SIA 777 off the rwy at EDDM
B...S... Flight sim videos
Ho many times do I need to watch a Bu... Sh... fight sim video and have others think it is real?
Isn't this a professional forum?
I have no doubt 'the crew' input massive directional control inputs for what ever reason based on the rubber marks on the runway.
Can we as professionals please see past the rubbish on the internet and the 'wannabes'.
Am I the only one that gets really pizzed off when I watch a u tube video only to see a few seconds in that it's only a 'flight sim' b... sh.. 'recreation'?!
Isn't this a professional forum?
I have no doubt 'the crew' input massive directional control inputs for what ever reason based on the rubber marks on the runway.
Can we as professionals please see past the rubbish on the internet and the 'wannabes'.
Am I the only one that gets really pizzed off when I watch a u tube video only to see a few seconds in that it's only a 'flight sim' b... sh.. 'recreation'?!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: .
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well in that case the graphics on MS flight sim have got rather amazing. I am particuarly impressed with the amazing detail that MS have gone to so that the background looks just like a real airport. The clarity and resolution was excellent. Congratulations MS on an excellent product...!
O'k, Now I'm doubting.
O'k, Now I'm doubting.
The more I watch that video, the more I can't see it being other than original.
It just looks soooo wrong like all the other Microsoft u tube posts.
No reverse selected during ground roll.
I've aqua-planned a loooong way down the side of a runway keeping it as straight as possible in the wet, wet, wet and lots of cross wind.
Can't see just low vis or what ever causing an excursion/event like that.
The more I watch that video, the more I can't see it being other than original.
It just looks soooo wrong like all the other Microsoft u tube posts.
No reverse selected during ground roll.
I've aqua-planned a loooong way down the side of a runway keeping it as straight as possible in the wet, wet, wet and lots of cross wind.
Can't see just low vis or what ever causing an excursion/event like that.
He fooled us all. Kookaburra is right
Attention!
Quote:
Kookaburra is right
Windup alert
Ok. I'll take a step back.
I'll happily admit I might be wrong, probably am....
1. I do get the sh1ts with flight sim videos on the net purporting to be the 'real thing'. All u tube vids should state if flight sim.
2. I don't get why the thing got so side ways in such 'minor' met conditions.
3. No reversers?
Any way. No wind up. Back to my life.
Quote:
Kookaburra is right
Windup alert
Ok. I'll take a step back.
I'll happily admit I might be wrong, probably am....
1. I do get the sh1ts with flight sim videos on the net purporting to be the 'real thing'. All u tube vids should state if flight sim.
2. I don't get why the thing got so side ways in such 'minor' met conditions.
3. No reversers?
Any way. No wind up. Back to my life.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a professional airline pilot I would say it looks real.
Although it is possible I don't think the nose was raised due to an accidental push of TOGA nor an intentional attempt to manually rotate into the air. There was no increase in thrust evident and you certainly wouldn't rotate with the intention of getting airborne without having goaround power.
I suspect the nose was raised when the left wheels dug into the grass and the rapid deceleration pitched the nose down compressing the nose oleo. There would be an instinct to pull back to reduce the weight on the main wheels and make them less likely to dig in to the grass. If it was an autoland the autopilot may still have been engaged in which case more force than normal would have been required to move the control column aft. Once it had been moved back a bit the autopilot would disconnect with a lurch and with the same force still applied the control column would then rapidly move back thus producing an abrupt nose up pitch until back pressure was reduced or reducing airspeed meant it was no longer possible to keep the nose in the air.
After the rotation the nosewheel came down into the grass where right rudder fine or tiller input would be less due to skidding, then when it made it back on to the tarmac and the nosewheel suddenly gained grip it would turn to the right rapidly.
All conjecture until the facts come out.
Although it is possible I don't think the nose was raised due to an accidental push of TOGA nor an intentional attempt to manually rotate into the air. There was no increase in thrust evident and you certainly wouldn't rotate with the intention of getting airborne without having goaround power.
I suspect the nose was raised when the left wheels dug into the grass and the rapid deceleration pitched the nose down compressing the nose oleo. There would be an instinct to pull back to reduce the weight on the main wheels and make them less likely to dig in to the grass. If it was an autoland the autopilot may still have been engaged in which case more force than normal would have been required to move the control column aft. Once it had been moved back a bit the autopilot would disconnect with a lurch and with the same force still applied the control column would then rapidly move back thus producing an abrupt nose up pitch until back pressure was reduced or reducing airspeed meant it was no longer possible to keep the nose in the air.
