Heavy landing by HeavyLiftfreight International
45989:
" i think a Canadian operator learned that the hard way long time back"
I'm interested in more details on this incident it is on that escaped my attention if you would?
Note: hot and high generally denotes high density altitudes
it seems in this context you mean 'high and fast' in regards to flight path?
I know what you mean good advice
better in the whole scheme of things---- than low and slow---that can be very bad
PA
" i think a Canadian operator learned that the hard way long time back"
I'm interested in more details on this incident it is on that escaped my attention if you would?
Note: hot and high generally denotes high density altitudes
it seems in this context you mean 'high and fast' in regards to flight path?
I know what you mean good advice
better in the whole scheme of things---- than low and slow---that can be very bad
PA
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Date of Accident: 05 July 1970
Airline: Air Canada
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-8-63
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registration: CF-TIW
Previous Registrations: ---
Flight Number: 621
Fatalities: 109:109
MSN: 46114
Line Number: 526
Engine Manufacturer: Pratt & Whitney
Engine Model: JT3D
Year of Delivery: 1970
Accident Description: 60 feet above the ground during landing, the speedbrakes were inadvertantly deployed by the First Officer, which resulted in an excessive sink rate. The no.4 engine struck the runway, and a go-around was initiated. The aircraft proceeded to climb out normally, but while on a downwind for a second landing attempt, the aircraft exploded. Ruptured fuel line during the first hard landing.
Airline: Air Canada
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-8-63
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registration: CF-TIW
Previous Registrations: ---
Flight Number: 621
Fatalities: 109:109
MSN: 46114
Line Number: 526
Engine Manufacturer: Pratt & Whitney
Engine Model: JT3D
Year of Delivery: 1970
Accident Description: 60 feet above the ground during landing, the speedbrakes were inadvertantly deployed by the First Officer, which resulted in an excessive sink rate. The no.4 engine struck the runway, and a go-around was initiated. The aircraft proceeded to climb out normally, but while on a downwind for a second landing attempt, the aircraft exploded. Ruptured fuel line during the first hard landing.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait till 411A tells you what really is best !
In fact, the 707 nearly didn't make it onto the British register, until DP Davies laid down the law to Boeing.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the beauties of the DC-8s is the ability to put every switch/lever (except the Fuel Cut-off and Tank Selectors of course) in other than their Normal position and you still have an airplane.....as opposed to all this new fangled FBW stuff. But, even with the engines off, you'd at least have a controllable glider, albeit a big one!
The 40 Series '8 with RR Conways could use all four in reverse up to MCT. The 50/61 Series P&W installation could use MCT on the inners and idle on the outboards - same with the 63's. The 70 Series with the CFM installation cannot use reverse in-flight whatsoever. That's the reason for starting down real early...there was no way to slow-down-go-down.
The '8's "speedbrakes" weren't...they were spoilers only...from zero to about 80degrees deployment almost instantly.
The TIW accident resulted from a non-SOP "arrangement" between the captain and F/O who had flown together often - one arrangement was to pull the spoilers after landing - the F/Os compromise method, and the other was to arm them just prior to touchdown - the captain's method. The reason given was the rumour that spoilers had deployed in flight before, when the gear extended and oleo compression was sensed, (not wheelspin). The 40/50 series spoilers deployed only upon nosewheel oleo compression but the habit stuck.
When the captain said ok, the F/O pulled the spoilers at 60ft instead of arming them. The aircraft touched down with about a 25g hit as "felt" at the outboard engines and #4 broke off, while #3 broke but remained attached. The captain had already applied go-around power so the hit was instantaneous. They had they airplane under control and were coming around for another landing when at 3000ft sparking electrical wiring ignited the fuel draining out of the outboard tanks broken open by the departing engine. The explosion took off the outboard section of the right wing and the airplane rolled over and went in vertically.
The 8 was/is a fabulous airplane - a real pleasure to fly and an honest airplane. Can't think of a single accident that wasnt' human-factors related and instead caused by design.
411A, just curious, what was the comment by Davies made to Boeing in re the British Registry? I thought the world of Davies' book, (still have the first edition 40 years later). I'd love to know what he said...
