Originally Posted by
vc10derness
PJ2 indicates that this was not a rushed approach. I agree....until ATC told them they were at 3500' at 5 miles out. After that I disagree and eagle21 I believe has it. The attempted landing from that position (and possible configuration) lead to a 'touchdown' on the engine pods with gear up. The unfortunate thing about the CFM56 engine is that the accessory gearbox is at the bottom of the fan casing. This drives quite a lot of critical engine machinery and is also (I believe) where the generators are fitted. The subsequent damage to both engines was enough to seal the disaster. My question is how weree they able to be 2000' higher at 5 miles than they should have been. I admit to not having flown the Airbus but I did do 36 years on VC10,747-100, L1011, BAC1-11, 747-400 and 737-400 and -700. A horrible day. An immediate go-around from the initial problem of being in the wrong place....and we wouldn't be talking about it. 20/20 hindsight. Stay safe all.
The lowest point on CFM56 (not to count cowling and drain mast) is bottom of gearbox housing with oil lines coming in and out FWD and AFT very close to lowest point. Also fire loops are at that point. Right from centerline is IDG, and left from CL is hydraulic pump, but a bit higher and no hyd. lines coming below pump. Dedicated alternator, that powers FADEC is in between (but elec. power is available from other sources if this one fails) Since RAT was extended (providing Hyd. power to Blue hyd. system and consequently powering emergency generator), there must have been quite some damage on the engines.
