It's a no-brainer. It is either authorised by the FM/Ops Manual and therefore legal, or it isn't. If it is, and the captain chose not to do it, he is either wise or silly depending on why he thought it "dangerous".
In any case, gear-down ferries are normally done without pax.
well if he didn't have enough fuel, ( with pax and cargo) everybody would've done the same thing rather than ditching the jumbo over the indian ocean.. but if the orders we're to re-land and ferry the jumbo dropping of the pax and cargo ( carrying more xtra fuel and MEL limitations ) that would've been a helluva different story.
My former airline did a gear down ferry from DXB to Europe on a 742F many years ago; I happened to be in the Ops office at the time and heard the Chief Pilot discuss the flight at length with the operating Capt, offering advice and going through all the limitations. Believe it had to stay under FL200 and max 270KIAS (IIRC). Fuel stop in IST; took all day but it was necessary mx-wise to get the aircraft home.
QRH Perf will cover Gear Down Ferry planning.
Route can be slightly altered to fly along Iran and Pakistan coastlines if there IS an overwater restriction .
Did one once across South China Sea in a 737 -300 . Fuel burn remarkably as predicted , max alt about FL 220 ,not a good idea to carry pax -noise in the cabin is deafening !!
RUH to Mumbai , in a B747-400, at LRC should take no more than about six hours and if empty would have the capacity to carry up to twelve hours worth of fuel, various limitations permitting. In an empty aircraft at 270kts and FL220 fuel consumption should not be excessive. Gear down ferry flights in the B744 are not considered a problem. A few numbers, all engines operating, trip distance 2000 miles, nil wind, fuel required for long range cruise approx 80 tons.
Maybe there is more to this than we are being told?
The M.E.L. gives the right to an AME to refuse to release an aircraft for service or a Pilot to refuse the Aircraft if it is considered unsave to do so even though the defect can be carried forward under M.E.L.
The problem here is was the snag unsafe.
Gear extend ferry is not abnormal.
I wonder what was the exact cause of the LG malfunction though.
There simply has to be more in this than meets the eye. A "Gear Down Ferry" is really not a difficult exercise provided that the MEL/CDL allows such a procedure.
From the flight crew point of view it is quite an interesting exercise (which I have done) and the main consideration is quite simply being able to get enough fuel on board to complete the exercise.
Apart from that, there is going to be a little bit more vibration than normal and the flight is going to take place at a much lower altitude than normal.
To get things into perspective, you could fly the DC-10 with the gear down at 300 knots (IAS).
I think Air India politics are heavily involved in this story.
Cesarnc has hit the nail on the head, we were not there, we do not know the whole story.Fuel to continue would likely have been the first consideration of the Captain. Let's face it, the Captain elected to return and no doubt evaluate the situation on the ground. Having done so fuel would no longer have been his concern, however something made him refuse to ferry the aircraft "gear down" to Mumbai. Mach .82 max would not have been a concern.
In the few times I (as a passenger) was grounded in the last minute by "techincal problems" I thanked God they grounded a potencial problematic aircraft, while the other passengers shouted and screamed and threatened law suits.
I learned that the hard way: I flew in an aircraft that happened to crash 1 week later with 99 people on board. Fokker 100, reverse opened during the roll, short runway, "minor" techincal problem detected on the previous day.
Linear Mode
