That was a close one...

[cjp]

FO has over 13 year’s experience on the 777. The captain even more so. Check your facts.

With that much experience in the cockpit, it's amazing how quickly a stable approach can turn into such an exciting landing.

I flew with that CA as a kid, was also an FO I flew with. CA has probably near 20,000 hours experience, teeth were cut flying in some of the most challenging and inhospitable environments in the world. Lots of heavy time, lots of 777 time. Golden hands and feet.

Wanna challenge the result relying on AOM FCTM or Company Policy then feel free to set it out.

More disheartening to me, honestly, is the capacity and the ease, where one pilot, shits on another pilot, where instances such as these arise. To me, it's unfortunate, to me it's indicative of a bigger problem. I feel in some ways, it also contributes to the overarching issues facing pilots in Canada in general, which results in the WAWCON realities we find ourselves in.

Not pointing at you in particular, but there are many, too many.

A bit messed up

Yeah it's a strange situation, cause I think the assumption was low experience due to the sequencing of events, but end of the day when you look the experience, it was quite high, the boys just had a bad day, whether it was wake (off of 23 possibly, doesn't make sense off of 24R), or a mishandled crosswind, who knows.

End if the day, not one was hurt, no airframes bent, that qualifies as great landing right? Great you can use the plane again, good you walk away from? Something like that.

[itsgrosswhatinet]

Funny, if it was another airline, the air canada kids would be shit posting with the holier than thou attitude. You reap what you sow.

Everyone can see the oscillations getting bigger each time. AC's training program heavily relys on previous experience lasting you through your career.

[alkaseltzer]

Funny, if it was another airline, the air canada kids would be shit posting with the holier than thou attitude. You reap what you sow.

Everyone can see the oscillations getting bigger each time. AC's training program heavily relys on previous experience lasting you through your career.

This.

[8895]

The “NHL of airlines” ladies and gentleman

Ahhh don't feel bad.

Maybe you'll let you interview again one day. Not everyone gets into the NHL either.

Why on earth would I apply to a job where I’d take a pay cut and even be paid less then the express carrier’s FO’s I’m sure it’s embarrassing for someone to come to terms with the fact that they’ve contributed to our country’s terrible WAWCON but hey, fly the flag am I right

[Army of one]

Textbook ladies and gentlemen. Textbook.

Care to elaborate?

daedalusx

Where you at, where'd you disappear to?

Why don't you grab your 777 AOM and FCTM (there are some Policy references as well) and let's break it all down.

Ive only been flying 40 years, I love learning new things.

That's what I thought.

[daedalusx]

Coming from the guys who called landing 700’ short of a runway a “hard landing” ok boomer

Did that space cadet who PIOed that T7 in HKG also practiced textbook handling ?

[Army of one]

Coming from the guys who called landing 700’ short of a runway a “hard landing” ok boomer

Did that space cadet who PIOed that T7 in HKG also practiced textbook handling ?

Ah ya, no. Im not interested in being drawn into a name calling exchange. Not my thing.

As well, I made my feelings regarding shitting of other pilots quite clear. Regardless of who employs you or what you fly, regardless of your experience level, whether or not the decisions of the pilot(s) contributed to any incident or not -- Shitting of fellow pilots, not my thing either.

My invitation to you was limited to discussing the landing in the video. I could have approached that discussion with knowledge of the manual(s), policy and experience which I laid out.

Have a great day

[co-joe]

Putting a T7 on 24L (shortest runway at that Airport) is outrageous.

9000 ft runway is short for a B777!

It's not exactly a long runway for a tripple. I bet Air France 358 pilots wish they'd insisted on runway 23 that day, although with the mistakes they made, a trip into Etobiko Creek may have been in the cards anyway.

[Donald]

Putting a T7 on 24L (shortest runway at that Airport) is outrageous.

9000 ft runway is short for a B777!

It's not exactly a long runway for a tripple. I bet Air France 358 pilots wish they'd insisted on runway 23 that day, although with the mistakes they made, a trip into Etobiko Creek may have been in the cards anyway.

