Heavy landing 777

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

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

"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

"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.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 at 09:29:40 in message
. com, 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

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

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

"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

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

"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!"