British 747 looses all engines
I was tech instructing at VAA at the time. Memory,(fallible!!) tells me that it was titled 'Avoiding Volcanic Ash', possibly produced by the FAA.
It might be worth your while contacting Virgin Flight CrewTraining at Horley. I'm sure that they would be able to point you towards the source.
Alternatively, a PM to Scroggs on this forum might provide the info.
It might be worth your while contacting Virgin Flight CrewTraining at Horley. I'm sure that they would be able to point you towards the source.
Alternatively, a PM to Scroggs on this forum might provide the info.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks! We have that video now. Funny enough, it has no images of that particular incident. It seems no one tokk any actual pictures of the plane ("The City of Edinburgh") after it manded.
Cheers, Dean
Cheers, Dean
Hmmm - that's odd. The video we used quite definitely had a sequence which included an interview with Eric Moody. There was a series of shots of the damage to the aircraft including the windscreens and engine intakes and blades.
Perhaps yours is a different version?
Perhaps yours is a different version?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi CJ
Am still showing the vid entitled Volcanic Ash Avoidance to all our new-hire. Think I could recite the narrative by rote!! Trust you're well old bean.
FYI, video produced by:
Boeing
Customer Training and Flight Operations Support
PO Box 3707, MS 2T-82
Seattle
WA 98124-2207 USA
Tele: 206-544-5445
Fax 206-544-5816
Numbers may be a bit out of date but worth a try:
vid is 33 mins 911202 PAL
Hope this helps
Am still showing the vid entitled Volcanic Ash Avoidance to all our new-hire. Think I could recite the narrative by rote!! Trust you're well old bean.
FYI, video produced by:
Boeing
Customer Training and Flight Operations Support
PO Box 3707, MS 2T-82
Seattle
WA 98124-2207 USA
Tele: 206-544-5445
Fax 206-544-5816
Numbers may be a bit out of date but worth a try:
vid is 33 mins 911202 PAL
Hope this helps
Last edited by 4PON4PIN; 19th Sep 2006 at 15:41.
Moderator
Tyke65,
Can't recall seeing it. However, be aware that the site has a couple of changes in place recently which put a delay in new threads and posts by new members appearing .. so that may have had something to do with it.
Can't recall seeing it. However, be aware that the site has a couple of changes in place recently which put a delay in new threads and posts by new members appearing .. so that may have had something to do with it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My reply ref CVR hasn't appeared but my follow-up has. What I originally said was that there was no copy or print-out of the CVR recording. It was not switched off after the flight (there was no reason or procedure for doing this) and all that was on the tape was some chattering and giggling stewardesses recorded the next day.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Trumpton
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear. I think I'm going to upset a lot of you guys here. But I'm going to say my piece anyway.
I just watched a program on National Geographic about this flight. At the very beginning of the problem, before any engines failed, I asked myself "why doesn't the captain fly lower?"
The program had said nothing about volcanic ash at that time, so I didn't know what was causing the problem, only that at their height and heading they had a problem and it was pretty obvious to me it was atmospheric. So why didn't the captain change direction or height to get into clean air?
Later, in the interview that the captain gave, he kept saying how the plane didn't react the way it did in the simulator! It was as if the captain couldn't think for himself and could only do what he was trained to do using the simulator.
I'm sorry if this post sounds so critical, but the flight crew could have avoided this problem by changing direction and/or height sooner. All this praise and heroic type comments seem completely misplaced to me.
I just watched a program on National Geographic about this flight. At the very beginning of the problem, before any engines failed, I asked myself "why doesn't the captain fly lower?"
The program had said nothing about volcanic ash at that time, so I didn't know what was causing the problem, only that at their height and heading they had a problem and it was pretty obvious to me it was atmospheric. So why didn't the captain change direction or height to get into clean air?
Later, in the interview that the captain gave, he kept saying how the plane didn't react the way it did in the simulator! It was as if the captain couldn't think for himself and could only do what he was trained to do using the simulator.
I'm sorry if this post sounds so critical, but the flight crew could have avoided this problem by changing direction and/or height sooner. All this praise and heroic type comments seem completely misplaced to me.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was watching that programme as well and I think your comment is a little unfair:
Firstly the Captain wasn't in the cockpit when the ash was first observed, the FO and FE got im back in ASAP. When he did get back in there was nothing on the weather radar and they had no idea what it was. They thought it might be St Elmo's fire and that to be fair does not have a history of making all the engines stop. Strange as it may seem this had never been practiced in the simulator before and when the Captain talked about the plane not responding like the simulator he was only emphasising the strange nature of the situation. The time between the Captain returning to the flight deck and the engines quitting was very short and when it first appeared there was no evidence of it having an effect on the plane. Climb/descend or change heading? They had no idea of the extent of this, blindly changing course- remember there was nothing on radar - might not have been the best thing to do. I rather doubt any other crew would have reacted differently.
