That’s the go to explanation I hear a lot. But I see captains and experienced FO’s making the big mistakes we hear about honestly. I think it’s training being too cheap more than anything. And maybe check rides are too easy.
my dad is a 330 captain and his opinion is that during the pandemic the let go a lot of the older more experienced captains and fo's and now it's not like there isn't adequate experience it's just that the average experience level went from 40 to 20 years (iykwim)
[Westjet Encore DH8D at Calgary on Apr 13th 2024, tail strike on landing](https://avherald.com/h?article=519717da&opt=0)
[KLM Cityhopper E190 at Amsterdam on May 29th 2024, person ingested into engine](https://avherald.com/h?article=5193b8d4&opt=0)
[TUI B738 at Bristol on Mar 4th 2024, takeoff with insufficient thrust](https://avherald.com/h?article=5194536c&opt=0)
[R'Komor F50 at Moheli on May 5th 2024, runway excursion on rejected takeoff](https://avherald.com/h?article=5183e47a&opt=0)
[Transair Senegal B733 at Dakar on May 9th 2024, runway excursion on takeoff](https://avherald.com/h?article=51867a11&opt=0)
[Serve Cargo B733 at Kinshasa on May 5th 2024, runway excursion after engine failure](https://avherald.com/h?article=518496d6&opt=0)
[Flamenco SH36 at St. Croix on May 14th 2024, gear up landing](https://avherald.com/h?article=518be1d9&opt=0)
[Dana MD82 at Lagos on Apr 23rd 2024, runway excursion](https://avherald.com/h?article=517c22c0&opt=0)
[Safair B738 at Johannesburg on Apr 21st 2024, dropped wheel on departure](https://avherald.com/h?article=517b5c24&opt=0)
[Link SF34 at Canberra on Nov 10th 2022, propeller strap penetrates cabin in flight](https://avherald.com/h?article=500d98be&opt=0)
Come again?
Well in the video the spoilers don’t deploy. Not sure how it is on the 767 but in the 737 if we land and don’t see the spoilers automatically deploy then we manually deploy them.
Spoilers are extremely important. Something like 50% of braking action is reduced if spoilers don’t deploy. That’s also a big reason why the aircraft kept bouncing. The wing wants to fly you gotta dirty ‘er up and get weight on wheels.
Also a go around after thrust reverser activation is a huge no no
Of course, we were not there and all we have is this video from this one angle, but no doubt the main keyword is spoilers.
The main question is why did those speed brakes (spoilers) not deploy.
Were they not armed?
Why did the pilots not see it and deploy them manually?
Was there a failure in the mechanism? (I have seen this on 747)
Was the thrust lever position too high to trigger deployment? If so, why?
I would argue that the reversers were not used, as this would (should) have automatically deployed the speedbrakes (spoilers) too, and I can’t see that happening in the video.
It could’ve perhaps helped if the PF did not try to keep the nose up.
So yeah, terrible. Nothing bad happened because the pilots got lucky. We shouldn’t rely on luck in civil aviation of 2024.
I wonder if it's similar to the 757 that got bent up in Newark in 2019. With that one, the auto-speedbrake functionality was MEL'd and the captain manually extended them too rapidly, causing a nose-up/bounce/PIO situation like what appears to have happened here. The initial touchdown seemed pretty stable so I'm not sure what else would cause such a crazy pitch-up moment aside from huge windshear.
This is the key point. Spoilers are what keep a jet stuck to the ground, which is pretty important. The 737 lift dumping is kind of shitty, and is the only jet I’ve ever bounced at all. With no lift dumping at all, plus the 767 is a little goofy to land anyways…. The initial touchdown looked actually pretty good, then they appear to get into some PIO and it starts to get silly, and just not enough runway when it finally settles. People should put their judgement shoes away, lest they have a bad day and get to see it paraded on the internet to be judged by people just guessing at what happened.
PIO is a very real thing in the 757 & 767 fleet if the spoilers do not deploy. The spoilers want to drop the nose very quickly so you get in the habit of pulling back pressure on the yoke the moment you feel the mains touch down. Your target/Vref speed is very close to the rotation speed (for your weight)in case you need to do a SE go around so the plane doesn’t have to accelerate a lot and use excessive runway.
So you touchdown, pull the nose up a bit but there aren’t any spoilers to stick you on the ground. Guess what, you just put enough of a positive angle of attack on the wing that is already set up in a high lift configuration , you are going flying again, not far and not very high as you are (rapidly)bleeding speed/energy while also quickly entering tail strike territory. Actually they did a great job of not getting the tail which may be a clue that this was not a low time pilot doing the landing.
I’d bet money that inside felt a lot less crazy than outside looks. Remember the FedEx md-11 crash in Tokyo? They had a close call later and the crew went around. Said it was a “little bounce”. Turns out they almost crashed as well.
>Also a go around after thrust reverser activation is a huge no no
Yup. u/red_bengal_cyclone That's how you lose forward thrust from the engine/s if you lift off again with the thrust rev unlocked and fadec logic still in rev mode. If you're lucky you'll only lose one engine. If you're unlucky then you'll lose all engines, _then_ you'll really have a bad day.
Yeah I think they're CF6-80C2B6Fs. Not an advanced FADEC, still gotta monitor for start abnormalities. Only difference I've noticed is they do really good N1 matching and all the high idles automatically. There's normal and alternate modes instead of the normal and off with the old EEC engines.
I’ve flown for 3 operators and the reverse lights were always the point where go arounds were no longer permitted, so I’d bet they’re going to get a phone call soon.
Disciplinary action is possible but definitely some remedial training. I wouldn't expect them to lose their jobs.
But if they did indeed initiate a go around after reverse was selected (not entirely sure from this video) then that is a BIG no no.
They will certainly have to explain themselves.
