FedEx 757
Thread Starter
FedEx 757
Just in, a FedEx 757 landed gear up at Chattanooga Tennessee Airport KCHA . . Early reports say It was intentional as there was a hydraulic problem and they couldn’t use the alternate gear extension system. Again, these are early reports. No injuries reported.
Last edited by Chiefttp; 5th Oct 2023 at 13:13.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having had to use Alternate Gear Extension on a 757, lets hope the reason it did not work here is an actual issue, not just a CB as LOT on a 767. Good work getting it on the ground in one peace, without significant injuries. Probably end of the line for this airframe.
Having had to use Alternate Gear Extension on a 757, lets hope the reason it did not work here is an actual issue, not just a CB as LOT on a 767. Good work getting it on the ground in one peace, without significant injuries. Probably end of the line for this airframe.
While narrow body FedEx and UPS aircraft tend to be relatively low hour/cycle for their age, this was originally a passenger 757 and probably racked up a fair number of hours/cycles before FedEx converted it roughly ten years ago.
In the old days I could check the Boeing data base and get the latest hour/cycle numbers, but lost that ability when I retired.
Join Date: May 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect no calculations exist for no gear landing. However some data from accidents may exist.
What is the runway required? Seems like 7,000 may not be enough. This was a short flight and may not have been fully loaded. What if it was at MTOW?
How would one know runway requirements?
What is the runway required? Seems like 7,000 may not be enough. This was a short flight and may not have been fully loaded. What if it was at MTOW?
How would one know runway requirements?
Last edited by Flch250; 5th Oct 2023 at 21:35.
Thread Starter
N4790P
I suspect no calculations exist for no gear landing. However some data from accidents may exist.
What is the runway required? Seems like 7,000 may not be enough. This was a short flight and may not have been fully loaded. What if it was at MTOW?
How would one know runway requirements?
What is the runway required? Seems like 7,000 may not be enough. This was a short flight and may not have been fully loaded. What if it was at MTOW?
How would one know runway requirements?
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,625
Received 298 Likes
on
166 Posts
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19601029-2
I flew the 757/67 for eleven years, other than the LOT 767 gear up I don’t remember another case where the gear could not be extended by any means on either aircraft ?
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having had to use Alternate Gear Extension on a 757, lets hope the reason it did not work here is an actual issue, not just a CB as LOT on a 767. Good work getting it on the ground in one peace, without significant injuries. Probably end of the line for this airframe.
That said, the LOT 767 that landed in similar fashion at Warsaw Chopin some years ago was a hull loss.
Thread Starter
The 757 alternate gear extension utilizes hydraulic power to release the uplocks which allows the gear to free fall. The 767 utilizes a small electric motor to release the uplocks. The LOT 767 gear up landing was due to a popped circuit breaker which also powered the small electric motor that released the uplocks which then allowed the alternate gear extension to work. 2 different systems, so an electrical issue shouldn’t affect the 757 alternate gear extension system. This will be an interesting investigation.
We had a similar scenario in the C-141, where a crew due to limited fuel, rushed the alternate gear extension checklist and failed to secure the nose gear. It collapsed upon landing.
We had a similar scenario in the C-141, where a crew due to limited fuel, rushed the alternate gear extension checklist and failed to secure the nose gear. It collapsed upon landing.
Based on a few photos, appears that N977FD stopped just short of the localizer antenna, so perhaps about 800 ft of overrun? Must have chewed up a portion of the runway 2 MALSR.
ref - https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-382117.html
If that's true then wouldn't this electric motor have a circuit breaker?
"Landing Gear Alternate Extension
The alternate landing gear extension system uses a dedicated DC powered electric hydraulic pump. Fluid within the supply line to the pump is sufficient for alternate gear extension operation. This fluid is isolated from the left hydraulic system. Selecting the ALTN GEAR EXTEND switch releases all door and gear uplocks. The landing gear free–fall to the down and locked position."
ref - http://navfly.ru/wp-content/uploads/...ons_manual.pdf
I have not found any reference to an associated circuit breaker.
The alternate landing gear extension system uses a dedicated DC powered electric hydraulic pump. Fluid within the supply line to the pump is sufficient for alternate gear extension operation. This fluid is isolated from the left hydraulic system. Selecting the ALTN GEAR EXTEND switch releases all door and gear uplocks. The landing gear free–fall to the down and locked position."
ref - http://navfly.ru/wp-content/uploads/...ons_manual.pdf
I have not found any reference to an associated circuit breaker.