BA wheelie 777 @heathow
1. Doing that is certainly not in the procedure for a "Gear Disagree" warning and in any event as others have said previously deliberately keeping the nose wheel "off" increases the chance of the nose wheel hitting the runaway quite hard when it does eventually make contact.
2. If there had been a known gear problem there almost have certainly would have been signs of the safety services being in attendance.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sydney on a quiet CAVOK day....
“Qantas ... Clear to land 34L . Roll through approved. Vacate B1. Have a nice day.”
Management Pilot to F/O “ Check the Landing Distance required please.”
Autobrake 2 , Full Reverse , decelerate to 40 knots , thrust on to make B1.
F/O ; “ Sigh........”
Line Pilot to F/O ; “ Happy with Autobrake 1 ? I’ll kick it off on touchdown , stow the speed brake , and idle reverse. We’ve only got a 30 minute turnaround”
F/O; “ Sounds good to me”
Its called Airmanship.
“Qantas ... Clear to land 34L . Roll through approved. Vacate B1. Have a nice day.”
Management Pilot to F/O “ Check the Landing Distance required please.”
Autobrake 2 , Full Reverse , decelerate to 40 knots , thrust on to make B1.
F/O ; “ Sigh........”
Line Pilot to F/O ; “ Happy with Autobrake 1 ? I’ll kick it off on touchdown , stow the speed brake , and idle reverse. We’ve only got a 30 minute turnaround”
F/O; “ Sounds good to me”
Its called Airmanship.
More than 50 years ago I was pax on a 727 in exactly this situation. The nose gear wouldn't retract, then they didn't have a green when they tried to lower it. It was a very gentle landing, and it seemed like the aircraft was almost at walking pace before the nosewheel gently touched the runway.
More than 50 years ago I was pax on a 727 in exactly this situation. The nose gear wouldn't retract, then they didn't have a green when they tried to lower it. It was a very gentle landing, and it seemed like the aircraft was almost at walking pace before the nosewheel gently touched the runway.
The other problem with the unsafe gear theory/tangent offered by layman24 is that unlike 50 years ago these days the whole world would have known before the T7 in the video had touched down that it was landing with possibly unsafe gear. That's thanks to the likes of FR24, social media alerts from spotters and sites such as this one...
There's a <<<<<<<<1% chance of what was seen being down to a possible nose gear problem.
PPRuNE is a funny place. Whenever somebody goes into the ground nose first, killing everyone onboard, there's always excuses. They were fatigued, they were startled, they encountered something they'd never seen in the sim... "Stop blaming the pilots"
But when someone does a perfectly safe landing, never once losing elevator authority and setting the nosewheel down perfectly smoothly, the lynch mob is out in full force because the crew didn't follow standard procedures. I'd rather fly with people who demonstrate positive control of their aircraft and break rules than people who follow the SOPs but get everyone killed.
But when someone does a perfectly safe landing, never once losing elevator authority and setting the nosewheel down perfectly smoothly, the lynch mob is out in full force because the crew didn't follow standard procedures. I'd rather fly with people who demonstrate positive control of their aircraft and break rules than people who follow the SOPs but get everyone killed.
I am always wary of anyone who quotes their management or training qualifications as 20 years of RHS in legacy carriers meant that with two exceptions (one who went onto Concorde and an ex luftwaffe starfighter jockey) they were always hard work to fly with as they required extra monitoring and never lived up to their own egos.
Listening to their sermons my mind went blank.
Listening to their sermons my mind went blank.
I recall when I was under a year in the company, flying with a 15 year FO and a brand new 20 year skipper. I had more command time than both of them combined by a few thousand hours. But both of them were far more competent in the operation than I was!
All this to say don't write off a 20yr RHS pilot in BA as being hard work, there are plenty of good ones that are both competent and a pleasure to work with. fitting that description.
