z 28030G42KT 7000 RA FEW007 BKN009 OVC018 15/14 Q0995 RERA TEMPO 30032G48KT 4000

So nothing with 90 degrees crosswind which would have been out of the limits anyway.

[armchairpilot94116]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd2aaQ9XSKc

Aviation enthusiast posts this vid of operations at Taipei SungShan Airport as Super Storm Soudelor approaches.

Cutting it a bit thin maybe?

[7478ti]

To conclusively determine if there is any evidence of PIO/APC, one would need much more data. Depending on the sample rate available, and parameters recorded, it some times is even difficult to make these judgments for certain from an FDR or QAR. The PSD of the 3 axis time history of the wind and gust environment also needs to be established, along with the related amplitude and phase angle of the control inputs. In flight test, very high data sample rates are typically used, as well as external sensing of the atmosphere, to be able to definitively tell what's appropriate control system response, and appropriate pilot response, and what component is potentially PIO/APC. At this point all one can reasonably conclude about this KLM landing is that the pilots landed successfully, in a challenging environment, and the B777 is [arguably] a pretty great jet in very tough WX circumstances. I've seen this all first hand for decades, in these kinds of jets ranging from RA001 to WA001 and all their later kin, and cousins (including even Airbusses), ...and the B777 stands out as remarkable in its ability to reliably handle very tough WX.

[silvertate]

TWR reported wind shortly before landing at RWY27: 300 deg, 33 knots, gusting 48

So they had a crosswind component of 16 knots gusting 22 knots on rwy 27. As usual the Daily Mail making news out of nothing.



That is not the full story.

At AMS with strong westerly winds, low level turbulence is always to be expected. It is written on the 27 Jepp plate.

The problem at AMS is the sand dunes on the beach, which are just high enough to set the low level wind bouncing. Ask any glider pilot - a small rounded hill can often produce more rotor than a craggy hill or mountain. So yes, this approach probably did experience severe low level turbulence.

Was their an element of PIO? Probably. Many pilots do not react quickly enough, and don't realise that a big aircraft will fly in and out of one region of turbulence and into its diametric opposite partner in an instant. And if you are late correcting, you end up correcting at completely the wrong moment, when the turbulence was correcting the roll itself anyway. And the result is unnecessary wing waggling.

Unfortunately, Sims are not good at replicating this, so it is difficult to train for. And unless you are a UK pilot (lots of runways not aligned with the prevailing wind), you might not have much experience of it.

Tate

[Hotel Tango]

Cutting it a bit thin maybe?

I didn't see anything out of the ordinary. All perfectly good landings and take-offs under the prevailing conditions. Why comment on something you clearly know nothing about?

[RAT 5]

The problem at AMS is the sand dunes on the beach,

The effect at AMS, having operated out of there for many years, and which can be quite surprising in the dark, is the result of passing over the Bos (forest) at low height on finals. The thermal effect of the trees-open terrain is pronounced and the trees can also act with an orographic effect when the wind is strong. Sometimes, when the thermal effect is lost at low height, the a/c sinks as to pass over the boundary of he trees; at other times the trees create an orographic effect & the a/c is ballooned on the up draft and then sinks. Either way you need to be prepared.

[silvertate]

Duplicated comment, for some reason.

[silvertate]

From RAT 5

The effect at AMS, having operated out of there for many years, and which can be quite surprising in the dark, is the result of passing over the Bos (forest) at low height on finals. The thermal effect of the trees-open terrain is pronounced....



Thermal effects in the dark eh? My, my, you were never a glider pilot, were you...?

The turbulence at AMS has nothing to do with trees. It happens in westerly and northwesterly winds, because of the low-level winds being disturbed by the sand dunes. And yes, those dunes are quite large enough to produce ridge-lift, wave patterns and wave-rotor. And yes, those effects can easily travel as far as the airfield.

Here is a glider, ridge-soaring the Dutch dunes:


http://static.onlinecontest.org/files/news/111129/coast2.jpg

[RAT 5]

Yes I am a glider pilot - paragliders. You may be quite correct about the dunes, and thank you for the information that they can cause wave effects so far downwind.
I was not alluding to thermal effects in the dark, although they can happen. The hot air is trapped in the trees during the day, especially if there is light breeze. If the wind strengthens this can disturb the stagnant hot air and cause it to burst from the trees; restitution thermal bubbles of a sort. The orographic effect can happen at any time of day, and if you can not see the forrest the sink can be surprising at low level as you pass over the boundary of the tree. This can also happen in daylight and any orographic effect combined with any thermal effect can make the last 500' quite interesting.
I have experienced exactly the same effect at other airfields with large woods in the undershoot: no sand dunes or other sea breeze effects. The same is more obvious at PMI 24L and VLC 12. In those places there are large areas of dry sandy hills and that can also make going down & slowing down challenging if you leave the drag configuration too late. And that is even more surprising in the dark, just after sunset, as the stored heat is released with a gentle breeze over the rising terrain.

