Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

SIA 777 off the rwy at EDDM

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

SIA 777 off the rwy at EDDM

Old 31st Jan 2012, 12:17
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
After due consideration by the Captain Autolands done in VMC without bothering to advise ATC are most certainly not stupid.

You do keep your finger close to or indeed on the A/P disconnect button don't you!!
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 12:22
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry the term is "Rejected Landing" I've edited my previous.

Its an approved and trained Boeing/Airbus proceedure.

Changing the Flaps and Trim is only done during a planned Touch and Go.

A rejected landing due to bounce or float is a go around maneuver which includes retraction of Flaps to 15 at a speed not less than Vref flaps 30.

A rejected stop....also called rejected landing, when ALL (not only MaIN) gears are on the ground, a touch and go maneuver should Be used unless thrust was deployed,in which case,well hope for the best.
de facto is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 12:32
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Nope, wrong.

If you bounce and decide to go around its just that, a "go around"

If you have landed already and before reverse decide to reject the landing then it's called a "Rejected Landing"

Flaps/Trim are not touched. They don't need to be for goodness sake mate, the whole idea is to get the Aircraft airborne again ASAP.

Save the Flaps/Trim changes for planned trained briefed Touch and Go manoeuvres.

I suggest you look up your FCTM. It's all in there bud

In fact here it is for your reading pleasure:--

REJECTED LANDING

A rejected landing is defined as a go-around manoeuvre initiated after touchdown of the main landing gear.

Once the decision is made to reject the landing, commit to the go-around manoeuvre and do not be tempted to retard the thrust levers in a late decision to execute a landing.

Apply TOGA thrust. Ground spoilers will auto-retract and autobrake will disarm as a consequence. A CONFIG warning will be generated when the aircraft is still
on the runway, with thrust applied and the flaps at FULL. Disregard this warning. If the AP was engaged, it will disconnect. If on the ground, continue de-rotation. Rotate only when the PM has confirmed the thrust is set and the speed is above VAPP . When clear of the ground, with a positive ROC, select Flaps 3 if approach was made with Flaps FULL. The landing gear should be retracted when a positive ROC has been established with no risk of further touchdown. Thereafter, proceed as for a standard go-around.

If reverse thrust has been applied, a full stop landing is mandatory.

Last edited by nitpicker330; 31st Jan 2012 at 12:50.
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 12:33
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NP330, you can do autoland in any weather (limitations observed of course), but you cannot do a LVP in any weather. LVP autoland is autoland with very low minimas. Practise autoland require high minimas, if you have not all installations in place (no redundancy on airport installations, sensitive zone not protected). You cannot just come and say "let's make an autoland" just because the visibility is 2000m. Autolands are reasonable if LVP in force (<550m visibility) and in good weather (say a few 1000m). The "marginal" weather case is exactly the weather you should NEVER make an autoland!!! SIA's Op philiosophy goes exactly the other way around.
Dani is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 12:34
  #285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
After due consideration by the Captain Autolands done in VMC without bothering to advise ATC are most certainly not stupid.

You do keep your finger close to or indeed on the A/P disconnect button don't you!!
Yes i do keep my fingers where they should be.thanks.
Advising ATC for one would allow them to know your intensions so they can advise traffic to hold at the cat2 hold line rather than cat 1.
For two,performing an auto land implies than you will Be fully configured hence slower much earlier therefore letting ATC know is good practice.

Technicallywise,increasing the possibility of my aircraft veering off the side at low level including in the flare in a nose up trim,because some aircraft is at the cat 1 position is a risk that i find highly unnecessary.
In that case a GA should be performed,INCLUDING retraction of FLAPS.

Advising ATC for
de facto is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 12:42
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For two,performing an auto land implies than you will Be fully configured hence slower much earlier therefore letting ATC know is good practice.
It does? News to me. We fly the autoland profile exactly as any normal ILS approach, there is no difference in regards to configuration. Might be different on the big Boeing, but i somehow doubt it.
Denti is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 12:48
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Well I can tell you that quite a lot of highly respected safe International Carriers in addition to SQ don't "require" their crew to advise ATC when Autolands in NON LVP conditions are done. They only advise that particular care be taken as protected areas are not protected and that be ready to take over manually.

