QF Rejected landing?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
a nasty night and a wet shortish runway
...why they even have designations for them - CAT iii, CAT iiiA, etc.
I am obviously flogging a dead horse here
Would you have been more satisfied had the a/c slid off the end of the runway?
The result of the go-around was the BEST possible....no damage, injuries or deaths - and NO media coverage (apparently in spite of YOUR best attempts, J4!!)
Nunc est bibendum
lol. What a crack up. Thanks for the laugh J4. It certainly kept me entertained on an otherwise pretty 'nothing' day for me!! 
NG, I think for the first time ever we may be in agreeance- although I wouldn't have put it in quite those terms!
NG, I think for the first time ever we may be in agreeance- although I wouldn't have put it in quite those terms!
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: nowhere
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
James the 4th,
How did you determine that the spoilers went up anyway. I DID do an autoland in MEL last night (Runway 16, but that is another story)- unless you were in a safety vehicle at the runway intersections how could you have known? As for the merits of an autloand, the ATIS last night was 3000m in RA and Mist, BKN 250 ft and OVC at 300ft- despite my ego, the AUoland does a far, far more SAFER job than us. Af for a long landing- autoland usually touchdown approx 600-700m into the runway, factor 1.15 for a wet runway mmm.. The headline is "Shock Horror, Qantas Captain does what he is paid for...."
How did you determine that the spoilers went up anyway. I DID do an autoland in MEL last night (Runway 16, but that is another story)- unless you were in a safety vehicle at the runway intersections how could you have known? As for the merits of an autloand, the ATIS last night was 3000m in RA and Mist, BKN 250 ft and OVC at 300ft- despite my ego, the AUoland does a far, far more SAFER job than us. Af for a long landing- autoland usually touchdown approx 600-700m into the runway, factor 1.15 for a wet runway mmm.. The headline is "Shock Horror, Qantas Captain does what he is paid for...."
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you think an autoland on rwy 27 that touches down past the intersection of rwy 16 is quite normal??
I dont, but never mind, let's all rubbish J4 for asking the question.
I dont, but never mind, let's all rubbish J4 for asking the question.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't fly the 767 just curious, what does the 767 look at for a take-off config warning? I know of a A330 (not QF) that floated long enough to decide to GA then touched down and got a config warning (flaps), so then aborted the GA and continued to land and taxi off. Since then rumour has we should continue to land select flap 2 and rotate at 'F' speed.
So you think an autoland on rwy 27 that touches down past the intersection of rwy 16 is quite normal??
With the intended closure of Rwy 16/34 for some time next year, it is probably not a bad idea to get out there and practice some wet runway, tailwind component autolands down the hill on 27! Or maybe some visual approaches onto 09 over the gully!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silberfuchs....that Sir, is complete rubbish!
I suggest you break out the dictionary! that should be a good start!
Obviously you're unsure of the meaning of "rumour"
Here let me help you out.....
Rumour n. a circulating story or report of DOUBTFUL truth.
Screaming be'jesus!
that's why I said rumour. You could have just quoted the Airbus NTC and FCTM to dispel the rumour 
I suggest you break out the dictionary! that should be a good start!
Obviously you're unsure of the meaning of "rumour"
Here let me help you out.....
Rumour n. a circulating story or report of DOUBTFUL truth.
Your 'rumour' on how to do it is no where near SOPs (NPs).
that's why I said rumour. You could have just quoted the Airbus NTC and FCTM to dispel the rumour
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Near the Murray River
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the go-around was the better option..........especially if he was half way down 27.
Out of interest, do QF have a Flight Data Recorder monitoring program in place?
Out of interest, do QF have a Flight Data Recorder monitoring program in place?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
auto lands?
Am I missing something? Are auto lands now approved in Australia?
As for the decision to go round, good job! Maybe could have been made a little earlier, however the crew kept it shiny side up and the outcome was a good one.
cheers
As for the decision to go round, good job! Maybe could have been made a little earlier, however the crew kept it shiny side up and the outcome was a good one.
cheers
Nunc est bibendum
Gazumped, autolands have been approved in Australia for yonks. Specific runways require specific operator approval.
However, don't get confused with assuming that just because we can autoland that we can go to Cat III minima. We still have to use Cat I minima. SOPs require us to plan to autoland (if possible, aircraft, runway, etc) when wx below certain criteria.