[silvertate]

The hot air is trapped in the trees during the day, especially if there is light breeze. If the wind strengthens this can disturb the stagnant hot air and cause it to burst from the trees; restitution thermal bubbles of a sort.



But as you will know, a stonking summer thermal will give 6 to 8 knots.
A good sunny thermal will give 4 to 6 knots.
An evening thermal over a forest in calm condition will give 1 knot at best.
An evening thermal over a forest in strong winds will give nothing, because the weak thermal will be broken to pieces.

The westerly turbulence at AMS is definitely a wave-rotor effect, which is why it occurs at low level.

And this really should be understood by AMS crews, because the effect is predictable and more easily countered if you understand why it is happening. (ie: it will more pronounced in stable warm-sector conditions with straight isobars, or at night under an inversion.)

[Aluminium shuffler]

From misd-agin:

"The 767 and 777 are more roll sensitive than the smaller jets. Not completely sure why. Friends have talked about it but we're not sure if it's a fuselage flex issue (ie wings move fractionally before the fuselage which attempts to 'catch up'), the size of the engines creating a greater mass that is offset from the roll C.G., or perhaps a gyroscopic effective from the large N1's? We don't know. But we do know the w/b a/c tend to have a bit of a sideways 'lurching' or 'bump' if you make large, or rapid, opposing roll inputs. The 777 in particular gets a sideways bumping motion (hate to say this but it's probably the easiest way to explain... similar to braless lateral motion...). More than the 767 it requires a slight pause before changing the roll rate request or reversing the roll request.


The 727, 767, and 777, to my recollection more than the 737 and 757, get a wing dropping sensation if large roll inputs are made. At larger roll control inputs the roll spoilers start deploying and with large inputs it literally feels like the wing is falling as opposed to rolling. And the typical reaction, sometimes called 'startle reflex(?)', is to counter-act that roll input with a large roll command to the other side, to correct the drop/roll, and the 'drop' is now done to the other side. And the over-correction starts towards the first roll direction, and back and forth it goes. If you feel that look at the wing. If you see large spoiler movements that is some of the motion. It could also be caused by gusting/shifting winds. And if you're in a 777 and feel a slight sideways lurching movement, look at the ailerons and see if they're going up and down. If they are you've found the source of the motion. It's not uncommon to feel it on the 777. So it that sense I'd agree, you can't fly a 777 like a 757/767. It will exposure less than smooth control inputs while the 767, and especially the 757, aren't quite as roll sensitive."

The 73's flight controls are manual cable and pulley affairs with hydraulic assistance, rather than all out power controls, so I suspect that is why they are relatively small and have less authority than on other types - so that they can be used in manual reversion with no hydraulics without being so heavy as to be unmoveable. The same may apply to the 727, but I don't know that aircraft's systems.

I have seen plenty of pilots use a little roll in a floating flare to lower the wheels on to the ground - a combination of tilting the lift vector, cracking the spoilers on one wing and rolling that side's wheels down the few inches they're above the tarmac all combine quite effectively. I didn't make a habit of it, but have done it myself from time to time.

As for this landing, it doesn't pay to second guess the crew unless you have to as an investigator - we have no way of knowing the exact circumstances, but if the engines were winding down as part of the flare, then continuing the landing may have been much safer than a go around and another try, which would likely have resulted in another flare in similar circumstances with a more tired and anxious crew with less fuel. The pilots made a snap decision and the aircraft landed without harm. Well done them.

[d192049d]

Some nervous but appreciative ATC....

LiveLeak.com - No place for mistakes Airbus 340

[flyhardmo]

Great video. Very nice landing.:D:D

[7478ti]

SAWH nicely done... fortunately it looked like a reasonably steady wind, reference any gusts

[cosmiccomet]

Winds from the North in Ushuaia SAWH/USH are never steady because of the montains near the airport. Gusts of 40 to 50s kts are very common.
It is a very challenging flight condition because of the turbulence, sometimes it is so strong that the AP is kicked off when flying the ILS.
The crosswind component could be very easy over limit in that condition, wind from the North approaching to Rwy 25.

[7478ti]

"...sometimes it is so strong that the AP is kicked off when flying the ILS" ??!!

Wow... That certainly shouldn't happen!!!

O:)

[bubbers44]

It's no big deal if it does kick off as it sometimes does because now you get to fly instead of watch. That is a lot more fun.

[7478ti]

Any AP self-initiated disconnect due to turbulence alone, without w/o some other internal AP or servo failure happening, or some prior saturation indication, isn't good, ...particularly when coupled to an ILS or GLS. In fact for any FAIL OP Mode, that kind of AP anomaly behavior is inappropriate, and can be dangerous, if not even uncertificable, ....or if for a system already certificated, grounds for issuance of additional operating limitations, or even issuance of an AD until corrected, or otherwise use limited.

