Landing in Narita
 

First of all, please don't misconstrue this post as a criticism or commentary of any type on FDX 80.

I do feel like this video of a KAL 777 fighting strong winds / windshear might help one (that may or may not have flown into Narita before) more clearly understand what one is up against when landing at this airport with these extreme conditions.

YouTube - Boeing777 Good Landing?

Freeze the playback at :14 seconds and take a good look at the wind sock.

OK continue with your analysis..... :rolleyes:

I saw that too...but look at that thing bucking at such a slow ground speed there towards the end of the video...something doesn't add up

Were you flying that day for KAL ?

:rolleyes:

I don't know - looks like a PIO to me...

yes...all has been revealed ;)

Lots of aileron and elevator flappin around ...

I'd go with PIO as well (lots of back & forth aileron & no visible rudder), in addition, the auto-speed brakes didn't appear to be armed (didn't deploy).

Back on topic, NRT does have lots of terrain related mechanical turbulence.

If you are referring to the auto-ground spoilers, yes they did deploy

The FO called for a go around, the captain didn't respond, so the FO assumed that the CA was incapacititated. This was the resulting struggle for control at low altitude. :rolleyes:

you say potato, I say potato....

I was referring to that lever to the left of the throttles that say "SPEED BRAKES" and the EICAS that announces "Speedbrakes Armed", although if I asked a ground instructor I'd bet that "auto-ground spoilers" is the correct nomenclature.

It looked like there was wt. on both mains at :16 seconds and only asymmetric ground spoilers until about :25 seconds. That seemed a little long for auto extension, thus the comment.

Whatever the reason, it seemed to be a challenging maneuver at some level.

There was no wind there. Just a very bad landing performed by a 300 hour KAL intern. The bad landing was aggravated by too much up elevator causing the airplane to bounce again and bank to the left.

Couple of sumo wrestlers on board, fighting over a snack. :D

So Tommy, tell me, have you ever seen a grown man naked? You wanna land the airplane when we get to Narita??:D
fbh

I've seen landings like this

In a c172....

I agree with this assessment.

Or two airline pilots fighting over a penny, a free USAToday, or anything free/cheap for that matter!:cool:

I didn't know sumo wrestlers ate "snacks" ... !

:eek:


:D

Ive worked for 2 outfits that would not even allow us to DHD on KAL... for just this reason. Now I work for a company that was loaded with the 200 - 300 hour wonders... but not to worry they are all seasoned 1500hr guys now :D

I'm sure our crews can handle it with all the sim time there getting and minimum real landings. After all what could go wrong its not an MD-11......;)

If you didn't want someone to misconstrue, then why did you post a video of a passenger jet in the Cargo Forum? As other's have said, there was little to no wind during this landing (watch the windsock). Additionally, the smoke off the tires doesn't blow away ... it lingers. I wouldn't exactly call this extreme conditions. More so, this is Pilot Induced Oscillations (PIO).

What KC10 said. If I have to change my pants just watching this, wonder how those pilots are doing?

Good thing that wasn't built in Long Beach. Gear would've collapsed and a wing would've broken off.

Hmm . . . what landed before that one? Light quartering tailwind keeps the vortex on the runway the previous bird? Bueller? Bueller?

I was looking and trying to figure exactly how far down the runway the actual touchdown was, at least at the end of the touchdown zone. However, from the response of the aircraft, a sinking/rolling motion, I agree that it was probably a case of wake turbulence that caused this touchdown.