20 year rhs
In the early 70s the corporations had trained up too many pilots not calculating on the effect of wide bodied aircraft. Many of my mates who stayed in BA and didn't want to leave thief row were in the same boat (20 year command) and are now on those 150 grand pensions. I had a heavy in part 1 at the age of 28 and turned down a royal flight job LHS at 30 but was one of those few (30) who got to fly for the Swiss- the highest paid and best conditions in Europe with a command coming within 4 years but after they sacked Moritz Suter they invested in Crossair and built it up from 2 aircraft to 50 ish as a loco to destroy our salary base which delayed my command by 9 years.
They also screwed us on salary increases but when you are earning more than you can spend so what. The job was great fun with posh passengers, different routes, a lot of night stops, well maintained new equipment and a lot of hand flying with a stabilised approach requirement of 3-400 ft.
(and a union that got rid of those do as I say not as I do trainers).
PS I found being a captain as far as cockpit duties were concerned a dam sight easier than being a copilot!
They also screwed us on salary increases but when you are earning more than you can spend so what. The job was great fun with posh passengers, different routes, a lot of night stops, well maintained new equipment and a lot of hand flying with a stabilised approach requirement of 3-400 ft.
(and a union that got rid of those do as I say not as I do trainers).
PS I found being a captain as far as cockpit duties were concerned a dam sight easier than being a copilot!
Last edited by blind pew; 12th Sep 2020 at 15:34. Reason: PS added
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Montreal
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, she or he didn't!! Can you guys please stop posting stuff like that?
Having reduced elevator authority is one thing, LOSING elevator authority is quite another. The nosewheel didn't touch hard in any universe in that video.
Having reduced elevator authority is one thing, LOSING elevator authority is quite another. The nosewheel didn't touch hard in any universe in that video.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Montreal
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the topic of command time
It wasn't very long ago that in the US, you'd have to wait 20+ years to see the LHS of a narrowbody at the legacy airlines, and maybe 10 years at a LCC. By February of this year, that number was down to under 5 years across the board. I hope covid19 doesn't take us back to the bad old days.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 777's speed is reducing throughout the video.
Up-elevator is required to maintain the wheely attitude.
As speed reduces, so does elevator effectiveness so more and more upward deflection is required to maintain the attitude.
At a certain speed full deflection is reached.
The elevator in the video is fully-deflected upward from the beginning of the de-rotation until the nose-wheel's somewhat clumsy touchdown.
I think we can agree on the above.
Below that speed the aircraft "de-rotates" under the control of gravity, not the elevator. The pilot/elevator might influence the de-rotation but certainly do not control it at that point.
This is evidenced by the fact of the elevator not deflecting any further upward during the de-rotation and especially just prior to what some people think is a smooth nose wheel touchdown. On that topic, look at the size and the distance involved and the downward speed of the nose as it touches down and think again about it being gentle or not.
Yeah, too bad they didn't erase the pilots who are rubbish at flying on instruments, who are uncomfortable without autothrust and with handflying in general, who are scared of their aircraft and who fall to pieces as soon as something "startles" them. I maintain my point that these are the real killers, not that guy doing a soft field landing in a big 777.
That's not supported by the video.
While the NLG clearly touched down much later and farther down the runway than normal, there's no evidence that it hit the tarmac any harder than usual.
I very much doubt that any teeth were harmed during the making of that film.
While the NLG clearly touched down much later and farther down the runway than normal, there's no evidence that it hit the tarmac any harder than usual.
I very much doubt that any teeth were harmed during the making of that film.
If this landing was as reprehensible has some here seem to think, might we not have heard about it elsewhere? There's nothing except this video. Nobody has popped up to say whether there was any follow-up, or to say that they spilled their champagne in first class.
When was the video taken? The Twitter post is dated 7 September but according to BA Source (and others) the aircraft in the video, G-YMMJ, wasn't flying that day - not on revenue service anyway. If this was its last revenue flight before that date, from SFO, then I daresay the aircraft would have been quite light.
When was the video taken? The Twitter post is dated 7 September but according to BA Source (and others) the aircraft in the video, G-YMMJ, wasn't flying that day - not on revenue service anyway. If this was its last revenue flight before that date, from SFO, then I daresay the aircraft would have been quite light.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The n/w t/d is smooth, and you can see the elevator deflection actually reduce as the n/w descends
Last edited by The Blu Riband; 15th Sep 2020 at 07:40.