Thousands of safe Autolands are conducted each year all over the Globe in such conditions.
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 12:52
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ok DAni,
My Sops stated that full config 3nm before glide in auto land.
During normal ops fully config by 1000ft.

To the other,
Flaps on a 737 to be retracted!!! Minimum speed Vref,also for a rejected landing.
Thrust,pitch maintain,vref then flaps 15,pitch increase.
Please post your info here if otherwise.
Thanks
de facto is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 13:00
  #289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NP330, so your airline does also not state a minimum for autoland practise approach? Then I shall count you also as a member of the warm weather ligue
Dani is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 13:09
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Just looked at a 737 FCTM and here it is:--

Go-Around after Touchdown

If a go-around is initiated before touchdown and touchdown occurs, continue with normal go-around procedures. The F/D go-around mode will continue to provide go-around guidance commands throughout the maneuver.

If a go-around is initiated after touchdown but before thrust reverser selection, auto speedbrakes retract and autobrakes disarm as thrust levers are advanced. The F/D go-around mode will not be available until go-around is selected after becoming airborne.

Once reverse thrust is initiated following touchdown, a full stop landing must be made. If an engine stays in reverse, safe flight is not possible.

There is a difference, this 737 FCTM doesn't get specific but I know the 777 FCTM my company has does get specific the same as the Airbus FCTM.
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 13:15
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'll keep that in mind next time I'm landing in -20c in ANC or YYZ or ORD
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 13:20
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,451
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 5 Posts
Perhaps the industry should reflect on why some operators believe that it is necessary to fly ‘practice’ autolands. With modern, high reliability systems it should not be necessary to prove technical integrity.
Normal procedures are best learnt in simulation, normal (without failure) operations are routine which should only require minimal refreshing. The critical procedures involving reconfiguration, go around, or lack of visual cues, all involve assessment and decision making (and the use of normal procedures); these must be taught and practiced in simulation.

Any automatic landing must be aware of the need for protection. In real conditions large safety margins are applied with Cat 2/3/ holding zones (LVP), approach and takeoff spacing, dual transmitters, etc. However, in clear conditions, any effect of potential interference has to be anticipated and mitigated by the crew. Some aircraft / situations are easier to manage than others. Thus the risk in managing these vs the risk of a manual landing after a long flight or similar judgment has to be considered.
When there are incidents / accidents it probably indicates a mismatch in the risks. A key safety issue is to identify where the risks may have changed or which were mismanaged. Whatever is concluded, knowledge of the subject and the risks is always required, and this is a function of education – operator, airport, individual.
safetypee is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 13:31
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
True the 737 fctm isnt specific,a bounced landing recovery should be dealt using a standard go around procedure and a rejected landing in the same way.
Boeing is not as precise and informative as airbus in many areas...including perf issues but you may understand that applying ga thrust while maintaining pitch until VREF is to cover the chance of losing control if the engine fails in the process.
Obviously boeing believes that full thrust and vref,retraction of flaps is ok,the only perf issue would be the landing gear up after rate of climb,in case you do a secondary touch(pilot handling more than perf issue i think).
Airbus or your company fctm may think otherwise which is ok.
My european licence issuer advised airlines via an AC to retract flaps once vref is obtained during a rejected landing.No mention when clear of ground.
There is material about low energy go around which covers this case.
de facto is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 14:09
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My Sops stated that full config 3nm before glide in auto land.
During normal ops fully config by 1000ft
Ah, now i see where your comment came from. Very non-boeing procedure, but if it is your SOP you have to follow that of course.

Anyway, we do not know any "practice Autoland" limitations or rules. An autoland can be done anytime conditions are within the autoland capability of the plane, if the minima are above CAT I and better both pilots may do an autoland at their discretion but care must be taken to take over manually very fast where LVPs are not in force, with weather below CAT I only the captain may do a landing. We used to do that in MUC quite often, if advised early enough ATC was usually able to protect the CAT II/II safety zones, if not they told us so. In that case rapid localizer deviations were normal and it was usually better to do a manual landing.

