PDA

View Full Version : Top-notch airmanship...


dead_pan
10th Jan 2014, 17:34
...not:

BBC News - New Zealand plane beach take-off fails (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25685529)

Tricky stuff, that water

con-pilot
10th Jan 2014, 18:10
I thought it was all going rather well.

Untill the crash. :p

con-pilot
10th Jan 2014, 18:13
check out this landing.

Smoothest Landing? US Airways Airbus A330 - YouTube

For some reason, I do not believe that was an auto-land landing. :ok:

TWT
10th Jan 2014, 18:58
Must be a long runway there

tony draper
10th Jan 2014, 18:58
The clip has made the news channels here,he will have to walk the earth with a paper bag over his head for a few months.
:E

angels
10th Jan 2014, 19:05
connie - I was in a landing where the Nigel up front apologised for what he called a 'firm' landing which he blamed on the auto-land system and then did the old, "I do hope everyone can find their dental fillings" line. :8

ruddman
10th Jan 2014, 19:08
Yeah a little unfortunate. Poor guy. At least he never got injured. Could've been worse.


Con-pilot? I've seen that one before. Holy smokes. Not sure if it gets any smoother then that! :D


I'm sure somebody up front bragged about that one for awhile.

superq7
10th Jan 2014, 19:12
^^^^^^ I expect it was a British pilot :E

Checkboard
10th Jan 2014, 19:14
I don't get it? :confused:

superq7
10th Jan 2014, 19:17
Check it was a joke about the smooth 330 landing.

Checkboard
10th Jan 2014, 19:18
Ah- was that smooth? 60% of the landings I experience are like that.

Mechta
10th Jan 2014, 19:24
...and the rest you land manually???:E:}

goudie
10th Jan 2014, 19:29
Landed at SFO in a BA 777, a few years ago, never felt a thing as it touched down. Quite few passengers applauded! Had few teeth rattlers into Luton with Ryan-air!

goudie
10th Jan 2014, 19:30
Landed at SFO in a BA 777, a few years ago, never felt a thing as it touched down. Quite few passengers applauded! Had a few teeth rattlers into Luton with Ryan-air!

West Coast
10th Jan 2014, 19:39
Con

That was a Mexican landing...


A real greaser..

spInY nORmAn
10th Jan 2014, 20:05
I found it remarkable that anyone survived this accident in Iceland last year (3 on board - co-pilot survived).

Horrific Footage Shows Air Ambulance Plane CRASHING On WINGS at Iceland Dragstrip - YouTube

con-pilot
10th Jan 2014, 21:14
Must be a long runway there

Yes, 10,000 feet.

Nervous SLF
10th Jan 2014, 21:15
^^^^^^ I expect it was a British pilot :E

Whilst wearing a gigantic watch ? :):)

awblain
10th Jan 2014, 22:25
Looks safer that the kiwi guy crashed from sea level rather than anywhere higher.

oxenos
11th Jan 2014, 10:10
"Had few teeth rattlers into Luton with Ryan-air!"

That would have been me.

UniFoxOs
11th Jan 2014, 12:29
Found the pilot's comment amusing, though...

We don't want to make an exhibition of ourselves

Famous last words (almost)

SawMan
11th Jan 2014, 12:31
Smoothest of my relatively few landings was over a decade ago at KCLT in horrible winter weather- a real 'greaser'. Winds were gusty and snow was blowing in crazy vortices on the ground. Touchdown was almost not felt- a small pothole in a car was far bumpier! We broke out of the clouds just above the runway (collective loud gasp from all pax who were looking out the windows) after a very bumpy short hop from KGSP, the seat belt light never went out on that one. Yup, automation and a good pilot made it happen. And I passed my congrats for the greaser to the flight crew on deplaning :ok:

Never had a really bad landing, but the worst were always in clear weather with light or no winds. I can't make sense of that but since I've never used an emergency slide I am not complaining- bumpy or not the flight crew got me there unharmed so they did their job well enough I guess. Youtube is full of vids of bad landings but I take it to heart that any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Just don't expect my compliments when you don't do it fairly well when you could have!

