I divert when the fuel gets to the bottom line I've set. Just as on landing, my bottom line is the end of the touchdown zone. Or do you divert after you've already used some of your diversion fuel because hey ho, you've got some reserve fuel anyway?
There is no requirement under EU OPS to keep diversion fuel intact at the destination. The fuel I divert with is normally not what is on the flight plan, I will use the realistic flight path and approach to the diversion based upon the actual conditions and our actual weights. The airport that is on the flight plan may not be the airport I choose for a diversion based upon the information I have at the time, not when the flight plan was constructed maybe 20 hours before.
Ah, a feature. Why not use the end of the touchdown zone as your feature?
Because like EK, in our operation it is not compulsory to perform a go-around or rejected landing if touching down beyond the touchdown zone. Just because BA have that COMPANY POLICY, does not make it a worldwide standard. The EK policy per teh report "The policy of the Operator for aircraft touchdown was stated in OM-A ̶ Touchdown section. Pilots were required to land on the touchdown zone markings (TDZ) and touchdown should be at 1,000 ft, or 300 m, from the threshold if TDZ markings are not available. If touchdown cannot be accomplished within the desired touchdown zone, a go-around should be considered."
I don't really notice the fire station in my peripheral vision half down on the left hand side. You're right, the world isn't ideal, but a go-around buys you another go.
I notice where the actual touchdown point is, as well as the wind and other factors as that is often a point of discussion when training and checking. With the EK incident it is unlikely that another go would have had much different conditions, you always get those low level shear and thermals when the temperature is above 40 deg C.
Yep. You'd also brief the go-around and a rejected landing too, right?
Our procedures are to keep briefs relevant, concise and to the point, normal procedures are not briefed.
Every single one of them would say that if the main gear hadn't touched down by the end of the runway they'd go-around too.
That wasn't my question, my question was with the available runway they had in-front of them when they landed, would they land or go around.
from the report
"The evaluation showed that, to remain within the LDA (3,600 m) of runway 12L, an autobrake level of at least ‘3’, or application of maximum manual braking, with or without the use of reverse thrust, would have been required. If autobrake level ‘2’ was selected, additional application of manual brake would have the effect of reducing the stopping distance to stay within the LDA. For UAE521 flight, of the four selectable autobrake levels, the flight crew had selected level ‘3’ for the landing. "
I bet the guys in the AF A340 that landed half way down the runway in Toronto thought they'd stop too.
Our procedures involve doing a landing distance assessment before landing, that assessment would have shown it was a performance limited runway with the prevailing conditions. It would have been a captains landing, with the objective of landing exactly on the touchdown point firmly on the wet runway. Wet runways or a tailwind our procedures is to always use maximum reverse unless the landing distance assessment shows that a landing can be achieved with a medium-poor condition.
It's in the 777 FCOM. Normal Procedures > Amplified Procedures > Rejected Landing Procedure. It's pretty common sense stuff: increase thrust and rotate at Vref, then when airborne the usual TO/GA, go-around flap 20 procedure.
Its in the BA FCOM, it was not in the EK FCOM at the time of the incident.
from the report
"The training manuals used by the flight crew, FCTM, FCOM and the Operator’s B777 training manual, did not contain information that the A/T will not advance the thrust levers to increase engine thrust if the TO/GA switches are pushed before touchdown and the aircraft is below 2 ft radio altitude for more than 3 seconds. Similarly, the training manuals do not mention that the A/T go-around mode becomes available when the aircraft radio altitude increases above 2 ft. The FCOM did not contain procedures for a go-around initiated after touchdown. The FCTM contained a section entitled Go-Around after Touchdown, but the procedure in this section did not differentiate between go-arounds initiated before and after touchdown.
The FCTM stated:
“If a go-around is initiated before touchdown and touchdown occurs, continue with normal go-around procedures. The F/D [flight director] go-around mode will continue to provide go-around guidance commands throughout the maneuver. If a go-around is initiated after touchdown but before thrust reverser selection, continue with normal go-around procedures. As thrust levers are advanced auto speedbrakes retract and autobrakes disarm. The F/D go-around mode will not be available until go-around is selected after becoming airborne.”
For a rejected landing maneuver, the FCTM – Rejected Landing, states:
“A rejected landing maneuver is trained and evaluated by some operators and regulatory agencies. Although the FCOM/QRH does not contain a procedure or maneuver titled Rejected Landing, the requirements of this maneuver can be accomplished by doing the Go-Around Procedure if it is initiated before touchdown. Refer to Chapter 5, Go-Around after Touchdown, for more information on this subject.”
Can you tell me which flights resulted in a runway excursion when they landed after a stable approach from 1,000ft to touchdown and they touched down within the touchdown zone when their inflight landing calculation determined their required stop distance was less than LDA?
Have a look though this list, you ill find many https://aviation-safety.net/database/ev ... ?Event=REO
The Southwest overrun in Midway assumed a smaller tailwind component and more rapid deployment of reverse thrust, which makes a much bigger difference on a contaminated runway. After all, you wouldn't run takeoff performance for a dry runway when it was covered in 3mm of slush, would you?
I base my decisions upon the best available information at the time.
A safe landing policy has two components: first, a stable approach all the way to touchdown within the touchdown zone and second, an accurate in-flight landing distance calculation that indicates an adequete stop distance within the LDA.
That is the BA policy, that is not a certification or regulatory requirement.
If you land beyond the touchdown zone then your IFLD calculation is invalid.
That is not true. IFLD is a performance calculation based on the weight, CG, MEL/CDL, environment etc at the time touching down 7 seconds or 1500 ft, not at 3000 ft. The result will be the amount of runway required to stop, it will also provide the margin available. You can still land within the touchdown zone and not have enough runway (eg if you only had 200 ft of margin), and you can safely stop if you have a margin of 3500 ft.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949