5 ms·

> There was no indication in the recorded data that speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed. I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal? Doesn't

by bradly 6d ago

> There was no indication in the recorded data that speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed. I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal? Doesn't sound like it, but I don't know why the pilots would not have used these things that sound useful.

Onavo 6d ago
Depending on the plane they need the wheels to have sufficient weight on them first. Also strangely the flaps 30 and flaps 40 call outs do not match.
- buildsjets 6d ago
  The Boeing 767 does not have a Flaps 40 setting. The "Forty" callout was an automated annunciation of the radar-altimeter measured altitude above the runway.
ofcrpls 6d ago
The lack of contact of the left wheels on the ground, which the Weight of Wheel sensor deployment depends on, as in both wheels being grounded, which the auto-speed brakes/thrust reversers depend on, worsened the whole situation as the crew seems to be unaware why they weren't losing speed after they'd 'landed'. Every single thing they could do wrong at, they did.
- bronson 6d ago
  After applying the brakes for 8 seconds, they then went to full throttle to try get back in the air for four more seconds. That's bonkers.
- Polizeiposaune 6d ago
  > Every single thing they could do wrong at, they did. There are just too many ways to screw up for that ever to be the case. For instance, they could also have been lined up to land on something other than the runway they were cleared to land on -- see Air Canada Flight 759, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759, which came within 14 feet of colliding with an aircraft on the taxiway they mistook for the runway..
- mrguyorama 5d ago
  I would expect, that if they tried to deploy thrust reversers, that event would have been included in this summary. If such an assumption is safe, then the implication is that they didn't even try to deploy reverse thrust which is insane. Similarly, it isn't specified anywhere, but it took TEN FULL SECONDS of contact with the runway between first wheel down and last wheel down. Why didn't spoilers deploy and bring down the third wheel way faster than that? Do spoilers require all three wheels already down? Why, this is exactly what they are for! There was also 7 seconds between first wheel touchdown and first application of brakes. That would seem to mean they were confused and autobrakes didn't function, but then the third wheel comes down, which should have let autobrakes and thrust reversers deploy, yet the aircraft only lost 14 knots in the 4 seconds between that event and the throttles being moved to go around. That is consistent with only the existing braking effort, which expended a similar speed in the previous 4 seconds. Brake performance may have been reduced by a slick runway maybe. 15 full seconds between first wheel touchdown and an actual decision to go around being executed. 3000 feet is a rather significant portion of any runway.
addaon 6d ago
Take this with all the salt that random third-party guesses about a still-in-investigation event should be taken with -- think fully salt-cured ham -- but it looks like the landing was with a quartering tail wind, and the upwind (left) gear never really got weight on it; the wheel bogie needs to be straightened by weight against both the front and back wheels to register weight-on-wheel, and the auto-brake systems need positive weight-on-wheels from at least one redundant sensor on each of the three gear to engage. Came down hot, and basically skimmed with one wheel partially off the ground for some, most, or all of the way down the runway, preventing the braking systems from kicking in.
- lokar 6d ago
  AIUI, they should never have gotten that far. They should have gone around at 1000 feet.
  - deleted 6d ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 6d ago
    > They should have gone around at 1000 feet They hit the ground at 158 knots. 767-300ER rotates at 130 to 160 knots. Given it had burned through its fuel, at the moment they touched down they could have immediately taken back off and gone around. Given the pilots braked at 146 kts, released at 120 kts to throttle up for G-A, then four seconds later ditched the G-A and re-applied brakes, this sounds like they got stuck between going around and committing to the landing and never quite did either.
    - loeg 6d ago
      They were in a bad situation long before they touched the ground and should have gone around even earlier.
      - JumpCrisscross 6d ago
        Totally agree. I'm pointing out that they had multiple moments after their mistakes to correct course, possibly down to the point when one of the pilots annunciates G-A (00:15, which is–agreed–late for that to come up for the first time).
deleted 6d ago
[deleted]
bentcorner 6d ago
Someone who flew this exact airframe wrote that this plane "likes to float when empty, so if you’re not firm with putting it down, especially with those winds, it’ll just keep floating in ground effect." https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1w9jsrb/put_together_a_quick_visualization_of_the_21_air/p8c4a65/ https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1w9jsrb/put_toget... I'm not a pilot but from my understanding there's a lot of failsafes to ensure things that slow the plane down only trigger when the plane is actually on the ground. Considering that the left gear touched down at 0:19 and pilot called for TOGA at 0:15 they didn't stand a chance.
- drillsteps5 6d ago
  The prevailing opinion on PPRuNe is that the approach was totally botched from many miles out and the touchdown should never have been attempted (many participants there are professional pilots). There might have been a gust of wing as they were about to touch down, but they were also way too fast and lowered the flaps very late, literally as they crossed the runway threshold, causing extra float due to ground effect. The pilot flying appears to have been dead set on landing on the first try no matter the cost and the first officer did not intervene as he should have. They got incredibly lucky and both survived, however likely will never be behind the controls ever again.
outworlder 6d ago
> I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal? Not deploying thrust reversers is normal, not all situations require them. But brakes are terrible when the wings are still flying, so spoilers (if armed as they should) automatically deploy when all wheel sensors report the aircraft is on the ground, so that there will be more weight on the wheels and the brakes can work properly.