G-CPTN
11th Jan 2014, 13:19
Some 30 years ago I was scheduled to return from Birmingham UK to Copenhagen on a small 'exec' plane. It was a scheduled service (mid 80s).
The weather was stormy (trees bent over and glasses blown down from street lamps).
I rang Mrs G-CPTN in Denmark and learned that all SAS flights were grounded due to gales.
I rang Birmingham Airport "Would the flight be going?" "Yes, sir, we fly every Thursday afternoon." . . . .
We took off and flew to Copenhagen with some degree of disturbance. On finals it got VERY rough, with the 'plane tossed up and down and side to side.
About 20 ft above ground level the pilot pulled it up slightly and we 'floated' down for an imperceptible touch-down.
Spent the night in Copenhagen Airport - no onward flights to anywhere as all SAS and Maersk flights grounded due to excessive wind . . .

OFSO
11th Jan 2014, 13:55
Had a few teeth rattlers into Luton with Ryan-air!

That's the 737NG, not the airline. Very hard to put one of them down without passengers noting it, or so the guys up front told me.

Tankertrashnav
11th Jan 2014, 16:31
Quote from the initial video

"The two pilots were brave enough to try and get back in the air"

Brave? :ugh:

Who said there were no old, bold pilots?

Mikehotel152
11th Jan 2014, 19:25
check out this landing.

Very nice. :)

Mind you a 2000 ft floater down a 10,000 ft runway onto two-axle bogies ought to be soft!

A greaser on the TDZ in a 738 on a 6,500 ft runway is more worthy of praise in my book.

Capot
11th Jan 2014, 21:02
The great (late) Harry Mills, who transferred his VC10 skills from BA to Gulf Air, used to land so gently that he would ask the FO to look back to check if the mainwheels were on the ground.

ExSp33db1rd
12th Jan 2014, 02:06
Landing at Philadelphia one day with a mighty, gusting, crosswind, a USA 727 pilot was cleared for immediate take off. Negative, said the 727 pilot, I'm going to stay here and watch this 747 land !

Not only did I have to cope with the crosswind, I knew I had a critic watching, too. Barsteward !

Memory has removed the precise landing result from my conciousness, but it couldn't have been too bad or I would have remembered it.

pigboat
12th Jan 2014, 02:14
I once bounced a DC-3 high enough I looked down on the runway at the next station 20 miles down the line. :p

ExSp33db1rd
12th Jan 2014, 03:09
I note that the New Zealand ultra light crashed after a second failure of a newly installed engine. The most dangerous aeroplane to fly is one that has just come out of maintenance.

Did the NZ pilot lose the engine on the beach take off, or did he run into soft sand that pulled him into the surf? An engine failure alone would not have led him into the surf and a cartwheel - unless he lost concentration as a result of realising that the had lost the engine again ?

From a local newspaper .......

Horne said he and his passenger transferred fuel from one wing to the other, but when they tried to take off again they contacted the water, causing the plane to "nosedive" into the sand, breaking its propeller and damaging its wing.

mickjoebill
12th Jan 2014, 04:04
Found the pilot's comment amusing, though...

Quote:
We don't want to make an exhibition of ourselves
Famous last words (almost)

and

"we were too cautious you know, trying to stay away from trees and boats"

They didn't get to the point where they would have also had to avoid hitting the cliff.



Mickjoebill

pigboat
12th Jan 2014, 04:15
The most dangerous aeroplane to fly is one that has just come out of maintenance.

ExSp33, I had a friend that crashed a Dornier 28 on takeoff. The airplane had just come out of major maintenance and the ailerons had been crossed rigged. A gust lifted the left wing and when he applied aileron to counteract the roll increased. He knew immediately what had gone wrong, chopped the power and applied left aileron, but wound up cartwheeling anyway. He said it went against every instinct he'd acquired in 25 years of flying to apply aileron into the roll to try and stop it.

