Don't know if this was posted before. But here is a what unusual landing of a 777 of Kuwait Airways this weekend at Schiphol. If you ask me i think it is a go around but due to not enough lift they eventually land again, luckily. Any thoughts?

https://youtu.be/7GpY8HCVlEs

https://youtu.be/dWJwnIxiAyc

Wow! I don’t see any go around attempt. Seems like they got slow, then over corrected, ballooned, got slow again and then thumped her in. Whoever was pilot monitoring might need some new underwear, oooof!

Looks like he held it off & then stalled onto the runway from about 10ft

Lovely day ! Not exactly by the book and they were keen to get off the runway as well. Weather obviously played apart in that landing.

DH106 wrote:

Looks like he held it off & then stalled onto the runway from about 10ft

I hate that feeling. Been there a couple of times in a 172 and a SR22. Can't imagine it in a 772.

EVAAIRBR076 wrote:

Don't know if this was posted before. But here is a what unusual landing of a 777 of Kuwait Airways this weekend at Schiphol. If you ask me i think it is a go around but due to not enough lift they eventually land again, luckily. Any thoughts?

https://youtu.be/7GpY8HCVlEs

https://youtu.be/dWJwnIxiAyc

I didn't see any attempt at a go-around. IMHO, the flying pilot flared and then held it off, but when the aircraft didn't touch down, (so) it got slow and power was added with the engines starting to spool back up just as the airplane touched down. This is not a good landing, but it is something that happens every day.

My guess is they flared a little high and had a little gust of wind.

SuseJ772 wrote:

DH106 wrote:

Looks like he held it off & then stalled onto the runway from about 10ft

I hate that feeling. Been there a couple of times in a 172 and a SR22. Can't imagine it in a 772.

I have had a couple of such landings in 172 too. Starting the flare too soon....

Landing in rain can change your perception. The odd thing that’s apparent from the first video is that the initial flare is correct then the aircraft starts gaining a few feet, with the rain approaching I wouldn’t be surprised if a gust of sorts messed up their day. The correct thing in HINDSIGHT would be to go-around. But hey I’ve been in hairy situations too where I concluded afterwards that a different handling would have been preferable. As said above, not a good landing but happens every day.

SuseJ772 wrote:

DH106 wrote:

Looks like he held it off & then stalled onto the runway from about 10ft

I hate that feeling. Been there a couple of times in a 172 and a SR22. Can't imagine it in a 772.

... or a 77W...

Flared too high, floated, bit too generous with unloading it and wallop. I guarantee the handling pilot was new on type. Messy but it happens. I would argue the greater sin is the speed at which they take the taxiway turn off, that looks nuts.

Interesting,

And brings new meaning to ‘high speed turnoff’

Should have been a go-around......bad crosswind technique.......bad decision to save it. I bet money that plane touchdown well outside the touchdown zone.

The crew is luckily this ended without bent metal.

EVAAIRBR076 wrote:

Don't know if this was posted before. But here is a what unusual landing of a 777 of Kuwait Airways this weekend at Schiphol. If you ask me i think it is a go around but due to not enough lift they eventually land again, luckily. Any thoughts?

https://youtu.be/7GpY8HCVlEs

https://youtu.be/dWJwnIxiAyc

A bit overly dramatic commentary on the 2nd video!

DH106 wrote:

Looks like he held it off & then stalled onto the runway from about 10ft

Was it a stall or the computer pushing the nose down so there wasn't a tail strike.

He/She didn't flare high, they over flared. The aircraft gained a few feet again and then just kept pulling the nose up to avoid slamming into the ground, which they actually did as the plane stalled onto the runway. Low visibility creates a lot of illusions.

United1 wrote:

DH106 wrote:

Looks like he held it off & then stalled onto the runway from about 10ft

Was it a stall or the computer pushing the nose down so there wasn't a tail strike.

Im guessing the person in the LHS pushed the control column forward a little.

If I was onboard, I'd be more freaked out by the Fast & Furious 10: Schiphol Drift stuff that they did when vacating the runway than the actual landing. Or was it just an optical illusion?

