Yep, stable door and bolting horse springs to mind.

I notice the union was in the media very upset about the initial comments by TAIC when they said ‘the pilot lost control’. I would hate to think that when they took out 360m worth of edge lighting shortly after the flare they were actually ‘in control’. No it may be that there is NO FAULT on the pilots that led to being ‘out of control’ but the statement seems to be irrefutable.

Latest from the union

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...MCCR4BC6MND3Q/

I briefly lost directional control in about 25 knots of crosswind, vacated the runway, got the bastard back under control and got it back on the runway. There was quite a bit of puckering going on. The puckering must have been substantial in the 777.

Likewise, I remember touching the breaks on a very wet runway doing about 40 kts in anticipation of a 90 degree exit. The aircraft slid on some touchdown markings and for about 5 seconds the aircraft sailed straight on past the exit out of my control with the tiller turned. It was a very uncomfortable feeling and we would have been off the end if it was the end exit. That scared the crap out of me so I can imagine the feeling as you scramble to keep a plane the size of a 777 on the runway,

Skidding does not necessarily mean that the PF has lost control - they might well be doing everything correctly in the circumstances to control the skid and bring the aircraft back to the centreline.

Having said that; commencing a landing in such extreme rain ??? That seems to me to be the real problem here.

True!

QF, 747, Heavy rain; Golf,

If the aircraft is not doing what you wanted it to, you’ve lost control.

When a rally car four wheel drifts round a forest corner on loose gravel, has the driver lost control ?? Or are they controlling it very well ?

oouch …BKK

Drifting a 777 and taking out 360 odd meters of lights and calling yourself “all under total control”.

To be honest I’m not sure if your post was sarcasm or not?

That depends in whether they are deliberately taking out the Armco and tyre bundles on the corner or not, or in this case the edge lights, what's your point?

The investigator didn’t follow protocol when commenting to the media, hence ALPA’s response.

Unofficially, through the usual crew room gossip, I’ve been told there was no Runway condition reported other than “wet” when they landed. Heavy rain and crosswind yes, but all within limits for a wet runway. Had it been reported contaminated with standing water, I suspect the outcome would have been different..

Regardless, simply stating the Pilot lost control absent of any contributing factors is rather unprofessional for an investigator. Aren’t all Accidents a case of lost control? Outside of the deliberate…. Facts matter.

No, not sarcasm. If an aircraft has deviated owing to the environment, but PF reacts and controls the situation to correct that skid, I personally would not characterise that as "losing control".

Like with an EFATO or EFBTO; the aircraft initially yaws significantly until PF gets the rudder in - I would not call that losing control.

Perhaps this incident was a bit more severe though.

Once again I’m not sure you’re grasping the reality of the situation.

Since the PF is required to be able to actually see the runway they're landing on, if he/she can't see the runway because it's under water, don't you think a go-around might have resulted in a better outcome?? At very least their jet blast might have cleared the water.

Familiarity, resulting in pushing just that little bit too hard/far, has been the cause of many a Code Brown (and worse). The same folks would probably happily drive at high speed through standing water on their way to the airport, never thinking that one day they might need to be rescued. :hmm:

PiperCameron, stay in ya lane mate :ok:

Who said they couldn’t see the runway?
You do know the difference between Wet and Contaminated right? Why we have runway condition and braking action reports and how they apply to landing performance calculations and crosswind limits?
That it’s impossible to determine the depth of water from the cockpit which is why the runway condition is reported on the ATIS? And when the Atis says “wet” it means less than 3mm of water?
And finally, you do realise that the runway wasn’t submerged like the lost city of Atlantis and would of been lit up like a Christmas tree in those conditions?

Tell me you don’t do the job without telling me you don’t do the job.

I was speaking generally, but fair enough; I wasn't in the cockpit. Were you?