Heavy landing 777

[jfp]

Hi a recent landing at Antigua in a 777 was very hard, and the pilot applied
the brakes really heavily, probaly in my assumption, because of the short
runway and a slight overshoot of touch down point, also if you pass the
terminal exit point i believe it would be a push back, (very expensive) as
no more exit points exist, my point is does a very heavy landing strain the
777 aircraft unduly especially the undercarriage regards Frank

[Robert M. Gary]

Sounds like an 'autoland'. In the U.S. pilots are required to perform a
certain number of 'autolands' in order to remain current and be able to
land in conditions less than standard ILS CAT I minimums (i.e. landing
in fog). The plane is not designed to autoland itself smoothly, it is
designed to touch down within a specific spot on the runway and come to
a complete stop quickly. The software programmers were not very
interested in being smooth. BTW: In case anyone has any fantacies of
being able to land a 777 by pushing an 'autoland button', an 'auto
land' is actually much more difficult than just hand flying.

[[email protected]]

The 777 landing gear are designed to take a lot of stress. The landing
you describe does not sound like a big deal...

Dean
Former Boeing avionics engineer, 777 program

[Ramapriya]

jfp wrote:

> also if you pass the terminal exit point i believe it would be a push back, (very expensive) as no more exit points exist

Notwithstanding that any jet can go backwards with the use of the
reversers, why a push-back beyond the exit point - isn't the apron
there wide enough to accommodate a 180-degree turn?

Ramapriya

[Jose]

> BTW: In case anyone has any fantacies of
> being able to land a 777 by pushing an 'autoland button', an 'auto
> land' is actually much more difficult than just hand flying.

So, how =do= you do an autoland?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jack]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> The plane is not designed to autoland itself smoothly, it is
> designed to touch down within a specific spot on the runway and come to
> a complete stop quickly.

The 757 autolands itself smoothly as consistently as the average pilot.
It comes to a stop quickly or not, depending on the Autobrakes setting
chosen by the crew. Is the 777 so different?


> In case anyone has any fantacies [sic] of
> being able to land a 777 by pushing an 'autoland button', an 'auto
> land' is actually much more difficult than just hand flying.

Psychologically, maybe, and naturally systems knowledge and proficiency
is necessary, but your claim of "difficulty" needs more context. What
could be easier than watching it happen, in a physical sense?

Do you have actual operational flight crew experience with the airplane?


Jack

[Darkwing]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> BTW: In case anyone has any fantacies of
>> being able to land a 777 by pushing an 'autoland button', an 'auto
>> land' is actually much more difficult than just hand flying.
>
> So, how =do= you do an autoland?
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.


Yes and can it be preformed on MS FS9?

----------------------------------
DW

[Robert M. Gary]

Jack wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > The plane is not designed to autoland itself smoothly, it is
> > designed to touch down within a specific spot on the runway and come to
> > a complete stop quickly.
>
> The 757 autolands itself smoothly as consistently as the average pilot.
> It comes to a stop quickly or not, depending on the Autobrakes setting
> chosen by the crew. Is the 777 so different?

I guess I wouldn't consider an autoland in that series "smooth" and
would challenge you to find a pilot who claims he is not smooher than
the autoland system. I would describe a 767 autoland as a "thunk" and
certainly not a greaser. Its not hard enough to drop things from the
overheads of course, but its not something a pilot would write home
about in pride had he hand flown it. I'm not sure I understand your
statement about the autobrakes. Do you have knowledge of the auto brake
setting on the flight the OP presented? As I recall the Boeing switch
has RTO,OFF,10,20,30,MAX but that's from old memory. I didn't see the
OP's description of where it was set.


>
> > In case anyone has any fantacies [sic] of
> > being able to land a 777 by pushing an 'autoland button', an 'auto
> > land' is actually much more difficult than just hand flying.
>
> Psychologically, maybe, and naturally systems knowledge and proficiency
> is necessary, but your claim of "difficulty" needs more context. What
> could be easier than watching it happen, in a physical sense?

You don't push a button and watch it happen. Its like saying shooting a
GPS approach is "sitting back and watching it happen" compared to an
ILS. It takes training to understand how to use your GPS system, how to
set it up, etc. It takes training to understand how to use the autoland
system.