Krystal n chips
12th Jan 2014, 05:49
" The most dangerous aeroplane to fly is one that has just come out of maintenance

Thanks for that wonderful piece of homespun philosophy.

It stands to reason that Engineers make a habit of certifying unserviceable aircraft..in fact, it's the first thing we learn !....any maintenance thereafter is purely a cosmetic exercise to fulfil some arcane rules and regulatory requirements.....however, ignorance can also be bliss.....as you have kindly demonstrated.

As for the two unwitting "heroes" in question, Darwin Award candidates comes to mind here, they remind me of two elderly gentleman I once had to misfortune to fly with....and survived the experience. They were selling a light a/c and the prospective owner asked to have a look at it. The corrosion was, shall we say " somewhat evident " and that was only the visible corrosion. Said prospective owner also wished to fly the a/c, so off we went.

All seemed fine at first then the engine started to make those little spluttering noises....at which point one elderly gentleman asked the other " did you switch the carb heat on ? "....." That's a good idea" said the other....it was February and the temp was about +3C...short time later...."did you take your medication this morning?".....said recipient of the question proceeds to take tablets from pocket at this point.....never a fan of Lincolnshire, this was one time I was actually pleased to be on the ground of the County....the two elderly gentlemen, were, at no time even remotely perturbed by either of the above events....

unstable load
12th Jan 2014, 06:06
Thanks, Krystal!
You put it so much better than I could have.:mad:

ExSp33db1rd
12th Jan 2014, 07:06
It stands to reason that Engineers make a habit of certifying unserviceable aircraft.No, but they do pull perfectly good aeroplanes apart for no better reason than the requisite number of hours has been reached, then, maybe, forget to put widget sprocket retaining nut back on. Not saying they do that deliberately, but they're only human after all.

There must be a happy medium between - If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It, and Don't Touch It Until It Is Broke ?

Anyway - it wasn't an original thought of mine, but one instilled in me at an early age in my determination to fly the things not mend them - and I received many examples of when it was proved to be true, fortunately not terminal, but from experience, any aircraft I'm asked to fly that has just come out of maintenance gets a very special pre-flight check.

Sorry if I touched a nerve !

ex_matelot
12th Jan 2014, 07:54
surely the issue with the dornier would have been picked up during preflight controls check??


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

galdian
12th Jan 2014, 08:00
OFSO

Thanks for your passing on of the comment from up front that it's "more about the NG than the pilots"....or similar.

When I went from the classic to NG some 9 years ago I was initially mortified that what little skill I had (but still consistently got pretty good landings on the classic....bear in mind "consistent" as percentage could be 95/5% or 51/49%, not claiming the former by any means!) was COMPLETELY wiped out by the NG.

Makes me wonder if Boeing didn't re-invent the 727...as the 737NG! :suspect:

Seems both need the power...to provide the airspeed...to provide the lift...to maintain control.

What was the 727 mantra..."don't finish with the engines until you've finished with the wings"?? :ok:

Equally good advice on the NG - IMHO.

Cheers.

Rwy in Sight
12th Jan 2014, 08:06
" The most dangerous aeroplane to fly is one that has just come out of maintenance"

I am not sure it might be an urban myth but in the US Navy aircraft that have undergone some maintenance during the CV trip are flown home at the end of the trip with the engineer as a back seater. And similarly some pilots offer a seat on the test flight to an engineer involved on the maintenance of the aircraft.

