great post BG!!
It will never cease to amaze me the behavior of some colleages, Cargojock has been bitching and moaning on this site since 2006, and he still with SQC, wonder if he makes the same statements he posts here in front of his bosses which is precisely where they should be heard, very manly attitude. You just DON'T badmouth the company that feeds you and your family, much less your colleages. No wonder why expats are being questioned in SQ. Do a favor to the fellow expat pilots in your outfit, that may want to stay, and keep the bitter comments about your company for yourself. And for god's sake do not place the blame on anyone until the enquiry is over. Don't know what's worse for the fellow pilot that was involved in this incident, the enquiry that's coming or having treacherous colleages like CJ. Whatever the outcome my solidarity goes to the pilot responsible for the aircraft and crew....my best wishes to him.

autolands
 

Correct me if I'm wrong but an ex SQ colleague of mine told me that SQ authorize autolands on any ILS runway. CAT II/III protections not required:=

re: autolands
 

I'm still trying to figure out who Cargojock is...

Most likely I've met him before, but he probably kept his mouth shut to the rest of us First Officers, only to come online to complain about us.

wont be hard to spot
 

CJ wont be hard to spot -

Just look for the guy with the big chip on his shoulder , slagging off the main line guys up in the lounge in Dubai. You know the one huddled up in the corner , loud as hell- complaining about his roster and the Cop s .

99 % of our Expats - be it Mainline or Cargo are top guys . It is unfortunate that there exist characters like CJOCK in the Airline.

I suggest we dont waste anymore time on these guys who are quick to point fingers and blame at a fellow colleague. For the FO s ,- CJ is an exception to the rule./May he rot in hell.

WANNABE FOR RECOGNITION
 

sorry folks it is hard to stomach that one of our aircraft had veered off.
especially by a LIP/IP or whatever, what to do lah!!!

to the FO i have no issue with your fellas just the fault of the almighty training at SQ/SQC.

to some of the fools on this forum, admitting ones mistakes is the first step to correction. in SQ no way lah we our always correct!! now you have a 773 on a grass patch landed by a LIP/IP or some big personality.

i hope the training will be corrected to better the present system, a critic is not a bad person we have to learn from it NOT COVER IT UP like it is done in SQ/SQC.

a bigger fate awaits us if these small red flags are not addressed.

ps: i am not one of you noodle boys that stay in the dubai lounge to eating free food and drinks and yap on COPs, wrong number lah

I have no interest in your internal affairs (BTW What's an LIP/IP?), only why such a beast comes to yoyo along the runway.
One would think the inertia wouldn't make such tight turns possible; pity there's no video of it..
When does the BFU get into the picture, there is no info on their website?

There is a short press statement which basically says, yes, there is an investigation, and no, there is no information and they won't react to media queries.

There will be some information in the monthly bulletin for November (published probably in January or February 2012), and then after several years, a report. That's the way they roll. Only hope: Media, journalists and leaks.

Had a B738 go from FLARE back to GS once. The nose dipped at around 20ft and we hit quite hard. Absolutely no time to take over manually especially as it was an up sloping runway. Can't remember if it was a genuine low vis protected signal. Don't think it was but was a good wake up to all things electronic! Come on GLS.

golfyankeesierra


No need to pity, whoever said there was no actual video of it? ;)

Heard SQC/SQ is just gathering enough evidence to do a *EY* case on CJ soon. So just sit back, ignore his post and enjoy the show.

Publication of false SQ training facts;

But I do find his names calling, entertaining.
Mainline pilots = mainline rats
Singaporeans = noodle boys(sense a racist?)
Not sure how SQ views it though.
:eek:

Man, I love this guy. Thanks for the entertainment :ok:, back to discussion already.

CJ will be easy to track down. It's going to be interesting. Sit tight CJ

"How many times must it be stated on this thread that SIA FOs DO NOT CONDUCT AUTOLANDS AS A PF. IT IS ALWAYS THE CAPTAIN WHO IS THE PF, BOTH FOR PRACTICE AND ACTUAL AUTOLANDS."