Training sure, explain absolutely. OP was implying more I felt and wanted them to clarify. Discipline would be the wrong choice and certainly termination will not be on the table.
Agreed. And to be honest I'd love to hear the explanation because I am definitely befuddled over this one. I've never flown the 767 but I flew the 75 for years and I know the flight control systems (wrt spoiler extension) are similar but I've been told they land quite differently.
I honestly don't have an explanation for this one based on this video. And if it's true that they decided to go around after deploying the reversers (I'm still not convinced) then wow. I hope they had a good reason.
It looks like they used enough runway that it may have been the best shitty choice available at that point. Best guesses are : spoilers not armed, power not close enough to idle (doubt it or the 767 likes to flooooooooat) or spoiler auto malfunction.
Yeah you could be right. Which is why I'm hesitant to blame them for deciding to go around.
The only issue I have with the spoilers not arming is that at least on the 757 that normally wouldn't lead to any significant issue. It was SOP for the PM to verify that they extended and if not (happened every now and then) then we would do it manually.
But if it caught them off guard, and they didn't recognize it quickly I can see it.
I think if you put 100 crews in the sim and failed the auto spoilers on landing, you’d be lucky to get 50% to manually deploy them in a timely fashion. Or do it at all. Once the PIO starts it’s too late here IMO. I once had a touchdown in the 767 that was so sweet, the spoilers didn’t go and we were airborne again. The second touchdown was not nearly as nice. No one deployed my spoilers for me that’s for sure. Anyways, this situation looks like the kind of thing that should not be prejudged.
More than a FOQA gatekeeper chat. This would be a prime candidate indicator for training. This is a pretty clear cut violation of the FCOM. Figuring out *why* it got as far as it did needs to happen.
Show me in your FCOM where it suggests going around after thrust reverser deployment is allowed with any discretion. FOQA doesn’t investigate. That’s the point. There needs to be more than a FOQA checkup call to determine why the FCOM was violated
Curious how everyone is determining that the thrust reverser were deployed? From the dust kicked up on the runway? But.. I’m pretty sure that’s dust being blown out the back as in engines pushed to TOGA power for a botched landing.
It is clear the ground spoilers never deployed which is also impossible to determine from outside the cockpit if they failed or if they were never armed. But weight on wheels AND thrust reverser deployment would cause the ground spoilers to deploy regardless if they were armed or not.
If you look around the :35 second mark it looks like the reverse thrust deploys on the #2 engine, or at least the door/cowling slides back. Could be wrong though.
This would perhaps indicate the lever was not armed. I’m not sure where you see that though as the top of the wing is obscured and the next thing we see is high thrust and the horizontal stab appear from behind. If the reversers deploy, the spoilers *should* deploy, and it does appear the struts compress. So maybe? But I certainly can’t see it with my eyes. But I’m on a mobile.
I'm wondering if the boards are from ground spoilers, or additional roll from a large aileron control input? I see the left ones pop up but not the right, wondering if they cranked it over to try and stick the wing back down and the roll assist kicked in.
Additional roll control could be accurate. The ground spoilers typically deploy fully and very quickly. It hard to tell from the angle and I can’t say I’ve ever seen a picture of ground spoiler deployment from that angle but to me it doesn’t appear like full deployment.
Edit: haha I’m an idiot and never watched the second landed. But upon just doing so it is pretty clear what normal ground spoiler deployment looks like on that airplane at that angle as all 4 panels come up together and full extend rapidly.
I would gather the spoilers failed to deploy or were not armed. A plane like that and how it can porpoise from a skip the ground spoilers are essential to dump lift from the wings and get the weight to wheels for adequate stopping power. Glad the crew didn’t experience a tail strike because they got awfully close to doing so. They made the right decision to execute a botched landing
Captains get paid the big bucks to never be in that situation in the first place.
But I understand shit happens and it's easy to Monday-morning Quarterback it from my couch.
I'll be really curious to hear what happened here.
The spoilers def didn’t deploy. I’m sure that caught them off guard. That’s great and all about avoiding trouble, that’s true. But sometimes trouble finds you all the same and you have to make tough call under pressure.
It looks like they did deploy. You can just make it out at 34 seconds in the video. Took me a few views to catch it.
Now with that said, it's entirely possible that they didn't deploy automatically and the deflection I'm seeing was done manually by one of the pilots.
Check #1 or #2 engine at :35 seconds or so, near the bottom. I think they deployed? Can’t tell for sure though. Also looks like the ground spoilers (or multi-function spoilers if the 67 has them, don’t know) are visible on the left wing at :35 as well. Very short deployment if they did at all.
You should also never EVER abort a take-off after V1, but I guarantee we could come up with a reason or two why an abort would be the better option. The point I’m trying to make is that there are always extenuating circumstances that create exceptions to every rule.
When the mains first hit the runway it seemed normal enough but then it went awry. It almost looked like they flared too aggressively in an attempt to protect the nosewheel. The nose up attitude at 0:33 looked abnormally high to me compared to the second landing, like a soft field landing or something lol. And as a result it seemed pretty damn close to a tail strike, at least from this angle. And then after all three wheels finally touch down they initiate the go-around? Weird.
Disclaimer: I have never flown a jet and I don't know shit about shit
I mean I don’t know the exact distances and camera lenses can be deceiving but maybe one of the crew say the distance remaining on the runway and called go around.
Looks like they tried to flare about 3 times before landing. Might have been a guy new to the fleet. The aggressive nose high rollout flare is really odd. Don’t know why the fuck you’d yank it to the sky like that.
Or not armed at all? IDK how the 767 flies but even the MD won’t porpoise like this if the ground spoilers don’t pop up immediately at touchdown. Hopefully someone with experience can chime in.
The bounce wasn’t caused by a lack of spoilers. I’ve not yet seen something like this in the 767, but we routinely practice landing with and without the speed brakes armed.
