Agreed but the winds were 30015G32. Pretty much right down the runway. It wasn't that bad...

I don't believe I said we aren't paid to be pilots.......that was in response to someone suggesting that we should be paid half as much if all we are willing to do is land on 12,000 foot runways. To which I needed to remind them that WE are paid to be pilots and that includes managing risk, NOT taking additional risk.

Look it, I've landed plenty of times on 29...I've only ever done it on narrow body planes..........I guess it comes to what we all subjectively classify as risky or threatening.....I reserve the right not to be judgmental on a plane I'm not typed on................but it would seem the foreign carrier wide body crews want no part of that........maybe they suck compared to you as pilots..........but they certainly managed risk pretty well.

In that SPECIFIC case, sure.

But plenty of foreign carriers also don’t accept a visual into a place like LAX.

Kinda makes it apples to oranges.

And further, you want to use foreign carriers as the axiom of risk management?

*cough cough*, ASIANA

You ever read pprune?

The Euros think it’s completely bonkers and lose their minds that U.S. ATC can clear them to land with an aircraft ahead of them.

I’ll bet that 330 crew in South America, our 777 guys in IAD in Dec, etc may have a differing view point.

Off the top of my head I can’t recall those two instances you are referring to…could you provide more specifics.

We do apply better TEM in some areas than the Europeans……i.e. the two person cockpit rule. It is likely we wouldn’t know who Andreas Liebitz was if in Europe a two person rule was in place…but that’s policy not judgement. I also referenced this earlier that up until April 16…adjusting aim point was policy at least for Airbus was policy. While well intentioned, I think this led to many people “ducking under” too much.

So you want a want a max crosswind landing after a long flight instead?? RWY with 30 knots headwind might as well be 9000 feet long. Your GS is slowwwwwww

Yes

Sometimes I have a hard time explaining myself. By the stories I hear about life on the big jets, some of y'all can go months without performing an actual landing. Sounds awesome to me! But, remember boys and gals, there is training life and then there’s real life. There are computer screens that tell a dispatcher “it’s legal they can do it” and then there’s you in real life that has to go out and do it. Sometimes on a short notice. That “scenario” doesn't care if you've done it a thousand times, a few times, or none at all.

I don't think it’s a stretch to say that sometimes, if conditions are shady enough you almost have to be perfect! No looking away, losing your concentration, not even for a split second. That split second can cost you altitude, speed, or touchdown point. All which have to be on point when you have stopping margins of as little as 200 feet on shorter runways! “Oh yes Captain, I've ran the numbers, you're good to go,” the friendly dispatcher will assure you. Sometimes you have to be willing to be unpopular..

All I’m saying is that shorter runways, abnormal approaches, inclement weather, and other factors can easily cause adverse conditions on the best of days. They can be unforgivable if you're off your game or lose concentration even slightly. And we all know, practice makes perfect..but thats not always feasible..

I’ll make it simple, I don’t land on 29 if my callsign has “heavy” in it… I tell the FO during arrival briefing to say “unable”. So yes, I’d prefer a crosswind landing over 29… if it’s unstable I’ll go around and either try again or divert based on the conditions and fuel.

I haven’t read every post in this thread, so apologies if some of this has already been covered. I’m not going to comment directly on the incident itself, but like most accidents, this was probably not one single issue — it was likely a chain of events and errors that led to the outcome.

That said, I do have considerable time on both the 767-400 and the 777.

The 767-400 is a completely different animal from the 757 or earlier 767 variants, even though it shares the same type rating. Only 38 767-400’s were ever built. Delta bought 21, Continental (now United) had 16 and there was one corporate, that’s it. Unlike Delta, United (CAL did too) — operates every version of the 757 and 767 as one fleet category, whereas Delta flies the -400 as its own separate category. Like many Boeing aircraft, it’s essentially a stretched derivative, and that introduces significant complexities.

For example, you must use a two-stage rotation on takeoff or you risk a tail strike. Landing presents similar concerns. That’s why the airplane carries artificially inflated approach speeds — much like the longest 737 variants. As you know, those higher approach speeds bring their own safety considerations because they are designed primarily to reduce tail-strike risk during landing.

Its flight deck and avionics are much closer to a 777 than a traditional 757/767, but it is not a 777. The 777 is a far easier, more forgiving airplane to fly.

At Continental, now United, the 767-400 has always been a relatively small subfleet within the larger 756 category (757-200/-300 and 767-300/-400), yet it pays the same as the 777 and 787. As a result, it consistently went very senior, meaning only a relatively small group of 756 pilots flew it on a regular basis.

I was on the fleet for 15 years, and for the first seven or eight years I only saw the 767-400 on holidays. I really didn’t fly it consistently until later, before eventually transitioning to the 777.

It’s a very difficult airplane to land. In some ways it reminds me of the 727. You can absolutely make consistently good landings in it, but it takes considerably more precision. Just when you think you finally have it mastered and are going to make consistently smooth landings, it’ll humble you and slam itself onto the runway.

