Heavy landing 777

"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

"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.

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

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.

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

"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.

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

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.

"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!"

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