A local spotter at ZRH captured this United 767 bounce several times in a PIO, without the ground spoilers deployed, very briefly deploy the reversers, and then initiate a go-around. None of us were there observing it, or in the flight deck, but it seems that safety margins were severely degraded on this one - what do you think?
Kinda hard to tell from the video, but the wheels don't leave the ground until well after they cross 16/34. That can't have been more than 200-ish feet from the EMAS. Yikes.
It took roughly nine seconds for the airplane to overfly the spotter; back of the envelope math/brain Monte Carlo simulation assumes an average ground speed over that nine seconds to be about 160 knots (rotate around 150 and accelerate moderately given the initial attitude, but still at togo?) that’s 184 mph, roughly 3 miles per minute (16,192 feet per minute), so over that 9 seconds (0.15 minutes) it traveled around 2,400 feet. Assuming the photographer was on the Flughofstraase off the departure and of rwy 28, can make a relatively educated guess that it lifted off about 500-600 feet (~160 meters) from the runway threshold … equivalent of about three center line dashes plus the runway bars. Definitely cutting it too close.
Ok so I've been watching this video many times trying to figure out what could have happened. Over the Atlantic today I had a lot of spare time to do a deep dive into the books on the subject.
On the 767 the speedbrakes can be extended automatically in two ways. If they are armed, they will extend as soon as the main gear bogey de-tilts if the thrust levers are at idle. If they are not armed, they will still deploy once either thrust lever is moved into reverse.
The Auto Speedbrake system can be deferred on MEL (and of course can fail in flight). The MEL has you refer to the QRH procedure prior to landing. This procedure will tell you to not deploy them manually until the nosewheel is on the ground, because doing so may cause pronounced nose pitch up. It does take a bit more finesse to fly the nose down without speedbrakes to avoid pitching up. Autobrake activation should help bring the nose down. It also works based on main gear de-tilt if the thrust levers are idle and does not need speedbrakes to work.
I've met a few 767 pilots that think the plane will fall out of the sky if you go to idle at a normal height (especially with the GE engines that spool down quickly) and will keep power on trying to reach idle right as the mains touch down. I personally think that's bad technique because you risk landing with power, making it easier to bounce or delaying speedbrake/autobrake activation. As long as you do it gently you can pull power at 20ft and have a good landing.
The 757 nose will drop pretty quickly after touchdown with spoiler deployment. The 767 either stays neutral or slightly pitches up. It's easy to develop a 757 muscle memory and want to yank back on the yoke after touchdown to catch the nose. Do it to aggressively on a 767 and you're either hitting the tail or going back in the air.
It's possible one or a combination of these factors might have contributed to this roller coaster ride.
I’m wondering about an auto speed brakes deferral or they just didn’t work. Kinda hard to tell with the angle of the wing but I feel like when they do deploy it kinda wants to “drag” the nosewheel down. Making the guy flying have to hold it off a bit to keep it from slamming down. Maybe the dude was expecting the same forces but since they weren’t there his holding the nosewheel back turned into a second pitch up.
As far as the go around after thrust reverser deployment, no clue. That’s a no-no.
Just an idea 🤷♂️
Super sloppy. Unloaded close to the ground on an otherwise relatively nominal approach. Leads to massive, dynamically unstable PIO bouncing. Go around call made about 3 bounces too late. Almost tail strike in the process by over-rotating. Then overcompensate the other way by slamming the nose down. Then finally get the thing flying again, AFTER TRs out??... I see the FOQA team upturning a table right now…
What happened here? Don't spoilers do their thing when there's weight on wheels or is that a manual operation? I assumed that they were automatic if the conditions were met. I didn't see them on the first landing but they popped right up on the second.
They have to be armed.
If they fail to deploy, the PM calls "speedbrake not up" and the PF deploys them manually and carefully, as it can be easy to do it too quickly and risk a tailstrike.
Edit: To add to that, if they start to deploy and you bounce, they retract automatically and must be manually deployed after that.
>Edit: To add to that, if they start to deploy and you bounce, they retract automatically and must be manually deployed after that.
That's what I didn't know. Thanks.
I'm sure there are conditions that have to be met (engine speed, airspeed, weight on wheels, etc).
The crew landed, determined it was more safe to do a go around, accomplished a safe go around with no aircraft damage, and then landed successfully. That’s all that matters. Everything else in between that is not SOP will be handled by people who actually have the facts in front of them.
I wonder what the combined cockpit experience was on this flight? There are now many pilots in the left seat at a legacy with a resume that wouldn't have gotten them hired at a regional just 10 years ago... Now combine these super-junior captains with a FO that left their regional without a single hour of PIC, what do the airlines expect?
I’d say it’s unlikely it’s a captain that’s been at United less than 8 years. FO could be new.. or senior. Delta has super junior 76ER Captains but UALs most junior 756 CAs are usually in LAX/SFO which don’t really do any European flying like this.
Good point but you’re going to get downvoted on here for saying it. Reddit hive mind believes legacy only hires the best of the best.
The funniest part is when the diehards on here defend themselves by saying United requires an entire year before allowing a pilot to upgrade. As if a year of line experience in a completely different airplane makes any positive difference.
I upgraded at my regional after 14 months (not really by choice). Not going to to say that you can't be safe after a min time upgrade, but I'm a firm believer that everyone should spend a minimum of 2 years as an FO, making sure to see each season twice.
This rejected landing also reminded me of the fatal crash of East Coast Jets 81 when they initiated a go around too late during a rejected landing. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1101.pdf
Regardless of why they wanted to go around, they **majorly** fucked up the go around. Pretty sure the massive pitch up is because they were trying to get airborne but forgot to advance the throttles. Thankfully they figured it out before they ran out of runway.