The '8's "speedbrakes" weren't...they were spoilers only...from zero to about 80degrees deployment almost instantly.
The TIW accident resulted from a non-SOP "arrangement" between the captain and F/O who had flown together often - one arrangement was to pull the spoilers after landing - the F/Os compromise method, and the other was to arm them just prior to touchdown - the captain's method. The reason given was the rumour that spoilers had deployed in flight before, when the gear extended and oleo compression was sensed, (not wheelspin). The 40/50 series spoilers deployed only upon nosewheel oleo compression but the habit stuck.
When the captain said ok, the F/O pulled the spoilers at 60ft instead of arming them. The aircraft touched down with about a 25g hit as "felt" at the outboard engines and #4 broke off, while #3 broke but remained attached. The captain had already applied go-around power so the hit was instantaneous. They had they airplane under control and were coming around for another landing when at 3000ft sparking electrical wiring ignited the fuel draining out of the outboard tanks broken open by the departing engine. The explosion took off the outboard section of the right wing and the airplane rolled over and went in vertically.
The 8 was/is a fabulous airplane - a real pleasure to fly and an honest airplane. Can't think of a single accident that wasnt' human-factors related and instead caused by design.
411A, just curious, what was the comment by Davies made to Boeing in re the British Registry? I thought the world of Davies' book, (still have the first edition 40 years later). I'd love to know what he said...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, just curious, what was the comment by Davies made to Boeing in re the British [B]not[B] be allowed onh the British civil register.still have the first edition 40 years later). I'd love to know what he said...
Capt Davies, more than any other individual, assured that the jet transport aeroplanes that we fly today can be a safe as possible.
Hats off to this fine gentleman!
He was, the best, make NO mistake.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2 -
"The 70 Series with the CFM installation cannot use reverse in-flight whatsoever."
Not so. We could use the inboards if desired. I used them once to see the effect. Never again. The reason it was "hard" to get down was because of the slightly higher idle speed of the CFMs. I always added at least an extra ten miles, many times more, for the -71.
"The 70 Series with the CFM installation cannot use reverse in-flight whatsoever."
Not so. We could use the inboards if desired. I used them once to see the effect. Never again. The reason it was "hard" to get down was because of the slightly higher idle speed of the CFMs. I always added at least an extra ten miles, many times more, for the -71.
411A;
I could not concur with your opinion of Davies more strongly. rudder, eh? I wonder what he would have to say about the 737 design? And what has happened to airline managements today that they not only cannot discuss such aviation matters but I'm not even convinced they know they're in the aviation business and all it entails. I know some operations are the antithesis of that, but when it comes to flight safety, most managements, and that includes the President/CEO, all the executive level simply havent' got a clue when talking safety specifics. They all seem to think it's covered off by exhorting everyone to "be safe". They're all marketing specialists, MBAs and other desks and probably have never in their lives smelled kerosene (or castor oil) at the end of a runway.
DC-ATE;
Well, it's a damn poor day when ya don't learn something, thank you. I flew the first few 71's with the CFM56 installation and we couldn't use reverse on them but you know, that was a long time ago - 1980 to be exact - so thank you sir! I do remember the high idle of the CFM.
The -63 was the finest looking airplane ever, for it's vintage, (but then I love the PanAm Sikorsky S-42 as well...)
I could not concur with your opinion of Davies more strongly. rudder, eh? I wonder what he would have to say about the 737 design? And what has happened to airline managements today that they not only cannot discuss such aviation matters but I'm not even convinced they know they're in the aviation business and all it entails. I know some operations are the antithesis of that, but when it comes to flight safety, most managements, and that includes the President/CEO, all the executive level simply havent' got a clue when talking safety specifics. They all seem to think it's covered off by exhorting everyone to "be safe". They're all marketing specialists, MBAs and other desks and probably have never in their lives smelled kerosene (or castor oil) at the end of a runway.
DC-ATE;
Well, it's a damn poor day when ya don't learn something, thank you. I flew the first few 71's with the CFM56 installation and we couldn't use reverse on them but you know, that was a long time ago - 1980 to be exact - so thank you sir! I do remember the high idle of the CFM.