Firstly the Captain wasn't in the cockpit when the ash was first observed, the FO and FE got im back in ASAP. When he did get back in there was nothing on the weather radar and they had no idea what it was. They thought it might be St Elmo's fire and that to be fair does not have a history of making all the engines stop. Strange as it may seem this had never been practiced in the simulator before and when the Captain talked about the plane not responding like the simulator he was only emphasising the strange nature of the situation. The time between the Captain returning to the flight deck and the engines quitting was very short and when it first appeared there was no evidence of it having an effect on the plane. Climb/descend or change heading? They had no idea of the extent of this, blindly changing course- remember there was nothing on radar - might not have been the best thing to do. I rather doubt any other crew would have reacted differently.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Trumpton
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand your point of view. It is possible that the representation of the effect of the volcanic ash on the windscreen made it obvious to the viewers of the program that it was something in the atmosphere causing the problem. In the program it looked like what you see when driving fast in a snow storm, so that is why I immediately thought they should change course or drop beneath it. Maybe in the real event the crew didn't think it was in the atmosphere.
Also, the program does tend to drag out these incidents in minute detail making it appear that a lot of time is passing, but I was certainly getting quite agitated while they kept on flying straight into this stuff. I know it was only a program, but the effects shown were quite dramatic and I was getting quite absorbed by the program, and keen to find out what could be causing the problem.
And then when the cause was stated as a cloud of volcanic ash, I thought if they'd just changed course or height sooner, the problem may not have been so bad. It was as if the crew were mesmerised by the weird effects and more keen to determine the cause of them than to try to fly around it.
Also, the program does tend to drag out these incidents in minute detail making it appear that a lot of time is passing, but I was certainly getting quite agitated while they kept on flying straight into this stuff. I know it was only a program, but the effects shown were quite dramatic and I was getting quite absorbed by the program, and keen to find out what could be causing the problem.
And then when the cause was stated as a cloud of volcanic ash, I thought if they'd just changed course or height sooner, the problem may not have been so bad. It was as if the crew were mesmerised by the weird effects and more keen to determine the cause of them than to try to fly around it.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: East of BKI
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NASA's DC-8 had an encounter with an "ash cloud" a few years back. Engines kept on turning but they had to overhaul them shortly after.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/p...ain_H-2511.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/p...ain_H-2511.pdf
Just seen Lord Lucan's nonsense. Hmmm!!
From the perspective of an armchair AND with that most helpful of intelligence aids, hindsight(!!), it's quite easy to spout such drivel. Perhaps LL has the intuitive ability to immediately analyse each incident which involves him(or her) and instantly react with unerring accuracy but the rest of us mortals have to do our best with 'airmanship' - an art/skill which depends on EXPERIENCE. Eric Moody was faced with a totally unprecedented situation - something akin to the Sioux City DC10 in many ways - and he, and his crew, responded with a mixture of determination, application and quick thinking to produce a brilliant outcome which could very easily, otherwise, have been a total tragedy. There is NO sim scenario which would require STANDING on the rudder pedals for the approach and landing in order to be able to see through a small portion of an almost totally obscured windscreen, never mind engines which had become distinctly secondhand. That sims do not truly represent emergency conditions was tellingly demonstrated by the United crew who lost an engine on departure and reported that the experience was UTTERLY UNLIKE any sim EFATO session. Sims are excellent PROCEDURE trainers whether that be normal or abnormal. What they are not, is a totally accurate representation of real-life emergency situations, even if it's only the absence of the 'half crown/sixpence' syndrome!!
Eric Moody and crew did a remarkable job that night. He used his accumulation of acquired skills (airmanship) for their proper purpose and (as I am personally aware) he continued to gather more of such relevant experience in his subsequent career.
LL's viewpoint, as expressed, would seem to indicate a need for a similar enthusiasm for experience-based education.
From the perspective of an armchair AND with that most helpful of intelligence aids, hindsight(!!), it's quite easy to spout such drivel. Perhaps LL has the intuitive ability to immediately analyse each incident which involves him(or her) and instantly react with unerring accuracy but the rest of us mortals have to do our best with 'airmanship' - an art/skill which depends on EXPERIENCE. Eric Moody was faced with a totally unprecedented situation - something akin to the Sioux City DC10 in many ways - and he, and his crew, responded with a mixture of determination, application and quick thinking to produce a brilliant outcome which could very easily, otherwise, have been a total tragedy. There is NO sim scenario which would require STANDING on the rudder pedals for the approach and landing in order to be able to see through a small portion of an almost totally obscured windscreen, never mind engines which had become distinctly secondhand. That sims do not truly represent emergency conditions was tellingly demonstrated by the United crew who lost an engine on departure and reported that the experience was UTTERLY UNLIKE any sim EFATO session. Sims are excellent PROCEDURE trainers whether that be normal or abnormal. What they are not, is a totally accurate representation of real-life emergency situations, even if it's only the absence of the 'half crown/sixpence' syndrome!!