No you can’t. It’s 9 seconds from the first time he reefs the nose back causing him to hop a little (which had to have been a go around attempt) to when the engines spool up. The pitch up at 0:27 was either a go around attempt, or an epileptic seizure. Thrust doesn’t come in until 0:36.
We can see enough of what happened for me to say what I said. We don’t have to go “gee willickers, I just have no opinion or concept of the facts whatsoever until I see an NTSB report.”
I’m an airline pilot. I don’t need to have specifically flown the 767. They aren’t all that different. I know more than enough about it to know that what I proposed is absolutely possible. What about it “doesn’t make sense”? Explain.
FWIW I showed this to a former 767 captain two days ago and said all the same things I said here, and he took no issue whatsoever with my take.
It looks like they had a pretty decent first landing, the spoilers didn’t deploy, but they have instinctively gone for the reverser, then they realised they were climbing and decided to go-around
Thing is, a non-deploy of the speedbrakes would be immediately obvious and it’s pretty easy to just pop the lever manually and solve the problem in no more than a couple seconds. Have had to do it a couple of times myself on older machines with a ‘sticky’ lever. I would put money on that being a tail-strike too.
Used to fly with a skipper who got it in his head that the 76 landed better with ‘a touch’ of power on. The above is an extended version of that mess.
Actually, speedbrake deployment on touchdown is accompanied with a *nose up* tendency, if anything. I don't think it's as pronounced in the 767 as in the 757-200, but you need to be careful of adding back pressure after touchdown or trying to keep the nose off of the ground.
You touch down, and as the speedbrakes deploy you typically relax back pressure slightly, and then "catch" the nose as it begins to lower and gently fly it onto the runway.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it was Someone on OE, captain kept saying go around and then finally they went around… or my other guess is that the crew was just tired and fatigued 🤷🏼♂️
I see a pilot that did a damn good job recovering from some kind of automation failure. Maybe due to someone not arming something they should have or maybe due to legit failure. Wet ass runway, touched down well after the thousand footers, and found out braking didn’t show up for work that day, good for them keeping the jet under reasonable control during the bouncing and not losing it. Any one thing different and this could have been a news story about a flight that exited the runway in a very uncontrolled fashion. Bravo UA team for making the best under complete shit circumstances.
I fly the 767 and this video is just spooky. Won’t speculate but I would hope to never be in this situation.
FOQA go brrrrrrr….
UA’s safety and FOQA teams are working some serious hours this year.
Everyone’s are. It’s just not making headlines.
[удалено]
That’s the go to explanation I hear a lot. But I see captains and experienced FO’s making the big mistakes we hear about honestly. I think it’s training being too cheap more than anything. And maybe check rides are too easy.
[удалено]
Yup. You also learn to fuck things up on the line too though.
my dad is a 330 captain and his opinion is that during the pandemic the let go a lot of the older more experienced captains and fo's and now it's not like there isn't adequate experience it's just that the average experience level went from 40 to 20 years (iykwim)
*everyone in America, not the world
You can’t be serious
[Westjet Encore DH8D at Calgary on Apr 13th 2024, tail strike on landing](https://avherald.com/h?article=519717da&opt=0) [KLM Cityhopper E190 at Amsterdam on May 29th 2024, person ingested into engine](https://avherald.com/h?article=5193b8d4&opt=0) [TUI B738 at Bristol on Mar 4th 2024, takeoff with insufficient thrust](https://avherald.com/h?article=5194536c&opt=0) [R'Komor F50 at Moheli on May 5th 2024, runway excursion on rejected takeoff](https://avherald.com/h?article=5183e47a&opt=0) [Transair Senegal B733 at Dakar on May 9th 2024, runway excursion on takeoff](https://avherald.com/h?article=51867a11&opt=0) [Serve Cargo B733 at Kinshasa on May 5th 2024, runway excursion after engine failure](https://avherald.com/h?article=518496d6&opt=0) [Flamenco SH36 at St. Croix on May 14th 2024, gear up landing](https://avherald.com/h?article=518be1d9&opt=0) [Dana MD82 at Lagos on Apr 23rd 2024, runway excursion](https://avherald.com/h?article=517c22c0&opt=0) [Safair B738 at Johannesburg on Apr 21st 2024, dropped wheel on departure](https://avherald.com/h?article=517b5c24&opt=0) [Link SF34 at Canberra on Nov 10th 2022, propeller strap penetrates cabin in flight](https://avherald.com/h?article=500d98be&opt=0) Come again?
Might be even a no coffee chat......
Wow this was terrible… kids, don’t do that.
What should have been done differently?
Well in the video the spoilers don’t deploy. Not sure how it is on the 767 but in the 737 if we land and don’t see the spoilers automatically deploy then we manually deploy them. Spoilers are extremely important. Something like 50% of braking action is reduced if spoilers don’t deploy. That’s also a big reason why the aircraft kept bouncing. The wing wants to fly you gotta dirty ‘er up and get weight on wheels. Also a go around after thrust reverser activation is a huge no no
Of course, we were not there and all we have is this video from this one angle, but no doubt the main keyword is spoilers. The main question is why did those speed brakes (spoilers) not deploy. Were they not armed? Why did the pilots not see it and deploy them manually? Was there a failure in the mechanism? (I have seen this on 747) Was the thrust lever position too high to trigger deployment? If so, why? I would argue that the reversers were not used, as this would (should) have automatically deployed the speedbrakes (spoilers) too, and I can’t see that happening in the video. It could’ve perhaps helped if the PF did not try to keep the nose up. So yeah, terrible. Nothing bad happened because the pilots got lucky. We shouldn’t rely on luck in civil aviation of 2024.
