The Air Canada Boeing 767 "Gimli Glider" 1983 accident re-visited.
In July 1983 a Boeing 767 of Air Canada lost both engines in the cruise due fuel exhaustion. The crew made a successful dead stick all flaps up landing on a 7000 feet abandoned airstrip at the former RCAF base at Gimli. Manitoba. Full details available on Google under Gimli Glider.
Many of todays airline pilots had not been born then and apart from occasional re-runs of TV Air Crash Investigation, the full story and lessons learned from that accident have been lost in the mists of time.
As part of the investigation into that accident Air Canada tested several crews in the Boeing 767 simulator by having them run the identical scenario - that is double engine failure in cruise and forced landing with no power. The results showed that all crews crashed the first time. In later years, Captain Bob Pearson who was in command of what he called The Gimli Glider said he had wished that Air Canada had given him training on even just one double engine failure and dead stick landing during his 767 simulator training, and it would have given him the vital experience to successfully pull off his own landing. As it was, he was an experienced former glider pilot and fell back on that experience to carry out a full sideslip final approach all flaps up. His flying was a feat of superb airmanship.
I am writing this post having just watched the story on Air Crash Investigation and afterwards I wondered what lessons had been learned since then in terms of aircraft handling of high altitude loss of all engines and the planning of a dead stick landing. I get blank looks from airline pilots who think it will never happen to them and not to worry.
In my view nothing has been learned because simulator training has become more of regulatory box ticking than practical application of pure flying skills. There is nothing new about that. There have been several documented cases of dead stick landings in airliners since the Air Canada incident in 1983. Yet in this scribe's experience on jet transports I have rarely seen pilots being given dual instruction practice at dead stick landings in the simulator. In any case it is evident that most check captains and simulator instructors had never done one and it would be a case of the blind leading the blind. What a dreadful indictment on "modern" simulator training.
It took around 17 minutes for the Air Canada to lose both engines and get on the ground. There was no clear choice of landing ground and the rate of descent was such that the captain was fortunate to have Gimli airstrip within gliding range. Even then it was only because he used a violent side slip manoeuvre to avoid a disastrous over-shoot that he was able to stop the 767 on the airstrip. .
Today's typical simulator cyclic training covers 4-6 hours per year of handling per pilot, of which it can be guaranteed 90 percent will be on automatic pilot and occasionally asymmetric thrust. Company policy rarely, if ever, allows pilots in the simulator to train for loss of all engines at high altitude to the logical conclusion of a dead stick landing. Today's pilots coming from cadet schools directly into jet transports know only automatic navigation and button selection. In effect they are airborne data processors with little practical flying skills. Don't take my word for it, Pprune threads have discussed this for years.
Having been in the fortunate situation where simulator time has been made available to practice loss of all engines culminating in a forced landing, I can assure readers they will almost certainly crash the first time they try to dead stick a transport jet in the simulator. Just like student pilots need several forced landing practices during the private pilots licence training, an airline pilot will need several practices in the simulator from high altitude before feeling confident he could emulate the Gimli glider situation. Monitoring an autopilot coupled approach and landing takes far less judgement calls than a dead stick hand flown forced landing yet training departments count the pennies and opt for more automatic landing practice. No wonder airmanship is considered irrevelent in the modern airliner.
Until a pilot of an airliner attains handling competency then the chances of a successful dead stick landing in real life are grim indeed. The time is well overdue for training departments to add another competency sequence in pilot training records and that is dead stick landings.
Remember all the Air Canada crews crashed when tested after the Gimli glider event. There is a big lesson there for flight departments. We need to get our flight safety priorities right... Following the magenta line with no engines will not help dead stick landing judgement
Last edited by Tee Emm; 11th Aug 2012 at 12:22.