In every facet of Australian life, this is the case. It's putrid beyond repair, nanny state.

In every facet of life in this country, the nanny state prevails. Rules just can't fix everything.

Photos anyone? I want to be first with the "It will buff out" comment.....

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2b620d6c8b.jpg
And in an unbent state.

Sorry '777' ,

I justa don'ta thinka itsa gunna make it...…This time.......

Cheeerrrsss….

And that is quite true for multi-engine jet transport full flight simulators where you can't hurt yourself if you prang.

For example the Boeing 737 Quick Reference Handbook covers the case of Loss of Thrust on Both Engines. It then tells you to try and start one of the engines. There is no further advice on what to do if neither engine starts.

While the airline simulator is the perfect vehicle for practicing dead-stick landings including ditching, you won't find those profiles in any type rating simulator training syllabus. No shortage of autopilot coupled approaches though..

On the 3 Jet types I’ve flown, 320, 787, E-jet the “All Engine /Dual Engine Fail/ Loss of Thrust on Both Engines” procedure has a branch to Forced Landing or Ditching if relight is unsuccessful, are you sure the 737 doesn’t have that Centaurus?

It’s a Probability thing, although in more recent times we have seen 2, Sully and the Russians, these are very low occurrence events, and the money available for training is deemed to be better spent on other failures.

I think C's point is that it doesn't take all that much effort, time, or money.

For instance, both of us have used such training to expose pilots to the cardboard replica of the real failure to good result. I can recall very clearly, one series of training sessions with some Chinese military crews - didn't matter what the failure was or where it occurred (within commonsense) they all nailed the forced landing onto the runway.

The techniques used varied considerably .. but they all nailed it just fine. Certainly demonstrated that it is not a case of one size fits all .. the pilot just needs to keep his cool, plan things sensibly and in keeping with the time available ... and just get on with it.

Probably add Guruda 421 to that list. IMO an equal or greater save than Sully.

Agree. Good description here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda...sia_Flight_421
Please excuse slight thread drift, but talking about forced landings, here In brief is the description of what happened to Garuda Flight 421. At least Sully was VMC the whole time which helped him see where he was landing (ditching).

: While descending IMC, the Garuda 737 penetrates a supercell thunderstorm with tops 75,000. Radar later found to be poorly maintained giving spurious or no returns. . Blinding rain causes flameout both engines around 19,000 feet. Unbeknown to crew, the aircraft battery has been badly maintained causing complete electrical failure the moment the crew try to start the APU - in IMC the whole time - the total electrical failure causes failure of standby artificial horizon - miraculously the 737 exits cloud just as the standby AH gives up the ghost - again good fortune smiles as they spot a winding river in the jungle below. With no engines means no hydraulics and that means no flaps. Successfully ditches at 185 knots flapless with the only casualty a flight attendant who unfortunately is caught at the back of the aircraft and drowns.

If ever this sort of scenario was ever tried in a simulator the crew would be entitled to say "Rubbish! it would never happen." Yet thunderstorm penetrations happen all over the world every day but fortunately not with that combination of circumstances.

Yet handling a dead stick landing from high altitude is not a mandatory sequence during simulator training while millions of dollars are wasted on UPRT in simulators, including the time and cost of modifying software for an exercise which can be adequately trained in 45 minutes by a competent instructor.
Rant over..

Im somewhat perplexed ( and saddened) that two experienced twin pilots with the failure of both*, let the aeroplane get away from them having failed to maintain airspeed for crash landing straight ahead.
* having seen the t/o and pp climb and turn to the corn field , this very noisy a/c was suddenly on silent, final fatal glide and loss of control..
I do hope ATSB will determine what went wrong to cause it all..

Ref the 210..In gliding circuit if you a too close in, and high , move out./ away from the strip. If seeming too far out, move in closer. If low on approach stuff the nose down and convert height to speed/momentum, if too high side-slip to wipe it off. Gliders have airbrakes for that.
Most power pilots dont have "no power" ops experience, or even any idea the aircraft glide ratio.

How does that work, if you are already at your best glide speed?

Is there a link with the Mareeba and Moruya accidents?

Some armchair experts on this thread ....

If yre at best glide speed and yr aiming point / threshold continues to rise, then you are going to arrive short. By converting height for speed / momentum you,ll get there.

Bob's right !

How are you going to convert speed to height if you're already at Best Glide Speed? Surely by slowing down your descent angle will increase (apart from the small yug effect when you pull back; "momentum" in a bug smasher??)? Now, if you were deliberately descending at faster than Best Glide, I could understand adjusting the aim point by slowing down. But if you don't have the capacity to slow down because you're already at Best Glide...