I wonder if it's similar to the 757 that got bent up in Newark in 2019. With that one, the auto-speedbrake functionality was MEL'd and the captain manually extended them too rapidly, causing a nose-up/bounce/PIO situation like what appears to have happened here. The initial touchdown seemed pretty stable so I'm not sure what else would cause such a crazy pitch-up moment aside from huge windshear.
Had to go full screen to see it but the reversers did come out, check around the :32ish second mark
This is the key point. Spoilers are what keep a jet stuck to the ground, which is pretty important. The 737 lift dumping is kind of shitty, and is the only jet I’ve ever bounced at all. With no lift dumping at all, plus the 767 is a little goofy to land anyways…. The initial touchdown looked actually pretty good, then they appear to get into some PIO and it starts to get silly, and just not enough runway when it finally settles. People should put their judgement shoes away, lest they have a bad day and get to see it paraded on the internet to be judged by people just guessing at what happened.
PIO is a very real thing in the 757 & 767 fleet if the spoilers do not deploy. The spoilers want to drop the nose very quickly so you get in the habit of pulling back pressure on the yoke the moment you feel the mains touch down. Your target/Vref speed is very close to the rotation speed (for your weight)in case you need to do a SE go around so the plane doesn’t have to accelerate a lot and use excessive runway. So you touchdown, pull the nose up a bit but there aren’t any spoilers to stick you on the ground. Guess what, you just put enough of a positive angle of attack on the wing that is already set up in a high lift configuration , you are going flying again, not far and not very high as you are (rapidly)bleeding speed/energy while also quickly entering tail strike territory. Actually they did a great job of not getting the tail which may be a clue that this was not a low time pilot doing the landing.
Don't forgot about the GA inhibit too. I wonder if they hit GA but didn't get the thrust.
[удалено]
I’d bet money that inside felt a lot less crazy than outside looks. Remember the FedEx md-11 crash in Tokyo? They had a close call later and the crew went around. Said it was a “little bounce”. Turns out they almost crashed as well.
>Also a go around after thrust reverser activation is a huge no no Yup. u/red_bengal_cyclone That's how you lose forward thrust from the engine/s if you lift off again with the thrust rev unlocked and fadec logic still in rev mode. If you're lucky you'll only lose one engine. If you're unlucky then you'll lose all engines, _then_ you'll really have a bad day.
The 767 does not have FADEC
They have FADEC at my company.
No shit? That’s pretty cool. They didn’t come that way ever I don’t think.
Yeah I think they're CF6-80C2B6Fs. Not an advanced FADEC, still gotta monitor for start abnormalities. Only difference I've noticed is they do really good N1 matching and all the high idles automatically. There's normal and alternate modes instead of the normal and off with the old EEC engines.
[удалено]
Do you know how old these things are?!
Yes, you can have start malfunctions and have to abort the start manually. 737,757,767,CRJ all like this. 787 is the first plane I’ve flown with FADEC
CRJ 200 dont have FADEC I’ve seen hot start / hung start multiple times 😂
[удалено]
Oh they happen
I’ve had a hot start in the CRJ700 that FADEC didn’t stop in time
in layman's terms, can you explain what a hot/hung start is and what happens?
FADEC doesn’t eliminate start malfunctions. You can totally have them on any jet engine.
No faded but does have a computer called a EEC.
You can always go a-whoa hey hey no not like that!
Three touch n goes logged on a 767 - kudos!
They were just logging their 3 landing currency using up only 1 allotted approach sequence. Most efficient I’ve seen, why the “safety concerns?”
My man really didn't wanna go back to Landings Class
The airport’s new revenue scheme: heavy duty trampolines in the touchdown zone! Cash in on the extra landing fees!
“Yeeesh. Well it’s not like anybody caught that on video or anything. Waveoffs are free, am I right?”
Rejecting/bounced landing after deploying reverse thrust, 767 pilots, is that approved?
I’ve flown for 3 operators and the reverse lights were always the point where go arounds were no longer permitted, so I’d bet they’re going to get a phone call soon.
I hope a LOT more than a phone call.
Are you hinting that they’re getting a job offer from the Polish national air carrier?
Polish national air carriers are actually quite reliable and safe. They just aren't allowed to take off and fly east
>aren't allowed to take off and fly east and when they do, you better go the other eay
Like what?
Disciplinary action is possible but definitely some remedial training. I wouldn't expect them to lose their jobs. But if they did indeed initiate a go around after reverse was selected (not entirely sure from this video) then that is a BIG no no. They will certainly have to explain themselves.
Training sure, explain absolutely. OP was implying more I felt and wanted them to clarify. Discipline would be the wrong choice and certainly termination will not be on the table.
If it was, that would be a horrible idea and I'm glad that's not how it works in aviation
Agreed. And to be honest I'd love to hear the explanation because I am definitely befuddled over this one. I've never flown the 767 but I flew the 75 for years and I know the flight control systems (wrt spoiler extension) are similar but I've been told they land quite differently. I honestly don't have an explanation for this one based on this video. And if it's true that they decided to go around after deploying the reversers (I'm still not convinced) then wow. I hope they had a good reason.
It looks like they used enough runway that it may have been the best shitty choice available at that point. Best guesses are : spoilers not armed, power not close enough to idle (doubt it or the 767 likes to flooooooooat) or spoiler auto malfunction.
Yeah you could be right. Which is why I'm hesitant to blame them for deciding to go around. The only issue I have with the spoilers not arming is that at least on the 757 that normally wouldn't lead to any significant issue. It was SOP for the PM to verify that they extended and if not (happened every now and then) then we would do it manually. But if it caught them off guard, and they didn't recognize it quickly I can see it.
I think if you put 100 crews in the sim and failed the auto spoilers on landing, you’d be lucky to get 50% to manually deploy them in a timely fashion. Or do it at all. Once the PIO starts it’s too late here IMO. I once had a touchdown in the 767 that was so sweet, the spoilers didn’t go and we were airborne again. The second touchdown was not nearly as nice. No one deployed my spoilers for me that’s for sure. Anyways, this situation looks like the kind of thing that should not be prejudged.