As bad as taking an -800 into YKF?

[co-joe]

As bad as taking an -800 into YKF?

Honestly, yes with the caveat that I don't have any heavy time. I've flown the Max into YKF, and BUR and the level of risk is elevated. We all know the -800 has one of the worst runway overrun records of any airliner currently flying. I'm not saying it's too dangerous, or impossible to manage the risk, but you go there with your eyes wide open, and you give good briefings, and establish a shared mental model early on. I have my own limits for YKF and I won't push them.

Side note, I hear heavies all the time going into YYZ refuse 24L/6R, and insist on 23/5, and they always get it. Bit of a thread jack here, this thread is about what looked like a moderate wake turbulence encounter in the flare of a 777...Anyone know what jet landed in front of this one?

[DanWEC]

With a 20 kt 80 degree xwind there is zero chance that was wake turbulence from a lander before.

[Curiousflyer]

Close one but overall it looks like a great save from an experienced crew. The aircraft was landing 24L with a strong crosswind from the north, any experienced pilot flying out of YYZ knows that’s a very difficult runway to land on in those conditions as the terminal buildings create significant mechanical turbulence low level. The aircraft looks completely stable until around 50’ above ground when the bottom absolutely falls out. Take a look at the deck angle change in the video from 16s to 18s, looks like about a 10 degree pitch up in less than 2 seconds due to the mechanical turbulence. Without that quick reaction from the pilot flying that landing would have been even harder. They likely had to drop the right wing to maintain on the runway (not be blown off the side due to the crosswind), when the right wing hits hard it upsets the aircraft and the rest is aggressive but well managed by the pilots (no further oscillations). How those pilots managed to prevent the tail from smashing the ground is strictly instinctual experience based on decades of experience.

The big question and only mistake the crew made, in conjunction with YYZ policies, was why were they trying to land on that runway in those conditions?

[Army of one]

With a 20 kt 80 degree xwind there is zero chance that was wake turbulence from a lander before.

You are probably correct. However, I was thinking more like - possible, contributing - wake from a heavy departure off 23.

Im getting old and lazy but just for fun I went to read the TC, FAA and NZ guidance regarding landing aircraft with upwind departures (winds reported as they were) from runways within 5000 feet. While I could not match all the exact criteria, there was enough circumstantial (for lack of a better word) guidance to indicate wake disruption could have played a role.

I know from my own encounters with wake, that the 777 responds exactly as this arrival did, with a significant and sometimes violent roll.

Mechanical turbulence for certain, and I would not rule out, possible wake from R23.

That's how I see it.

[Army of one]

Close one but overall it looks like a great save from an experienced crew. The aircraft was landing 24L with a strong crosswind from the north, any experienced pilot flying out of YYZ knows that’s a very difficult runway to land on in those conditions as the terminal buildings create significant mechanical turbulence low level. The aircraft looks completely stable until around 50’ above ground when the bottom absolutely falls out. Take a look at the deck angle change in the video from 16s to 18s, looks like about a 10 degree pitch up in less than 2 seconds due to the mechanical turbulence. Without that quick reaction from the pilot flying that landing would have been even harder. They likely had to drop the right wing to maintain on the runway (not be blown off the side due to the crosswind), when the right wing hits hard it upsets the aircraft and the rest is aggressive but well managed by the pilots (no further oscillations). How those pilots managed to prevent the tail from smashing the ground is strictly instinctual experience based on decades of experience.

The big question and only mistake the crew made, in conjunction with YYZ policies, was why were they trying to land on that runway in those conditions?

Ahhh, so common sense.

As you noted, the aircraft appeared in ideal position to complete an uneventful landing, with no indication of anything out of the ordinary on approach, pretty much like 99.9% of arrivals.. My only comment is that we generally initiate transition to the flare at 30 feet and at 16 seconds of the video, the flare was already in its latter stages.

At 16 seconds, this arrival was also in its most vulnerable state of low energy and, far less than 30 feet altitude.

I think you are exactly correct. Mechanical turbulence. A well known threat to all experienced CYYZ pilots dealing with the environment of this day.

