BA wheelie 777 @heathow

[H Peacock]

For goodness sake, it was a skilful bit of handling with absolutely no chance of a tail-strike. As the tailplane authority reduces then the nose is going to lower anyway!!! At no stage did the Nu attitude increase beyond that used during the flare. It may be slightly non-SOP, but given they were going all the way to the end I maintain still good airmanship.

[cheese bobcat]

It's called aerodynamic braking; it's free and very effective. No doubt the captain had at some time flown the Vulcan.

CB

[WhatShortage]

Originally Posted by OldLurker

From the video, the manoeuvre seems to me to be elegantly executed. The flare attitude was held exactly, despite diminishing elevator authority, until the nose was lowered. There was no danger of a tail-strike at any time. The runway is long, and if ATC didn't need them to get off quickly because there was someone coming behind, they had no need for urgent speed reduction; rather the contrary, if this was 27R, as T5 is at the far end.

Contrary to SOPs, no doubt, and from what others are saying, maybe in BA's world that will get them shot, if only to discourage other pilots. But it's a pity, just the same. BA should be proud to have such a skilful pilot.

Many crashes are the loose end of a "tried to do something to show off because i am really cool", the airlines don't want that. I'd bet my neck you're not even a pilot.

[8che]

It’s not a Vulcan it’s a B777.

From the Boeing FCTM;

“Do not attempt to ​hold the nose wheels off the runway. Holding the nose up​ after touchdown for ​
aerodynamic braking is not an effective braking technique and results in high nose ​
gear sink rates upon​ brake application and​ reduced braking effectiveness”

[Meester proach]

Originally Posted by 8che

It’s not a Vulcan it’s a B777.

From the Boeing FCTM;

“Do not attempt to ​hold the nose wheels off the runway. Holding the nose up​ after touchdown for ​aerodynamic braking is not an effective braking technique and results in high nose ​
gear sink rates upon​ brake application and​ reduced braking effectiveness”

Spot on. Although the 80 year olds will tell us it was ok on the Lightnings ...

Who is that annoying bloke doing the commentary ? Like Del Boys brother who obviously doesn’t get it either

[Smokey Lomcevak]

Elegant as it may be, I wouldn’t like to have been sitting in 1C when the elevator eventually ran out of juice and the NLG came down. I would expect it to have been an almighty thump centred on the First class cabin.

Its a fine balance - you either put it down gently, or it puts itself down somewhat less so.

[Feathers McGraw]

Where is this video? If it's one of Jerry's multi-hour things then finding the right point isn't too easy. Anyone got a link?

[QNH1013]

I am one. Nose wheel held off unusually long after touchdown, should be de-rotating and 'flying' the nose on to the runway and not holding off and waiting for elevator authority to lose effectiveness so the nose drops down on to the runway. HOWEVER, I have no knowledge of the circumstances of that landing or any knowledge of factors that may explain it, ie training flight, unintentional technique, weather or technical factors. Landing procedures are standard according to type and not modified according to personal mood or previous flight or aircraft experience. Aircraft body aerodynamic braking is not an approved procedure that is taught or used in the Boeing Flight Crew Training manual.

[Mikehotel152]

Just a bit of harmless fun, surely. I can’t see there being a tail strike risk and if folk are so concerned about the nose wheel dropping firmly onto the runway, I suspect that the pilot’s main gear touchdown suggests he would have done that smoothly as well.

[PoppaJo]

FOs who attempt this will get a serving shortly after from myself.

There is a reason why Airbus advises forward sidestick below 100kts. The same reason why the nosewheel is required on the ground during landing.

I’m not one for normally elevating my chances of tea and biscuits with the training department and I’m sure many others wouldn’t either.

[Pugilistic Animus]

It does illustrate that jets are still airplanes.
​​​​

[clark y]

Agree with Smokey, Looks like full backstick until it ran out of elevator. The nose falls a long way in B777.

[capngrog]

If it had run out of elevator authority, the nose would have dropped with some violence. That did not happen in this instance, otherwise, there would have been a damage-incident-accident report. "full backstick until it ran out of elevator" would have been a rookie mistake, and I don't think that this pilot was a rookie. Of course there are a lot of "computer pilots" about, and if it's not on the sim program ...
Cheers,
Grog

[Meester proach]

Personally ,
I think they were probably distracted by the fact it appears the auto spoiler deployment - wasn’t .
Took their eye off the ball briefly .

eventual nosewheel contact was ok, so d be surprised if this led to any disciplinary

[Meester proach]

Originally Posted by PoppaJo

FOs who attempt this will get a serving shortly after from myself.

There is a reason why Airbus advises forward sidestick below 100kts. The same reason why the nosewheel is required on the ground during landing.

I’m not one for normally elevating my chances of tea and biscuits with the training department and I’m sure many others wouldn’t either.

Yes, don’t do “ forward sidestick “ or forward any stick on a Boeing unless you want nosewheel damage

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by Vat is Jetstream

How many triple 7 rated pilots on this thread? Just asking.

Oh there are a few..

As has been stated the Boeing "advice" is to de-rotate promptly but smoothly after main wheel touchdown, not doing so has the potential degrade stopping performance and also has been pointed out there can be a bit of a problem if you hold off so long you start to run out of pitch authority.

[AuroraAustralis]

Pretty cool use of aerodynamic braking. I don't see an issue with it. Unless someone can point out that it violates BA's SOP. Locally I see the firefighting heavies do this very often landing. It's amazing how long they can get the nosewheel to stay up.

[lederhosen]

I have experienced something similar with a very light 737. A soft touchdown was followed by an uncommanded nose up when the spoilers extended. It needed an unusual amount of forward push to get the nose down. The combination of a low load and a lack of lots of recent landings might be an alternative explanation rather than the pilot flying deliberately holding the nose up. At the end of the video you can see what looks to be a fairly small input, change to nearly full up elevator as they derotate. But you cannot see the elevator position during and shortly after the flare.

[PoppaJo]

Originally Posted by Meester proach

Yes, don’t do “ forward sidestick “ or forward any stick on a Boeing unless you want nosewheel damage

My example was around Airbus and directional control, but my point stands.

There are no advantages using pitch control via this method for a tricycle. Let the brakes do the work, get the nose down. I also prefer the view down the runway rather than into the sky. Regardless, the manufacturers manual advises against it.

If it’s a retrenchment signing off flight above then good luck to them.

[wiggy]

Originally Posted by AuroraAustralis

Pretty cool use of aerodynamic braking. I don't see an issue with it. Unless someone can point out that it violates BA's SOP. Locally I see the firefighting heavies do this very often landing. It's amazing how long they can get the nosewheel to stay up.

Holding the nosewheel off is contrary to the "advice" given by Boeing in the Flight Crew Training Manual, which is part of the BA document set for those on the type.

I'm not sure management will get that steamed up about that landing but it might have triggered a monitoring event and it is I guess possible somebody in the monitoring team might make a phone call to those inolved or issue a generic reminder....