Dead Stick landings in jet transport aicraft

[sheppey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing

Browsing the aviation internet and found this interesting explanation of the term "Dead Stick Landing."

Also displayed were known instances of dead stick landings in jet transport aircraft. The list omitted to mention Garuda Flight 421, a Boeing 737 that lost all engines power in a huge thunderstorm and was forced to ditch flapless in the Bengawan River, Indonesia on 16 June 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_421


Losing all engines for whatever reason, over the sea or land, is every pilot's nightmare. Despite this risk, it is not a priority training exercise in current simulator training by major airlines. With no shortage of evidence linking automation dependency as the leading cause of degradation of manual flying skills, it seems strange the subject is not considered a serious enough problem to frighten Regulators or Operations Departments into action. Pity about that. After all, loss of all engines means the pilot has only one go at forced landing successfully. You can't go-around if you stuff up.

[Check Airman]

Obviously not considered a serious enough problem to frighten the Regulators into action.Not the case at all. To lose all engines in a modern transport jet...

1. ...is EXTREMELY rare.

2. ...will have an outcome that is largely dependent on luck. A transport jet isn't a 172 that can glide forever, at a very slow speed, and can stop in a confined space such as a narrow, straight stretch of road. You'd pretty much need to be at just the right hight relative to a VERY long runway in favourable conditions.

You're likely to have degraded control authority, an impressive sink rate, no way to dissipate excess energy, a longer gear extension process, more than usual drag with the gear down, and little or no chance for a second option if one action isn't the correct one. In short, you've got to get everything right the first time, in a situation that is completely unpredictable and which has never been flight tested. If the stars don't line up just right, you're likely to die.

In the sim, it may be trained, but not tested. Personally, there are other failures which are far more likely, that are fatal if mishandled. I'd rather spend my sim time on those scenarios.

[donpizmeov]

If the stars don't line up just right, you're likely to die

Not this black duck pal. They are still just aeroplanes. Forced landings are forced landings. I will just move a bit more dirt or water on contact.

[Dan_Brown]

don....

Correct, you bet me to it.

[A37575]

Personally, there are other failures which are far more likely, that are fatal if mishandled. I'd rather spend my sim time on those scenarios

That wasn't the opinion of the pilot who dead sticked the Air Canada Boeing 767 (The Gimli Glider event). During his speaking tours after the event, he said he wished Air Canada had given him at least one practice dead stick landing in the simulator to give him the skill and confidence to pull off that successful forced landing.

Pilots are exhorted ad nauseum to hone their skills of Threat and Error Management, CRM etc during simulator tests. A dead stick landing has all that rolled into one package. A crew can learn more about those skills in real (simulator) time than spending hours listening to boring lectures and Power Point presentations on TEM and CRM and similar buzzwords of the day

[Goldenrivett]

Hi Check Airman,
2. ...will have an outcome that is largely dependent on luck.
I don't agree and I don't think Jeppesen thought Capt. Sullenberger's success was largely down to luck either.

http://ww1.jeppesen.com/documents/corporate/news/US_Airways_Flight_1549_Sully_Skiles_Hudson_River_Miracle_Apc h_Chart.pdf

edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

[ehwatezedoing]

Any stats about real lost of engine right at V1 versus dead stick landing !?
(all type of multi engine)

Why doing one add nauseum and not the other :confused:

[FlyingStone]

1. Agree on not examining all-engine out scenario, but an opportunity to practice here and then would be more than welcome. As far as I know, at most outfits, it's limited only to initial type rating training...

The ditchings in transport category aircraft result mainly on luck and only if you are very lucky, the abilities come in play. Just add thick fog to Hudson scenario, or put that Gimli 767 at the limit of ETOPS range somewhere over the ocean at night. How would have that ended even with the best pilots in the world?

2. Of course not all engine failures on takeoff occur at V1. But it's the most tricky moment for it to fail, since you can't reject the takeoff and at the same time you are at very low speed and still on ground or at least in the rotation phase. You don't think we should waste the valuable sim time for engine failures at 5000ft with 250kts and AP already engaged?

[Airmann]

In the last 40 years or so there have been more successful dead stick landings than unsuccessful ones in commercial aircraft.

[FullWings]

In a modern jet, clean at best glide speed, you probably wouldn’t notice much of a difference between all engines at flight idle and failed. It certainly wouldn’t be an alarming sink rate.

Gear down with some flap will be different from normal on the approach. You can stabilise and fly a steeper glideslope using speedbrake and/or speed to control it or come in fast on a standard profile with the speed reducing. Both work and are appropriate in certain circumstances.