Rwy in Sight

tony draper
12th Jan 2014, 09:00
Wasn't there a engineer who accidentally took off in a Lightning,sans canopy, think he was fettling the throttle,fettled it ok,he did manage to put it back on the ground if I recall correctly,
:uhoh:
Quick google reveals a previous proon thread on the incident,good write up at the bottom of the page.
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/456072-bac-lightning-accidentally-flown-mechanic.html

Krystal n chips
12th Jan 2014, 09:57
" No, but they do pull perfectly good aeroplanes apart for no better reason than the requisite number of hours has been reached, then, maybe, forget to put widget sprocket retaining nut back on. Not saying they do that deliberately, but they're only human after all.

Nothing quite like compounding your original statement and digging an even deeper hole is there ?. Scheduled servicing isn't performed to fill up space in a hangar, it's performed to find, erm, defects that would otherwise remain undetected along with the removal / replacement of lifed items. Now why do you think they are called....lifed ?. There is also the little matter of something called an independent inspection for safety critical items, like flying controls for example, and you have to wonder how, if at all, these were performed on the Dornier.

There must be a happy medium between - If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It, and Don't Touch It Until It Is Broke ?

There is, it's called On Condition Maintenance . Engineers are, in the main, advocates of this process and the late Dick Stratton, a gentleman who was always worth listening to, was a passionate advocate of the principle.

]Anyway - it wasn't an original thought of mine, but one instilled in me at an early age in my determination to fly the things not mend them - and I received many examples of when it was proved to be true, fortunately not terminal, but from experience, any aircraft I'm asked to fly that has just come out of maintenance gets a very special pre-flight check.

That's nice to hear, suitably brainwashed at Hamble and Cranebank then. Not forgetting what can only be described as a rather savage indictment of your former employers engineers. True, you may have some basis here, there have after all been a few well publicised incidents, BAMC plonking a 747 on it's tail, the avionics stamp at GLA, the 1-11 at BHX are but rhree than spring to mind, however, what you also highlight, albeit by accident, is a culture issue.

About this special pre-flight.....how many panels did you remove or open in your determination to find defects that, in your opinion that is, would exist?.

Probably non whatsoever for the simple reasons you did not have the time, the authorisation or the tools to do so. So this special pre-flight was nothing more than the usual walk round was it.

[/I] Sorry if I touched a nerve !.

Not so much a nerve, more the whole nervous system when it comes to making such an inane and provocative statement in the way you did.

One final point. I have always been happy to fly, including air tests, on any aircraft, from gliders, mil.fast jets or commercial types I have worked on. I have never subscribed to the "I only fix the things" brigade....for whom I have the same contempt as the equally insular "I only fly them" brigade.

cockney steve
12th Jan 2014, 11:26
A tale recounted to me,by a witness...
When Lagos Intnl. had a derelict Russian military aircraft, complete with armaments and ammo......when Tower had a radio upstairs, a telephone below...communication consisted of a length of string with a bulldog-clip,dangling through a hole in the upstairs floor!.....
At that time, a great deal of effort was expended in rebuilding a light aircraft...come the day , the test-pilot lined up, opened the throttle and accelerated...when he pulled back the stick, the elevator went down and the tail went up....It had all been very carefully checked, but someone had forgotten that the restof the aircraft, in front of the CG would go in the opposite direction.....The wreckage was not worth saving and I can't remember if the pilot survived.

mrangryofwarlingham
12th Jan 2014, 11:50
food for thought:

http://www.hf.faa.gov/hfmaint/Portals/1/Accidents%20caused.pdf

Poor maintenance contributes to accident ? General Aviation News (http://generalaviationnews.com/2010/12/21/poor-maintenance-contributes-to-accident/)

Aircraft Maintenance Negligence | Aviation Law Attorneys | California Fatal Accident Lawyers Los Angeles (http://www.airplanecrash-lawyer.com/PracticeAreas/Maintenance-Negligence.asp)

Kaduna Crash: Accident investigators vet aircraft maintenance - Vanguard News (http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/05/kaduna-crash-accident-investigators-vet-aircraft-maintenance/)

It is for a good reason air tests are carried out after some maintenance...

i think we all agree there are accidents down to both pilot error and maintenance error. Engineers are no more perfect that pilots. And the companies that carry out maintenance sometimes leave a little to be desired.

do I carry out any special pre-flight checks after some maintenance? not really - but have found some items left by engineers which could have caused some serious issues if not found in the pre-flight inspection.
tools in the footwell ? "i was wondering where i have left that spanner...."
gloves in the intakes (fairly obvious and not hard to spot)
oleo on left wheel sitting low with some leaking fluid....now that was an interesting if short flight.