-Robert

[Bob Moore]

wrote

> The 777 landing gear are designed to take a lot of stress. The landing
> you describe does not sound like a big deal...

As a matter of fact, all jet transports are designed for touchdown
at a 600 fpm sink rate at maximum landing weight and 360 fpm at
maximum takeoff weight, but I've never really tested the limits. :-)

Bob Moore

[Robert M. Gary]

I wasn't really suppose to be your pilot today, but I did stay in a
Holiday Inn last night.

[Morgans]

"Bob Moore" > wrote

> As a matter of fact, all jet transports are designed for touchdown
> at a 600 fpm sink rate at maximum landing weight

Boy, that would be an.....arrival! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Capt.Doug]

>"jfp" wrote in message
> Hi a recent landing at Antigua in a 777 was very hard, and the pilot
applied
> the brakes really heavily, probaly in my assumption, because of the short
> runway and a slight overshoot of touch down point, also if you pass the
> terminal exit point i believe it would be a push back, (very expensive) as
> no more exit points exist, my point is does a very heavy landing strain
the
> 777 aircraft unduly especially the undercarriage

If you are referring to VC Byrd, you are wrong. It is plenty long enough and
does have a turning point at the end. As for the undercarriage, it will
survive very hard landings. One of my buds has recorded in excess of 2 g's
with the only damage being to his ego. The monocoque fuselage will buckle
first. Search the web and you'll come across some pictures of a B-767 in the
Dominican Republic 2 years ago exhibiting such damage.

D.

[The Visitor]

That's never wise with low engines. The book may even have a minimum
forward speed for reversers.

Ramapriya wrote:
> jfp wrote:
>
>
>>also if you pass the terminal exit point i believe it would be a push back, (very expensive) as no more exit points exist
>
>
> Notwithstanding that any jet can go backwards with the use of the
> reversers, why a push-back beyond the exit point - isn't the apron
> there wide enough to accommodate a 180-degree turn?
>
> Ramapriya
>

[[email protected]]

im curious as to the claim of difficuly as well. At my carrier we only
go as low as CAT II, and the only differences between that and a CAT I
for us is a QRH monitored approach checklist and briefing, making sure
the CAT II annunciator comes up and turns green, watching the needles
and looking for lights. I'd imagine autoland w/ autothrottles (neither
of which we have) to be less work, as you no longer have to find lights
and land the airplane. More stressful sure, but i wouldnt equate that
to more difficult. Granted, i fly a certain RJ made in brazil and not
a boeing (only been up front as a jumpseater) so perhaps my perspective
is off.

[Jack]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Jack wrote:

>>The 757 autolands itself smoothly as consistently as the average pilot.
>>It comes to a stop quickly or not, depending on the Autobrakes setting
>>chosen by the crew. Is the 777 so different?
>
> I guess I wouldn't consider an autoland in that series "smooth" and
> would challenge you to find a pilot who claims he is not smooher than
> the autoland system.

Of course they don't measure up to MY landings. The best autoland I ever
saw was not equal to my best, but the average of the autolands I have
had were equal to the AVERAGE F/O's landings. Do you like it better that
way?


> I would describe a 767 autoland as a "thunk" and
> certainly not a greaser.

See, that's the silly thing about having a dual type rating. I have no
idea about the 767, despite the fact I have the type rating. And there
is always the possibility that neither of us have enough experience with
autolands, in either the 757 or the 767 to know the full range of
possibilities, let alone in the 777 which is the subject of this thread.
Of the ones I have had in the 757, some were amazing, and a few not so
impressive, but none of them should have caused any pax concern.


> I'm not sure I understand your
> statement about the autobrakes.

As I said, I can only talk about my experiences with the 757, never
having been in the 777 -- that's why I asked for specifics on 777 ops,
if you have any. Your idea of "coming to a stop quickly" may be
different from mine, but a range of available autobraking effects is
standard on all three I would bet, and the lower ranges which I normally
used certainly did not produce, nor were they meant to produce, what
could be called a quick stop -- though the higher settings will do the
quick stop trick VERY well.