Since simulator training focuses on real CAT IIIb conditions in which only the captain may do an autoland the only chance at practicing an autoland for any FO in my outfit is during CAT I or better conditions during normal line operations. It is however extremely rare that one chooses to do so, but it is perfectly possible and even encouraged by our flight OPs department to do so from time to time.
Denti is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 14:31
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
but care must be taken to take over manually very fast where LVPs are not in force
This is the key statement.

The actual case showed that it might be very difficult to react on such deviations in "poor" weather (slightly above Cat I). They didn't have enough visual cues to determine that they where off the center line until it was too late. Otherwise they surely would have disconnected.

A minimum weather for practise approach is a no brainer in my opinion. If you don't agree, walk along the skidmarks in MUC...
Dani is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 17:41
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,451
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 5 Posts
Dani, your concluding assumptions may be hard to substantiate (#294).
A PF in Cat 3A should have sufficient cues to assess aircraft position, flight path, and deviation from the norm – it’s the point have having visual requirements. Thus it is difficult to understand how Cat 1 or better results insufficient cues.
However, it is possible that the cues available were either not used, or not understood. Alternatively if the situation was known then the action was delayed or incorrect; the latter could be affected by alertness etc.
Thus, a decision to use autoland after a long flight, or when landing in lower than normal visibility, relies on good alertness. Perhaps as much as for manual flight?
IMHO, this incident has contributing factors originating much earlier;- in management, SOP advice on vis limits, not requiring declaration of A/L intent, and crew, an awareness of preceding traffic and the hazard/risks involved.
safetypee is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 18:27
  #297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A PF in Cat 3A should have sufficient cues to assess aircraft position, flight path, and deviation from the norm – it’s the point have having visual requirements. Thus it is difficult to understand how Cat 1 or better results insufficient cues.
It might be counterintuitive to you that practise autoland above Cat I WX requires quicker reactions than Cat III autoland, but this is exactly the case, and the actual case shows us the reason why: In practise landings you have no protected zones, thus the deviation is much faster and heavier.

Of course you also need cues in a Cat III approach and must be able to disconnect or abandon the approach, but there are many more redundand systems in place to avoid such deviations. I agre that a deviation like in MUC might be possible (if for example someone violates the sensitive zone), but in real Cat III WX you can't do anything about it, you are more or less doomed or can hope you get away with it. Chances are relatively low though that something like this happens. TWR should get a warning if someone violates the sensitive zone.

So, to reiterate, yes, I strongly suggest that everyone should have relatively good WX - several 1000m visibility for a practise autoland. Autoland to relief a tired pilot is surely not intended by the inventor.
Dani is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 18:49
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 1 Post
The german report specifically refers to an avroliner that took off just before the 777 and was a few hundred feet over the localiser antenna around the time all this happened. Obviously nobody yet knows for sure what happened. But this incident has raised some interesting points.
lederhosen is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 20:11
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,834
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Safetypee,
Perhaps the industry should reflect on why some operators believe that it is necessary to fly ‘practice’ autolands. With modern, high reliability systems it should not be necessary to prove technical integrity.

Normal procedures are best learnt in simulation, normal (without failure) operations are routine which should only require minimal refreshing. The critical procedures involving reconfiguration, go around, or lack of visual cues, all involve assessment and decision making (and the use of normal procedures); these must be taught and practiced in simulation.
I mostly agree, technically, but out in the real world I like to know exactly how the aircraft actually performs and it's not quite like the digital simulation you get indoors.

It's good to get a 'feel' for how the aeroplane flies the last 100' so you can get a heads-up when it's having a bad day and not be totally surprised when you have to take over.

I've done 'practice' i.e. no LVPs autolands when approaching directly into-sun late in the day on wet runways - I think the A/P has a better chance of a getting it right than I do after a 12hr flight.

Also, CATII, III training is but a small part of the syllabus and there is only a limited amount of time to practice normal operation. We get one landing a year in the sim. Not really enough to be familiar...
FullWings is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2012, 21:54
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dani
So, to reiterate, yes, I strongly suggest that everyone should have relatively good WX - several 1000m visibility for a practise autoland. Autoland to relief a tired pilot is surely not intended by the inventor
Absolutely right Dani!!!!!!! I think some of these muppets posting here have no concept of how and why we pros use AUTOLAND
White Knight is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.