Krystal n chips
12th Jan 2014, 11:53
CS.....about your friends account....I think this may explain matters.....

What does the elevator in an airplane do (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_elevator_in_an_airplane_do#slide=2&article=What_does_the_elevator_in_an_airplane_)

pigboat
12th Jan 2014, 15:23
Thanks for that wonderful piece of homespun philosophy.
I make no generalizations, I refer to a single instance. The Dornier in this instance had been duly signed out by a B engineer as serviceable. That being said, of course my friend should have caught the discrepancy, first on the pre start check and again on the line up.

con-pilot
12th Jan 2014, 15:54
I once bounced a DC-3 high enough I looked down on the runway at the next station 20 miles down the line.

My first landing in a 727 was much like the US Air A-330 landing, incredibly smooth.

The very next one, I could have cleared a 747 hangar, had one been sitting on the runway. :(

Finally got the hang of landing them smoothly most of the time, about 80/20, but it took a while.

oxenos
12th Jan 2014, 16:42
" it's called On Condition Maintenance ."

a.k.a. lazy fairy ( laissez faire, geddit?)

angels
12th Jan 2014, 17:57
My dad was a mechanic/engineer in the RAF in the far east during and after WW2 and (post war) got loads of flights on planes he had repaired and checked over.

He said the pilots' philosophy was, "If you've buggered this up then you're crashing with me."

He was an excellent engineer and duly survived although the sea journey back in 1947 was a bit hairy! :}

VP959
12th Jan 2014, 17:59
ExSp33db1rd wrote:

The most dangerous aeroplane to fly is one that has just come out of maintenance.


Too damned true. I've lost count of the things found on aircraft straight out of maintenance. Usually just things like inspection panels left unsecured, but some more memorable, like the occasion when an aircraft came out with the ailerons rigged dead neutral in trim. Said aircraft had always need 2 units of roll trim to fly level as long as anyone could remember. On signing out the aircraft I asked the maintainer why the long-standing trim issue had disappeared following the re-rig after deep maintenance. He assured me that they had checked and it was now rigged to fly level with no roll trim needed.

We duly took his advice, lined up, opened the taps and as we rotated we rolled quite sharply. Bloody aircraft was the same as it had always been and still needed 2 units of roll trim to fly level.

The joys of hand made aircraft from a certain former factory at Prestwick..............

FullOppositeRudder
12th Jan 2014, 21:05
I would have been killed 46 years ago if I hadn't picked up a serious problem in an aircraft in which I was about to have spin checks.

It had just come back from a C of A involving fitment of new control cables to the wiggly bits at the back. It had been test flown by the instructor in the prior flight, however when I got in and set the rudder pedals at max forward I discovered that full right rudder application caused the pedals to lock in that position. My suspicions were initially aroused by the fact that something didn't feel right, and the presence of a grating sound during full and free movement of the primary controls. :eek:

The implications hit us like a brick wall. We took the machine back to the hangar, established the cause (incorrect routing of cables), and opened the bar early.

It was a very reflective (if extended) drinking session. :(

Never hesitate to check out the unusual in an aircraft in which you are are about to put your trust, especially after a maintenance procedure, and even if it's passed a prior test flight.

VP959
12th Jan 2014, 21:34
An acquaintance once picked up a rigging problem after maintenance, in a cable control light aircraft, during "full and free" checks. Like me, he was old school, and used to look left and right whilst reciting "left up, right down", right up, left down" when doing aileron checks. in this case he did a double take when he realised that "left up, right down" was in the wrong sense.

