SIA 777 off the rwy at EDDM
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, studi - I'm amazed you can get to be a Captain and never have seen an aircraft with a degraded autoland status - certainly an impressive serviceability record you have there. I would suggest next time you have time in the cruise you look back through your tech log and see how autoland defects are handled in your company - assuming, as I say, that you ever have any
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is another issue there. Before we can use a new runway in our route network for real life LVP approaches we have to fly a certain number of autolands during CAT I conditions or bettter for evaluation. If memory serves right it is about 20 or 30 autolands with each aircraft type, there is a reporting form for each autoland and we do track every autoland through our journey log anyway.
And of course the normal autoland to get the aircraft back to CAT II/III status after maintenance action or degradation of the autoland system. Apart from that as noted above we can do autolands at the PF discretion at any time, however i probably wouldn't try that in MUC as their localizer deviations are know to be pretty violent. Except during non-peak times where one can actually get ATC to keep the protected areas clear.
What marktabs observed above is pretty typical for MUC. There is often a very big difference in visibility between both runway, in my experience the northern runway is usually worse off than the southern one, but there is always the odd exception where it is the other way round.
And of course the normal autoland to get the aircraft back to CAT II/III status after maintenance action or degradation of the autoland system. Apart from that as noted above we can do autolands at the PF discretion at any time, however i probably wouldn't try that in MUC as their localizer deviations are know to be pretty violent. Except during non-peak times where one can actually get ATC to keep the protected areas clear.
What marktabs observed above is pretty typical for MUC. There is often a very big difference in visibility between both runway, in my experience the northern runway is usually worse off than the southern one, but there is always the odd exception where it is the other way round.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, Denti - I had left this particular need for 'practice autolands' out of my posts lest it further confuse some of our contributors, but as you say, yet another example of why A/L's in Cat I or better 'happen'.
Yes, I go on 'learning', studi, as all aviators should, but what am I learning here?
Yes, I go on 'learning', studi, as all aviators should, but what am I learning here?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by studi
(unprotected) practice autolands which are hell of a risk.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by max nightstop
3 dimensional motion at 140 kts involving an impact with the ground ALWAYS carries a risk.
Originally Posted by BOAC
Quote:
Originally Posted by studi
(unprotected) practice autolands which are hell of a risk.
- I'm sorry, but that is rubbish. Any Captain who knows how to command an aircraft will be able to do this with NO RISK. I just cannot see this phobia that exists.
Originally Posted by studi
(unprotected) practice autolands which are hell of a risk.
- I'm sorry, but that is rubbish. Any Captain who knows how to command an aircraft will be able to do this with NO RISK. I just cannot see this phobia that exists.
MUC is very famous for its "jumping" localisers
Is there something about B777 that makes it particularly difficult to notice it has started veering from the centerline towards the edge and the grass beyond?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by studi
autoland on unprotected runways during normal ops has no justification, as there is nothing to be gained from.
Besides, as I said in my last post we were REQUIRED to do 5 autolands between LPC/OPC. Have a go at my old Flight Ops if you're unhappy with that. But like I said none of my colleagues ended up in the grass
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by studi
What is the gain in safety to justify the risk of going off the runway?
Seriously........... I wonder about some of you out there
Our AIP says:
Protection occurs automatically below 600/2000.
Pilots should inform ATC about any intention to conduct:
a. an approach with minima less than CAT I; or
b. an autoland procedure.
When the cloud ceiling at or above 600FT or the visibility is 2,000M or more, such information must not be taken as a request for or expectation of the protection of the ILS but to enhance the possibility for ATC to inform the flight crew of any known or anticipated disturbance. If necessary, ATC will use the phrase “ILS CRITICAL (and/or SENSITIVE) AREA NOT PROTECTED”.
a. an approach with minima less than CAT I; or
b. an autoland procedure.
When the cloud ceiling at or above 600FT or the visibility is 2,000M or more, such information must not be taken as a request for or expectation of the protection of the ILS but to enhance the possibility for ATC to inform the flight crew of any known or anticipated disturbance. If necessary, ATC will use the phrase “ILS CRITICAL (and/or SENSITIVE) AREA NOT PROTECTED”.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 3rd Feb 2012 at 23:59.
By far the best post is http://www.pprune.org/members/111800-gretchenfrage
I wonder what the Tech Log entry was at the "end of the flight"
Autoland Unsuccessful or Rollout Mode tended to go a little left???