Eric Moody and crew did a remarkable job that night. He used his accumulation of acquired skills (airmanship) for their proper purpose and (as I am personally aware) he continued to gather more of such relevant experience in his subsequent career.
LL's viewpoint, as expressed, would seem to indicate a need for a similar enthusiasm for experience-based education.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Trumpton
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just seen Lord Lucan's nonsense. Hmmm!!
From the perspective of an armchair AND with that most helpful of intelligence aids, hindsight(!!), it's quite easy to spout such drivel.
From the perspective of an armchair AND with that most helpful of intelligence aids, hindsight(!!), it's quite easy to spout such drivel.
Perhaps LL has the intuitive ability to immediately analyse each incident which involves him(or her) and instantly react with unerring accuracy
It seemed pretty obvious to me that they were flying INTO something, even if the radar didn't show anything. The crew appeared to be more interested in the effects caused by the ash then in getting the h3ll out of there and into clean air.
The captain showed too much reliance on instruments and simulator training and not enough "thinking out of the box".
but the rest of us mortals have to do our best with 'airmanship' - an art/skill which depends on EXPERIENCE. Eric Moody was faced with a totally unprecedented situation - something akin to the Sioux City DC10 in many ways - and he, and his crew, responded with a mixture of determination, application and quick thinking to produce a brilliant outcome which could very easily, otherwise, have been a total tragedy.
There is NO sim scenario which would require STANDING on the rudder pedals for the approach and landing in order to be able to see through a small portion of an almost totally obscured windscreen, never mind engines which had become distinctly secondhand.
That sims do not truly represent emergency conditions was tellingly demonstrated by the United crew who lost an engine on departure and reported that the experience was UTTERLY UNLIKE any sim EFATO session. Sims are excellent PROCEDURE trainers whether that be normal or abnormal. What they are not, is a totally accurate representation of real-life emergency situations, even if it's only the absence of the 'half crown/sixpence' syndrome!!
Eric Moody and crew did a remarkable job that night. He used his accumulation of acquired skills (airmanship) for their proper purpose and (as I am personally aware) he continued to gather more of such relevant experience in his subsequent career.
His excellent landing with impaired vision appears to be given too much emphasis rather than the fact that he didn't have to get into that situation in the first place.
Maybe the program made it too easy for the viewers to guess what was happening to the plane. I hope you get to see it. You may want to criticise the program rather than my views that are as a direct result of seeing the information presented by the program.
LL's viewpoint, as expressed, would seem to indicate a need for a similar enthusiasm for experience-based education.
4PON4PIN
Delicately put, as ever, matey!!
I fully agree with your village analogy - that, or the 'lighthouse in the desert' syndrome!!
However, one supposes that we should consider ourselves lucky to have been given the benefit of such an incisive assessment of the 'proper' actions when faced with unprecedented conditions. Either that, or gain a more accurate insight into what ACTUALLY happened by availing ourselves of the brilliance of National Geographic's production team. Unfortunately, we lesser mortals have to make do with the FACTS - they do have a nasty habit of interfering with a good story!!
Keep promising myself an 'old boys' visit and will do so - but am into 24/6 employment next 14 days so keep the coffee warm!!
Regards to all
Delicately put, as ever, matey!!
I fully agree with your village analogy - that, or the 'lighthouse in the desert' syndrome!!
However, one supposes that we should consider ourselves lucky to have been given the benefit of such an incisive assessment of the 'proper' actions when faced with unprecedented conditions. Either that, or gain a more accurate insight into what ACTUALLY happened by availing ourselves of the brilliance of National Geographic's production team. Unfortunately, we lesser mortals have to make do with the FACTS - they do have a nasty habit of interfering with a good story!!
Keep promising myself an 'old boys' visit and will do so - but am into 24/6 employment next 14 days so keep the coffee warm!!
Regards to all
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do I do now?
Perhaps LordLucan's choice of user name reflects his personality. I can well imagine Lord King's reaction if, on seeing a few lights that he had never seen before, the Captain had turned around. Where would he have gone then? What would he have done then? How do you say to the passengers 'I'm a bit frightened so I'm taking you back to KL'? LordLucan appears to be living in the world of Microsoft Flight Simulator rather than the real world of aviation.
They didn't decide to lose height. It's something that happens automatically when the engines quit.
No one stood on the rudder pedals for landing - there isn't room on the flight deck for anyone over the height of about four feet to stand up in the area of the pilot's seat and the captain would have had to unfasten his safety harness to stand up. That would have meant landing in what can only be described as 'extreme circumstances' with no safety harness on. No way! It didn't happen.
They didn't decide to lose height. It's something that happens automatically when the engines quit.
No one stood on the rudder pedals for landing - there isn't room on the flight deck for anyone over the height of about four feet to stand up in the area of the pilot's seat and the captain would have had to unfasten his safety harness to stand up. That would have meant landing in what can only be described as 'extreme circumstances' with no safety harness on. No way! It didn't happen.
Last edited by tyke65; 5th Jul 2007 at 15:08.