I agree it’s a useful learning (not checking) exercise in the sim if you’ve got time but realistically, things like unreliable airspeed, GPWS, windshear, low-fuel ops, runway contamination, etc. give better training value as they are much more likely to be experienced on the line.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

A caveat on doing it in the sim: if the sim was not intended by design to support this kind of flight condition, then there may be no guarantee that it will reproduce the actual aircraft characteristics, whether flight behaviour or systems.

To the best of my knowledge there are NO sim data standards that would ensure appropriate flight performance - so you could easily get a misleading behaviour. And there's no guarantee that the systems behaviour will be what you might actually see "for real".

[DaveReidUK]

Losing all engines for whatever reason, over the sea or land, is every pilot's nightmare. Despite this risk, it is not a priority training exercise in current simulator training by major airlines.

Risk has two elements: hazard severity (i.e. consequences) and likelihood of occurrence.

It's the combination of those two factors that determines what mitigation, if any, is appropriate, not just either on its own.

[Dan_Brown]

Mad

Agree with you there. Until the actual aircraft is for E.G.,dead stick landed or deep stalled, there is no accurate data to insert into the sim software for these scenarios.

[galaxy flyer]

The F-16 community has had a number of successful dead stick landings--glide ratio is probably a bit worse than a transport, as the wing loading is slightly higher. One landed at a Chicago area airport and video was certainly interesting.

Gums might be around, our resident expert in all things FBW and F-16

GF

[FullWings]

A caveat on doing it in the sim: if the sim was not intended by design to support this kind of flight condition, then there may be no guarantee that it will reproduce the actual aircraft characteristics, whether flight behaviour or systems.

To the best of my knowledge there are NO sim data standards that would ensure appropriate flight performance - so you could easily get a misleading behaviour. And there's no guarantee that the systems behaviour will be what you might actually see "for real".
Understood but I would be very surprised if the aircraft was significantly different in any important way from the sim. If the model is realistic enough for general handling and engine failures on a ZFT conversion, then where are the problems?

You’re well within the tested flight envelope, as opposed to deep stalls, transsonic dives, spins, etc. It’s the same airframe just lacking in thrust. Makes the sums easier: just lift, drag and gravity now!

[nick14]

We do them regularly following an incident in Rome.

[lomapaseo]

I happy to see in the data some successful dead stick landings.

Agree that there are others not so successful, but what is the difference that training could have made the difference?

Is it simply the experience in a practice scenario or is it the luck of the highly variable last seconds?

From my view a lot of the lack of success were things like catching a tree, water or car with one wing and setting up a cartwheel.

[APU_inop]

Understood but I would be very surprised if the aircraft was significantly different in any important way from the sim. If the model is realistic enough for general handling and engine failures on a ZFT conversion, then where are the problems?

You’re well within the tested flight envelope, as opposed to deep stalls, transsonic dives, spins, etc. It’s the same airframe just lacking in thrust. Makes the sums easier: just lift, drag and gravity now!

The thrust is not the only difference. You've depleted the hydraulic pressure on the 737 by the time the flaps reach 5 and you're left on manual reversion, need for alternate flap extension, standby electrics and manual gear extension.

If you're high and able to start the APU, it's doable. If from a low altitude, things get quite interesting. We practice this from 1500' agl just after takeoff once every couple of recurrents and even when prepared for the double fail, it's not as easy as chopping the throttle and diving like on the 172 or like when in a glider. A tin-can in 190kts without any brakes demands quite a good field to be put down on in order not to kill most people in it.

[tdracer]

As a rule of thumb, we've long assumed you have a glide range of around 100 miles after an all-engine power loss at cruise, although obviously a heavy aircraft at 30k isn't going as far as a light aircraft at 43k. If you're over land, that will generally give you some options of where to put it down.
I'm a bit surprised that an all-engine power loss isn't normally trained for since it's something we design for (Ram Air Turbines, 30 minute batteries, etc.) at the aircraft level - even if it's classroom stuff such as the best glide speed.
Prior to Sully's little adventure in the Hudson river, I remember a debate over the value of rafts and life vests on jet aircraft since there had never been a successful ditching of a big jet (although to be fair, the only attempt I'm aware of was the Ethiopian 767 hijack, and that's not a very good data point since the hijackers were apparently fighting the flight crew during the ditching attempt).

[Welle]

Good Training!

