SIA 777 off the rwy at EDDM
 

A SIA 777-300ER arriving from Manchester slid off the southern RWY at EDDM this noontime. No one hurt and no external a/c damage. a/c still on the grass. Munich ops limited to northern RWY til further notice.

München: Landende Boeing 777 rollt ins Gras - FLUG REVUE

Any idea if it was on the landing roll or did it went off the runway when vacating the runway?

Looks like it happened on the landing roll.

Pics: Flughafen: Boeing 777 schießt über Landebahn hinaus - Flughafen - Landkreis Erding - Lokales - merkur-online

Nose points parallel to the center line. It's off to the south of the southern RWY. There are no taxiways at all on that southern side.

Did it actually slide, or did it just roll off the runway? The former expression infers a lot more drama than may actually have been the case....

No drama. Just check the pics above please. However an unusual stand this time.

In one of those pics, does the OB edge of the RH flap look 100% intact? Or possible damage?

Probably me imagining stuff in a not too clear picture... :rolleyes:

NoD

I was expecting only one bogie or perhaps the nose wheels in the grass, but not the complete aircraft standing in the grass meters away from the nearest piece of concrete.

How on earth did they manage to do that?! :confused:

Flight operates SIN-MUC-MAN-MUC SIN.

MUNCHEN - EDDM - MUC
METAR:

EDDM 031350Z 07007KT CAVOK 08/06 Q1010 NOSIG=
EDDM 031320Z 08010KT 9000 FEW007 BKN230 07/05 Q1009 NOSIG=
EDDM 031250Z 08008KT 7000 SCT007 SCT230 07/06 Q1010 NOSIG=
EDDM 031220Z 09008KT 7000 SCT005 SCT230 05/05 Q1010 NOSIG=
EDDM 031150Z 08007KT 4000 BR OVC004 05/05 Q1010 BECMG 5000
SCT005=
EDDM 031120Z 07010KT 2200 BR OVC003 05/05 Q1010 BECMG 3000
OVC005=
EDDM 031050Z 10008KT 2000 BR FEW002 OVC003 04/04 Q1011 BECMG
3000 OVC005=

On the face of it, the wind is not significant, although a lowish cloudbase and a little bit of mist if noon local (1100Z), but nothing serious. Seems like an odd one.

Thank the Lord someone posted a METAR - I was beginning to worry.

I flew in and out of MUC this morning, and it was CAT II for the approach, CAT I when we took off about 50 mins later. Hardly any wind and the surface was close to dry, no frozen patches anywhere. They must have arrived about an hour after we departed.
I wonder what happened...

Nic

Some posters on airliners.net are reporting that their relatives were aboard the flight to Munich. The common remark being used is that the landing was on the hard side - whatever that may mean. Read for yourselves, I guess.

Kind regards.

whoops!

As no one was hurt can we have a good laugh and make fun of the crew please?

The 777 was towed off the runway about 45 minutes ago. Rwy expected to have been reopened about 15 minutes ago (18:30).

One poster on another forum looked at the flight tracks. He said it looks like they veered left off the runway, then right and then went off on the grass on the right side. Quite strange...

At the time of landing there was CAT II/III. Fog was lifting at the time.

That would be the same as reported in the German news on the Mercur article linked above. They report that the aircraft got out of control level with the cargo terminal, went left then back across the runway and 10m into the grass.

Hmm, I've had that happen but it will try to put you back on the LOC, not the grass (unless you've already vacated and let go of the tiller...).

The photos *are* rather surreal: 200T+ of aircraft sitting on the grass like it was helicoptered in there... Normally, you'd expect the wheels to have disappeared into the ground and see dirty great ploughed tracks leading off the runway. Doesn't seem to be anything like that here; maybe German spec. verges are stronger than they look?

@ FullWings: as the river Isar is less than 2km to the west, the airport was built on alluvial land. There is some grass for the looks, but underneath it's pretty much all gravel. That does take a lot of weight...

Strange thing all together, though. It will be interesting to read the report.

DL

Anyone knows if LVP were (still) in force?
Automatic rollout around Cat I can be tricky when LOC signals aren't protected (and everybody is doing autolands "to be on the safe side").

JetPhotos.Net Photo » 9V-SWQ (CN: 34582) Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-312ER by kaese2002 => amazing how the aircraft did not sink in. But we've not had rain here for a few weeks...

The plane was pulled out by two Panther 8x8 fire trucks (!!)

TOP GUNS AT MAINLINE
 

it was a matter of time.thankfully no fatalities.here goes another checklist item added on.

SIA mainline has been having some close shaves lately but had been lucky to avert an incident of this nature.
F/O land only in CAVOK less than 5 kts so when they grow up to be captains this training takes 9 months the time taken for a fetus to grow to a baby. no experience is showered on them after their training.

their pilots are brainwashed to fly numbers and not fly the airplane fly like it is in the book (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH SOP) and is surprised when the wind shifts or gusts pure robotics.

they bashed the cargo boys as the inferior jockeys.
i hope they learn from this.

4th floor STC must be busy lah

SIA 777 WAS AUTOLAND
 

interesting as one adds insult to injury a chief pilot of another fleet in SIA has mentioned that this aircraft was on a autoland which ended on the grass.

just goes to display ignorance and standard of training at SIA, if the crew was even unable to disconnect and manually take over.

4th floor is still buzzing with the blame game.

rumour has it that mainline will get an extra months bonus, but cargo will have to take responsibility for the incident.

solved the singaporean way ! all confused

Quite how do you work that one out CARGOJOCK? Obviously you are joking?

Care to substantiate that with facts?

