We are all "mission orientated" and want to land, especially if the given wind is within crosswind limits."

My points, or rather questions, are simply these;

What would the report have stated if it hadn't worked out as well?

Where do we stand when considering strong GUSTY crosswinds?

At what point do we initiate the go-around to give the potential investigator nothing to cite?


Surely these are the questions that all of of should be asking? The guys in question did a good job, so they won't be answering any questions.

Turbulence doesn't cause left/right rolls at the exact same roll rate.
Turbulence doesn't cause the elevators(stick) to go nose up/nose down.
Turbulence doesn't cause the rudder to go left/right.


Tough day but cycling the controls back and forth doesn't help.

Of course you would have done much better wouldn't you misd-agin? The controls would hardly have moved!

Personally I though the guys/girls did a great job, but like you I was not in the airplane, so I have no idea what inputs were called for, or what winds the aircraft was actually experiencing! Analyzing the control deflections, and taking up the role of a mickey mouse investigator with your infinite wisdom of what control deflections are caused by turbulence, and which ones aren't, doesn't really answer the question.

I won't ask what you are rated on.

Industry skill reduction
 

As far as i could see this was a well flown landing in challenging conditions and demonstrates the skill level that I would expect from someone in command of a large airliner.

Some of the stuff writen above is indicative of the de-skilling that is going on in the airline business, I am finding myself constantly flying with FO's who feel the need to ask me if it is OK to hand fly the aircraft past 400 ft on the way up and 500 ft on the way down.

Im not sure if this is them just being polite, but I get the feeling that hand flying skills are under practiced, the result of this being a downward spiral as confidence is lost in the hand flying skills.

There is a time and place to practice these skills, and also a time and place to go some other place if the weather is bad, but I forcast much more disruption in the business if hand flying skills are not regularly practiced and the children of the magenta line become fearfull of a bit of low level turbulance.

A & C. I agree with your sentiments. The airline managers have the idea that pilots do not need these skills. A/C are very redundant reliable, loads of back ups. The A/P's are more capable, ATC radar is more prevalent as are ILS's. Manual skills are not required as much as they were. Then there are days like this. It is not uncommon for storms to affect huge areas and all airfields are influenced by the winds and weather.
First you need the thinking/planning/command process before you take to the skies: then you need the continuation of that process as events unfold and Plan B-C-D come into play. Finally you need the skills to handle conditions that are outside the A/P capabilities.
If all these are not in place with all your crews then you are defrauding the pax and their expectations.

such threads with such comments are the real entertainment to read this forum. :ok:

I suspect whoever is driving the T7 came off the 737.

See it many times at work when FO is hand flying and induces turbulence and PIO.
Did you fly the 73 before here? :rolleyes:
Yes! How did you know? :sad:

halas

deefer dog - Of course you would have done much better wouldn't you misd-agin? The controls would hardly have moved!

Personally I though the guys/girls did a great job, but like you I was not in the airplane, so I have no idea what inputs were called for, or what winds the aircraft was actually experiencing! Analyzing the control deflections, and taking up the role of a mickey mouse investigator with your infinite wisdom of what control deflections are caused by turbulence, and which ones aren't, doesn't really answer the question.

I won't ask what you are rated on.


************************************************************


You don't have to be 777 qualified to see the control movement.


And yes, none of us were in the aircraft. But most professional pilots have seen enough landings to realize that that much control movement isn't necessary. Randomly? Sometimes but very rarely. Randomly several times in a row without a break in pitch, roll, and yaw? No.


But you can ask my experience if you think it is important.

The continuously increasing banking nearing the landing is common in PIO's because of the white knuckles tensing even more just before touchdown. We have all seen it when a pilot is anxious flying an approach when he is not comfortable.

Many wannabes make the mistake in assuming that the T7 is just a supped up version of the B737, B757 or B767. They think they know all there is to know about flying the T7. The B777 has characteristics which can bite you in the arse during landing in strong crosswinds.

The triple wheel bogie with a steerable aft wheels require unique handling which many choose to ignore. The auto brakes and the auto spoilers can surprise you at the wrong time. The auto flight systems in capture mode at light weights/high power combination, height weight/low thrust combination can lead to scary moments too.