Practice and actual autolands? I assume you mean practice or actual CAT2/3. If that's the case you are correct. Captains will always do the actual or practice CAT2/3 landings.
But, there's nothing in our manuals preventing the FO from doing a autoland. I have had FO:s doing it "just for fun".
It's not common, I can agree on that since if you want to do an autoland you might as well have the captain doing it so both pilots can record it towards their required LVP recency requirements.

"In the first Operations Manual of Tiger Airways, which was a 1:1 copy of SIA/SLK procedures, there was a very strange paragraph, saying that CMD should let the FO make autoland if they don't want to give him the landing - for whatever reason."

Don't know about SIA but in SIA Cargo (and the manuals were a blueprint of SIA) no such thing has existed since 2004.

In my previous life with SIA, ever since the FOs found out that they are not able to record autoland as their PF sectors that count towards their upgrade criteria, I never had one who's interested in doing an autoland, and Patty is right, if there's a need to autoland, we might as well do it for the sake of recency.

Back to the topic, it would be interesting to find out whether did the incident happened as a consequence of autopilot deviation, or as a result of manual intervention in attempt for landing.

SWQ is quite a new 773ER that I had not flown prior to leaving Singapore, but I did recall on 2 occasions I had to disconnect the A/P and landed manually during practice autoland. Once was due LOC deviation that was becoming significant, and the other was G/S deflecting causing A/P to pitch nose down too quickly too close to ground at less than 200'. I was lucky that I'm old school and paid close attention to any deviation, and sadly, on both occasions, both the FOs did not catch the deviations. In this sense, I think perhaps CargoJock has made some valid observations on the operational aspects in SIA. Though Cargojock ought to get out and not be a pain to everyone, if he is in fact, the same style when he's in uniform.

And whilst everyone is still waiting, my old friends told me that there's no need to worry about the PIC as he's very well connected and slated to be one of future Chief Pilots (well not sure of his chances now..) and the important thing is no one was hurt and we all could learn something from it.

See, my dear " in my last airline ", you are a bit slack in not able to take over manually and had to do " after thumping checks ". But look here, just the post before this, we have a super duper expat ace at SQ who saved the day twice!:D:D despite the non performance of the 2 local slacky F/Os. The local boys must cringe in shame!

And SQ is not grateful enough to make him a " somebody ", how insulting!

7770vs330...oh dear:O not so subtle, are you?

SVQ Auto Lands by F/Os
 

Folks,

I can make no comment regarding the Munich incident, except that, possibly there by the grace of God go us all?
My former company, as a matter of `Standard Operating Procedure`, certainly on the 75 anyway, had the F/O allways as the handling Pilot during an Auto Land. At decision height the Captain would take over for the landing, unless a go around was performed & this was still handled by the F/O. This procedure worked very well indeed & it had the added advantage of keeping the F/O fully in the loop during LVP approaches. I used to quite enjoy doing the handling on an LVP & the 75 did well every time. I can't fully see why this system is not used by a number of other large carriers, unless the F/O might be low on experience & hours.
I still use SQ as my International Airline of choice, my only slight bitch is that, with the Munich tech stop now, the SVQ - MAN flight is that much longer in time & starting from AKL, it makes for a very long day.
Regards.

Correct
 

777vs330,

You are absolutely right . Your old friends have their info correct. Well let's see how SQ top guns handle one of their own. Interesting to see the outcome.

kinteafrokunta
Wonder why the hostility? If you speak to the local chaps, they will have a story or 2 to share with regards to flying with inexperienced FOs. They are not unsafe, it's just that the 2 scenarios I had both FOs did not detect it early enough and it was indeed, my responsibility to get it right to manually land, or go around. Bear in mind, 2 failed practice autoland in unprotected airports, in the spate of 8 years with SIA, is not too bad a stats. Your rather unfriendly gesture speaks of only couple of reasons that I do not wish to dwell on, but you can spare me the expat ace nonsense, you find the best and the worst in all carriers including the one that I'm working for right now, it's just a matter which get their SOPs right in taking care of the weakest links.

