QF Rejected landing?
 

Tonight was wet and misty in MEL, light and variable winds.......a 767 touches down a looooong way down 27, spoilers come up, then power goes on and round he goes.......?

Tower asks him why he went round and he bleated on about auto lands and downwinds........?

What is going on at QF??????:uhoh:

Saves parking her on the 19th!

:ok: for a good decision to the crew :ok:

"What is going on at QF??????"
SAFETY, by the sounds of things!! :ok:

Sounds like a great decision to me.
What would you prefer,an A/C off the end?
:confused:
(must have been posting at the same time Kaptin, didn't see your response)
Seems you can't win these days if you make a sound decision which seems the case in this instance.

A safer decison would be to have gone round before he touched down, like as he passed the intersection of 16!

seems like the captain was doing his job and making safe decisions.B767 captains are by far the best/responsible.

Dear James,
I don't quite understand what you are on about mate.
A decision was made which appears from what you say to be a sound one.
You armchair experts are really getting out of control.
:mad:

James,
It is irrelevant when the Captain decided to hit the GO button, so long as he decided TO Go around averting a dangerous situation.

Proper AVIATING is all about PROPER decisions. An IMPROPER decision would have been slamming her on, throwing out every anchoring device, and hoping in God and Goodyear. When you start chopping down HIAL with the nosewheel, you know you made the wrong decision. Factor in that the runway was slick, and stopping distance is increased SIGNIFICANTLY.

Without knowing WHY the decision was made to abort and go around, you cannot comment. SHould he have gone around earlier? Maybe, but the decision was made to continue, and THEN go around upon making a decision that the situation had potential for problems.

james4th,

you are partly right -- the crew should have made a decision to continue to the threshold some point prior to crossing the piano keys....

but...

we have all had a crap touchdown after an excellent final approach!

before you get too hard on the captain for a 'late' go around, factor in the following.

The crew would have been aiming 300m in to the touchdown markers.

Crossing the threshold at say, 120knots IAS, they would have been doing around 60 metres per second or better.

After passing the 450m touchdown markers, they may have recognised that they were out of shape for a landing.

They then, if they followed their training, would NOT have done the GA 'fark' go around.

Someone may have announced "go around." Then whomever was flying would have smoothly increased power (or the TOGA buttons would have done so) to go around power, and the flying pilot would have smoothly rotated to the go around attitude at 3 to 4 degrees per second, as he/she had had it drummed into them!

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.

Would not be at all surprised if this activity took several hundred metres of runway to achieve.

And none of it a problem because I am sure they cleared the other threshold by better than 35 feet. and better than 3.3% in a 20.7.1B "twin" with all engines operating.

Tonight was wet and misty in MEL, light and variable winds.......a 767 touches down a looooong way down 27, spoilers come up, then power goes on and round he goes.......?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the spoilers already up, he was lucky NOT to have parked it on the 19th!

All some people are showing here is their ignorance.

56P, you are one of them.

Hmm,

well I guess we will see just HOW much the newspaper hacks read this forum over the next couple of days. I see a big headline if it becomes a slow news day sometime soon!

Might even be a comment from Dick Smith somewhere amongst it, or even behind it: IF AIRSERVICES HAD GONE WITH THE PROVEN US MODEL AND NOT ROLLED BACK TO THE 1840'S AIRSPACE MODEL, THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON THE AIRSPACE AROUND THE AIPORT AND DIRECTED THE QANTAS JET TO GOAROUND EARLIER. DONT FLY IN TO MELBOURNE - IT'S NOT SAFE ...... etc. etc.

For the uninformed...
Spoilers retract automatically when the thrust levers are advanced.
Automatic landings always result in a touchdown further along the runway than is normal with manual landings. It's just the way the system works.

Fathom,

How dare you bring facts in to this argument!!!!!!

This is a rumour network run for the pleasure of amateur aviators, schoolkids, wannabes, has beens and other people totally unassociated with the Profession of Airline Pilot.

And you dare state facts!!!!!!

Killjoy!!!!!

:ok:

Fortunately, school holidays finish this weekend.

Ahhh, next week should be peaceful! :ok:

Woomera

Capt Fathom, well done, you spotted one of my points:- why practice an auto land (when you really didnt need to in those weather conditions) on a shortish runway which was wet, with no headwind. Why not use 16 (which he eventually did).

I do not mean to criticise the crew at all, far be it for me to climb into someone elses cockpit (I have enought trouble in my own!) But the criticism is directed at Qantas who are very quick to point out other airlines percieved problems while ignoring their own (GS are you listening?)

I apologise to the crew if I was seen to blame them personally, they were no doubt folowing QF SOPs (?) it is those that I criticise.

We all have upset approaches but there is a point you must give the approach away, Qantas SOP says "follow G/S down the the ground" That would put you on the 1000' without a flare, so probably the 1500' markers as a touchdown point with a flare. The SOP says that if the touchdown is going to be beyond 2000', go around.

Now that is OK for international runs in big a/c on long runways but do you think it is OK for 27 on a wet night or other shortish runways?

And what are people's feelings on practice autolands? I dont know the QF SOP on that.

As a touchdown aiming point (in a jet) what do you use?

James4th
 

James4th

It's a pity James3rd didn't have that vasectomy a few years earlier.:D

sigh...

Maybe the captain required an autoland to update his recency.

Maybe the aeroplane required an autoland to update it's recency.

Who cares?

They would have ascertained that the runway length was sufficient, even when wet. (It is...)

The autoland system obviously did not have them down on the runway at the advertised point so they went around in accordance with SOP's.

I fail to see the big deal here...

OK, I am obviously flogging a dead horse here...... next time my autoland needs a run I'll just pick a nasty night and a wet shortish runway to do it on.

Cheers All

Next Generation

I think James 3rd should have taken the head job instead.:E

Who needes the unqualified gentlemen of the press to beat up a non event when "professional" pilots do such a good job themselves?