As a TRE in our company i try to give an all engine out landing at least once a year to my crews - if time permits after the check or during the recurrent training.
good way to build up some confidence and think about "what if."
Welle

[nick14]

Don't see why your left on manual reversion. Windmilling N2 should be enough to generate enough hydraulic pressure to keep you flying and if you start the APU you should have AC power and a perfectly fly able aircraft. Done it many times and even tried the autopilot

[RAT 5]

Of course not all engine failures on takeoff occur at V1. But it's the most tricky moment for it to fail

I would debate the conclusion of this statement. A/C on the ground only yaws. I used to give crews a wet V1 and create a V2 with space above Vr. You could see them anticipate the V1 bang; it didn't happen, then rotate, then bang as the nose came off and they sniffed V2. All said it was more 'interesting/entertaining'.
I was had my own check, B738. We were a crew of 2 TRE's renewing a type rating with a TRE from another company. He thought he'd 'educate' us. An NDB with F40, into GA F15 with engine failure as gear was selected up. Ref 40 +5 = V2F15 so our engine failure check was just legal and it was greatly entertaining and educational. Must better, realistic (Bird strike at 400') and educational in a/c handling than the usual wet V1 bang, keep it straight on the ground then rotate. However, I wonder at the failure rate of such imagination and the subsequent fall-out from the Ops dept to the Training dept.

[Check Airman]

Don
Not this black duck pal. They are still just aeroplanes. Forced landings are forced landings. I will just move a bit more dirt or water on contact.

Agreed. However, the amount of dirt you move may prove to be fatal. What if USAir had been in IMC when the birds hit? What if there was a low fog bank?

A37675That wasn't the opinion of the pilot who dead sticked the Air Canada Boeing 767 (The Gimli Glider event).

I'll admit to not remembering the details of the Air Canada incident, but the Air Transat crew, for example, got lucky simply because of a reroute that took them closer to the Azores.

Of course, those pilots did a amazing jobs, but let's not pretend that chance/fate/supernatural powers didn't play a part.

[donpizmeov]

Suggest you Google the USN P3 ditching at Adak. It's all been done before.

You just need to think about how you would handle it. And do some pilot stuff.

What you may call super natural powers, others call discipline and training. If it happens to you, you have the rest of your life to sort it out. Use the time wisely.

[FullWings]

Understood but I would be very surprised if the aircraft was significantly different in any important way from the sim. If the model is realistic enough for general handling and engine failures on a ZFT conversion, then where are the problems?

You’re well within the tested flight envelope, as opposed to deep stalls, transsonic dives, spins, etc. It’s the same airframe just lacking in thrust. Makes the sums easier: just lift, drag and gravity now!
The thrust is not the only difference. You've depleted the hydraulic pressure on the 737 by the time the flaps reach 5 and you're left on manual reversion, need for alternate flap extension, standby electrics and manual gear extension.
Yes but that should all be taken care of in the simulation. If it accurately represents what happens at the system level when you shut down an engine, as it has to if it has any kind of certification, then losing all the engines should produce a result with similar fidelity. After all, the sim does have to model what works or not when the engines aren’t running as that’s the way it is before you start from cold or after you shut down...

[twochai]

there had never been a successful ditching of a big jet

Not quite true:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19690113-0

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19681122-0

[Discorde]

Some unofficial guidance in this paper (p 9) (http://steemrok.com/howtodowellv4) - based on sim characteristics.

[DaveReidUK]

Not quite true:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19690113-0

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19681122-0

Both of those were CFITs, albeit into water rather than terrain, and 15 died on board the SAS DC-8, so to classify them as "successful ditchings" is stretching the point rather a lot.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

@FullWings

A simple example where the sim might not have the required fidelity in the all-engines out case, and the existing usage of the sim would not test the case.

Suppose there is a surface which is hydraulically powered even in the event of single engine failure (it has 2 PCUs, perhaps, one powered ultimately by each engine). For all the "normal" failure cases for which the sim is qualified, all it needs to represent is the reduced speed (and maybe max deflection) of a surface with half the PCUs. During, as you say, startup the surface is totally unpowered - and the aircraft is stationary, so the surface can just "sit there" and no-one is going to care.

But suppose that when that same surface is unpowered, with NO operative PCUs, it then "floats" to the aerodynamic neutral position. that's not something it does in any of the "normal" cases above. So unless someone specifically modelled this behaviour, the sim won't do it - the surface will just sit at the normal/stowed position.

So when you try your all engines out approach in the sim, all the spoilers (for example) stay nicely deployed. the day you do it in the aircraft, half of them float up and significantly increase your drag, and maybe you don't actually make the runway.

The underlying issue is that the sim is not a first principle physics based model of the workings of the aircraft and all its components. Some of it IS physics based (like the equations of motion that actually "move" the flight model) but large chunks of it are empirical, or table/data based (like the actual aerodynamics, which are just data tables for KNOWN conditions, or the systems behaviour, which in some cases is just "effects based"). So the sim cannot reliably extrapolate to other conditions, as the basis of the modelling is simply not set up that way.

[FullWings]

I do understand that it’s not solving Navier-Stokes in real time around the aircraft for our benefit. However, does it have to extrapolate outside the model in order to produce a “realistic” total engine failure scenario?

The example you’re describing would mean that a multiple hydraulic failure would not be simulated accurately even with AEO. If it can’t do that, then we have a problem as there are QRH drills and performance data for this precise scenario.