The PF on that KLM flight was probably not properly trained in the real B777 ways. Most likely he/she came off a ZFT sim program straight to line training. Not many originally B777 trained pilots left to pass on handling qualities; most are no longer trained by Boeing factory pilots. What we have now a glorified box panel operators.:{

"The triple wheel bogie with a steerable aft wheels require unique handling which many choose to ignore. The auto brakes and the auto spoilers can surprise you at the wrong time. The auto flight systems in capture mode at light weights/high power combination, height weight/low thrust combination can lead to scary moments too."


None of these apply to crosswind landings.

Other than the triple bogey gear, which is a non issue on landing, the 757/767 have the same systems. If anything the 777's autobrake system is slightly better (pitch related delay in activation).

Talking very much like someone who got an easy ride up to the t7 on a abbreviated conversion course! No wonder the new t7 pilots are being dumbed down further.

:=

gerago - oh, this should be good.


What did they teach you at your 777 course about the impact of the auto brakes, auto spoilers, third wheel bogie, or capture mode on auto flight when flying towards the runway or when doing crosswind landings???

They taught me not to fly the 777 the way the 757/767 was flown, like the way some misd.....sorry, pardon my spelling, miscreant flew it!:ugh:

COMPLETE HONESTY
 

Hand on heart, with total honesty, and after 20,000 plus hours, 14000 hours as PIC on heavy jets, 4000 plus hours as a simulator/line/base/ground instructor, TRE TRI etc bits-of-paper in my Navbag, almost 40 years as an AIRLINE PILOT, .......I HAVE NEVER EVER MADE A SINGLE MISTAKE, NEVER EVER!......

gerago (and billabongbill), I'm very much with misd-agin here: PLEASE enlighten us all as to what impact the steerable aft bogie (definitely not operating inflight and during roll-out), the autobrakes, the autoflight capture modes etc. have on the crosswind landing technique on the 777!
Having come out of 'some ZFT-program' and with just a measly 2000 hours or so on the 777 I would very much like to know.
Standing by to be impressed!

with just a measly 2000 hours or so on the 777 I would very much like to know.

So would we all. It sounds interesting to someone who is steeped in B737/757/767. (on a side note: I tried to fly the L1011 sim in the only way I knew how = B732. On approach it didn't like it. B747 was not too bad, but I don't think the landings were assessed too sharply.)
Just a note, and this relates to so many threads, experience needs to be relevant. Considering the questions asked and the systems being discussed it will be the number of PF takeoffs & landings that is relevant, not total hours. If someone was punting around Asia on short haul 4 sector days they would have more takeoff/landing experience than the ultra-longhaul jockeys who might do 4 a month. I say this because it is relevant to this topic in that people talk about experience on types. On days like this the relevant experience is how many times you've landing is such testing conditions; on any a/c. The we can discuss type specific. Total hours mean little. If we were talking about CRZ related problems and systems malfunctions then total time is a factor. I do not mean to any of this in a negative way and I hope y'all get my drift.

You are absolutely correct RAT 5. Checked my logbook, actually only 1500 hours yet on the 777 and only 75 landings as PF on the aircraft. That really IS measly. And that is one reason I am actually interested in the wisdom of others with more experience. I'm not going to buy anything about the steerable aft bogie however.

But this is a problem with long haul-operations. The PF during this landing at Schiphol may have been flying the aircraft for 2 or 3 years and never have encountered conditions even remotely close to these (on type!).

Without implying this happened here - I do remember overcontrolling in roll during my first gusty approach on the 777. As someone else stated in this thread, it can be touchy in roll.

High winds at Schipol. What a landing!
 

Not at all qualified for heavies but I still fell that at some point the wingtip was way to close to the ground for comfort. Yes camera angle can be deceiving but I guess everyone would agree that there was very little margin for error or unexpected wind gusts... In my book safe aircraft operations is all about minimizing risks: unless they were critically low on fuel they should have gone around, even if it was for the second time.
Just my 2c obviously

Schipol appraches
 

The footage of the KLM asia looks sped up. The roll rate near the flare seems extreme.