no-one knows ...

until someone does it and then there'll be the mother of all investigations

I think we might find that the 787's bendy bit is different than than the 767's bendy bit, but I think the end result will be similar. I'm guessing on the 787 that the landing gear will end up absorbing the impact to the point of either full or partial failure.

Will be interesting to find out. I wonder if the flight control laws have any protection for this, or if they could be written to provide such a protection. :confused:

You guys should all stand back and ponder the fact that a jet NEARLY came a cropper in a manner similar to the purple one, in similar conditions, at the same airport.

You can argue about windshear and sink rates speed excursions until the cows come home but this was a nasty bit of work.

The crew, the airline and indeed the wider industry should feel guilty. People have died many times in accidents in similar conditions because pilots are too scared to divert or too scared to carry extra fuel or too scared of the boss or think they are better than they really are.

There are extenuating circumstances of course, but it is not good enough to argue that the forecast changed and put the crew in a corner. This simply should not occur.

How much fuel did they have? How many options did they have?

If conditions were as per the ATIS, the METAR and several prior actual reports then this approach was conducted in contravention of company SOP’s, manufacturers SOP’s and common sense.


“The typhoon was supposed to last out only until 2300z initially but carried on for a couple of hours more than expected.”

You would have to be a lunatic to fuel plan a flight into a typhoon based on a forecast to within “a couple of hours”.

“Just a bad day I guess..With a decent ending.”

A broken aircraft is a decent ending? No, it was a LUCKY ending.

“You are telling me that every time you get a 15 KTS gust report you divert? Give me a break!”

According to Airbus in case of actual or suspected windshear you must “delay or divert”. Its fair to say that in the above situation, windshear was suspected. And the results proved it to be so. I suspect maybe the Boeing manual indicates something similar.

An jet is badly damaged and maybe written off and the response from some here is that its ok, nothing to see hear.

Crazy.

AnQrKa.....

Quite right. Although having mentioned something similar last night the 'Gestapo' was after me.

There was no excuse for this.

Lucky outcome but a string of bad decisions leading to a likely unstable approach followed by a terrible landing and a bent airframe as a result. Not to mention, the poor folk down the back that were involved.

As for the 787, only time will tell how the composite airframe handles such stresses IF its unlucky enough to end up in such a pickle.

Has Gestapo gone back to Flight Sim 2004 to try it out perhaps?

Looking carefully at the video, I think you can actually see the fuselage deflecting in bending, perhaps as much as four or five degrees!

ANA dispatches their flights very conservatively, I wouldn't doubt (as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure) that given the circumstances in terms of WX, they had enough fuel to go back to PEK if they needed to, how about we stop assuming that they were cornered into making the approach, that is just silly, the dispatchers are very proactive in sending us turb & windshear reports constantly, there is no hidden company culture here that would have prevented them to divert if they needed to, stop making ridiculous assumptions without all the facts:=

Composite material
 

Not sure if this thought will answer your Q?
The famous Studebaker vehicle is a good example: when hit from different angles particularly front and back if it was metallic, the metal will shrug or show signs of fatigue; if it was fiber glass or composite material, it would break.
Based on the video provided on Japanese T.V it appears to me as if the fuselage would have broken in pieces leaving all passengers exposed to a more dramatic incident. However, the B787 has some strings interconnecting the fuselage parts attached, and it has a damper that makes passengers and crew ignore certain G's in-flight. Would this concept apply on the ground?? I am sure Boeing considered this possibility, they certainly made better landing gears on B747's compared to Airbus A380's, and more so, better and safer aircraft compared to English "aerocraft" manufacturers. :)

The Avanti, I assume you mean? Hardly a "famous Studebaker vehicle," but never mind...

Then you might as well shut down aviation in Japan because we have those kind of conditions at least 25% of the time here. Nothing in my Boeing manual says anything near that. A windshear warning, yes, but a simple report of windshear, no.

That's quite a lofty assumption

Does your conclusion apply to everyone else who attempted an approach around the same, including the US and European carriers, or just the reckless Asian ones?

composite crash tests
 

I seem to recall reading about Boeing's 787 fuselage crash tests. The initial tests were a failure because the composites shattered (rather than crumpling). I think a honeycomb structure had to be added in order to pass the test.
Anyone have any information on this?