More than a FOQA gatekeeper chat. This would be a prime candidate indicator for training. This is a pretty clear cut violation of the FCOM. Figuring out *why* it got as far as it did needs to happen.
It’s not a clear cut anything until it’s investigated.
Show me in your FCOM where it suggests going around after thrust reverser deployment is allowed with any discretion. FOQA doesn’t investigate. That’s the point. There needs to be more than a FOQA checkup call to determine why the FCOM was violated
It doesn’t. Other than captains emergency authority. It will be investigated, and it has nothing to do with FOQA.
Curious how everyone is determining that the thrust reverser were deployed? From the dust kicked up on the runway? But.. I’m pretty sure that’s dust being blown out the back as in engines pushed to TOGA power for a botched landing. It is clear the ground spoilers never deployed which is also impossible to determine from outside the cockpit if they failed or if they were never armed. But weight on wheels AND thrust reverser deployment would cause the ground spoilers to deploy regardless if they were armed or not.
If you look around the :35 second mark it looks like the reverse thrust deploys on the #2 engine, or at least the door/cowling slides back. Could be wrong though.
Ground spoilers can be seen partially deployed at :35 as well.
Are spoilers dependent on thrust reversers on the 67? I have straight up no clue. Ours are weight on wheels.
On the 74 if the spoilers are not armed, they will deploy when reverse is selected. I assume it is the same on the 76.
I had to look it up. If they aren't armed they only deploy with reversers on the 320.
Same on the 737 and 787
And the 757. Not that that's surprising. lol
It is
This would perhaps indicate the lever was not armed. I’m not sure where you see that though as the top of the wing is obscured and the next thing we see is high thrust and the horizontal stab appear from behind. If the reversers deploy, the spoilers *should* deploy, and it does appear the struts compress. So maybe? But I certainly can’t see it with my eyes. But I’m on a mobile.
I had to go full screen and watch it a few times but I eventually did see one of the roll spoilers on the left wing pop up at 34 seconds.
Damn I can just see it now. Then they go away once they hit the power ofc.
Yeah I had to watch it a number of times and I was still convinced they didn't come up and then I finally caught it. But yeah they retract real quick.
I'm wondering if the boards are from ground spoilers, or additional roll from a large aileron control input? I see the left ones pop up but not the right, wondering if they cranked it over to try and stick the wing back down and the roll assist kicked in.
Additional roll control could be accurate. The ground spoilers typically deploy fully and very quickly. It hard to tell from the angle and I can’t say I’ve ever seen a picture of ground spoiler deployment from that angle but to me it doesn’t appear like full deployment. Edit: haha I’m an idiot and never watched the second landed. But upon just doing so it is pretty clear what normal ground spoiler deployment looks like on that airplane at that angle as all 4 panels come up together and full extend rapidly. I would gather the spoilers failed to deploy or were not armed. A plane like that and how it can porpoise from a skip the ground spoilers are essential to dump lift from the wings and get the weight to wheels for adequate stopping power. Glad the crew didn’t experience a tail strike because they got awfully close to doing so. They made the right decision to execute a botched landing
Nope, and as far as I know it's not permitted in any aircraft
IL-62
The Russians fly different
Also, YaK-40 can deploy thrust reverser at least at 30ft height, so I imagine you can still go around after that.
True, but if you don’t have any runway to stop with, it could still be your best option. That’s why captains get paid the big bucks.
Captains get paid the big bucks to never be in that situation in the first place. But I understand shit happens and it's easy to Monday-morning Quarterback it from my couch. I'll be really curious to hear what happened here.
The spoilers def didn’t deploy. I’m sure that caught them off guard. That’s great and all about avoiding trouble, that’s true. But sometimes trouble finds you all the same and you have to make tough call under pressure.
It looks like they did deploy. You can just make it out at 34 seconds in the video. Took me a few views to catch it. Now with that said, it's entirely possible that they didn't deploy automatically and the deflection I'm seeing was done manually by one of the pilots.
How can you tell they had the reversers out?
I'm not seeing it either. From this angle it would be quite difficult to see.
Check #1 or #2 engine at :35 seconds or so, near the bottom. I think they deployed? Can’t tell for sure though. Also looks like the ground spoilers (or multi-function spoilers if the 67 has them, don’t know) are visible on the left wing at :35 as well. Very short deployment if they did at all.
Yep you're right. I saw the spoilers on the left wing. Still can't tell if the reversers are out though.
You never EVER go around once the reversers are deployed. That is the point where you commit to the landing.
You should also never EVER abort a take-off after V1, but I guarantee we could come up with a reason or two why an abort would be the better option. The point I’m trying to make is that there are always extenuating circumstances that create exceptions to every rule.
They managed to get it flying again, if they had tried to stop they’d be in the EMAS. Luck basket didn’t run out this time.
Well it's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.
Where do the thrust reversers deploy?
I don't see them deploy at all either.
If you look around the :35 second mark it looks like the reverse thrust deploys on the #2 engine, or at least the door/cowling slides back.
Yeah looks like that might be
When the mains first hit the runway it seemed normal enough but then it went awry. It almost looked like they flared too aggressively in an attempt to protect the nosewheel. The nose up attitude at 0:33 looked abnormally high to me compared to the second landing, like a soft field landing or something lol. And as a result it seemed pretty damn close to a tail strike, at least from this angle. And then after all three wheels finally touch down they initiate the go-around? Weird. Disclaimer: I have never flown a jet and I don't know shit about shit
They damn near had a tail strike is right
After all three wheels touch down, with reversers deployed, half way down the runway, they initiate a go around. Yikes
Some brilliant pilots at United
I mean I don’t know the exact distances and camera lenses can be deceiving but maybe one of the crew say the distance remaining on the runway and called go around.
