Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Delta 767 runway excursion in MAD

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Delta 767 runway excursion in MAD

Old 7th Dec 2013, 10:05
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 374
Janet Flight ; I was employed by a company that enjoyed failing people rather than training them and this actual event was a common sim exercise for Command evaluation. The tyre burst was given after V1. VR was often co-incident. So, one is aware of the fact that something happened but no indication of any problem. Aircraft flies ok & the very first call is "Pos clb" followed by response "Gear up". Then the fun starts as the Gear ,going up, wipes away lots of stuff. Pretend CA also bursts onto the intercom & tries to involve FD crew in long analasys telling them that pax are looking out of the right hand window & screaming. (I used to tell the CA that was normal on all my take-offs but the Trainers, oooops, I mean, Choppers, never laughed).

Limited hydraulics, higher weight, less than full flap, limited brakes, etc requires quite a bit of thought and discussion in the hold after take-off & before commencing approach. Did these chaps do all that ? Did they dump fuel (reduce LW to the minimum) etc etc. Very interesting. A regular feature in my company's chop rides and one where most of us said it would never happen in real ;life. It did for these chaps.
slowjet is online now  
Old 7th Dec 2013, 10:25
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dark side of the force
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Right, Madrid has EMAS, what happened then? I do not know but they have 2 very long runways and another much longer at Torrejon. A closed friend took some pictures and watched the event, there is also a video somewhere on the net on the landing. What he told me is that it was a touch down mid runway and at the end they were still moving.
transilvana is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2013, 16:16
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1,134
Right, Madrid has EMAS, what happened then? I do not know but they have 2 very long runways and another much longer at Torrejon. A closed friend took some pictures and watched the event, there is also a video somewhere on the net on the landing. What he told me is that it was a touch down mid runway and at the end they were still moving.
Which part of the information that is available are you having trouble with? The photos that are available clearly show that the aircraft has made a slow speed excursion from a taxiway.

What is the relevance of your reference to EMAS? Do you know what EMAS is? How do you think it comes into this incident?

What your friend may think he saw might be an interesting comment but is there anything to suggest that the landing was not carried out successfully by a competent crew?

What is the relevance of the runway length at Madrid or even Torrejon? 32L was clearly adequate for the landing.

And as for 'still moving' at the end of the runway, well, I guess that's how it got to the taxiway that it rolled off.
LookingForAJob is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2013, 20:26
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Originally Posted by MrDK
Why does a modern (or an up-to-date) aircraft not cameras all over the place?
At least as a secondary tool.
Installation may be costly, but the equipment is not.
A camera for each gear, each engine, each set of flaps, a couple for the tail, ect. would hardly be a technological advance.
That's a good question.

Just keep the cameras out of the cockpit is my only response.

The combination of a good CVR/FDR + good external video should provide investigators all the information they need.
zerozero is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2013, 02:11
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 71
Not just investigators, but the cockpit crew.
Imagine having video surveillance of most of the exterior of the planeavailable up front.
I know of cases where a pilot had to exit the cockpit to go look out a passengerwindow in order to assess a situation. A hassle for the pilot and a discomfortto the passengers.
MrDK is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2013, 02:18
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dark side of the force
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Both runways at LEMD are continously monitored by cameras, a dozen of spotters and 2 hughe terminals full of pax with a nice view of the runway

I know what is EMAS, I was there when it was installed.

And the last no gear accident I watched 3 months ago was 1.000 times more professional landing than this one. The only reason for non stopping the aircraft is insuficient runway left, where not you told in sim to stop on the runway in a case like this?
transilvana is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2013, 02:43
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1,134
Both runways at LEMD are continously monitored by cameras, a dozen of spotters and 2 hughe terminals full of pax with a nice view of the runway
All those experts and yet we don't already know every detail of what happened.....

I know what is EMAS, I was there when it was installed.
And I still don't know why you think it is relevant to the outcome of this incident.

And the last no gear accident I watched 3 months ago was 1.000 times more professional landing than this one.
I am sure the crew will be heartened by your profound analysis of their actions and abilities.

