captjns

Your citation from the Boeing 757 AFM is correct. The same applies to the 737 in different words however.

An automatic landing system is fail passive if, in the event of failure, Autopilot disengagement causes no significant deviation of trim, flight path or attitude. After a failure the landing may be completed manually, or a manual go-around is executed if visual references are insufficient. The B737-NG incorporates a fail passive system.

An automatic landing system is fail-operational if, in the event of Autopilot Flight Director system (APFDS) failure, the operation may be continued utilizing the remainder of the system. The B737-NG is presently NOT Fail – Operational.

The CAT IIIA certified autopilot in the B737-NG is cleared for use down to 50 ft RA when coupled to the ILS. It will bring the aircraft into a “gate” at 50ft from where a landing can be made without large corrections to heading and attitude. In practice this means that at 100ft the aircraft should be placed:

• Laterally: Maximum 1/3 dot localizer deviation. The main gear should be within the extended runway edges.
• Vertically: Maximum 1 dot Glide Slope deviation. This equates to within 13 ft of the correct height.

Over the end of the runway at 50’ the crew should have been able to see about 350 meters, or almost 1200 feet of runway with an ample number or centerline lights being the fact that they are spaced 15 meters apart.

With a localizer deviation greater than 1/3 dot, a missed approach should have been initiated immediately. I find it hard to imagine that at 50’ AGL with the proper visual cues in view, during the flare, Auto-throttles in the retard mode that the aircraft would have a last minute excursion off the centerline.

olivier737

Captjns, in my opinion you are judging the professionalism of the flight crew a little bit too fast and in a very bad way! I'm happy not to fly with a guy like you who knows everything better than the others. Did you ever heard about CRM? Your words are very rude and not fair!

When you say : "I think it takes great talent to completely miss the runway". What a sad behaviour...

You were not in the TNT B737 cockpit (non-EFIS for info) when the incident occured and you (and all of us) are not in a position to judge these two guys. As you should know (as a professional pilot, if you are) everything goes sometimes fast in a cockpit, especially during marginal weather conditions and the accident can be very close. Keep in mind that it may happen to you as well. Never say never!

captjns

First of all, I am not standing in judgment in any crewmember, because I was not there.

If you want to oliver737, go ahead, use the CRM thing as an excuse to evade the issue. I gotta tell you Ace, you're missing the big picture here. EFIS or no EFIS it doesn’t make a difference. If the runway’s not where it’s suppose to be when you reach minimums… go-around… simple as that. I don’t know but that’s how I was trained, and that’s how I train pilots. What's your opinion about the runway not being there when you reach minimums? Better yet what happens if you are no longer in a safe position to land the jet with the runway in sight... what would you do?

In all my years as a skipper, no one has ever intimidated me to push the envelope when it comes to the safety and legality of operation.

Forget about yourself… but to put your crewmembers, and passengers in harms way is just pure arrogance. No other way to put it. That’s what separates the "Company Yes Men, Button Pushing, Brown Nosers from the real pilots. What are you?

Charles Darwin

With my company (757´s) we are to continue catIII with autoland with "land2".
Are you telling me that´s not permitted according to Boeing?
Now, I´m getting all confused...

euroflyer

To clarify, on the 757s I fly which are earlier models apart from one, ,if you get an ASA change from LAND 3 to LAND 2 during autoland, Boeing says manual landing or manual go-around. You are allowed to come back and do for example a CAT 3A with LAND 2 annunciated provided it remains annunciated.
My point was, an autoland does not necessary mean an automatic go-around or and automatic landing as was previously stated.
I hope this clarifies my previous posting.

Charles Darwin

Thanks Euroflyer.
We only do Cat IIIA, so this all makes sense.

Flap15Geardown

Typical airport numbskull who doesn't think about what he is saying. It doesn't matter how long the runway is the a/c would still have stopped approximately the same distance from the threshold. The only difference would be that you might have 2 short bits of runway to use, one towards relatively flat open countryside and the other towards rising ground and the car supermarket with all the housing estates beyond

Avman

Yep, airport managers, just as switched on about aviation as as most of todays airline and ATC managers .