O:)

[autoflight]

Admittedly no experience with the 777 here but to my untrained eyes this one was way too close for comfort... Stabilised approach, really?!
Glad everyone walked away but surprised that it does not raise more concern...

Finally a landing has to be made somewhere. If the alternates have similar winds, it might be preferable to use fuel at destination rather than elsewhere.
An understandable degree of PIO might be present, and it would be hard to suggest a substantially unstable approach based on the video. I would also hesitant to call the nice touchdown a lucky break.
Old school options, like extra fuel, wonderfully opens up the holding and alternate choice possibilities.

[Chuck Canuck]

Some nervous but appreciative ATC....

LiveLeak.com - No place for mistakes Airbus 340 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d25_1438987275)

A good outcome. No shredding. Touchdown with a wee bit too much crab angle remaining.

Not too sure about the A340s but on the A300s the outcome may not be too happy. Just saying.

[JammedStab]

From misd-agin:

"The 767 and 777 are more roll sensitive than the smaller jets. Not completely sure why. Friends have talked about it but we're not sure if it's a fuselage flex issue (ie wings move fractionally before the fuselage which attempts to 'catch up'), the size of the engines creating a greater mass that is offset from the roll C.G., or perhaps a gyroscopic effective from the large N1's? We don't know. But we do know the w/b a/c tend to have a bit of a sideways 'lurching' or 'bump' if you make large, or rapid, opposing roll inputs. The 777 in particular gets a sideways bumping motion (hate to say this but it's probably the easiest way to explain... similar to braless lateral motion...). More than the 767 it requires a slight pause before changing the roll rate request or reversing the roll request.


The 727, 767, and 777, to my recollection more than the 737 and 757, get a wing dropping sensation if large roll inputs are made. At larger roll control inputs the roll spoilers start deploying and with large inputs it literally feels like the wing is falling as opposed to rolling. And the typical reaction, sometimes called 'startle reflex(?)', is to counter-act that roll input with a large roll command to the other side, to correct the drop/roll, and the 'drop' is now done to the other side. And the over-correction starts towards the first roll direction, and back and forth it goes. If you feel that look at the wing. If you see large spoiler movements that is some of the motion. It could also be caused by gusting/shifting winds. And if you're in a 777 and feel a slight sideways lurching movement, look at the ailerons and see if they're going up and down. If they are you've found the source of the motion. It's not uncommon to feel it on the 777. So it that sense I'd agree, you can't fly a 777 like a 757/767. It will exposure less than smooth control inputs while the 767, and especially the 757, aren't quite as roll sensitive."

The 73's flight controls are manual cable and pulley affairs with hydraulic assistance, rather than all out power controls, so I suspect that is why they are relatively small and have less authority than on other types - so that they can be used in manual reversion with no hydraulics without being so heavy as to be unmoveable. The same may apply to the 727, but I don't know that aircraft's systems.



To be honest with you, I found both the 727 and 737 to be more roll sensitive in turbulence and remember using quick jabs of aileron input to counteract turbulence induced roll. The 747 was definitely more of a lumbering aircraft and less responsive. While my 777 experience is limited at this point, it is more sensitive than the 747 and I was definitely overcontrolling it in the sim which was said to be more sensitive due to the fly by wire system. On the line, I have had some daytime heating thermal type approaches and with small inputs have had no problems.

[misd-agin]

Jammed - my comments were about how the planes respond to control inputs and not their responses to external(turbulence) inputs.

[Aluminium shuffler]

Jammed Stab,

I should have been clearer about what I meant - I think the 73 has less aileron sensitivity and less roll authority because of small control surfaces, and I'm making an educated guess that design was because of the potential for manual reversion. They are relatively sensitive in roll to gusts and shear, especially the NG, due to the low inertia of such a sized aircraft and the light wing loading, especially the bigger and longer (more moment) winged NG. I found having extra fuel reduced the roll induced by wind effects considerably because of having greater mass outboard - the fuel not only gave us a better chance of getting in with allowing a second attempt before getting near reserves but also by markedly improving gust alleviation. It saved me numerous diversions and a lot of subsequent costs. Of course, it wasn't in the books, so I'd get told off by the bosses for having extra fuel... No room for common sense in modern flying.

[A340Yumyum]

Chuck Canuck


'Touchdown with a wee bit too much crab angle remaining'

A whole lot better than landing D/W of the centreline. The A340 (and all modern jets) are tested on many max x-wind landings using full 'crab' on touchdown.

See B777 trials video in KEF

This was a terrific landing.

[Chris2303]

Have a look at some Youtube videos of rough weather landings on RWY34 at NZWN/WLG.