Essentially, if you’re not mentally preparing for the flare by about 50 feet and carefully managing it through 30 feet, you can’t aggressively pull the power back until you’re almost on the ground or she’ll simply fall out of the sky and slam onto the runway.

Personally, I would never accept the Runway 29 visual in the 767-400 unless there was at least a 20-knot headwind. By comparison, I’ve landed the 777-300 on Runway 29 in light winds using maximum autobrakes — very smooth, not abrupt — and still comfortably made the turnoff with 3,000 feet remaining. In my opinion, the 777 is a much easier airplane to fly than the 767-400.

This becomes even more important today because there is a lot of movement within the fleet at United. Since the 767-400 has traditionally been a senior airplane, junior pilots may not get many opportunities to fly it consistently. Add in the challenges of the Stadium Visual to Runway 29 and you’ve clearly introduced additional threats and workload.

Depending on the outcome of the investigation, if limited experience on the 767-400 becomes part of the probable cause discussion, hopefully United will seriously evaluate doing what Delta does and operate the -400 as its own separate category. In my opinion, that would be a much safer approach.

I’ll close by saying that in the past I had no issue taking a 777 onto Runway 29. But given the optics, scrutiny, and visibility surrounding this event, why add unnecessary risk — and more importantly unnecessary scrutiny? It’s not that I can’t do it — I absolutely can — but now every landing will be watched by passengers, enthusiasts, the media, and everyone else. At some point, you have to ask whether the added exposure is really worth it.

One last point even landing on the 22’s or 4’s with a 30-40 kts crosswind, not an issue for 777. It’s an absolute easy airplane to land even in those wind conditions.

Do you know that’s what happened? Have you heard the tapes or seen the FDR? How do you know they didn’t lose 15kts of head wind on a gust a get a huge sinker? Maybe turbulence off the big mx hangar at 1 o’clock. Maybe wake turb from someone landing the 22’s?

Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Never mind the fact the airplane is entirely capable, and they gave you an RNAV line selectable approach to put you on final and on glidepath, but yeah let’s go from 30 kts of head wind, to 30kts of crosswind. All because you can’t fly a simple visual.


Good post. Always hated flying the 764 for all the reasons mentioned. Fly it like a big 739, same techniques apply.

For all the reasons you mentioned, I could see carving it out as a sub fleet being a real possibility (and making scheduling for it a colossal headache).

it won’t be carved out… not until they are permanently parked. I bet a PB restricting landings on 29 coming out soon.

Or a PB saying go around when the aircraft is saying "50 40 30 30 30 30" over a freeway.

I was gonna mention that. But Simeon will cry “but, but, what if the RA is WRONG!!!!”, because, ya know, we’re not pilots and can’t x-check with, oh, I don’t know, the PAPI or something……

Plus, we don’t get paid for those skills.

‘maybe… maybe not… but don’t think you can “see” a FDR. You sound like someone who either doesn’t get to make big boy decisions just yet OR just does what your told like a robot. Just because an approach is line selectable in the database doesn’t mean you fly it… it’s called risk management… and this crew apparently forgot that step. I bet that Captain doesn’t fly another 29 approach ever again.

For someone that posts like their "plugged in", you're ignorance doesn't match. You sure you work for UAL and still aren't at JB? But there's always google....

Uinted Airlines 777 engine failure Dulles

Delta Air(space)Lines engine fire Brazil.

You posted this in the JB UAL merge thread, didn't see any reference to you quoting anyone;

Did you leave the part out that you were quoting or referencing someone? if not, who is 'we"?

The FDR data is graphed out, and you look at it in timeline form. You “look” at it. Never been on an AMB?

“Big boy decisions.” That’s cute. A circle to 29 doesn’t even register has a minor concern or challenge. You do you though, because you clearly can’t do what the plane can.

At NK, we did the RNAV into 29 as a TTP. Apparently, they thought it was a big enough threat or challenge to train for it

The Stadium Visual could be challenging if one wasn’t familiar with it. But the RNAV approach made Rwy 29 approaches a non-event, especially in a narrow body. I don’t understand the mindset of a pilot who refuses to fly to Rwy 29, but everyone has their own personal limits. I once flew with a Captain who insisted on being vectored to the point prior to the FAF on an ILS. She even asked me to do this at EWR! That request went over well by ATC.
The Europeans, especially the Brits on PPrune (website) seem to think anything less than a 5 mile final to a 10,000 ft runway is a threat. They’re throwing the term “normalization of deviance “ around a lot over there concerning this approach.

We beat SFO to death a few MV cycles ago.

maybe… but I won’t be dragging the belly into a light pole (or worse) on EWR 29.

here we go again… it isn’t about personal limits or confidence levels… it’s about risk management and doing what’s smart for the circumstances… no chest thumping even allowed in the equation… just because you can doesn’t mean you do it.

