Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Freight Dogs
Reload this Page >

2005 Atlas overrun at EDDL; final report: pilots not to blame

Wikiposts
Search
Freight Dogs Finally a forum for those midnight prowler types who utilise the unglamorous parts of airports that many of us never get to see. Freight Dogs is for pilots and crew who operate mostly without SLF.

2005 Atlas overrun at EDDL; final report: pilots not to blame

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 31st Jan 2014, 11:53
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post 2005 Atlas overrun at EDDL; final report: pilots not to blame

This is about some Atlas Air landing accident Boeing 747-200 overrun at Düsseldorf in 2005. Crew of three unhurt, airplane written off.

The final report of the german BFU ("NTSB") is out. Pilots had been told about "medium" runway conditions and braking action right before landing but experienced way worse due to heavy snow and winds. BFU clears the pilots in their final report now says technology to measure current rwy-surface conditions is not sufficient.

(pic)
BFU spricht Atlas-Air-Piloten von Schuld frei

full german report:
http://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikation...ublicationFile

This pprune-thread about it had been closed:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/1...f-rwy-dus.html
Kerosene Kraut is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2014, 22:05
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A good time to go Autobrake Max.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2014, 08:21
  #3 (permalink)  
742
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Max autobrakes would not have made any difference. This was a matter of braking action, not runway length.

To put it in terms of how the 747 autobrake system works; if medium brakes were not able to achieve their targeted deceleration rate, then max would not have done any better.
742 is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2014, 15:14
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
^^^That's my impression.
Desert185 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2014, 14:44
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not the first time that I've said this, here on this forum....

How FFF can it take the BFU, what, seven or eight years to put out a report for an over-run ???!!??!

It's not even as though this investigation actually required much digging for missing / destroyed evidence or applied scientific / human behavioural research....Meanwhile, the crew have had this hanging over them for seven or eight years....

Now absolutely convinced that the BFU exists only to counter the myth of world beating German efficiency....
Hussar 54 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2014, 15:13
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The BFU is a relatively small independent authority. By size it is NOT another NTSB. It's not looking for legal guilt but just for the scientific, functional reasons behind certain mishaps and accidents. Many times they need to get experts from the outside to do specific research. That can easily take years. They certainly do take themselves time but they feel no need to rush. Only when they feel they are done they are done.

I'd dare to say they are as independent as it gets. That's a big plus. Their judgement has a value.

Last edited by Kerosene Kraut; 6th Feb 2014 at 15:46.
Kerosene Kraut is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2014, 09:58
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[quoteA "good time to go Autobrake Max."][/quote]

Be careful with that on a contaminated pavement, because 3000psi simultaneous brake pressure on all 16 wheels will intermittently lock up some wheels due uneven contamination, and get you off centerline.
GlueBall is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2014, 11:34
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: the pub
Age: 57
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A good time to go Autobrake Max.
FFS all autobrake does is select a RATE of retardation, as has already been said here, if it couldn't achieve it with medium due to a lack of braking action then selecting a higher rate is not going to change anything.

I am baffled at the amount of so called professional pilots that don't understand this
one dot right is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2014, 21:14
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are you also baffled why Boeing does NOT recommend "Max" autobrake setting on contaminated runways? ...but rather settings "3" or "4" (747-400)

In the case of the 747 classics, "Max" autobrake setting is not governed by deceleration, only "MIN" & "MED" settings are.
GlueBall is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2014, 21:26
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reading the entire "Wheel Brakes" section of the Boeing 747 FCTM in context, that is not a "recommendation", but a MINIMUM use level that reflects their advice to use the minimum braking required to achieve the landing distance required. That combines the considerations of brake life, brake heating, and safety.
Intruder is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2014, 22:01
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If I read this accident report correctly, it involves a B747-200 (Classic) version, about what the subject matter of this thread is about.

My response in particular was to captain "one dot right" to be aware about his take on "Max" autobrake setting being governed by deceleration, or "retardation" as he had inferred, as in this case, of the Classic, is incorrect.
GlueBall is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2015, 05:20
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Some manufacturers recommend the use of the highest available auto-brake setting allowed for landing as it avoids any in-built delays of the lower settings and ensures the prompt application of wheel brakes."

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/20120...tedRunways.pdf
JammedStab is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 00:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ice rink had more friction.

These guys did everything by the book. Maybe the only thing that may have prevented the overrun was a very firm landing. But I doubt it. Back, way back, the Saberliner did not have anti-skid brakes. To check out one had to demonstrate a lose of fifteen knots at touch down. On a dry runway that produced a firm plant, not hard, but firm. On a wet runway it was a smooth touch down. Now the Vref was usually either side of 120. But not even that, would have helped these professionals.
mustangsally is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 14:30
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The key facts here seem pretty straightforward; did it really take nearly nine years to come to this finding?
ShotOne is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.