If all the engines quit in real life, then it could be for multiple reasons: fuel starvation, ash ingestion, birdstrikes, icing, rollbacks, uncontained failures, etc. All these will generate different system and aerodynamic effects, so when practicing in the sim the absolute fidelity doesn’t really matter as you’ll have to deal with what you get on the day. On BA38 the engines were actually still producing thrust, not enough to quite make the runway, unfortunately.

I do get what you are saying and I think it applies very much in things that take you to the edge of the flight envelope and beyond. However, if you were ever unlucky enough to experience a total engine failure, what you get is what you get; we can train techniques that allow you to get the airframe down on a runway (or road or field or lake...) despite the rather unknown and variable nature of the aircraft’s actual performance. Generic solutions and exposure to what many regard as a doomsday scenario can only help.

[Check Airman]

However, does it have to extrapolate outside the model in order to produce a “realistic” total engine failure scenario?

The way I understand the sims to be coded, yes, it would have to do that. You don't want that to happen, as it can lead to negative learning. I believe it was discussed (though I'm not sure if it was listed as a contributing factor) in the investigation of the A300 that crashed at JFK in Nov 2001.

If I recall, in the sim, you'd use a lot of rudder to get out of an upset, and that's exactly what the FO did that day, which eventually led to the failure of the vertical stabilizer.

[FullWings]

I think the A300 accident was more about over-enthusiastic and cyclic unnecessary use of rudder than any lack of sim fidelity. I dimly remember the report stating that the sim training program had been checked and found to be within the flight test and model data but the concern was that the course material promoted use of rudder over other controls at high AoA...

I’m not trying to argue that you can do really odd manoeuvres in the sim and have high confidence that they would be repeatable on the aircraft. However, I would expect that as the sim has to model for each engine the thrust/drag and system effects for quite a wide range of non-normal scenarios, it would be odd if there were significant differences to the real thing. On the 777 there is a QRH recall drill for dual engine failure/stall which involves turning both engines off and on and deploying the RAT: it would be somewhat of an omission if this wasn’t modelled correctly, seeing as it can take several minutes to idle from this condition at altitude.

[bugged on the right]

Did it in the box as part of L1011 conversion. TOC, flew into volcanic ash at night, one by one the engines failed. Turned back, set speed then checklists for single engine failures, then multiple engine failures, hydraulic systems, electical systems pressurisation failures. Calculation of no flap, no slat speeds, checklists for that. Manual gear extension, all the time trying to relight an engine. Of course that didn't happen. Both pilots and FE working like one armed paper hangers but we did it. I think I lost weight, the session lasted about 40 minutes and I have never felt such satisfaction or confidence as then.

[Empty Cruise]

...also of interest is training the dual engine flameout after departure - as demonstrated by Sullenberger (and Ryanair @ CIA) - that's where the birdstrikes happen. We practice a profile with dual failure at 2.800ft - too low for a turnback - and it generally works well (although you can imagine what the wreckage would look like if it were to happen for real)

[RVF750]

My last company gave us a dual failure at 800' heading out to sea out of AYT. Dodge the buildings then ditch. you had about 30 seconds.....

Then reposition and a normal departure right after. They really should have done the ditching drill at the end of the session to be fair.....

[misd-agin]

It's good practice of basic airmanship. Guys frequently add drag too early.

Airliners can achieve at least 2.5 nm (Airbus guidance) to 3 nm (demonstrated ) per 1000' of altitude. 30,000'? 75-90 nm gliding range if you fly the plane correctly.

Windmilling engines provide a significant amount of hydraulic pressure (ex. US 1549), especially if you don't move the controls.

Every descent/arrival uses the basics of energy mgt. Gliding is no different.

IMO pilots real nightmare scenario is a cabin fire.

[Alpine Flyer]

IMHO success depends mainly on whether you can see where you go. Drop out of a low overcast during night and you're back to "switch on landing lights, if you don't like what you see, switch'em off again" while you might have better options if you can see an airport in range or at least look for a flattish, longish place to set it down.

We trained this on the SIM and I think it is a good idea to do so, but I wouldn't bet on the experience to be fully realistic, especially regarding availability of engine driven hydraulics.

Having (hydraulics) power available to move slats/flaps and especially a speed brake thus allowing better control of glideslope would be helpful, too, as most of us are probably not too good at judging how far we'll get without thrust lower down (e.g. when to turn to base/final) and having flaps available would improve survivability d/t lower speeds.

And why is it called "dead-stick" if it's the engines that are dead?

[bafanguy]

This is a good one. Lots to discuss. Read all of it as it appears to qualify as dead stick:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110

And this from the Feds:

http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&LLID=40&LLTypeID=2