When in fact, the autopilot did exactly what it should have done.
I wonder what the Tech Log entry was at the "end of the flight"
Autoland Unsuccessful or Rollout Mode tended to go a little left???
When in fact, the autopilot did exactly what it should have done.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: singapore
Age: 63
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIA GRASS CUTTER
the PIC of the grass cutter was a check airman. many of the check airman at SIA are untouchables and a law unto themselves.
they harass students and new DEC with their BS.
the training at SIA is all about flying numbers. what is for cruise, approach etc. they are robots.
when there is a cross wind whooooo heeee you can see the guys taking a few panic pee's and totally in pensive mood trying to get through the crosswind. it is an experience to be with these fells in the flight deck.
FO are given to land only in CAVOK less than 5 knots of wind. the command upgrade is a minimum of 10 months. all this adds on to the pressure on the individuals.
this incident is the tip of the iceberg..... i hope i am wrong!!!!!!
they harass students and new DEC with their BS.
the training at SIA is all about flying numbers. what is for cruise, approach etc. they are robots.
when there is a cross wind whooooo heeee you can see the guys taking a few panic pee's and totally in pensive mood trying to get through the crosswind. it is an experience to be with these fells in the flight deck.
FO are given to land only in CAVOK less than 5 knots of wind. the command upgrade is a minimum of 10 months. all this adds on to the pressure on the individuals.
this incident is the tip of the iceberg..... i hope i am wrong!!!!!!
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Studi - I think your experience of CatII/III operations and autoland practice has a few gaps in it. When doing practice Cat III in the Sim it is common for only the first landing to be without some kind of fault. Executing a safe GA from 20' to 50' feet is common, usually triggered by a major localiser deflection, or, if no lights at 20' (747), GA etc. There is no requirement to 'forecast' a bent localiser but a definite requirement to deal with it safely when very close to the ground.
Your statement:
only serves to emphasise the gaps mentioned above, practice autolands are definitely the 'norm' in just about every other airline except yours, honest!
CARGOJOCK - Glad to see you are still as bitter and twisted as ever, with little or no grasp on reality, keep it up!
Your statement:
I stand my point: autoland on unprotected runways during normal ops has no justification, as there is nothing to be gained from.
CARGOJOCK - Glad to see you are still as bitter and twisted as ever, with little or no grasp on reality, keep it up!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a controller I have seen some iffy attitudes to LVO from crews, that is stating that they want to fly "CAT3 for practice" or some such in marginal CAT1 conditions. Flying them in cavok-ish conditions is one thing, but doing it in marginal CAT1 conditions seems to add more risk than you need to.
Airports are under pressure to stop low viz ops as soon as possible, as CAT1 can often near double the hourly capacity. Thats why LVP gets cancelled as soon as ceiling/viz creeps above CAT1, even by the slimmest of margins.
In such condtitions I have had crews asking for CAT3 at visibility 1000 meters, and after they got the "CAT1 one only, no LVP safeguards in place" stated they would do a "CAT3 for practic".
Airports are under pressure to stop low viz ops as soon as possible, as CAT1 can often near double the hourly capacity. Thats why LVP gets cancelled as soon as ceiling/viz creeps above CAT1, even by the slimmest of margins.
In such condtitions I have had crews asking for CAT3 at visibility 1000 meters, and after they got the "CAT1 one only, no LVP safeguards in place" stated they would do a "CAT3 for practic".
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M609 - as most crews on here know, doing an autoland on either a CatI approach OR on an 'unapproved' autoland runway for evaluation purposes is by no means unusual nor beyond the abilities of a capabale and trained crew. What IS contrary to procedures is to use the CATIII minima 'for real' as part of the approach in those situations (except, of course, in an emergency). There is, of course, nothing wrong with practising the Autoland.CATIII procedure 'call's' in the cockpit.
The crews you describe in your post should not use the words "CAT3 for practice" as that kind of gives the game away, really. There is actually no need for any 'information' to ATC for an autoland UNLESS you are asking for LVP protections for the autoland for any reason (then you'll be popular!).
The crews you describe in your post should not use the words "CAT3 for practice" as that kind of gives the game away, really.