I had a response to your last sentence but I won't post it. Suffice, it's messy, it's not as easy as it sounds. I will add, I have refused those conditions enough times over my 30 years. I wish all pilots would refuse arrival on that runway, in those conditions. I wish all pilots would vote no to concessions during record reported profits, I wish, I wish..

That's all I got Curiousflyer,.. Appreciate your well considered post.

[Chaxterium]

Mechanical turbulence for certain, and I would not rule out, possible wake from R23.

I would rule it out. Runway 23 is nowhere near 24L. There is nearly a full 11,000ft runway between them.

[Sulako]

Close one but overall it looks like a great save from an experienced crew. The aircraft was landing 24L with a strong crosswind from the north, any experienced pilot flying out of YYZ knows that’s a very difficult runway to land on in those conditions as the terminal buildings create significant mechanical turbulence low level. The aircraft looks completely stable until around 50’ above ground when the bottom absolutely falls out. Take a look at the deck angle change in the video from 16s to 18s, looks like about a 10 degree pitch up in less than 2 seconds due to the mechanical turbulence. Without that quick reaction from the pilot flying that landing would have been even harder. They likely had to drop the right wing to maintain on the runway (not be blown off the side due to the crosswind), when the right wing hits hard it upsets the aircraft and the rest is aggressive but well managed by the pilots (no further oscillations). How those pilots managed to prevent the tail from smashing the ground is strictly instinctual experience based on decades of experience.

The big question and only mistake the crew made, in conjunction with YYZ policies, was why were they trying to land on that runway in those conditions?

Absolutely this. Been based out of YYZ since 2005 and I couldn't agree more. ATC makes crews use 23 and the 24s even when the wind is howling sideways across the nearby buildings. Someone will eventually get hurt.

[Chaxterium]

Absolutely this. Been based out of YYZ since 2005 and I couldn't agree more. ATC makes crews use 23 and the 24s even when the wind is howling sideways across the nearby buildings. Someone will eventually get hurt.

Yes but won't somebody please think of the rich people south of the airport who don't like the noise??

[Stu Pidasso]

So we go from bashing AC pilots to bashing ATC? While GTAA and NavCan have their issues, lets deal with them in a constructive dialogue. It is pretty disrespectful to make wild accusations like that, it disrespects a lot of very competent professionals.

I said; "organization" not the staff. Nav Canada as an organization is a joke, sorry if that offends you and the GTAA is even worse. We fly plenty of places with less than 9000" runways, however, 24L is the shortest runway at Pearson. It is shameful that it is used over 23 not to mention the insane lack of use of the 33's. Nav Canada and the GTAA are service providers that the Airlines pay very large sums of money to.

In typical fashion, the tail wags the dog.

I should add that I have had personal discussions with Controllers that completely agree how poorly managed Nav Canada is.

[pelmet]

Autobrakes 4, land in the touchdown zone, no big deal. Only psychological.

22L is used at JFK on a regular basis. Exit on the high speed well before the end of the runway and remember to hold short 22R. And you do want to hold short of that runway at that location as you watch A380's lifting off in front of you.

[Braun]

So we go from bashing AC pilots to bashing ATC? While GTAA and NavCan have their issues, lets deal with them in a constructive dialogue. It is pretty disrespectful to make wild accusations like that, it disrespects a lot of very competent professionals.

I said; "organization" not the staff. Nav Canada as an organization is a joke, sorry if that offends you and the GTAA is even worse. We fly plenty of places with less than 9000" runways, however, 24L is the shortest runway at Pearson. It is shameful that it is used over 23 not to mention the insane lack of use of the 33's. Nav Canada and the GTAA are service providers that the Airlines pay very large sums of money to.

In typical fashion, the tail wags the dog.

I should add that I have had personal discussions with Controllers that completely agree how poorly managed Nav Canada is.

And who do you think is the first to complain when we switch to ops on those runways and the AAR is reduced?

It’s pretty baffling how little people know how much influence the airlines have on Nav Canada.