The devil is always in the detail. There are a lot of technical inaccuracies in this thread. Without going into the specific detail of ROW / ROP, the ignoring of a 'Runway too short' message would be inadvisable on many different levels. It is easy to be an expert from your armchair.

Cheers

Reading that just made may day! Sure wish he'd have stayed around a bit longer!

ExDubai, read my post #60. The wind speeds and directions are actuals for the approch times. There was no tailwind and other flight landed normally.

Wow I can't wait for the A350's to arrive in my outfit..........

Now, I would go around after the first warning, both of us would carryout an independent landing distance assessment using conservative figures ( low A/B, No Rev, Wet Rwy ) double check the LDA was correct, obtain braking action reports if possible, let other Aircraft land first........then if it happened again on the next approach fully brief that we will LAND.

Airbus make a similar statement regarding predictive windshear false alarms, "if the commander judges that the warning is false and the reactive windshear is serviceable it may be disregarded"

So I'd use that common sense approach in this situation as well.

Now having said all that I do not know EK's policy or indeed AB policy regarding this system......so I can't really comment on their particular situation except to say that they landed safely, so we'll done.

ACMS,

I posted it earlier. If an amber, "IF WET: RWY TOO SHORT" .......or a red," RWY TOO SHORT" message appears during finals the pilot MUST go around. It is highlighted and boxed in the FCOM. Must is MANDATORY.

It is SOP to pull the systems Reset button to deactivate the ROW/ROP/BTV only if the runway lengths differ by more than 35m from database to chart. Whether you'd want to contact company (who'd then probably have to contact Airbus) to get dispensation to pull the reset button based upon your calculations showing a successful outcome is a tricky one. 1989 springs to mind when I hear the word 'dispensation' so this problem is nothing new.

With regard to 411A and his love of English beer, rightly or wrongly, the days of one-man bands flying close to the edge are by and large over. Airline legal departments and civil lawyers don't stand for it.

You can already hear the words being spoken at the Board of Enquiry. "Mr 380 captain, you ignored two warnings, one amber and one red yet proceeded to land and caused an end state with 527 souls on board. What was your justification?"

"I thought the system at fault and a Dash 8 and a 319 ahead of me managed to land without problem."

Thank God I'm out of it, this thread demonstrates very clearly what the job has now become. It would appear that it is now possible to have 2 FOs on the flight deck, perhaps one more senior to the other. He can be the commander. All that money for captains not now required, just a small loading for initiating checklists.

... so what if the warning had occurred again at Heathrow and any subsequent approach ????

Even an SLF can work out that if he HAS to land he can land and he is in the clear! Even an SLF can understand that if he lands in contravention of SOP's he could end up walking home. Assumptions of a computer glitch are just that .. assumptions. Apollo 13 Mission Control assumed they had a computer glitch ... so I believe did Air Transat. And that's not to mention Sod's Law which would probably have seen him ignore the computer warning and find a bird right where it shouldn't have been ... thus not putting a nail in a career but positively screwing down the lid ....

well if that happens and its still messing up on the approach to LHR you speeddial a conference call between the CEO, the chief pilot, the chief lawyer, and the chief insurance representative ;) and vote on how to proceed!

no seriously this is getting out of hand, it is a landing on 3000 meter runway with no systems faults except the landing calculations!

Out of interest, I was informed that an A320 landed, after the A380 go arounds, carrying an extra 20kt IAS. I'm guessing for increased control authority and gust protection, my point is how much extra speed would an A380 add to the approach and would that be enough, all things considered, to trigger the "Runway too Short" warning?

Just curious.

Straight from the FCOM :

ROW is armed below 500 ft until the aircraft touches down, independently of the braking means chosen by the flight crew (i.e. autobrake, or pedal braking), when ROW detects the landing runway.
L2 In basic autobrake mode or pedal braking, ROW detects the landing runway between 500 ft and 300 ft RA.
If the flight crew selects BTV autobrake mode, the BTV function detects the landing runway at 300 ft. The BTV function performs a late detection of the landing runway in order to favor the landing runway selected by the flight crew as long as possible.
L1 ROW detects a possible runway overrun when the aircraft is in flight, considering different parameters such as the aircraft weight, the aircraft speed, the aircraft altitude, the aircraft position, the wind.
If ROW detects a possible runway overrun, ROW activates aural and visual alerts to inform the flight crew of the situation.
ON WET RUNWAY
ROW computes two lines: I.e. one WET line and one DRY line. These lines correspond to the minimum landing distance for a WET runway and for a DRY runway.
The flight crew uses the appropriate line as reference depending on the actual runway condition, i.e. dry or wet.
ROW informs the flight crew via a visual alert on the PFD IF WET : RWY TOO SHORT , meaning that if the runway is WET, the landing distance computed by ROW is too long.