However, don't get confused with assuming that just because we can autoland that we can go to Cat III minima. We still have to use Cat I minima. SOPs require us to plan to autoland (if possible, aircraft, runway, etc) when wx below certain criteria.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desert Dingo, of course it's not 'normal', but not everything that is planned within applicable (and acceptable) safety margins occurs as planned. That's why we have established procedures to abort landings... and take-offs, and approaches, for whatever the reason.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*Lancer*I agree with what you say. However, I think the point being discussed is just when should a landing be aborted according to SOPs.
As Kaptin M says
This is because the auto pilot can guarantee that the approach will be flown right on the numbers and generally be more accurate than if manualy flown. ( OK I know some of you aces reckon you can fly better than the auto pilot, but I am speaking in general terms )
If James 4 is correct and the touchdown was past the rwy 16 intersection (ie some 700meters past the aiming point if I remember the distances correctly) then I seriously doubt an autoland was being performed at all. As someone who has done CatIII approaches in anger, I would expect the touchdown to be just a short (flare) distance past the aiming point EVERY TIME. If it doesn't happen then it is time to hit the TOGA buttons and get the hell out of there. Remember, the landing distance required on a limiting runway has a 40% buffer over the actual distance required, and sailing on down past the rwy 16 intersection would be rapidly eating up this margin.
Obviously the crew did the right thing with a go-around instead of persisting with the landing. What all us armchair experts are pontificating about is perhaps the go around decision should have been made a lot earlier.
ICTZ's scenario that this happened and an airbone go-around decision was made...
does not stand up to what J4 reported
because if the power was up before the touchdown then the spoilers would NOT have deployed, and contradicts what J4 said about spoilers up THEN power applied.
I will bet that this has nothing to do with an autoland, but is more likely a landing that got stuffed up in the flare (as happens to all of us ) and the embarrassment was covered up by blaming the aircraft.
As Kaptin M says
The "nasty night" and "wet runway" (as a result of the nasty wx) is PRECISELY the reason an auto-coupled approach, followed by an autoland is made
)If James 4 is correct and the touchdown was past the rwy 16 intersection (ie some 700meters past the aiming point if I remember the distances correctly) then I seriously doubt an autoland was being performed at all. As someone who has done CatIII approaches in anger, I would expect the touchdown to be just a short (flare) distance past the aiming point EVERY TIME. If it doesn't happen then it is time to hit the TOGA buttons and get the hell out of there. Remember, the landing distance required on a limiting runway has a 40% buffer over the actual distance required, and sailing on down past the rwy 16 intersection would be rapidly eating up this margin.
Obviously the crew did the right thing with a go-around instead of persisting with the landing. What all us armchair experts are pontificating about is perhaps the go around decision should have been made a lot earlier.
ICTZ's scenario that this happened and an airbone go-around decision was made...
Then the aircraft would have rotated first, and climbed second! Would not be at all surprised if a 150,000kg+ aeroplane had enough downward momentum to touch down near the intersection before the rotation turned it into a climbing aeroplane.
spoilers come up, then power goes on and round he goes...
I will bet that this has nothing to do with an autoland, but is more likely a landing that got stuffed up in the flare (as happens to all of us
) and the embarrassment was covered up by blaming the aircraft.
Don't lose sight of the fact that autolands in Australia are done onto runways that are only CAT 1. There is not all the safeguards and protection that you get using a CAT 3 system.
Also, the autopilot stops using the Glideslope at around 50' and starts to flare based on certain parameters. A lot can happen between 50' and touchdown.
Also, the autopilot stops using the Glideslope at around 50' and starts to flare based on certain parameters. A lot can happen between 50' and touchdown.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you think that the certification rules require the optimum and best landing distance the factory test pilots can do during the certification test flights to be factored by 1.67.
Landing is the least accurate form of flying we can undertake, unlike take off which can the most accurate. There are so many variables during the most stabilised approach that it is possible to suggest that most landings are randomly variable within a strict set of parameters. The greaser is as much a function of good luck as it is for high level of skill.
That extra 67% might a number that mathematicians, statisticians and scientists might recognise as being the result of a standard deviation calculation which reveals how spread out numbers are from the average, calculated by taking the square root of the arithmetic average of the squares of the deviations from the mean in a frequency distribution.
That is by forcing the issue you might be able to do better than the factory test pilot or pilot of average ability but you may well go "out to the other end" on the average. Being the conservative lot we are we assume the worst case in a statistical sense to calculate our required landing distance, i.e. the best we can do under the best conditions with a 67% fudge factor just in case.