If you watch the video carefully you can tell the moment they click off the automation (had to have been set to either coupled autoland or was in approach mode with IAS) - to the trained eye, you can also tell that the airplane is very light - a light 777 is always a bit tricky to get in the touchdown zone on speed on a gusty day.

I may be wrong, but doesn't that look like a CATIII landing?

Redd wrote:

I may be wrong, but doesn't that look like a CATIII landing?

absolutely not. In CAT III you wouldn't be able to make movies of landings. Guess about OVC004 or so - easily CAT I

DH106 wrote:

Looks like he held it off & then stalled onto the runway from about 10ft

Didn't stall, at all. Lift dropped with dropping speed and AOA, thats when the plane drops the last couple of feet to the runway.

No pretty landing and a text book example for a balked landing procedure (rather than go around), but by far not as dramatic as many imply here...

I wonder if weight had a part in it; KAC 777s aren't operated with high loads at the best of times; a light aircraft in very strong winds might be a bit of a handful. They certainly made heavy weather of it (to use an Irish expression - probably not the best one in the circumstances!) ... lucky they got down safely. Wonder if they'll need a heavy landing check!

Redd wrote:

I may be wrong, but doesn't that look like a CATIII landing?

NO the AP would not be engaged for this landing. The X-Winds are WAY outside the limits of an autoland.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Redd wrote:

I may be wrong, but doesn't that look like a CATIII landing?

NO the AP would not be engaged for this landing. The X-Winds are WAY outside the limits of an autoland.

And then again, CAT III and autopilot have no inherent connection. CAT III may be flown as autoland, or manually with vision enhancing devices like HUDs.

Nicoeddf wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Redd wrote:

I may be wrong, but doesn't that look like a CATIII landing?

NO the AP would not be engaged for this landing. The X-Winds are WAY outside the limits of an autoland.

And then again, CAT III and autopilot have no inherent connection. CAT III may be flown as autoland, or manually with vision enhancing devices like HUDs.

Assuming you have the authorization to do so.

For example United 787 have HUDs yet we are not authorized to hand fly anything below CAT 1 mins.

Is there a 777 out there that has a HUD....the X probably does.....but I gurantee that Kuwait 777 doesn’t.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

NO the AP would not be engaged for this landing. The X-Winds are WAY outside the limits of an autoland.

And then again, CAT III and autopilot have no inherent connection. CAT III may be flown as autoland, or manually with vision enhancing devices like HUDs.

Assuming you have the authorization to do so.

For example United 787 have HUDs yet we are not authorized to hand fly anything below CAT 1 mins.

Is there a 777 out there that has a HUD....the X probably does.....but I gurantee that Kuwait 777 doesn’t.

I don’t know. Haven’t been digging into the possible configurations of the 777. Just pointing out for posters who aren’t deep in topic, that CAT III and autopilot are not necessarily connected.

[quote="A bit overly dramatic commentary on the 2nd video![/quote]

I agree. Anyone out there shooting a video in that weather is a true enthusiast and some enthusiasts get a bit overenthusiastic

Let’s put the “stall” idea to bed. Stall speed on a 777 fully flapped is around 100 knots. They’re playing fast and loose with energy and AOA, sure. Stalled, no way.

cedarjet wrote:

Let’s put the “stall” idea to bed. Stall speed on a 777 fully flapped is around 100 knots. They’re playing fast and loose with energy and AOA, sure. Stalled, no way.

Aircraft stall at an AOA, not airspeed.

For the less informed, would this be subject to a investigation due to this video being published on the internet? Maybe investigation is a strong word, but at least an internal review?

It does seem like they stalled onto the runway after over egging the flare, to a point you could mistake it for a go around attempt.

flight152 wrote:

cedarjet wrote:

Let’s put the “stall” idea to bed. Stall speed on a 777 fully flapped is around 100 knots. They’re playing fast and loose with energy and AOA, sure. Stalled, no way.

Aircraft stall at an AOA, not airspeed.

And still, cedarjets explanation was much more helpful and close to reality than your comment.

