I think some of you are missing an important point here, Capt Fathom is quite correct.

An auto land is not always safer than a manual landing. It is when you are approaching a runway with LVPs in force, but during a practise approach to a Cat 1 facility...no! There are no protections in force and the aircraft's behaviour can be unpredictable. The 767 in this thread sounds exactly like an autoland without protections. Sometimes its perfect and othertimes its not. Be aware that this is possible and pre-brief your response.

ITCZ you have an interesting understanding of climb gradients etc. I dont have a Jepp plate of SYD 27 to look at but clearing the upwind threshold by 35' and climbing at 3.3% on a go around guarantees you absolutely nothing. The approach climb gradients on the go around are worked from the MAP. Now if you flew the SID....that might be different.

SMOC I hope you don't fly an Airbus.

Ding

Before you start betting that it wasn't an autoland - have you experienced many 767 autolands?

Some aircraft can be relied upon to produce beautiful autolands with robotic precision just about every time. The 767 isn't one of them. Most of the time it's adequate. Sometimes it isn't.

VH-Cheer Up :ok:

Maybe QF can help. :p

Seriously though, :uhoh: unlike TO in which the energy state arrow is only going, hopefully, in one direction, the problem with landings, is in which direction the total energy state was trending when you finally closed the taps.
That is was/were the airframe/engines accelerating or decelerating at the time, apart from the sheer inertia of the airframe, there is that of the big fans as well. :eek:

It's like dancing, business, sex etc, all in the timing.:D :E