CAUTION:
If the runway is WET, and "IF WET: RWY TOO SHORT" is displayed on the PFD, the flight crew must perform a go-around.
In the case of a dry runway, the flight crew can continue the landing.
PFD: IF WET RWY TOO SHORT

Straight from the SOP's :

e to: ALL except MSN 9815
OANS
OANS RUNWAY LENGTH Vs CHARTS RUNWAY LENGTH CROSSCHECK
If the difference between the runway length from OANS and the runway length from charts is more than 35 m (115 ft), the flight crew must not use BTV autobrake mode. To avoid any intrusive ROW/ROP alert during final approach and landing, the flight crew should consider to pull the ARPT NAV reset button on the overhead panel. If the flight crew pulls ARPT NAV reset button, ROW/ROP BTV functions are inoperative.
RUNWAY SHIFT AS RQRD
PF
The flight crew must shift the runway threshold and/or the runway end, as required (e.g. due to NOTAM).
L2 BTV locates the dry and wet lines according to the runway threshold and to ensure that the flight crew will select an achievable runway exit
The dry and wet lines computation takes into account the FMS predicted landing weight of the aircraft. If the FMS predicted landing weight of the aircraft is not avail, BTV uses the current aircraft weight limited by the MLW.
ROW/ROP needs the real position of the runway end to ensure the aircraft protection against runway excursion.
Ident: PRO-NOR-SOP-160 00022721.0004001 / 06-Jun-11
Criteria: T73183, T78703
Applicable to: MSN 9815
OANS
RUNWAY SHIFT AS RQRD
PF
The flight crew must shift the runway threshold and/or the runway end, as required (e.g. due to NOTAM).
L2 BTV locates the dry and wet lines according to the runway threshold and to ensure that the flight crew will select an achievable runway exit
The dry and wet lines computation takes into account the current weight of the aircraft (i.e. not the predicted landing weight).
ROW/ROP needs the real position of the runway end to ensure the aircraft protection against runway excursion.
Ident: PRO-NOR-SOP-160 00020718.0004001 / 05-Aug-14
Criteria: 22-8006, 42-8020, T73183, T78703
Applicable to: ALL
BTV
The use of the BTV autobrake mode is recommended in the case of dry or wet runway conditions.
CAUTION:
Do not use BTV in the case of:
Contaminated runway
Any reverse inoperative, or in the case of any aircraft failure affecting landing performance.

Simple system I see, so unlike Airbus........:eek:

Thank God I'm out of it, this thread demonstrates very clearly what the job has now become. It would appear that it is now possible to have 2 FOs on the flight deck, perhaps one more senior to the other. He can be the commander. All that money for captains not now required, just a small loading for initiating checklists.

Well said. Me too. Doesn't the Captain have absolute responsibility for the aircraft and it's contents? What happens if there is nowhere to go that you will NOT get a warning?

Reminds me of the old joke:

Captain on PA: Ladies and Gentlemen I'm afraid the Nr 4 engine has failed. Our flight will be delayed by an hour ...

Sometime later:

Captain on PA: Ladies and Gentlemen I'm afraid the Nr 3 engine has failed. Our flight will be delayed by another hour ...

Sometime later:

Captain on PA: Ladies and Gentlemen I'm afraid the Nr 2 engine has failed. Our flight will be delayed by another hour ..

One Pax to another: It's to be hoped the other engine doesn't fail otherwise we'll be up here all day ... !!!

:)

Will the same situation occur at BHX with a Runway Max of 10013 FT? We could have A380's flying in all directions if the weather turns for the worst...!

For whatever reason this was pretty much a one off. The 380 is a Cat c aircraft (unlike the Jumbo!) and has fantastic brakes so landing performance isn't really an issue usually.

This appears to have been a safe decision, nobody died, what's the problem?

They'll be having fun with crosswinds most of the time! :)

A380 only has reverse on the inner engines, though. 74 has it on all 4.