How about actually reading what someone wrote, i.e. me, about the conditions when they did land, rather than going off half-baked on your crusade to castigate the airline industry and this crew in particular. If people have died in conditions when this flight landed then it was almost certainly not as a result of the weather and your suggestion they should have diverted is so far beyond ridiculous that I wonder if you know the first thing about aviation.

The conditions early in the day were not particularly pleasant, as Gestapo has already said. However, as I have already said, the weather at 1300L (when this flight arrived) was really quite benign. Their crosswind component would have been in the region of 15 knots and the the windshear that you seem to be so concerned about was no more than +10/-5 due to mechanical turbulence, not the well-past typhoon. I KNOW this because I landed only around 1 hour before them and those were the conditions when I landed. The weather only got better after that. The conditions were as per the ATIS and METAR i.e. no concerns whatsoever and there was no contravention of any SOPs. Read what Dominican has written about ANA's dispatch policy and you'll also understand this crew would have not been worried about fuel etc.

I suggest before you accuse all and sundry of breaking rules and flying in unsuitable conditions you do your homework first, rather than relying on the reports of someone who landed hours beforehand.

"The conditions were as per the ATIS and METAR i.e. no concerns whatsoever and there was no contravention of any SOPs."

If the WX was so benign as you state then why was the approach clearly so unstable. It surely rates as one of the most hair raising attempts at landing I have ever seen.

As AnQ stated, this aircraft was badly damaged. If it wasn't the wx, then what on earth is going on there in Japan.

Over to you wise one!!!

And it would be interesting to see some METAR summaries from the arrival time.

Metars:
RJAA 200600Z 22014KT 9999 FEW025 BKN200 27/22 Q0998 WS R16R WS R16L TEMPO 23020G32KT RMK 1CU025 7AC200 A2948
RJAA 200530Z 22015G25KT 190V260 9999 FEW025 BKN/// 27/21 Q0998 WS R16R WS R16L NOSIG RMK 1CU025 A2947 0506Z MOD TURB 500FT ON DEP COURSE RWY16R B787 AND 0514Z MOD TURB 400FT ON DEP COURSE RWY16R B767
RJAA 200500Z 23015G26KT 9999 FEW025 BKN/// 27/21 Q0998 WS R16R WS R16L NOSIG RMK 1CU025 A2947
RJAA 200430Z 23016G29KT 9999 FEW025 BKN/// 28/21 Q0998 WS R16L NOSIG RMK 1CU025A2948
RJAA 200400Z 22014G27KT 170V250 9999 FEW025 BKN180 28/22 Q0998 WS R16R NOSIG RMK 1CU025 5AC180 A2947
RJAA 200333Z 22017G27KT 9999 FEW025 SCT180 BKN/// 28/22 Q0997 RMK 2CU025 4AC180A2947
RJAA 200330Z 22019KT 9999 FEW025 SCT180 BKN/// 28/22 Q0997 TEMPO 23020G32KT RMK2CU025 4AC180 A2946
RJAA 200302Z 22017G27KT 180V250 9999 FEW025 SCT180 BKN/// 28/22 Q0998 RMK 2CU025 3AC180 A2947
RJAA 200300Z 22018KT 180V250 9999 FEW025 SCT180 BKN/// 28/22 Q0998 WS R16L TEMPO 23020G32KT RMK 2CU025 3AC180 A2947
RJAA 200230Z 21016G29KT 9999 FEW025 BKN/// 28/21 Q0997 WS R16L NOSIG RMK 2CU025 A2947
RJAA 200200Z 22017G27KT 180V250 9999 FEW025 SCT170 BKN/// 28/22 Q0998 WS R16R NOSIG RMK 2CU025 3AC170 A2948

Dignified
Your comparison of the Studebaker behavior to that of a Boeing 787 is a tad silly, in my humble opinion.
Fibreglas technology in the early 1960's compared to carbon fibre of now!!!, come on, get a grip!!!!
f

Who says the approach is unstable? The approach obviously met with ANA's stable approach criteria (which is the same as just about everybody else) or else the crew would have gone around. How is it 'clearly so unstable'? All you see is the landing, so you have no evidence to support your inference. All you've done is assume the weather was bad, which it wasn't and then apply your false assumption to an imagined hypothesis that the approach was unstable.

What you do see in the news report is the short period before the flare where the nose is lower than a 'normal' approach, indicating the aircraft is likely to be flying close to, or at, the max speed of Vref+20. Shortly thereafter you see a very rapidly 'flare' which, in my opinion, is instigated too late, thereby rotating the main wheels onto the runway (very positively, indeed). The aircraft then bounced and, in my opinion, the pilot does the thing that we've been taught NOT to do from day one; he pushes forward on the control column. The rest is pretty obvious.

