warm beer

I understand that both pilots have been fired

NutLoose

Does not suprise me, but saddens me too, believe there was pressure to go to EGNX in the first place, but this is just speculation.........

They would probably be the best 2 737 pilots you could employ about now, they wouldnt be likely ever to get into the same situation again and have proved themselves so to speak, as it must of taken some quick thinking to walk away from that............

As to the wheel in the grass at East Midland, this was seen as it was taken away for further investigation and it was the complete main undercarriage, wheels, boogie, strut, trunnion the whole shooting match...... I believe the pins are designed to fail in such circumstances to prevent major damage to the main spars.... could be wrong but that is what people have been telling me, glad the picture shed some light on the subject.

As to the post that it appeared to be heading towards the buildings between the freight and main apron, that could have been real bad news as that is the Fire section....

London Mil

Is that not cause of pre-judgement? Maybe the pilots did screw-up, but surely their employers should wait for the findings of any formal investigation.

Few Cloudy

The tragedy is that those guys present a golden opportunity for CRM specialists to find out what their thinking was. They should be treated accordingly.

On the other hand there is a need for action to satisfy the public pressure on an airline following a crash or serious incident.

Best course of action would be to keep them off the roster but in employ and not to antagonise them to the point that nothing will be learned.

Same action often happens after a press-on approach - long landing etc.

What do you think?

FC.

JW411

The CRM specialists have had over two weeks to learn the lessons from this event. How long do you think they need?

We do not know for sure if the crew has indeed been fired but in these days of litigation and unfair dismissal claims it must have been a pretty clear cut decision if it is indeed true.

Few Cloudy

For the flying world? Much more than two weeks.

These guys should ideally visit airlines and give lectures.

You normally die in these cases. It is rare to be able to pass the word.

FC.

Speed of Sound

Not sure how much public pressure there is in this case.

Most non-aviation people I speak to know nothing of this case other than the runway at Brum was 'closed for a few hours' after an emergency landing. Those with a bit more knowledge are praising the pilots for landing on six wheels. The touch and go at Donnington seems to have escaped much of the media.

SoS

Daysleeper

AAIB Special Published

AAIB

Key bit from the pre-amble

Tough as old boots these 737s

angels

Mere SLF here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the AAIB report it seems that it was the autopilot that was responsible for the deviation from the approach.

Is there anything the pilots could have done about it at this late stage?

Magplug

...Just a shame about the crap autopilot!

captjns

There is too much to speculate upon here without full details.

The second A/P must be engaged in CMD by 800 feet RA to execute a dual channel A/P approach. Otherwise, CMD engagement of the second A/P is inhibited.

The A/P automatically disengages when any of the following occurs:

• pushing either A/P disengage switch
• pushing either Takeoff/Go-around (TO/GA) switch with a single A/P
• engaged in CWS or CMD above 2000 feet RA with flaps not up or G/S engaged.
• pushing either TO/GA switch after touchdown with both A/Ps engaged in CMD
• pushing an illuminated A/P ENGAGE switch
• pushing the A/P DISENGAGE bar down
• activating either pilot’s control wheel trim switch
• moving the STAB TRIM AUTOPILOT cutout switch to CUTOUT
• either left or right IRS system failure or FAULT light illuminated
• loss of electrical power or a sensor input which prevents proper operation of the engaged A/P and mode
• loss of respective hydraulic system pressure.

There is the possibility that late in the approach it was discovered that the second A/P was not in CMD because there was no “Flare Armed” observed on the A/P Mode Display”. Then the operating A/P was inadvertently disengaged by pushing the illuminated switch which would thus cause the A/P to disengage. I have observed this while conducting simulator training.

A successful auto-land can be accomplished, even if the second A/P is engaged below 800’, provided the aircraft is established on the localizer and glide slope centerlines with minor deviations and the flight control computers have enough time to perform their self tests to ensure the integrity of the auto-land system.

Translation of the DFDR will clear up any speculation regarding the A/P issue. Either way it’s a crappy situation to be in. The best news is that nobody went to the hospital.

Magplug

Captjns, very interesting but perhaps you missed the following trom the AAIB report...
One mile.... that's 300'

...From the 737 QRH Cat2/3 Operations:

--------------------------------------------------
BELOW 500 RA:-

Autopilot disconnect...............Go Around
Nav Set Failure..........................Go Around
2 or more Deviation Flashes..........Go Around
Stab out of trim..........................Go Around
--------------------------------------------------

The wording of the report.....
....suggests that actions were both pilot initiated rather than uncommanded..... Executing a manual go around from 300' in this circumstance would have been the correct thing to do.

Bam Thwok

There's also a little hidden "gem" that Mr Boeing has provided for us in the auto-pilot system....
The a/c WILL fully auto-land with ONLY one auto-pilot engaged.....however, the FMA doesn't show "FLARE".
Something to keep in your back pocket !!
Try it next time in the sim ?

captjns

Very interesting to say the least. Just a questions thouhg... do both A/Ps have to be engaged during the approach, and one trip off??? or does only one A/P have to be engaged from the outset and accomplish and autland?

BOAC

A bit of a 'diversion' from the thread, I feel, but single channel 737 autolands are discussed here.

The late XV105

BBC News report on the "landed on the grass and became airborne again" post made earlier in this thread: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...ds/5158954.stm

Shaggy Sheep Driver

So, Beeb says the accident at Brum was casued 'by faulty landing gear'.

Well, I suppose if you impact the ground off the runway with some force, it does tend to induce undercarriage faults.

fyrefli

Rather unfortunately, whilst that is indeed the wording of the Report, the wording of the Summary is missing the somewhat critical word 'was'.

Cheers,

Rich.

Coconutty

My local TV Station ( Central ) reported yesterday evening that the landing at East Midlands airport went wrong because of a fault with the auto pilot


Coconutty

FougaMagister

I guess a landing gear that is missing its right main wheel can be considered "faulty" - is this the BBC's idea of understatement?

As for Central Newz reporting that the landing at EMA went wrong "because of a fault with the autopilot", I wonder how they got that info BEFORE the AAIB's interim report being published

Cheers