by bradly 6d ago

Onavo 6d ago

Depending on the plane they need the wheels to have sufficient weight on them first. Also strangely the flaps 30 and flaps 40 call outs do not match.

buildsjets 6d ago
The Boeing 767 does not have a Flaps 40 setting. The "Forty" callout was an automated annunciation of the radar-altimeter measured altitude above the runway.

ofcrpls 6d ago

The lack of contact of the left wheels on the ground, which the Weight of Wheel sensor deployment depends on, as in both wheels being grounded, which the auto-speed brakes/thrust reversers depend on, worsened the whole situation as the crew seems to be unaware why they weren't losing speed after they'd 'landed'. Every single thing they could do wrong at, they did.

bronson 6d ago
After applying the brakes for 8 seconds, they then went to full throttle to try get back in the air for four more seconds. That's bonkers.
Polizeiposaune 6d ago
> Every single thing they could do wrong at, they did. There are just too many ways to screw up for that ever to be the case. For instance, they could also have been lined up to land on something other than the runway they were cleared to land on -- see Air Canada Flight 759, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759, which came within 14 feet of colliding with an aircraft on the taxiway they mistook for the runway..
mrguyorama 5d ago
I would expect, that if they tried to deploy thrust reversers, that event would have been included in this summary. If such an assumption is safe, then the implication is that they didn't even try to deploy reverse thrust which is insane. Similarly, it isn't specified anywhere, but it took TEN FULL SECONDS of contact with the runway between first wheel down and last wheel down. Why didn't spoilers deploy and bring down the third wheel way faster than that? Do spoilers require all three wheels already down? Why, this is exactly what they are for! There was also 7 seconds between first wheel touchdown and first application of brakes. That would seem to mean they were confused and autobrakes didn't function, but then the third wheel comes down, which should have let autobrakes and thrust reversers deploy, yet the aircraft only lost 14 knots in the 4 seconds between that event and the throttles being moved to go around. That is consistent with only the existing braking effort, which expended a similar speed in the previous 4 seconds. Brake performance may have been reduced by a slick runway maybe. 15 full seconds between first wheel touchdown and an actual decision to go around being executed. 3000 feet is a rather significant portion of any runway.

addaon 6d ago

Take this with all the salt that random third-party guesses about a still-in-investigation event should be taken with -- think fully salt-cured ham -- but it looks like the landing was with a quartering tail wind, and the upwind (left) gear never really got weight on it; the wheel bogie needs to be straightened by weight against both the front and back wheels to register weight-on-wheel, and the auto-brake systems need positive weight-on-wheels from at least one redundant sensor on each of the three gear to engage. Came down hot, and basically skimmed with one wheel partially off the ground for some, most, or all of the way down the runway, preventing the braking systems from kicking in.

lokar 6d ago
AIUI, they should never have gotten that far. They should have gone around at 1000 feet.
- deleted 6d ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 6d ago
  > They should have gone around at 1000 feet They hit the ground at 158 knots. 767-300ER rotates at 130 to 160 knots. Given it had burned through its fuel, at the moment they touched down they could have immediately taken back off and gone around. Given the pilots braked at 146 kts, released at 120 kts to throttle up for G-A, then four seconds later ditched the G-A and re-applied brakes, this sounds like they got stuck between going around and committing to the landing and never quite did either.
  - loeg 6d ago
    They were in a bad situation long before they touched the ground and should have gone around even earlier.
    - JumpCrisscross 6d ago
      Totally agree. I'm pointing out that they had multiple moments after their mistakes to correct course, possibly down to the point when one of the pilots annunciates G-A (00:15, which is–agreed–late for that to come up for the first time).

deleted 6d ago

[deleted]

bentcorner 6d ago

Someone who flew this exact airframe wrote that this plane "likes to float when empty, so if you’re not firm with putting it down, especially with those winds, it’ll just keep floating in ground effect." https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1w9jsrb/put_together_a_quick_visualization_of_the_21_air/p8c4a65/ https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1w9jsrb/put_toget... I'm not a pilot but from my understanding there's a lot of failsafes to ensure things that slow the plane down only trigger when the plane is actually on the ground. Considering that the left gear touched down at 0:19 and pilot called for TOGA at 0:15 they didn't stand a chance.

drillsteps5 6d ago
The prevailing opinion on PPRuNe is that the approach was totally botched from many miles out and the touchdown should never have been attempted (many participants there are professional pilots). There might have been a gust of wing as they were about to touch down, but they were also way too fast and lowered the flaps very late, literally as they crossed the runway threshold, causing extra float due to ground effect. The pilot flying appears to have been dead set on landing on the first try no matter the cost and the first officer did not intervene as he should have. They got incredibly lucky and both survived, however likely will never be behind the controls ever again.

outworlder 6d ago

> I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal? Not deploying thrust reversers is normal, not all situations require them. But brakes are terrible when the wings are still flying, so spoilers (if armed as they should) automatically deploy when all wheel sensors report the aircraft is on the ground, so that there will be more weight on the wheels and the brakes can work properly.