So, no, it wasn't the weather at the time of this landing that caused the incident but, rather, in my opinion, a late flare and a botched reaction to the bounce.......like you get 'over there' in the USA every now and again i.e. this has got nothing to do with Japan or the general standard of their pilots.

Better video of approach prior to flare. First touchdown didn't look too bad to me; bit of an over-flare beforehand (well saved, IMO), causing the bounce. The big mistake was stuffing the nose down too much after the bounce.

His nose down pitch attitude at 100ft suggests maybe he was carrying excess speed. The snatch flare and subsequent hard nose over on touch is where the action begins.

Baulked landing on initial heavy touch down comes to mind.

gtseraf wrote : "Could we change the thread name, remove "Air Japan" from it. The flight was an ANA flight operated by Japanese ANA pilots. Air Japan is a seperate operation, mostly foreign contract crews. Air Japan does do a lot of 767 flying for ANA but not this particular one."

Why? This aircraft is clearly marked with both the "Air Japan" and the "ANA" logos. I have not seen any indication as to the nationality of the flight deck crew.

EXLEFTSEAT,

NH956 is a mainline flight and not AJX (Air Japan). The crew were Japanese. The aircraft has Air Japan & ANA written on it because we (AJX) fly ANA's aircraft. The flight in question was an ANA mainline ticketed and crewed flight and not Air Japan.

9 year old 767 ? I'm betting its a write off.

Except for the fact that you have 4 to 5 employees who actually work at Air Japan telling you that we don't operate NH 954. It is solely operated by ANA mainline.

All of ANA's 767-300ERs are marked with "Air Japan". Sometimes they have J's flying them, sometimes not.

Bloggs's video shows a definite nose down pitch change (at 0:13) just before the flare. Is this significant? And why would a pilot do this at this stage of the approach?

Great. More criticism of the locals.

Perhaps they got "smacked" in the face by a strong gust and the reaction was to counter by pushing forward; I would probably do the same (not to the same extent though, hopefully). A big gust at that stage, causing a jump in speed which if left uncorrected could result in a big balloon and long/hard "drop it on" landing.

I don't fly the 767, but my little Boeing requires all of the gust to be added to Vref. That would be Vref + 13 in this case (from that METAR). That would flatten out the deck angle. If the earlier description of the (atrocious) conditions is correct, they may have been carrying maximum additives.

So, Andoni, how does a statement of fact constitute criticism? Nobody is criticising anybody based on their country of birth. What is being said is the title of the thread is misleading because it is not an Air Japan flight. It is an ANA flight, operated by ANA pilots, who are Japanese. No implications, no sideswipes, just a truthful fact and one that answers the question of the OP who was asking why he should change the thread title i.e. because he's wrong.

It could be anybody!
 

Any pilot worth his wings would tell you that a windy day is not a diversionary necessity. Or for that matter a requirement. UNLESS of course it clearly exceeds either the company's limits or those of the manufacturer for a sustained period of time. And that too at the time of expected approach or landing.
Neither is reported turbulence along the approach path OR reported wind shear. All these obviously warrant a go around if experienced either in isolation or together.
However, a pilot's willingness to even ATTEMPT an approach in these conditions, shows his loyalty for the company he works for and his or her professionalism.
How difficult is it to just say no and divert. But to do otherwise, and attempt an approach and then conduct a safe landing is a sure sign of a thorough professional and a good one at that(if all goes well).
With regards to gestapo's post, I regard him and the likes of him in very high esteem. He/she is obviously a captain and one who attempted the approach and decided to share his experience with us on this network.
Anyone who thinks otherwise should think again. If it were upto me personally, I would probably have done the same and wet my knickers in the process...!!
But I'm man enough to admit it. But I sure as hell wouldn't put a good man down just because I was not man enough myself.
Please, let us try and understand the logistics involved in an unwarranted diversion. Not factoring the cost at all it still is a mammoth task for all the agencies involved. I wouldn't even want to start naming them.
But like someone said earlier....of course it IS an option. And it's good to know that.
Good job to all the crews who landed safely that day. And I feel very sorry for the ANA crew. Could happen to anyone of us. I sure hope they get off lightly, with only a few sim sessions.

then all you have to mention is the fact that it is an ANA crew, not an air japan crew. mentioning the nationality of the pilots is unnecessary.

as is always the case with prangs and crashes, loads of people on pprune are quick to mention the nationality of the pilots if they're not westerners. and no, i'm not being politically correct or anything like that, just making an observation.

