Mr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22 Posted (12 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1233 times:
Saw the report and it says that the co-pilot was flying the plane for landing. The pilot wanted the go-around and pushed thrust to full, but when the wheels touch contacted the runway at 169 knots, he decided to reverse the decision and pulled the thrust to idle and he did not use the reverse thrust. He's actual landing speed should be at about 154 knots. The pilots just used the brakes and plus the wet conditions, so he overshot the runway.
Hmmm... do you guys think if he did not push the thrust... i think he could have landed savely even without reverse.
Dl727-200adv From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 150 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1094 times:
To me it seems pretty stupid of the QF pilots to fail to use reverse thrust in such adverse conditions. I know that apparently QF had instituted a policy to avoid using reverse thrust to save on engine maintenance costs. I guess the policy didn’t figure in the costs of over 100 million dollars in repairs to an airframe after an overrun. Unless QF had physically locked out the reversers if I was flying the aircraft & had doubts about stopping in time I’d say to hell with the no reverse thrust policy & use it anyway. Have any other airlines made it policy NOT to use reverse thrust as a rule other than when flying with reversers inop.? Has QF ditched this policy since the accident?
QANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1068 times:
QANTAS has absolutely demolished this policy as a result of this. It should be noted that it was not a rule to never use reverse thrust, but pilots were advised to use their discression when landing. Safety first, money second< I don't care what anyone else here believes, this is every airlines mantra.
Iainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
The reports says: "As with other B747-400 pilots, the crew had not been provided with appropriate procedures and training to properly evaluate the potential effect of the weather conditions,"
This seems that the company are to blame more then anyone.
Mr. BA in regards to the tower benig to blame, it is not their responsibility the decision to land is down to the pilot.
Meister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 973 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1039 times:
Of course it was the crew's fault. The pilot has the decision to land, and he was the one who made it. As for the reverse thrust issue, I think that it is VERY dumb on the pilot's part to not engage reverse thrust in a short-field(or landing too far down the rwy or too fast). In this aspect it is completely the pilot's fault. Miscommunication was a bad word. Maybe misjudgement would be better.
Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7815 posts, RR: 54 Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 944 times:
I don't think this info is quite correct - the copilot initiated the go-around but the captain took over and tried to stop. What a mess.
Koreanair had an identical crash with an A300-600R at Pusan, the captain was trying to land and the copilot was trying to go around. Power went up and back at least once and they wrote the aircraft off a few hundred feet past the end of the runway. No fatalities luckily.
A lot of airlines don't use reverse thrust, the last few 747s I've done (AI LHR-JFK-LHR and VS LHR-SFO-LHR) were notable for their lack of reverse thrust. Actually they select 'idle reverse' so it's there if they need it.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Wing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1552 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 889 times:
Use of reverse thrust is not really a"must" on landings.Landing and stopping distances for airplanes are computed without reversers used.Reverse is used to assist normal breaking.Especially in hot weather operations it helps you not to overheat the brakes and reduces the workload of the brakes.But without the reversers you can also stop.There are jet planes without reversers( foe ex:RJ70/100)
or at some European airports its not allowed to use the reverse after some evening hours due to noise.So not using the reverse thrust can not be the solely reason for overshooting.About the misjudgement on' go around or to stop' ;once the wheels are on the ground its not a good practice to go around because the speed brakes will deploy as it spins on the ground and you're not going anywhere with the speedbrakes deployed.I haven't heard anything about using reversers reduces the engine life and couldn't find anything regarding it on the Volume 2.On usage we don't use the reverse beyond 90
degrees(max reverse) unless you really need to.(company procedures may vary)And also revevser must be stowed back before 60 kts since its not effective anymore and can have foreign object damage.Reversers may cause skidding if operated un evenly on wet surfaces.Actually anytime you use the thrust uneven you may have trouble to keep the nose straight.Brakes are not supposed to skid because thats what anti-skid system is for.
QANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 853 times:
I personally think that this is great. I think the Bangkok "incident" has shown us all how safe consious australia really is. How often do you hear such a mountain out of a molehill made out of a crash in Korea?
Where a crash hardly raises an eyebrow and almost nothing is done about it.
I think if we continue to discuss this along with governments and CASA and the airlines, we can only improve.
Aloha 737-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 848 times:
I have to agree with Wing a little on this one. Reversers are not "necessary" for landing, but they sure to help. In the case of a need for a quick stop, reversers are very nice. If the QANTAS jet had used reversers I'm sure they would not have overrun the runway, even with the go-around/landing indecision.
The accident could easily have been fatal, though. It's lucky no one was hurt. Indecision in the cockpit is a very dangerous thing.
FSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 13 Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 832 times:
I remember on a flight from LAX to FRA on Lufthansa, the visibility was well under a mile. The pilots did an ILS onto the runway, but I remember that it was raining, and the airport was quite wet, and when we landed, the pilots put on max thrust reverse, and we were on thrust reverse longer than I have ever experienced; I still remember...it was spectacular. You could barely see out the window because of the low visibility, and we landed, possibly a little fast, and it took a while to stop, but I remember the engine spooling out mist and water from its engine during the thrust reverse, mist was flying out everywhere around the engine, and for a good while too. Then we took the last exit from the runway and taxied to our gate. BEST landing I have ever experienced, one I will never forget. I mean, no one made a big deal about it, to everyone else, it was just a normal landing, but from a window view, it was amazing.
But yeah, pretty dumb for the QF pilots not to use reverse thrust during wet conditions. It doesnt cause skidding by the way (as I read above), common sense tells you that it is braking that causes skidding, and eventually, hydro(aqua)planing. Oh yeah, and the captain shouldn't have took over the plane when the F/O already decided for the go-around, for safety's sake, he should have just went with it.
BJMEL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 834 times:
For your information, use of reverse thrust in the wet is not so much a problem with skidding but it is with maintaing directional control. Small difference I know but that's why a widespread guideline in airlines around the world is that use of reverst thrust in the wet *may* cause problems than it solves. Better to overrun a runway than flip off the side upside down.
Also remember that sometimes, depending on an airport's configuration, the aircraft will need to exit the runway at the far end. If aircraft are closely spaced on final, use of reverse thrust will not be necessary as there is no point in slowing to 60 kts halfway down the runway and taxiing slowly the next 3,000 feet whilst the following aircraft is on a 3 mile final!!!
Would also be interesting to see how many of you guys have actually read the report. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions but I believe the report fairly apportions cause to all areas - not just pilot error. Pilot error was certainly a major reason but it sure wasn't everything.
Wing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1552 posts, RR: 24 Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 815 times:
On each thrust lever there is a reverse thrust lever.These are independent for each engine.You are supposed to operate it evenly but it is possible not to have them at the same amount or in some cases not to have one of the reverser operating .So it is not something automatically goes same amount of thrust to avoid swerving when operating.