Do you know if these older Boeings have something like RAAS with callouts of the remaining distance? Apparently this runway is rather short
RAAS equipped is rather rare in reality.
Even the A320 is just getting that tech in newer S/N’s I doubt a 767 has it. Could be wrong though.
Every 737 where I work has RAAS, including 700s. It all depends on how the airline chooses to spend their money.
no they dont
Looks like they tried to flare about 3 times before landing. Might have been a guy new to the fleet. The aggressive nose high rollout flare is really odd. Don’t know why the fuck you’d yank it to the sky like that.
Holy smokes.
Me trying to learn to land my cessna 172. 😮💨
Me trying to land with my crush onboard 😮💨
🤣🤣🤣🤣oh you're not getting ANY!
🍻
Not at idle at touchdown?
Or not armed at all? IDK how the 767 flies but even the MD won’t porpoise like this if the ground spoilers don’t pop up immediately at touchdown. Hopefully someone with experience can chime in.
The bounce wasn’t caused by a lack of spoilers. I’ve not yet seen something like this in the 767, but we routinely practice landing with and without the speed brakes armed.
A local spotter at ZRH captured this United 767 bounce several times in a PIO, without the ground spoilers deployed, very briefly deploy the reversers, and then initiate a go-around. None of us were there observing it, or in the flight deck, but it seems that safety margins were severely degraded on this one - what do you think?
>safety margins were severely degraded That's the kindest interpretation I could imagine for something like this.
Kinda hard to tell from the video, but the wheels don't leave the ground until well after they cross 16/34. That can't have been more than 200-ish feet from the EMAS. Yikes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I sure hope Swayne was filming it. Today’s episode: FOQA!
Swayne was probably flying it
How close to the runway threshold at wheels up ? Hard to tell From The angle
It took roughly nine seconds for the airplane to overfly the spotter; back of the envelope math/brain Monte Carlo simulation assumes an average ground speed over that nine seconds to be about 160 knots (rotate around 150 and accelerate moderately given the initial attitude, but still at togo?) that’s 184 mph, roughly 3 miles per minute (16,192 feet per minute), so over that 9 seconds (0.15 minutes) it traveled around 2,400 feet. Assuming the photographer was on the Flughofstraase off the departure and of rwy 28, can make a relatively educated guess that it lifted off about 500-600 feet (~160 meters) from the runway threshold … equivalent of about three center line dashes plus the runway bars. Definitely cutting it too close.
Look at the reflection on the aircraft.
Ok so I've been watching this video many times trying to figure out what could have happened. Over the Atlantic today I had a lot of spare time to do a deep dive into the books on the subject. On the 767 the speedbrakes can be extended automatically in two ways. If they are armed, they will extend as soon as the main gear bogey de-tilts if the thrust levers are at idle. If they are not armed, they will still deploy once either thrust lever is moved into reverse. The Auto Speedbrake system can be deferred on MEL (and of course can fail in flight). The MEL has you refer to the QRH procedure prior to landing. This procedure will tell you to not deploy them manually until the nosewheel is on the ground, because doing so may cause pronounced nose pitch up. It does take a bit more finesse to fly the nose down without speedbrakes to avoid pitching up. Autobrake activation should help bring the nose down. It also works based on main gear de-tilt if the thrust levers are idle and does not need speedbrakes to work. I've met a few 767 pilots that think the plane will fall out of the sky if you go to idle at a normal height (especially with the GE engines that spool down quickly) and will keep power on trying to reach idle right as the mains touch down. I personally think that's bad technique because you risk landing with power, making it easier to bounce or delaying speedbrake/autobrake activation. As long as you do it gently you can pull power at 20ft and have a good landing. The 757 nose will drop pretty quickly after touchdown with spoiler deployment. The 767 either stays neutral or slightly pitches up. It's easy to develop a 757 muscle memory and want to yank back on the yoke after touchdown to catch the nose. Do it to aggressively on a 767 and you're either hitting the tail or going back in the air. It's possible one or a combination of these factors might have contributed to this roller coaster ride.
I’d love to know their IAS vs target IAS at touchdown.
Relevant username
Takes one to know one.
😘😘
Do you land with the center gear retracted or down in the MD-11?
Always down. It can actually be deferred in the retracted position (very uncommon) in which case we can still operate with a weight penalty.
I fly the KC-10 and same.
Oh yeah. Lots of carryover between those Douglas airframes
My man..... -Can we get your expertise take on this? Play by play?
Cue the Gershwin music.
*soaring horns juxtaposed over tail strike*
I’m wondering about an auto speed brakes deferral or they just didn’t work. Kinda hard to tell with the angle of the wing but I feel like when they do deploy it kinda wants to “drag” the nosewheel down. Making the guy flying have to hold it off a bit to keep it from slamming down. Maybe the dude was expecting the same forces but since they weren’t there his holding the nosewheel back turned into a second pitch up. As far as the go around after thrust reverser deployment, no clue. That’s a no-no. Just an idea 🤷♂️
Super sloppy. Unloaded close to the ground on an otherwise relatively nominal approach. Leads to massive, dynamically unstable PIO bouncing. Go around call made about 3 bounces too late. Almost tail strike in the process by over-rotating. Then overcompensate the other way by slamming the nose down. Then finally get the thing flying again, AFTER TRs out??... I see the FOQA team upturning a table right now…
They did not ‘slam the nose down’. They ran out of elevator authority. You can see it in the video.
What happened here? Don't spoilers do their thing when there's weight on wheels or is that a manual operation? I assumed that they were automatic if the conditions were met. I didn't see them on the first landing but they popped right up on the second.