Doors to Automatic

That doesn't necessarily follow. By way of example - 747s once regularly operated into LBA (LDA 5900ft). But very few 747s come to a stop within 5900ft of the threshold at LHR.

Jet2

Yes but those 747's weren't missing one side of their main landing gear. However, under normal circumstances of course you are quite correct.

moggiee

Which runway was in use at EMA at the time? Left of 27 is also right of 09.

That said, if you release a wheel at 130kt, it will travel a long way before it comes to rest.

bep

Its a hair-raising situation in the simulator on a Cat III auto-land, with a passive failure; you have 49 feet to make a call

captjns

Runway 27 at EMA is the runway authorized for CAT III approaches.

Magplug

Mercenary Pilot, you said...Your clear desire to defend the 737 is charming but only clouds the issue.

There is a very macho way of thinking that seemingly originates from American/Boeing culture that pilots are lantern jawed supermen who can recall emergency checkists perfectly from memory and are incapable of errors of perception or judgement. The reality is that pilots are humans and suffer from human failings... The more forward thinkling organisations in our business recognise this and take every step towards creating aeroplanes and SOP's that allow as little scope for human error as possible.

Unfortunately the design of the 737 flight deck rates very poorly in that regard. Yes.... Helios was due in part to humans failing to execute checklists correctly, then failing to recognised malfunctions and cues associated with a decompression. However there are other aircraft designs where the systems would have completely prevented these human oversights and kept them safe. The 737 unfortunately is not blessed with such a design.

Magplug...... 737 skipper

manuelwijtenburg

as a matter of fact,some of them do.specially qc,s .quote]

Magplug

MP,

My loyalties lie on neither side of the Atlantic. There is a fundamental lack of appreciation in our industry that as a result of accident findings systems and procedures can sometimes be improved, however the human being cannot.

Therefore your premise that the 'European assumption' that all pilots are numbskulls is (kind-of) the way ahead. Systems MUST be designed with a view to giving two tired pilots on the last day of duty in the third hour of discretion the most help possible when something goes wrong..... Simply because the lives of the travelling public are at stake and not because some 'I-can-hack-it-all-anytime' pilot might be a little bit offended by some system simplification. (That not personal BTW )

Some critical pilot interface issues have been fixed on the NG but not all. Anyway we are talking about a classic 733 here and by far the vast majority of the world's 737 fleet are classics.

captjns

How does this equate to landing in the grass? The crew was not American. The airline was not an American cargo carrier. So what's the point of your comment other than having an apparent grudge against US certified airmen?

Magplug

captjns....... You clearly have not understood either of my posts. I do not have the time to spell it out for the non-aviators here.

BTW, no part of my post was intended as anti-American but I can see how the layman would mis-interpret that.

Coconutty

Flaps15GearDown :
I think what the "typical airport numbskull" ( BHX Official ) was getting at was that if the Runway at BHX had already been extended, which is towards the flat open countryside you describe - extending in the R15 direction - then the 15 Runway - behind where the 737 stopped ( 50 yds or so prior to Bravo ) - would have been sufficient for more of the bigger / heavier stuff to taxi up, or be pushed back, to the scene, and then take off along R15.



Landings would still be a no-no, but the proposals for BHX development include a second runway as well as the main extension, and they wouldn't BOTH have been closed !

It will be interesting to see if this incident is quoted in any Planning permission applications !


Coconutty

Flap15Geardown

Coconutty

You seem to have fallen into the same trap. You assume that the aircraft would have stopped in the same place, it wouldn't, it would have still stopped approximately the same distance from the 33 threshold giving the same TODA. The only advantage would be having less of the slope to try and accelerate up.

Also just to correct you the runway was open for arrivals an hour or so after it was opened to departures. If I remember the figures correctly it was R15 TORA 1650m and R33 LDA 1300m. I understand the only aircraft that did land was the citation bringing the engineers in to assess and move the 733.