If we were to require a gauranteed landing at say a 95% probability we might see runway lengths doubled.
Expedience suggests that the averagely proficient pilot doing the right thing according to the AFM should be able to meet the landing distance required most of the time, at least enough to be "routine".
So why do we get twitched up when every one of the factors involved in what should be a succesful landing gets pushed up the "long" end of the list and the HIALS at the other end are hove into a closer view than is healthy.??
We do what is prudent, we accept that we didn't get it "right enough" this time and go round, from wherever that becomes apparent.
It only becomes a problem when it becomes a habit.
I'm not suggesting for a minute that we do the "oh well, thats fate routine" but if we have not developed any nasty habits then, we also need to accept that sometimes sh!t just happens and not expect to get done over here or anywhere else for it.
Landing is the least accurate form of flying we can undertake, unlike take off which can the most accurate. There are so many variables during the most stabilised approach that it is possible to suggest that most landings are randomly variable within a strict set of parameters. The greaser is as much a function of good luck as it is for high level of skill.
That extra 67% might a number that mathematicians, statisticians and scientists might recognise as being the result of a standard deviation calculation which reveals how spread out numbers are from the average, calculated by taking the square root of the arithmetic average of the squares of the deviations from the mean in a frequency distribution.
That is by forcing the issue you might be able to do better than the factory test pilot or pilot of average ability but you may well go "out to the other end" on the average. Being the conservative lot we are we assume the worst case in a statistical sense to calculate our required landing distance, i.e. the best we can do under the best conditions with a 67% fudge factor just in case.
If we were to require a gauranteed landing at say a 95% probability we might see runway lengths doubled.
Expedience suggests that the averagely proficient pilot doing the right thing according to the AFM should be able to meet the landing distance required most of the time, at least enough to be "routine".
So why do we get twitched up when every one of the factors involved in what should be a succesful landing gets pushed up the "long" end of the list and the HIALS at the other end are hove into a closer view than is healthy.??
We do what is prudent, we accept that we didn't get it "right enough" this time and go round, from wherever that becomes apparent.
It only becomes a problem when it becomes a habit.
I'm not suggesting for a minute that we do the "oh well, thats fate routine" but if we have not developed any nasty habits then, we also need to accept that sometimes sh!t just happens and not expect to get done over here or anywhere else for it.
Last edited by gaunty; 1st Oct 2004 at 14:32.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty: There is nothing particularly magical in the 1.67 or 67% fudge factor you mention. It is just a nice round 40% buffer calculated from a different viewpoint.
Actual landing distance x 1.67 = required runway length is the same as saying that 60% of the available runway length should be the distance you plan to use. It probably goes back to the same person who decreed that performance calculations only count 50% of the headwind and 150% of a tailwind. They could just have easily been 49% or 151% but round numbers must look neater to the boffins.
I guess that if a pilot had set the rules it would have been a 1.7 or an even better 2.0 factor calculated your way.
Capt. Fathom:
Like about 700 meters of overshoot ?? 
You will have to pull the other one, mate.
Edited to be cheeky to Capt. Fathom
Actual landing distance x 1.67 = required runway length is the same as saying that 60% of the available runway length should be the distance you plan to use. It probably goes back to the same person who decreed that performance calculations only count 50% of the headwind and 150% of a tailwind. They could just have easily been 49% or 151% but round numbers must look neater to the boffins.
I guess that if a pilot had set the rules it would have been a 1.7 or an even better 2.0 factor calculated your way.
Capt. Fathom:
Also, the autopilot stops using the Glideslope at around 50' and starts to flare based on certain parameters. A lot can happen between 50' and touchdown.
You will have to pull the other one, mate. Edited to be cheeky to Capt. Fathom
Last edited by Desert Dingo; 2nd Oct 2004 at 05:52.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
You are clearly an accomplished statistician!
The point about standard deviation being that given a normal distribution of landing distances (same rig, same place), 68% of landings should occur within +/- one standard deviation, while 95% should fall within +/- two standard deviations.
Bet Boeing doesn't have a graph for that...
Cheers
You are clearly an accomplished statistician!
The point about standard deviation being that given a normal distribution of landing distances (same rig, same place), 68% of landings should occur within +/- one standard deviation, while 95% should fall within +/- two standard deviations.
Bet Boeing doesn't have a graph for that...
Cheers