Here is another observation, if your English reading comprehension was any good you would notice that in this thread you have westerners actually defending this crew:= One of the best things of working at AJX is that we have very little issues with expats vs. locals as you see in other jobs abroad, I understand that maybe the fact that we came in defense of ANA and their dispatch practices bothers you and maybe this is why you bring this comment, I don't know.

IF I was running an airline, Id actually prefer pilots who are a bit chicken instead of super gung ho. Its not doing anyone a favor taking a chance. Id prefer they divert if conditions warrant. Its going to cost some dimes but its going to save a lot of dollars (and lives) in the long run. Because if you are betting? Then you could lose. And then we all lost one. I dont want a bet.

I wouldn't have dispatched SQ6 with the storm right on the door step in Taipei. Nor the Mandarin Md11 into Chep Lap Kok in the face of yet another storm.

Id give storms a wide wide berth. Divert flights , etc.

Its professionalism in the military to go where danger lurks, its not when it involves a civilian flight to go where conditions even suggest a increased danger to proceed to a landing.

A proper professional in such a case is one who diverts when conditions suggest a probable danger instead of just a possible .

I want each landing and take off to be a sure thing, not just a safe bet.

Decreasing , not increasing the danger of an accident is the proper methodology in my humble view.

Just as an insight for the pilots who don't operate into NARITA (RJAA), this airport experiences very unusual shear/gust conditions which would not be evident at most airports with the same wind conditions, even with winds of 15 Kts. some very unusual things can happen sometimes, a place where a "normal" approach can turn nasty very quickly...

Donning my flamesuit here somewhat as I realise I am but an amateur in a field of people with way more experience than myself, however here is my 2 cents worth..

Firstly, speaking as a student aircraft designer/engineer, having just completed a major project on stiffened skin structures, I'm amazed that damage is economic to repair on any aircraft let alone a 9 year old one. To get skin creases like that will involve buckling on quite a few stringers, and possibly damage to the radial hoop frames as well - the skin and hoops are a local item but the stringers run a fair way down the aircraft so that must be a hell of a job to drill out all the fixings and replace them (having had to strip out a correspondingly large part of the interior to get to them).

Secondly, as regards the 787 in a similar situation... composites are somewhat of an unknown quantity when damaged because its impossible to tell the extent of delamination inside. Having seen the results of a CF monocoque wing bend tested to destruction, I would say that the greater strength and flexibility of carbon would have either absorbed the impact without plastic deformation, or if the force was great enough then it would have delaminated and cracked open and be a total writeoff

:ugh:


Aviation is nothing but calculated risk, and the safest bet in transportation!

Yes just like going out of your door each morning, but I wouldn't want "hero" pilots running risks that are disproportionate to gain.

I wouldn't want it to be a "maybe , I will land safely" thats all. I want it to be a yes definitely we will land safely (barring something failing dramatically and suddenly on touchdown).

I was in a DC9 on approach in Madrid some years back. EVERYONE else had diverted to Barcelona, but my "hero" pilot wanted to make an attempt. We diverted after one try. It was pretty dramatic turbulence. I say , if everyone has diverted, its not necessary to even try. But thats just me.

So what was the problem there? He made one attempt, didn't like it then diverted?

It was reported to be one of the worst thunderstorms to hit Madrid in 30 years (as I found out later). An attempt shouldn't even have been attempted given the conditions.

Get-there-itis should be avoided. We want heros who perform acts of heroism when called upon, not those who seek to create situations where they can be heros. There is a difference.

Platitudes and soundbites.
 

Armchairpillo...

Stick to things you know something about, which appears to be flogging stuff, rather than pontificate about things you do not.

Quote Armchairpilot...."IF I was running an airline, Id actually prefer pilots who are a bit chicken instead of super gung ho.


....yeah mate,thats why your not running or going to run an Airline......

Hey guys, armchairpilot94116 is entitled to his opinion. Don't be too OTT with your replies. You are only adding to the disdain other non flying aviation professional have for pilots.

gtseraf+Fratemate : I have read your explaination und have tried to change the thread title. Seems it only changes in my initial post and not in the main list.