There is actually no need for any 'information' to ATC for an autoland UNLESS you are asking for LVP protections for the autoland for any reason (then you'll be popular!).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: singapore
Age: 63
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEATING AROUND THE BUSH
amazing how many of the chaps on this forum are exchanging BS on the bending of the LOC and the protection of the ILS blah blah blah........
hey, the bottom line is these chaps, on the "GRASS CUTTER" just lost it and was slow to react or did they react at all?
apparently not so do not waste your BS arguments on this forum.
this is far deeper than any of you blokes realise.the entire, SIA, LVP training program is to change and already crews, advised to beware of bending when doing autolands.i thought they ought to have known that already!
the senior check airman is already promoted and the entire accident has been omitted from the company safety bulletin.just as i had predicted a total hush hush and cover up.
no hard feelings "the truth hurts"
hey, the bottom line is these chaps, on the "GRASS CUTTER" just lost it and was slow to react or did they react at all?
apparently not so do not waste your BS arguments on this forum.
this is far deeper than any of you blokes realise.the entire, SIA, LVP training program is to change and already crews, advised to beware of bending when doing autolands.i thought they ought to have known that already!
the senior check airman is already promoted and the entire accident has been omitted from the company safety bulletin.just as i had predicted a total hush hush and cover up.
no hard feelings "the truth hurts"
Picking between the usual dross there have been some interesting points made and I have learned a few things from the discussion of this incident.
The first thing is that there are amazing differences in attitude towards auto landing. They seem to range from don't do it unless it is absolutely necessary to it being no big deal.
Whatever various parties would like us to believe autolands in better than low visibility conditions occur frequently. This seems to be the only serious incident. At least nobody has cross referenced to anything similar. Why might this be?
In this case a fail operational aircraft veered off the runway while in rollout mode. As Clandestino agrees an aircraft overflying the localiser antenna could have caused the interference. This appears to have occurred at the precise moment the 777 was transitioning into rollout mode. In this mode the automatic go around function is disabled, which is not something that seems to have been the focus of training (in Singapore airlines at least).
So the holes in the swiss cheese line up. Had the runway been shorter the interference would have occurred at a height where the pilot would in all likelihood have avoided this happening. Had the aircraft been fail passive the autopilot would have dropped out rather than heading for the grass. Had the crew been trained for this eventuality they might have responded more appropriately. All supposition of course, but it has made me think a bit.
The first thing is that there are amazing differences in attitude towards auto landing. They seem to range from don't do it unless it is absolutely necessary to it being no big deal.
Whatever various parties would like us to believe autolands in better than low visibility conditions occur frequently. This seems to be the only serious incident. At least nobody has cross referenced to anything similar. Why might this be?
In this case a fail operational aircraft veered off the runway while in rollout mode. As Clandestino agrees an aircraft overflying the localiser antenna could have caused the interference. This appears to have occurred at the precise moment the 777 was transitioning into rollout mode. In this mode the automatic go around function is disabled, which is not something that seems to have been the focus of training (in Singapore airlines at least).
So the holes in the swiss cheese line up. Had the runway been shorter the interference would have occurred at a height where the pilot would in all likelihood have avoided this happening. Had the aircraft been fail passive the autopilot would have dropped out rather than heading for the grass. Had the crew been trained for this eventuality they might have responded more appropriately. All supposition of course, but it has made me think a bit.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting supposition, Leder - I am not familiar with 'roll-out mode', but what was to stop the crew disconnecting, correcting and if necessary/possible (reversers permitting) aborting the landing?
I think it is fairly clear that the captain was trying to abort the landing but using inappropriate actions. The report (in german) says there was no call for a go around instead the captain commanded flaps 20.
There were noises sounding like the speedbrake handle being retracted and Toga trigger clicking. The video also shows the nose raising. Both pilots kicked the rudder hard right which then disconnected the autopilot.
In rollout mode the autothrottle kept idle power and the aircraft rapidly decelerated. As they were now down there was no obvious benefit from taking off again. However I am not sure what stopped them steering back onto the runway.
As others have pointed out the appropriate actions which I am sure will feature in many people's next sim would have involved clicking everything off selecting go around thrust manually and rotating appropriately.
There were noises sounding like the speedbrake handle being retracted and Toga trigger clicking. The video also shows the nose raising. Both pilots kicked the rudder hard right which then disconnected the autopilot.
In rollout mode the autothrottle kept idle power and the aircraft rapidly decelerated. As they were now down there was no obvious benefit from taking off again. However I am not sure what stopped them steering back onto the runway.
As others have pointed out the appropriate actions which I am sure will feature in many people's next sim would have involved clicking everything off selecting go around thrust manually and rotating appropriately.