It's not as bad as some say.
They were in heavy rain and crosswind at the flare, de-crabbed and started floating (ground effect), added a bit of power and stick into the wind and then a firm or "positive" touchdown as recommended on contaminated runways.
I don't think that you need a check for this kind of landing, it's well within the limits.
When you de-crab, the aircraft can behave unpredictably and start floating plus you start drifting off the centerline and the crosswind is trying to blow your upwind wing up; if you don't add enough stick into the wind. If you add too much, the aircraft starts banking.
The LH A320 that scraped the wing a while ago shows the tendency to float when getting out of crab and how the wind can blow your upwind wing into a roll.

A good save IMO.
There were thunderstorms in AMS this weekend, I landed there too as a passenger and it was pretty bad.

It's easy to criticise in the comfort of the armchair but to me that looks like a seasoned pilot doing what it takes to bring it home. Yes, the aircraft is all over the place but sometimes it's like having a wild dog on a leash and you need to tame it. Don't forget that wer're talking about a big plane that at the slightest hitch could have a main boggie in the grass and it's not exactly an Extra 300, you have lag between inputs and reactions. Look at the wipers scraping the hell out of the windshield and the aileron (inboard starboard by engine 2 is most visible) and elevator action.

SEU wrote:

For the less informed, would this be subject to a investigation due to this video being published on the internet? Maybe investigation is a strong word, but at least an internal review?

It does seem like they stalled onto the runway after over egging the flare, to a point you could mistake it for a go around attempt.

No there is nothing to investigate. It was a horrible landing and I would say a bad decision to not go around once they started to float but other than that live to fight another day.

Nicoeddf wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

And then again, CAT III and autopilot have no inherent connection. CAT III may be flown as autoland, or manually with vision enhancing devices like HUDs.

Assuming you have the authorization to do so.

For example United 787 have HUDs yet we are not authorized to hand fly anything below CAT 1 mins.

Is there a 777 out there that has a HUD....the X probably does.....but I gurantee that Kuwait 777 doesn’t.

I don’t know. Haven’t been digging into the possible configurations of the 777. Just pointing out for posters who aren’t deep in topic, that CAT III and autopilot are not necessarily connected.

14 years and 4 CAT III capable aircraft types and never have I even heard this in EASA land.

airbuster wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Assuming you have the authorization to do so.

For example United 787 have HUDs yet we are not authorized to hand fly anything below CAT 1 mins.

Is there a 777 out there that has a HUD....the X probably does.....but I gurantee that Kuwait 777 doesn’t.

I don’t know. Haven’t been digging into the possible configurations of the 777. Just pointing out for posters who aren’t deep in topic, that CAT III and autopilot are not necessarily connected.

14 years and 4 CAT III capable aircraft types and never have I even heard this in EASA land.

I think SW has approval for hand flown CAT 111 using HUD ?

Looking at that video again the PF did a nice job decrabbing he just overflared a bit and started floating


A go around was probably the best idea.


Saving things at that point when you’re not really close to touchdown is a bit tricky, you need it to come down but pushing the nose over too much will create a high rate of descent, possibly bend something and / or even touch down nosewheel first


So maintaining pitch attitude and adding power to cushion the touchdown is your best plan, it looks like he started to get slower and slower which increased the risk of a tail strike


And I think one of the pilots was well aware of that and made a very positive forward elevator input which immediately put them on the ground quite firmly


The wet runway will have helped that to not feel quite so hard, I doubt any damage was done


There’s also the possibility the 777’s electronic tail strike protection proved that input ?



If anyone can provide an educated opinion on that I’d be curious


Still the most amazing thing to me from this video is the speed at which he turned off, even on a dry runway that’s asking for trouble but on a wet one it’s quite impressive he didn’t end up in the weeds

Amazes me how much abuse landing can absorb. Love watching those videos.

airbuster wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Assuming you have the authorization to do so.

For example United 787 have HUDs yet we are not authorized to hand fly anything below CAT 1 mins.

Is there a 777 out there that has a HUD....the X probably does.....but I gurantee that Kuwait 777 doesn’t.