When you use the term "series", do you mean that the 757/767 systems for
autoland and autobraking are similar enough to the 777's to be operated
by a pilot typed in the 757/767 with minimal retraining?


>>Psychologically, maybe, and naturally systems knowledge and proficiency
>>is necessary, but your claim of "difficulty" needs more context. What
>>could be easier than watching it happen, in a physical sense?
>
> You don't push a button and watch it happen.

Not ONE button, and one doesn't watch casually, but one isn't actually
manipulating the aerodynamic controls. One does a bit of switchology,
watches closely while the computers do their thing, stays ready to
intervene if necessary, and disconnects all of it when it is time to
turn off of the runway onto the taxiway. Or perhaps you meant you had
your eyes closed? The effect is about the same during a Cat III approach
with eyes open or shut -- except for those annoying center-line lights.
And, the tracking is just accurate enough to run one of the nosewheels
over almost every one of those lights during the roll-out.


> It takes training to understand how to use the autoland system.

A revelation for which I'm sure we are most thankful, Robert. Where was
it again that you said you flew the 757, 767, and/or 777?


Jack

[John Gaquin]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message

>...In case anyone has any fantacies of
> being able to land a 777 by pushing an 'autoland button', an 'auto
> land' is actually much more difficult than just hand flying.

I don't know if I'd say more difficult, just different. I was Cat IIIa
qualified in the 727. It was a question of procedure and monitoring.

[Rick]

Morgans wrote in message ...
>
>"Bob Moore" > wrote
>
>> As a matter of fact, all jet transports are designed for touchdown
>> at a 600 fpm sink rate at maximum landing weight
>
>Boy, that would be an.....arrival! <g>

I think I came into Midway like that once. The head flight attendant made
the announcement: "Ladies and Gentlemen, that was not the Pilot's
fault...that was not the Co-pilot's fault...that was the asphalt!" This was
followed up with a horse whinnying sound. Quickest stop I ever experienced.
I thought the plane was going to break up, it was shaking so hard.

- Rick

[Ron Natalie]

jfp wrote:
> Hi a recent landing at Antigua in a 777 was very hard, and the pilot applied
> the brakes really heavily, probaly in my assumption, because of the short
> runway and a slight overshoot of touch down point, also if you pass the
> terminal exit point i believe it would be a push back, (very expensive) as
> no more exit points exist, my point is does a very heavy landing strain the
> 777 aircraft unduly especially the undercarriage regards Frank
>
>
If you can find a copy of the TV documentary 21st Century Jet on the
building and certification of the 777, you'll see that it's designed
to take much more severe braking than what you witnessed.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Amarillo. Please remain in your seats
with your seatbelts fastened while the Captain taxis what's left of our
airplane to the gate!"

[Robert M. Gary]

I think the point is that a pax can't expect to jump up into the
cockpit, push the "autoland" button and land the plane as was wildly
speculated after 9/11.
I don't recall saying I'd flow the 7 series. After college I worked for
an embedded systems firm writing software for the aerospace industry,
including some autopilot systems. I think I still have some of the
system specifications. At least at the time, there was no provision in
the software to smooth out a flare by taking advantage of longer
runways. Every landing was basically a short field landing. There was a
small range in the TDZ in which the wheels were required to touch. It
was obvious to the posterior that the pilots flare differently than the
software, mostly because the pilots didn't seem concerned about
floating past the narrow TDZ parameters the auto system had
established.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Ron,
I watched the same. As I recall, the heavy braking test also resulted
in some wheel fires.

-Robert

[Chris Curtis]

"Jack" > wrote in message
. net...
>>>The 757 autolands itself smoothly as consistently as the average pilot.
>>>It comes to a stop quickly or not, depending on the Autobrakes setting
>>>chosen by the crew. Is the 777 so different?
>>
> Not ONE button, and one doesn't watch casually, but one isn't actually
> manipulating the aerodynamic controls. One does a bit of switchology,
> watches closely while the computers do their thing, stays ready to
> intervene if necessary, and disconnects all of it when it is time to turn
> off of the runway onto the taxiway. Or perhaps you meant you had your eyes
> closed? The effect is about the same during a Cat III approach with eyes
> open or shut -- except for those annoying center-line lights. And, the
> tracking is just accurate enough to run one of the nosewheels over almost
> every one of those lights during the roll-out.

