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.