Certainly not the case when I flew for them, maybe you have an axe to grind CARGOJOCK?

My spies in SIA tell me it's only a matter of time with the experience level of those running the place and those allowed to operate as PIC's in this company.I hope we are wrong and it never happens!!

Perhaps they are still letting FOs do the autoland. Don't think it doesn't happen there.

The best part is that whoever did it, the paxing non-flying crew (who may not have even been in the cockpit) will get to equally share in the glory. All are at fault until proven otherwise.

With the occurrence of runway excursion happening quite frequently recently, does anyone know whether it'd be cheaper for the airports to simply tarmac the entire area and draw a runway on, rather than keep damaging aircraft?

M-B Re ‘tarmac the entire area’.
Simpler still, for crews to subtract 90m from the lading distance available and plan accordingly.

Any suggestion that a runway change was being planned after the landing?
Potential for reversed LOC beam during roll out.

Any history with 777 of autothrust disconnect problems after autoland?
Potential for one engine to accelerate to a higher thrust level and contribute to a lateral deviation.

My buddies in SIA tell me the captain was a local.

Just landed on 08R this morning, and we could see the skid marks quite well. It appeared to me that the 777 went off to the left at about the end of the TDZ, with both MLGs in the grass. Could have been different, I was kind of busy landing...
Then, maybe 300m further down, the skidmarks came across the entire RWY, and I could see the pulsating of the antiskid quite well. Looked like it worked fine on both gears. After that it went off to the right into the grass, only pushing the dirt away, about 30cm (1 foot) deep.

There was a SIA 777 parked at the regular gate, but one of our TECs told me that the one from yesterday is in the LH hangar.

The postion given on the avherald seems quite accurate.

Off the left side at the end of the TDZ? They'd still be moving fast so they might have gotten lucky, especially since it hadn't rained recently. :eek:

From the pictures it looks like a lateral excursion vs. an overrun. :ooh:

" Fo's only land if 5kts and CAVOK"
" Autoland, to be on the safe side"

Are these 2 comments above for real?
If so, I think I'll be booking elsewhere when I go to the Far East.

macdo

not true

THE TRUTH IS EMBARRASSING
 

etops777 is making BS.

landings to FO are governed by special instructions and some of them include what was mentioned wind ,visibility, wet , so these young lads have absolutely no exposure of landing in weather.

hey etops777 you forgot to mention that the command program for a FO to captain takes 9 month at SIA. the reason is because of lack of handling experience in day to day conditions.
only given in CAVOK to CALM so the day these factors change for the minimum or high crosswinds is the day these fellas make autolands.
this is fine but then you see that you just cannot engage AP and sit and relax things do go wrong, and this day it did and the lads upfront were unprepared.

here we go to the grass!!!

it has been luck that has kept SIA out of the news,but this is the tip of the burg it has had near misses, CFIT and many more all shoved under the carpet for commercial reasons.

no one wishes any mis fortune but luck is important!!!

safe flight...........

Cargo jock

I don't think you know me!

You sounded bitter here in the SIA group. No one is holding a gun to you to stay in SQC.

This incidence can happen to anyone. It's not about which nationality is at control. If it it so unsafe then please find a greener pasture and don't just run but sprint.

CFIT is quite a claim. How do you sweep that one under the carpet?

Under these tame circumstances, at least the crew had enough intuition not to evacuate. :ooh:

TRUTH HURTS SAID AGAIN
 

i do not need to go anywhere, and certainly not on to greener pastures.
no need to know you your alias says it all......

sweeping under the carpet takes a whole new meaning at SIA.

we all should have the report thats if not swept under the carpet.

but heads will roll.......no happen in SIA lah!!!

Please Cargojock...

You have been here long enough to know that your post is BS. Yes, there are special instructions for FO landings and I don't always agree with them:

"For landing, the visibility is 3 km or better; the ceiling is 500ft or higher; the crosswind component is 15 kts or less"

I agree that keeping this for FO:s regardless of their time in the company is wrong. These are good starting values that should be removed with experience.

Unfortunately your ranting makes your posts look like sour grapes. If you want to give critique, be factual.

We don't know what happened but I can promise you that an uncommanded full rudder or tiller after touchdown is very hard to deal with. Ask for a try in the SIM and even when you know it will happen it's not easy to handle. Unless, of course, you are God's gift to aviation... but if so, what the hell are you doing in SQC?

Runway excursion event
 

For modern autoflight systems, as on the B777, with filtered path definition, even if some type of transient LOC multipath interference should occur (e.g., with no LVP in place, or failed LVPs), and even if at low speed, that magnitude of apparent lateral displacement would not typically be expected. We'll likely just need to wait for the incident review findings to learn more about this one. ...as we continue to hope for early and widespread implemmentation of GLS, where multipath and related LVPs are largely irrelevant.

Regards,
ti

Cargo Jack

Incidence does not only happened in SQ. What happened with those at CX? a 744 nearly flew into the mountain in HKG few years ago! What about QF 744 in BKK? Aren't they well trained? Then why in the world they overshot, realised that it will be a deep landing on a wet/contaminated runway decides to continue only to ended up on the grass! Were they not senior Capt and FO?

Give us a break Cargo Jock! No one wants to get involved in any incident, moreover we don't even have the factual report yet.

Chilled dude or mate(if your from Aus)..

Maybe a practice auto-land without CAT3 runway protections and someone was given a conditional line-up behind him. I remember seeing this a few years ago at LGW when a 757 was doing one and a 747 lined behind just as he was in the flare. Became quite exciting for a short while! Note: The tower did warn him that there was no protections!

Unless the SIA had some sort of steering problem then it sounds plausible.