After the rotation the nosewheel came down into the grass where right rudder fine or tiller input would be less due to skidding, then when it made it back on to the tarmac and the nosewheel suddenly gained grip it would turn to the right rapidly.
All conjecture until the facts come out.
Last edited by suninmyeyes; 11th Nov 2011 at 15:35.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many times have you seen a crew 'too overloaded' to select reverse! Dozens of times by me. If thrust levers were in any position other than closed, spoilers won't deploy and reverse locked out. The most likely scenario is thrust is UP either because of TOGA selection or a manual selection. Thereafter it is a bun fight as to who is flying. Interestingly there doesn't seem to be much rudder deflection during the video. Nosewheel steering would have been hyper sensitive at that speed which may explain the severe skidding.
To me, it looks like the plane may have been accelerating after nosewheel touchdown. It certainly wasn't decelerating.
To me, it looks like the plane may have been accelerating after nosewheel touchdown. It certainly wasn't decelerating.
Watching that vid, it seems like a normal landing in terms of descent rate, flare, touchdown and initial rollout. What stands out is the subsequent lack of spoiler deployment and reverse, followed by an excursion onto the grass and the nosewheel raising briefly.
The speedbrakes should auto-deploy if a) they are armed, thrust levers at idle and on the ground or b) if reverse is selected on the ground. They are re-stowed if the thrust levers are moved forward towards takeoff thrust.
The nosewheel lifting appears to coincide with the left gear going onto the grass, judging by the dirt being kicked up. I wouldn't have thought that could cause any significant pitch up, more likely the opposite, so that leaves the possibility of an attempted go-around from after touchdown, aborted soon afterwards. Possibly the engines spooling up at different rates leading to a directional problem? TAC *should* have dealt with most of that as they were most definitely >70kts. A bit of a poser, this one. I wouldn't want to point any fingers at the crew until I knew what was working/failed in this particular instance.
As far as the aircraft shooting off trying to follow a false localiser, from the 777 manual:
I would presume the filtering carries on during the landing roll.
Replaying the clip (which I think is almost undoubtedly genuine), I have to say how lucky they were not to have had a major accident. I've never seen anything that size in a 14-wheel drift from the grass, across the runway and back on the grass again. If it had dug in a little more or pulled in a different direction, it could have gone through rows of parked aircraft or even into the terminal. Once something with that sort of rotational inertia starts spinning, all bets are off...
The speedbrakes should auto-deploy if a) they are armed, thrust levers at idle and on the ground or b) if reverse is selected on the ground. They are re-stowed if the thrust levers are moved forward towards takeoff thrust.
The nosewheel lifting appears to coincide with the left gear going onto the grass, judging by the dirt being kicked up. I wouldn't have thought that could cause any significant pitch up, more likely the opposite, so that leaves the possibility of an attempted go-around from after touchdown, aborted soon afterwards. Possibly the engines spooling up at different rates leading to a directional problem? TAC *should* have dealt with most of that as they were most definitely >70kts. A bit of a poser, this one. I wouldn't want to point any fingers at the crew until I knew what was working/failed in this particular instance.
As far as the aircraft shooting off trying to follow a false localiser, from the 777 manual:
The autopilot flight director system (AFDS) can detect significant ILS signal interference due to service vehicles or aircraft. If localizer or glideslope signal interference is detected, the autopilot disregards the ILS signal and remains engaged in an attitude stabilizing mode based on inertial data. Most ILS signal interferences last only a short period of time, so there is no annunciation other than erratic movement of the ILS raw data during the time the interference is present. If the condition persists, the annunciations described above for Autopilot and Flight Director Mode Degradation are provided.