Of course we are all trained at United to fly it… but unless an emergency makes it absolutely necessary I won’t be doing it on a WB plane I’m CA on… other CAs can do whatever they want. If the Threat forward discussion is done properly prior to descent then the same decision should probably be made… not worth the risk “IF” other options available at EWR.

i was playing Kenny Loggins in my head when I read this.

You know ......looking at my lanyard I have this blue/yellow card attached to it, on the yellow side it says: Discuss threats First; Personal? Environmental? Technical?..........which Ugleual's technique of avoiding 29 if his callsign includes heavy is a great example of filtering the current flights circumstances through a layer of threats be they personal, environmental or technical.

The narrative of some here seems to be that NO threats ever exist for any approach, as long as its line selectable and its on there ATIS well (kind of like the 91 guys who can legally take off in 0 and 0, does it mean they should do it)....which is strange to hear.......you see if I had an Indian Rupee for every time I heard a United callsign request the ILS in place of the RNP that hey had just been issued........ which usually is just a result of people not being situationally aware to correlate that it is very foreseeable if not probable since their STAR terminates in a downwind...they have briefed the wrong approach and in order to do so now workload would increase at a critical time...........but see that still is TEM, albeit a an error not a threat.

Well said! Probably everyone involved in events like the EWR accident believed, until things went wrong, that they were up to the task. For all on this thread exuding confidence and even bravado, remember aviation’s ability to humble and kill. We’re paid to mitigate and minimize risks, not demonstrate our prowess while taking unnecessary risks.

I’m not saying this to castigate the EWR crew, as I wasn’t there and I’m not privy to all the facts. But this discussion should center on conservative decision making with a little humility sprinkled in.

Happens all the time, for reasons both foreseeable in hindsight and not. AA rushing to get down for a no time to spare RW change at Cali for example. Experienced crews can & do fall behind the path sometimes. Tough lesson. Unnerving for more than a few line dogs most definitely. Oh look, here comes light pole Larry:(

“I’ll fire when I’m g0d@mn good and ready!!!!!!”

"If time has taught me anything, you've got to learn to be the ball"

-"I'm Going All the Way", theme from Caddyshack 2

So tell me why its so much more difficult in a heavy again.............

If given the choice between circling to 29 in a Triple or a 737 I’m taking the Triple every time. Much less stress in an airplane with slower approach speeds and amazing stopping power.

‘maybe one day you’ll get to figure it out yourself…

My apology. I meant to respond to the comment that you were responding to. Your comment was a good one. Sorry about that .

cleared for the light pole semi truck RNAV 29 into Newark .

“Do you take drugs Danny?”

“Everyday”

“Good”

https://youtu.be/7TxxBBjXBDQ?si=F600omg_t6nKwtvt

Ugleeual,

To a degree, I understand your rational for not landing on 29 in a heavy. . But what if a crew refuses the RNAV 29, and subsequently went off the runway on 22 due to the crosswind? What if the landing distance calculations are more restrictive on 22 with a large crosswind and anpproach speed additives, than the 29 approach with a 30 kt headwind? Would you still land on 22?
I’m not trying to question your skills, as I’ve said before, I have a good friend at Delta who also refuses the 29 approach.

This could have happened to any of us. Nothing wrong with refusing 29, and nothing wrong with flying it! A loaded up guppy 900ER is probably the most landing performance limited jet in the fleet… but rivaled by the 764, and it’s amazing how quick it’ll stop with a big headwind on 29. However, being focused on the approach and short runway plus big wind vref addition, I’ve always ducked under “a bit,” honestly without real SA on how close that turnpike is. Won’t do that anymore, and I’m grateful it’s a lesson learned that didn’t cost anyone their lives. Hope the crew involved gets back out on the line soon

I’ve never had a problem using auto brakes at 3 on the 767-300/400 with a high crosswind that’s gusty… using F25. Nor have I ever seen landing distances being an issue on 04/22 except during heavy snow events… but wouldn’t be using 29 in those conditions anyway. Captain needs to also decide who will land in these wx conditions… I personally always look at wx forecasts when picking legs to fly… not saying I’m better than the FOs, but I’ll generally fly the more challenging wx legs for sure… and don’t want the FO to lose a landing due to wx (low vis, winds, etc). Risk management.

Your example, If a crew departed the runway due to high crosswinds and misapplication of controls during and after touchdown then it’s on them… maybe should have went around or diverted. But if a known steady state crosswinds were out of limits, or gusting out of limits, on 04/22 then I’d land on 29… but other than 04/22s being closed or unusable due to winds I’d say “unable” and request the straight in on the longer runway. I’ve refused 29 a handful of times and ATC never flinched… just said expect ILS 22.

False choice. Because it might be more difficult in a guppie doesn’t make it acceptable for a WB.

Widebody with a 35 knot headwind with 4 or 8 extra brake pads and approach speed 15knots less than a guppy on 29 every time, just make a normal landing.

Ive done it in the 763, 764, and 787. I’d like to ask the same question.


I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. We don’t know they ducked under. We know, literally nothing about how they wound up where they wound up.

got low & didn’t reject?