The -63 was the finest looking airplane ever, for it's vintage, (but then I love the PanAm Sikorsky S-42 as well...)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A;
I could not concur with your opinion of Davies more strongly. rudder, eh? I wonder what he would have to say about the 737 design?
I could not concur with your opinion of Davies more strongly. rudder, eh? I wonder what he would have to say about the 737 design?
IE; not an initial consideration.
One cannot see into the future with much accuracy....seems to me, anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2 -
"I flew the first few 71's with the CFM56 installation and we couldn't use reverse on them but you know, that was a long time ago - 1980 to be exact - so thank you sir! I do remember the high idle of the CFM.
The -63 was the finest looking airplane ever, for it's vintage, (but then I love the PanAm Sikorsky S-42 as well...)"
Gee.....I thought I flew the first -71
Can't even remember when they came out now.
Ya...the -63 was nice, but my favorite 8 was the -62. I liked all that fuel we could carry. We came back from Honolulu to O'Hare one day (8 hours), held for two more hours; then flew to Minneapolis after O'Hare closed, and still had a couple hours fuel left!
As to all time favorites though, I'm a Connie man!
"I flew the first few 71's with the CFM56 installation and we couldn't use reverse on them but you know, that was a long time ago - 1980 to be exact - so thank you sir! I do remember the high idle of the CFM.
The -63 was the finest looking airplane ever, for it's vintage, (but then I love the PanAm Sikorsky S-42 as well...)"
Gee.....I thought I flew the first -71
Can't even remember when they came out now.Ya...the -63 was nice, but my favorite 8 was the -62. I liked all that fuel we could carry. We came back from Honolulu to O'Hare one day (8 hours), held for two more hours; then flew to Minneapolis after O'Hare closed, and still had a couple hours fuel left!
As to all time favorites though, I'm a Connie man!
Guest
Posts: n/a
EC-121
Our shop did the reupholstery work on McClellan's -121. Most difficult rugwork I've ever seen. The cockpit (sic) is perhaps twice the size of an F-106'. But a wonderland of wheels, levers, switches and cables. Comfy seat, everything handy; a pilot's ship, (I'm told).
AF (drift, apologies)
AF (drift, apologies)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(drift, apologies)
The Captain calls for taxi power...instantly applied by the Flight Engineer.
The pilots pointed it, the professional Flight Engineer managed it.
As it should be.
More time for reading the newspaper.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can open a newspaper in that cockpit?
OTOH, the 'ole TriStar could have a three-piece band playing...and room for two vocalists as well.
A Lockheed aeroplane...must be flown to be believed.
Sorry folks, back to normal programming...
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry folks, back to normal programming...
Oh not quite yet. I only flew the 1049, 1049C & G models. Admired the 1649 tho. The only thing I didn't like about the Connie was you couldn't cage an engine from the front seat. Not without being a contortionist, that is. Other than that, perhaps the finest piston-engine airliner ever built. Probably why I like the DC-8 so much; there were some similarities.
OK.....now you can resume whatever it is we were talking about.
Oh not quite yet. I only flew the 1049, 1049C & G models. Admired the 1649 tho. The only thing I didn't like about the Connie was you couldn't cage an engine from the front seat. Not without being a contortionist, that is. Other than that, perhaps the finest piston-engine airliner ever built. Probably why I like the DC-8 so much; there were some similarities.
OK.....now you can resume whatever it is we were talking about.
411a;
Got so used to pushing the '8 just before touchdown to roll it on that I had to remind myself never to do that on the 1011...I have to agree - finest airplane ever built, beautifully curved windshield, appropriate level of automation and a good FMS, flatplate panels with switch-lights unlike the Boeing forest of knobs and switches that stuck out everywhere, first I'd ever heard of "control channels" in case of a jam....but expensive to maintain.
Got so used to pushing the '8 just before touchdown to roll it on that I had to remind myself never to do that on the 1011...I have to agree - finest airplane ever built, beautifully curved windshield, appropriate level of automation and a good FMS, flatplate panels with switch-lights unlike the Boeing forest of knobs and switches that stuck out everywhere, first I'd ever heard of "control channels" in case of a jam....but expensive to maintain.