Replaying the clip (which I think is almost undoubtedly genuine), I have to say how lucky they were not to have had a major accident. I've never seen anything that size in a 14-wheel drift from the grass, across the runway and back on the grass again. If it had dug in a little more or pulled in a different direction, it could have gone through rows of parked aircraft or even into the terminal. Once something with that sort of rotational inertia starts spinning, all bets are off...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fredericton
Age: 75
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Specimens like CJ
Without any intention to seem too harsh wrt Shinkai's posts, I hope that if SQC is done with CJ they should alert other operators of such undesirables so that they do not hop onto another outfit only to recreate their ****ty show. When I was KAL we had some really irritating ex SQC fellas who were totally PIAs with their whining, whinging and downright uncouth ways of putting down their former fellow pilots. These " cheats " signed agreements with SQC which they reneged on; got their 744 ratings and ran off to KAL virtually conning their ways into that poor airline with it's clueless recruitment team. I am sure SQC have their faults and it is certainly not the best freight dog outfit in town, but these pilots are not school boys when they signed on.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck Cannuck-
You're just brilliant! You have managed to make a post that doesn't even come close to making a comment about this incident. All you do is make uninteresting remarks about SQC pilots! Why? Are you attempting to ingratiate yourself with the "knock CJ" gang?
I don't agree with all that CJ says, but we are now descending into an utterly boring drift.
I know I will be hammered for this (Awaiting rain 5-ugh!) but we are now discussing whether the speed brake was armed. Not arming the auto speed brake and not deploying reverse idle (second channel to deploy spoilers) leaves the aircraft very unstable on the ground. IF, the you tube video is accurate.
You're just brilliant! You have managed to make a post that doesn't even come close to making a comment about this incident. All you do is make uninteresting remarks about SQC pilots! Why? Are you attempting to ingratiate yourself with the "knock CJ" gang?
I don't agree with all that CJ says, but we are now descending into an utterly boring drift.
I know I will be hammered for this (Awaiting rain 5-ugh!) but we are now discussing whether the speed brake was armed. Not arming the auto speed brake and not deploying reverse idle (second channel to deploy spoilers) leaves the aircraft very unstable on the ground. IF, the you tube video is accurate.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hk
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another few interesting observation if it's contributes to any constructive discussion that is.--
1) Based on YouTube timing( that's what we have anyways) the nose wheel was back on the runway Tarmac ( after veering off left) for a good 6-7 seconds (make it 5, to be very conservative) before going off to the right.
2) Main wheel boogey visual transition from black mud/grass debris to smoking white rubber in an INSTANT.
With these, a best educated opinion 6-7 seconds on the Tarmac (5 at the very minimum on 197'/60 m wide runway with whatever speed it was, is hardly a violent swing on the nose wheel by the crew's input as so many of the forumers were predicting.
Also the black dirt to instant white smoke was probabily due the main boogeys already lose grip of the grass surface and in a sliding mode (impossible for the crew to have felt it until the wheel hit Tarmac - gripping force back again and locking in the direction and swing marks u see on the photos.
Metaphorically speaking: A driver sitting at the front of huge long base trailer transport truck turning slowing without realizing his tail has lost grip already. What looks like still in control for the first few moments... Until the rear gripped again, leaving the driver split second to either crash into the road divider, brake in time or do a further hard turn to avoid.
Lastly, if the rumour of an attempted go around was true or considered, as seen with the nose wheel lifting off or otherwise; why would the reversers be pull? I understand most operators commits to LANDING once the reverser sleeves are out from lock.
Like I said--- just making observations, not conclusions.
Ps, I like the "conclusion"by a forumer who so clearly states that the vid is a fake from flight sim although he corrected himself later. Must be a Steve jobs apple software game to counter pc games.
one thing I have learned for sure is never to judge and conclude without knowing all facts.
Afterall, this is an industry where we have to LEARN FROM; rather than JUDGE each other's experiences .
1) Based on YouTube timing( that's what we have anyways) the nose wheel was back on the runway Tarmac ( after veering off left) for a good 6-7 seconds (make it 5, to be very conservative) before going off to the right.
2) Main wheel boogey visual transition from black mud/grass debris to smoking white rubber in an INSTANT.
With these, a best educated opinion 6-7 seconds on the Tarmac (5 at the very minimum on 197'/60 m wide runway with whatever speed it was, is hardly a violent swing on the nose wheel by the crew's input as so many of the forumers were predicting.
Also the black dirt to instant white smoke was probabily due the main boogeys already lose grip of the grass surface and in a sliding mode (impossible for the crew to have felt it until the wheel hit Tarmac - gripping force back again and locking in the direction and swing marks u see on the photos.