I recall a tv program on the BBC showing from the flightdeck an American 777
performing an autoland at Heathrow.
The landing was smooth as silk and yes you could hear the sound of the nose
wheel running over the lights!

Chris

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 at 09:29:40 in message
om>, Robert M. Gary
> wrote:
>Sounds like an 'autoland'. In the U.S. pilots are required to perform a
>certain number of 'autolands' in order to remain current and be able to
>land in conditions less than standard ILS CAT I minimums (i.e. landing
>in fog). The plane is not designed to autoland itself smoothly, it is
>designed to touch down within a specific spot on the runway and come to
>a complete stop quickly. The software programmers were not very
>interested in being smooth. BTW: In case anyone has any fantacies of
>being able to land a 777 by pushing an 'autoland button', an 'auto
>land' is actually much more difficult than just hand flying.

I have been in an aircraft where after landing the pilot announced that
it had been a fully automatic landing. It was a smooth as you get - I
have felt much harder manual landings.

From my, admittedly limited, knowledge I would not agree that an
automatic landing is difficult. As long as the approach is properly set
up and nothing goes wrong there is nothing to do except _perhaps_ retard
the throttles and apply reverse thrust. Aircraft with modern systems
apply and remove any crab automatically and lower one wing slightly for
cross winds. They also do quite a nice positive flare.
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 at 14:30:45 in message
>, Darkwing
> wrote:
>
>"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> BTW: In case anyone has any fantacies of
>>> being able to land a 777 by pushing an 'autoland button', an 'auto
>>> land' is actually much more difficult than just hand flying.
>>
>> So, how =do= you do an autoland?
>>
Quickly:
Arm the spoilers
Set the auto brake as desired
Check the PFD shows the correct ILS frequency and ident.
Select 'approach' when flying to intercept the localiser
Check that all three ( for a 747-400) autopilots have engaged
Check that Localiser and Glide slope are armed.

Get the flaps and speed correct using autothrust.
Monitor the engagement of Localiser and Glide slope
Monitor the approach.

That's pretty much it.
[Snip]
>
>Yes and can it be preformed on MS FS9?
>
Yes especially using the new PMDG 747-400 Queen of the skies. All the
actions above (and more) work. This is very comprehensive model of the
747-400.
--
David CL Francis

[Dave Doe]

In article >, no.spam.1E242
@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 at 14:30:45 in message
> >, Darkwing
> > wrote:
> >
> >"Jose" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>> BTW: In case anyone has any fantacies of
> >>> being able to land a 777 by pushing an 'autoland button', an 'auto
> >>> land' is actually much more difficult than just hand flying.
> >>
> >> So, how =do= you do an autoland?
> >>
> Quickly:
> Arm the spoilers
> Set the auto brake as desired
> Check the PFD shows the correct ILS frequency and ident.
> Select 'approach' when flying to intercept the localiser
> Check that all three ( for a 747-400) autopilots have engaged
> Check that Localiser and Glide slope are armed.
>
> Get the flaps and speed correct using autothrust.
> Monitor the engagement of Localiser and Glide slope
> Monitor the approach.
>
> That's pretty much it.
> [Snip]

David, is it true that all widebody a/c are autolanded (in gen)?

--
Duncan

[David CL Francis]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 at 12:39:26 in message
>, Dave Doe
> wrote:

>David, is it true that all widebody a/c are autolanded (in gen)?

I am not in a position to know that. All I can say is that I was on an
A320 flight into Gatwick where the Captain announced that the aircraft
had just completed an automatic landing.

I was also once lucky enough to be present on the flight deck of a
747-400 as it flew into Kennedy. That was definitely a manual landing! A
good one too and visibility was great.

My guess is that it is likely that pilots carry out their mandatory
occasional auto-lands but probably make manual landings more often. I
believe there are still a number of airports in use which do not have
auto-land capability. I doubt that auto-land can be set up for in
Madeira as from one direction the aircraft is not aligned with the
runway until about half a mile to the threshold. (At least that used to
be the case!)

For the up to date information we need a current Captain!
--
David CL Francis