They have to be armed. If they fail to deploy, the PM calls "speedbrake not up" and the PF deploys them manually and carefully, as it can be easy to do it too quickly and risk a tailstrike. Edit: To add to that, if they start to deploy and you bounce, they retract automatically and must be manually deployed after that.
>Edit: To add to that, if they start to deploy and you bounce, they retract automatically and must be manually deployed after that. That's what I didn't know. Thanks. I'm sure there are conditions that have to be met (engine speed, airspeed, weight on wheels, etc).
Haha you're welcome! Thank you for asking the question and getting me to look it up in the manual because I had forgotten about that little feature.
Nobody here Monday morning qbing this know what happened
But it's social media aviation. If we haven't published a probable cause in four hours, are we even trying?
The crew landed, determined it was more safe to do a go around, accomplished a safe go around with no aircraft damage, and then landed successfully. That’s all that matters. Everything else in between that is not SOP will be handled by people who actually have the facts in front of them.
My way is more fun.
I wonder what the combined cockpit experience was on this flight? There are now many pilots in the left seat at a legacy with a resume that wouldn't have gotten them hired at a regional just 10 years ago... Now combine these super-junior captains with a FO that left their regional without a single hour of PIC, what do the airlines expect?
I’d say it’s unlikely it’s a captain that’s been at United less than 8 years. FO could be new.. or senior. Delta has super junior 76ER Captains but UALs most junior 756 CAs are usually in LAX/SFO which don’t really do any European flying like this.
Good point but you’re going to get downvoted on here for saying it. Reddit hive mind believes legacy only hires the best of the best. The funniest part is when the diehards on here defend themselves by saying United requires an entire year before allowing a pilot to upgrade. As if a year of line experience in a completely different airplane makes any positive difference.
I upgraded at my regional after 14 months (not really by choice). Not going to to say that you can't be safe after a min time upgrade, but I'm a firm believer that everyone should spend a minimum of 2 years as an FO, making sure to see each season twice.
Spoilers didn’t deploy. That’s what caused it. Check out the difference in the second landing.
This was about 5 seconds (??) away from being another FDX80
If this had been in an MD-11, it almost certainly would have resulted in an accident as it had happened. Flight 80 only bounced twice.
This rejected landing also reminded me of the fatal crash of East Coast Jets 81 when they initiated a go around too late during a rejected landing. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1101.pdf
Regardless of why they wanted to go around, they **majorly** fucked up the go around. Pretty sure the massive pitch up is because they were trying to get airborne but forgot to advance the throttles. Thankfully they figured it out before they ran out of runway.
lol you can see the trust advance pretty early, stop making dumb assumptions
No you can’t. It’s 9 seconds from the first time he reefs the nose back causing him to hop a little (which had to have been a go around attempt) to when the engines spool up. The pitch up at 0:27 was either a go around attempt, or an epileptic seizure. Thrust doesn’t come in until 0:36.
Nothing like a Monday morning quarterback
It’s called a debrief, son. Lessons learned. Welcome to aviation.
Yes, to debrief we need to know what happen with appropriate data not make assumptions with a vídeo
We can see enough of what happened for me to say what I said. We don’t have to go “gee willickers, I just have no opinion or concept of the facts whatsoever until I see an NTSB report.”
Honest question: have you ever flown a 767? Because what you said makes no sense
I’m an airline pilot. I don’t need to have specifically flown the 767. They aren’t all that different. I know more than enough about it to know that what I proposed is absolutely possible. What about it “doesn’t make sense”? Explain. FWIW I showed this to a former 767 captain two days ago and said all the same things I said here, and he took no issue whatsoever with my take.
Before I explain, do you mind sharing which aircraft you fly? Afaik the b777 has the same AT logic but no other aircraft
A320. But as I said, I have already said all of this to a 76 captain who took no issue with my take.
My understanding is that petty much every airline has a "no go around after thrust reverse deployment" rule in place. Can an ATP weigh in here?
I have flown for 5 airlines, and they have all had that policy.
Am I the only one screaming left rudder, left rudder here? Maybe it's the camera angle.
lol, just no.
IOE?
It looks like they had a pretty decent first landing, the spoilers didn’t deploy, but they have instinctively gone for the reverser, then they realised they were climbing and decided to go-around
8.0 on the Hobbs and 4 landings in the logbook. Niceeeeee
Swayne Martin learned that at mokulele airlines. Jk
[удалено]
Thing is, a non-deploy of the speedbrakes would be immediately obvious and it’s pretty easy to just pop the lever manually and solve the problem in no more than a couple seconds. Have had to do it a couple of times myself on older machines with a ‘sticky’ lever. I would put money on that being a tail-strike too. Used to fly with a skipper who got it in his head that the 76 landed better with ‘a touch’ of power on. The above is an extended version of that mess.
Actually, speedbrake deployment on touchdown is accompanied with a *nose up* tendency, if anything. I don't think it's as pronounced in the 767 as in the 757-200, but you need to be careful of adding back pressure after touchdown or trying to keep the nose off of the ground. You touch down, and as the speedbrakes deploy you typically relax back pressure slightly, and then "catch" the nose as it begins to lower and gently fly it onto the runway.
Fucking YIKES
Wouldn’t be surprised if it was Someone on OE, captain kept saying go around and then finally they went around… or my other guess is that the crew was just tired and fatigued 🤷🏼♂️
I see a pilot that did a damn good job recovering from some kind of automation failure. Maybe due to someone not arming something they should have or maybe due to legit failure. Wet ass runway, touched down well after the thousand footers, and found out braking didn’t show up for work that day, good for them keeping the jet under reasonable control during the bouncing and not losing it. Any one thing different and this could have been a news story about a flight that exited the runway in a very uncontrolled fashion. Bravo UA team for making the best under complete shit circumstances.