Metaphorically speaking: A driver sitting at the front of huge long base trailer transport truck turning slowing without realizing his tail has lost grip already. What looks like still in control for the first few moments... Until the rear gripped again, leaving the driver split second to either crash into the road divider, brake in time or do a further hard turn to avoid.
Lastly, if the rumour of an attempted go around was true or considered, as seen with the nose wheel lifting off or otherwise; why would the reversers be pull? I understand most operators commits to LANDING once the reverser sleeves are out from lock.
Like I said--- just making observations, not conclusions.
Ps, I like the "conclusion"by a forumer who so clearly states that the vid is a fake from flight sim although he corrected himself later. Must be a Steve jobs apple software game to counter pc games.
one thing I have learned for sure is never to judge and conclude without knowing all facts. Afterall, this is an industry where we have to LEARN FROM; rather than JUDGE each other's experiences .
Last edited by shinkai744; 12th Nov 2011 at 05:48.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck Canute
I very much doubt if any SQ Cargo Pilots broke their bonds and joined KAL as you suggest as in my experience those who chose to leave whilst in bondage always negotiated their exit. I recall an A340 South African leaving to join EK as a management pilot some years back and another joining Atlas as an F/O as he got a green card in a lottery. Another Ethiopian B744 Captain joined and paid off his bond as he wanted to be based in NY.
SIA would get to hear where any bond breakers went to in that region so I doubt your claim is correct.
An Amercan who got fired because he had one too many in First Class and mouthed off to a Local big wig sued SQ successfully when they tried to keep his bank guarantee money after sacking him.
I very much doubt if any SQ Cargo Pilots broke their bonds and joined KAL as you suggest as in my experience those who chose to leave whilst in bondage always negotiated their exit. I recall an A340 South African leaving to join EK as a management pilot some years back and another joining Atlas as an F/O as he got a green card in a lottery. Another Ethiopian B744 Captain joined and paid off his bond as he wanted to be based in NY.
SIA would get to hear where any bond breakers went to in that region so I doubt your claim is correct.
An Amercan who got fired because he had one too many in First Class and mouthed off to a Local big wig sued SQ successfully when they tried to keep his bank guarantee money after sacking him.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in the off-chance that there is still lingering doubt about the authenticity of the video, yesterday I found the spot where it was obviously filmed. Tor 125 on the south side, where I saw a group of spotters.
By an amazing co-incidence, just as I arrived, a Singapore Airlines 777 was beginning its take-off roll - on the same runway. I checked later, it wasn't the same aircraft.
I took a quick video of it, and you can clearly see it's taken from almost the same spot as the original.
Munich Airport, 12.11.11 - YouTube
By an amazing co-incidence, just as I arrived, a Singapore Airlines 777 was beginning its take-off roll - on the same runway. I checked later, it wasn't the same aircraft.
I took a quick video of it, and you can clearly see it's taken from almost the same spot as the original.
Munich Airport, 12.11.11 - YouTube
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bangkok / San Francisco
Age: 58
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ
I flew private aircraft in Singapore about 8 or 9 years ago out of Seletar, and lived in Singapore for a few years during that timeframe.
In my experience:
The state of aviation training (when i was there at least) was a complete joke. Generally speaking, following the book was the only acceptable approach - no matter the consequences, since there was a complete lack of any ability to think out of the box.
When SQ 009 happened, there was little acceptance of the fact that SQ messed up. Ask anyone on the street in Singapore, or go back and review all the governemt did to fight the findings of the accident investigation. An inability to admit mistakes is a recipie for more of them.
SQ is not a particularly dangerous airline, but one might not conclude it is all that safe either, SQ and Silk Air fatalities aside. The ability to admit issues is the principle first step in addressing them.
In my experience:
The state of aviation training (when i was there at least) was a complete joke. Generally speaking, following the book was the only acceptable approach - no matter the consequences, since there was a complete lack of any ability to think out of the box.
When SQ 009 happened, there was little acceptance of the fact that SQ messed up. Ask anyone on the street in Singapore, or go back and review all the governemt did to fight the findings of the accident investigation. An inability to admit mistakes is a recipie for more of them.
SQ is not a particularly dangerous airline, but one might not conclude it is all that safe either, SQ and Silk Air fatalities aside. The ability to admit issues is the principle first step in addressing them.