I don’t know. Haven’t been digging into the possible configurations of the 777. Just pointing out for posters who aren’t deep in topic, that CAT III and autopilot are not necessarily connected.

14 years and 4 CAT III capable aircraft types and never have I even heard this in EASA land.

At my company we fly CATIIIB manually with the use of the HUD. Even single engine, only a RVR increase in that case to 125 m in mid point iso 75 m. No big deal otherwise, been doing it for many years. (737NG/EASA/CAROPS)

airbuster wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Assuming you have the authorization to do so.

For example United 787 have HUDs yet we are not authorized to hand fly anything below CAT 1 mins.

Is there a 777 out there that has a HUD....the X probably does.....but I gurantee that Kuwait 777 doesn’t.

I don’t know. Haven’t been digging into the possible configurations of the 777. Just pointing out for posters who aren’t deep in topic, that CAT III and autopilot are not necessarily connected.

14 years and 4 CAT III capable aircraft types and never have I even heard this in EASA land.

So then this thread increased your knowledge and horizon of the multiple facets of aviation again. Isn’t this beautiful?

Avgeek21 wrote:

airbuster wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

I don’t know. Haven’t been digging into the possible configurations of the 777. Just pointing out for posters who aren’t deep in topic, that CAT III and autopilot are not necessarily connected.

14 years and 4 CAT III capable aircraft types and never have I even heard this in EASA land.

At my company we fly CATIIIB manually with the use of the HUD. Even single engine, only a RVR increase in that case to 125 m in mid point iso 75 m. No big deal otherwise, been doing it for many years. (737NG/EASA/CAROPS)

Same here. Just a different A/C type.

airbuster wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Assuming you have the authorization to do so.

For example United 787 have HUDs yet we are not authorized to hand fly anything below CAT 1 mins.

Is there a 777 out there that has a HUD....the X probably does.....but I gurantee that Kuwait 777 doesn’t.

I don’t know. Haven’t been digging into the possible configurations of the 777. Just pointing out for posters who aren’t deep in topic, that CAT III and autopilot are not necessarily connected.

14 years and 4 CAT III capable aircraft types and never have I even heard this in EASA land.

The SAAB 2000 is certified for CAT 3A approaches (manual landing) with the HUD

Nicoeddf wrote:

airbuster wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

I don’t know. Haven’t been digging into the possible configurations of the 777. Just pointing out for posters who aren’t deep in topic, that CAT III and autopilot are not necessarily connected.

14 years and 4 CAT III capable aircraft types and never have I even heard this in EASA land.

So then this thread increased your knowledge and horizon of the multiple facets of aviation again. Isn’t this beautiful?

There are times I’ve been completely sure about something and most certainly been wrong. In fact just recently..



There’s always someone out there that knows more than you, not about everything but everyone has different strengths, we all retain a certain level of knowledge but no one ‘knows all’ especially about other operators


Airline operators and their approved procedures can vary significantly worldwide even when using the same aircraft type, it’s really quite surprising how differently things can be done to achieve the same result

Max Q wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

airbuster wrote:

14 years and 4 CAT III capable aircraft types and never have I even heard this in EASA land.

So then this thread increased your knowledge and horizon of the multiple facets of aviation again. Isn’t this beautiful?

There are times I’ve been completely sure about something and most certainly been wrong. In fact just recently..



There’s always someone out there that knows more than you, not about everything but everyone has different strengths, we all retain a certain level of knowledge but no one ‘knows all’ especially about other operators


Airline operators and their approved procedures can vary significantly worldwide even when using the same aircraft type, it’s really quite surprising how differently things can be done to achieve the same result

I know and I fully agree. Hence are my words above no provocation, but simply a matter of fact.

Not much out of the ordinary. Long landing. Happens all the time on 18R. Because it is such a long (3800M) RWY, to
Avoid long rwy occupancy times lots of aircraft do sort of the same. I have seen 747s keeping their nose gear off the tarmac for a
Good kilometer. This also saves fuel otherwise needed for taxing down the very long rwy.
Nothing to see here folks, moving on.