It turned out that the cables had been cross-rigged at the turnbuckles during maintenance, and not picked up by anyone until he did his "full and free" check just before take off.

Afterwards there was a fair bit of discussion as to how this situation had occurred, and it turned out that three people had checked the rigging before it was signed off, yet none had noticed the ailerons working in the opposite sense. Some blame has to fall on the aircraft designer, though, who arranged the cables so that all the turnbuckles were in more or less the same place and so could easily be cross connected.

reynoldsno1
13th Jan 2014, 00:52
The first flight of any airframe out of the Nimrod Major Servicing Unit was invariably a very Confucian affair - as in "may you live in interesting times" ....
We did tend to see conditions that we had not come across before :hmm:

ExSp33db1rd
13th Jan 2014, 03:44
Krystal n chips ............

ExSp33db1rd wrote:

The most dangerous aeroplane to fly is one that has just come out of maintenance.
Too damned true..........especially after a maintenance procedure, Engineers are no more perfect than pilots. It would appear that I'm not alone ! QED.

That's nice to hear, suitably brainwashed at Hamble and Cranebank thenAkcherly - by Her Majesty's Royal Air Force - prior to Cranebank and whilst Hamble was not yet even a gleam in BOAC's eye !

So this special pre-flight was nothing more than the usual walk round was it. and usually conducted by a, sometimes grey haired but always experienced, Flight Engineer, whose word I would take over some apprenticed callow youth who had been chastised by his foreman for not finishing off a job more speedily at the end of an 8 hour Graveyard shift, e.g. " Hurry up Charlie, they need this bl**dy aircraft for the 10 o'clock New York."

and I count Flight Engineers, many of them ex - Halton "Brats" amongst some of my finest friends, vowed never to fly without one - and didn't, 'cept now, when it is a little difficult to get one in a single seat microlight alongside me - so now I are one - but I sure get a real one to fix it !

con-pilot
13th Jan 2014, 16:08
I watched the video of the King Air accident in Iceland (which I had never seen or heard of before) and was somewhat horrified. Was that a beat up that went wrong, accelerated stall, getting behind the aircraft at speed and low level, CFIT or something else?


I had seen the video prior. Must say I have the same questions as you do.

Just what the hell was he doing? I watched the video a few times and whomever was flying the aircraft never attempted to roll the wings level or attempt to pull up. However, by the time it hit the ground the bank angle was so steep, it would have done no good to try to pull up with just the elevators. Maybe that is what he tried to do and just made the situation worse, causing the accident.

As the co-pilot lived, I guess we'll know sooner or later. I've about a thousand hours in Kingair 200s and I can't imagine how one does get into that postion accidentally.



Okay, I just watched the video again and pausing it when the aircraft first comes into view on the camera on the back of the truck that had the cameras. Wish I could view it in slow motion.

When you first see the aircraft, it could have just dropped out of the clouds. the bank angle is already nearly 90 degrees and never changes utill impact.

Possible instrument failure* while IMC or spatial disorientation and not enough time to react when VMC?

Like I posted prior, guess we'll know sooner or later.


* A lot of 200s came with just one flight director on the left side and only a vacuum or electic driven AH on the right side. I know of at least one accident where the flight director failed while the aircraft was IMC and the pilot followed the failed flight director into the ground killing all onboard.

dead_pan
13th Jan 2014, 16:52
Possible instrument failure* while IMC or spatial disorientation and not enough time to react when VMC?

Or plain-vanilla pilot error? I was thinking a ballsed-up low fly-by when I watched the clip. Again, amazed anyone survived that crash.

The cause of the rather embarrassing denouement

Admittedly it wouldn't have been half as amusing if the guy hadn't been filmed beforehand saying words to the effect that wouldn't it be terrible if we crashed in front of all these people.