nicholas.nickle
Was really a career cross road around 2000 that I had to move on to the bus or take up the 777 offer with SIA. Hence the screen name. ;)

rain5
I have heard more, just like you did. I will not disclose any more unnecessarily just like the rest who're still with SIA. Despite the fact that nobody is glad of any incident, in this case the outcome would be quite interesting to keep tab consider the fact that 4th floor was rather harsh on normal line crew after some noticeable incidents.

for that capt rain-who bolakrishnan who prowl this forum whenever SQ is in the news, he has an axe to grind too. not forgetting the tens of million suit against MH too. interesting to see how a black adder operates in this humid tropics!

Looks like tire failure to me. I'm almost sure of it, as seen from the black smoke.

So much fuss over blaming the FO over a botched auto land. Shame on you all.

Edit: the was a link to the video just before this posting. It's missing now.

Don't think so. A single blocked/damaged tire wouldn't change significantly the direction of motion on a 777 .

Yes, because a tyre failure will do that... :confused:

Video link
 

Any link to the video
Thanks

Well if aybody can view the video, how sure are we of chicken vs egg regarding the smoky tire?

Black smoke from the nose tire as well???

Why did the film stop there??? There has to be about 15secs of useful footage left.

Crews who fly regularly in and out of MUC know that the Localizer on this runway (both directions) is very easy to deflect. As soon as something approaches the antenna, the signal does this S twist.

I fail to see a tire failure. If you see that your autoland doesn't guide to on the correct path, switch it off and go manual.

Looks like that plane spotter finally released the vid.

My pure observation:

Well, you can see the plane:

1)Last 30-20 feet suddenly bank left, left main wheel touch down first and HARD for quite awhile before right touch down. AC more to left of runway centerline if you observe the tarmac visual.

2)The black smoke is from the Grass debris kicked up from left main boogey going on it first BEFORE the nose wheel.

3) Nose wheel RE-airborne for 1-2 seconds and land again eventually hitting grass debris (coincides with attempt go around when nose veering off ?)

The whole veering seems quite linear rather than a violent swing. (more like JAY CHOU initial D mountain SIDE DRAIN-LOCK smooth Drift.:ok: He saved the day.

Around the 17th second is the nose being pulled up...??!
Also no reversers, even at idle? And I don't see the ground/spoilers either.
Something not right here.
If the vid is to be believed, aircraft never got into 'ground' mode. And then an attempt to abort the landing vs someone stepping on the brakes maybe..?!

Wow, you guys will make excellent accident investigators ! So observant and so sharp, right down to the micro seconds... I have informed Boeing and SIA to look you guys up for your expert opinions, advice and conclusion to the incident... By the way, cj has been pretty quiet lah.. No bitching for a while lah...

Thanks for the video.

Can anybody see whether the speed brakes extend? Couldn't be sure. If reversers not deployed (as someone else noted) and speed brake not armed there wouldn't be an awful lot of friction to control the aircraft as it commenced it's detour.

Glad I wasn't on board front or back!

Think CJ is being investigated by SQ. Might have bark up the wrong tree this time round. Let's see what happens to the guy. Becoming tougher or perhaps digging a bigger hole for himself.
Interesting nevertheless.

I thought the observations above were spot-on.

As to what caused them ?.... just speculative.

Back to the orignial tire-track photo.

Could The appearance of the sharpish swerve be due to fore-shortening from the camera lens distance?

no
 

No tire failure

Precautionary change by MUN eng after event.

Does anyone who is familiar with Munich know if the taxiway just prior to the initial excursion to the left might have been of interest to the crew?

Accidental TOGA push followed by a, 'I have control, no I have control, no the auto-pilot has control,' moment. Anybody wanna wager?

thks for the link

Nosewheel was firmly placed on runway then a new rotation commenced, which was abruptly cancelled.

Think that might be close to the truth. Last time this happened a certain 747 ended off the runway in BKK.

Looks like....

It might have been simply an attempt to get the weight off the nose wheel to avoid damage when the aircraft went into the 'rough'.