Bavd wrote:

Not much out of the ordinary. Long landing. Happens all the time on 18R. Because it is such a long (3800M) RWY, to
Avoid long rwy occupancy times lots of aircraft do sort of the same. I have seen 747s keeping their nose gear off the tarmac for a
Good kilometer. This also saves fuel otherwise needed for taxing down the very long rwy.
Nothing to see here folks, moving on.

I'm hoping that is discouraged by the airline and regulator! At my company we MUST touchdown in the touchdown zone as per Flight Crew Operating Manual. My homebase runway is 4+km at a much busier airport where MROT is so much more important. And I've flown regularly to AMS as well. Just landing slightly beyond the touchdown zone and you will get an email or be called into the office. And to prevent problems it's adviced to file an Air Safety Report yourself within 72hrs of the event explaining the event. And not wait for the FDR to be downloaded and it being flagged up and you called into the office for tea without biscuits. Long landings are also a 'reportable occurance' to the regulator. Statistics will be communicated to the pilot community every quarter and provided in detail. And I fully agree with this. Safety and standards always take preference over efficiency.

Nicoeddf wrote:

airbuster wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

I don’t know. Haven’t been digging into the possible configurations of the 777. Just pointing out for posters who aren’t deep in topic, that CAT III and autopilot are not necessarily connected.

14 years and 4 CAT III capable aircraft types and never have I even heard this in EASA land.

So then this thread increased your knowledge and horizon of the multiple facets of aviation again. Isn’t this beautiful?

Yes thank you, thats why I come to this site. My words were not meant as a "closed case" statement but as stated, I honestly have never heard of this in Europe though I knew it was possible in the states. We did CATII manual without a HUD on the F70/100 at one point, so I get the feasability of CATIII manual with HUD.

airbuster wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

airbuster wrote:

14 years and 4 CAT III capable aircraft types and never have I even heard this in EASA land.

So then this thread increased your knowledge and horizon of the multiple facets of aviation again. Isn’t this beautiful?

Yes thank you, thats why I come to this site. My words were not meant as a "closed case" statement but as stated, I honestly have never heard of this in Europe though I knew it was possible in the states. We did CATII manual without a HUD on the F70/100 at one point, so I get the feasability of CATIII manual with HUD.

And I should have included a " "

CATII without HUD makes the AP mandatory at my outfit, while CATIII is strictly HUD without AP and flown only by the captain of the craft. Works smoothly, even single engine.

Bavd wrote:

Not much out of the ordinary. Long landing. Happens all the time on 18R. Because it is such a long (3800M) RWY, to
Avoid long rwy occupancy times lots of aircraft do sort of the same. I have seen 747s keeping their nose gear off the tarmac for a
Good kilometer. This also saves fuel otherwise needed for taxing down the very long rwy.
Nothing to see here folks, moving on.

Not much to see, true, but a missed opportunity to fly a balked landing in real life.

Apart from that: is this your professional opinion, as in you know what you are talking about with hard facts, re long landings specifically for 18R @AMS? Or the enthusiasts opinion of what you perceive is happening "regularly"?

Because...

avgeek21 wrote:

I'm hoping that is discouraged by the airline and regulator! At my company we MUST touchdown in the touchdown zone as per Flight Crew Operating Manual. My homebase runway is 4+km at a much busier airport where MROT is so much more important. And I've flown regularly to AMS as well. Just landing slightly beyond the touchdown zone and you will get an email or be called into the office. And to prevent problems it's adviced to file an Air Safety Report yourself within 72hrs of the event explaining the event. And not wait for the FDR to be downloaded and it being flagged up and you called into the office for tea without biscuits. Long landings are also a 'reportable occurance' to the regulator. Statistics will be communicated to the pilot community every quarter and provided in detail. And I fully agree with this. Safety and standards always take preference over efficiency.

...quite frankly, what avgeek writes seems much closer aligned to what I see everyday at airports like AMS and even more busy ones across Europe. And what is strictly regulated in the OM w.r.t. putting the thing down in the touchdown zone at, I dare say, most credible airlines around the globe.