The only reason for non stopping the aircraft is insuficient runway left, where not you told in sim to stop on the runway in a case like this?
I'm not a professional pilot so I don't get into aircraft simulators very often. But I believe that there are a few more factors that will be taken into account by the crew in a situation like this and a few more potential outcomes that will be considered.
LookingForAJob is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2013, 03:29
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 398
transilvana said "The only reason for non stopping the aircraft is insuficient runway left, where not you told in sim to stop on the runway in a case like this?"

transilvana,
Since you are offering your suppositions, then Id like to offer some additional thoughts as well.

If they lost the center and right hydraulic system and if because of the tire damage they lost all fluid in those hydraulic systems, then they would lose a lot of important items. The photos show there was significant damage due to the number 8 tire shredding at rotation...you can see this in the photos. That made this heavy weight landing not such a simple event because of the collateral damage.

The damage could possibly have caused the following problems if they lost the center and right hydraulic systems:

They would have had to use alternate gear extension, alternate flap extension, Flaps 20 for landing, a Vref30+20 of 180+ knots, no right thrust reverser, normal brakes inop, alternate brakes inop, no autospoilers, some of the spoilers will be lost even with manual extension, loss of reserve brakes (if they lost the fluid in that closed system as well), loss of nosewheel steering (same reason as loss of reserve brakes), and one shot of accumulator brakes. After accumulator press drops to 1000psi they would be left with only the left thrust reverser for both stopping and steering (if you want to call that steering). So, you can imagine them approaching the end of the runway at a taxi speed, but without brakes or NWS...and yet they manage to use the left reverser to steer the jet about 40 degrees to the left onto taxiway LA and J2. They may have had only the left thrust reverser to accomplish this. Perhaps they departed the prepared surface at about 5-10 knots (so the images suggest).

No injuries. My first thought is hats off to the crew with all that they had to deal with.

In case your friend is not aware, Id also like to add that runway 32L has a displaced threshold that removes the first 928M/3045ft of the runway. So, if someone observes the landing and is not familiar with the 32L displaced threshold, then that could make you think you see something wrong. If your friend is familiar with the 32L displaced threshold, then Im not sure why he would suggest they landed near mid-runway.

I would encourage you to first default to thinking that the crew did a great job with the situation. This can perhaps prevent future embarrassment in the event that the facts prove some of your statements to bewellless than accurate.

I too look forward to finding out the actual details, and to see if the above is anywhere close to what really happened.
None is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2013, 04:20
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: A warm pub
Posts: 1,170
If either of the crew is reading this thread, I say well done folks, you got your pax down safe and the airplane too, Bravo
Una Due Tfc is online now  
Old 8th Dec 2013, 19:25
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Originally Posted by MrDK
Not just investigators, but the cockpit crew.
Imagine having video surveillance of most of the exterior of the planeavailable up front.
I know of cases where a pilot had to exit the cockpit to go look out a passengerwindow in order to assess a situation. A hassle for the pilot and a discomfortto the passengers.
Agreed 100%
zerozero is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2013, 21:15
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 142
None; are the thrust reversers not moved by the pneumatics on the 767? The hydraulics don't have much to do with it on the GE powered -300s. I'd suggest they may have had both reversers?

A very nasty situation. Landing high and probably heavy means you're carrying a lot of energy. Add into the mix a Flap20 landing that the pilots almost certainly have never before done for real and some reduced control authority. The jet is almost certain to float unless driven positively onto the runway. It's not hard to see how what was observed could have arisen.

Assuming that the pilots were, like me, just plain vanilla line shags, I suggest that they did ok. Perhaps shutting down on the runway would improve the outcome next time. Easy to say from the comfort of an armchair.
Bernoulli is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2013, 21:37
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 398
767 Thrust Reverse

Bernouli,

You are correct. All of the GE engines I fly have pneumatic reversers. However, the Pratt's have hydraulic reversers.
Thrust Reverser System (PW)
Each engine has a hydraulically actuated fan air thrust reverser. Reverse thrust is
available only on the ground.

The reverse thrust levers can be raised only when the forward thrust levers are in
the idle position. An interlock stop limits thrust to idle reverse while the reverser
is in transit.

The EECs control thrust limits during reverser operation.
None is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2013, 22:24
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,596
"None" is correct - 767/PW4000 have hydraulic reversers, 767/CF6-80C2 have pneumatic reversers (it's a long story). Most of Delta's 767-300s are PW4000, but last I checked they did have a handful of CF6 powered -300s (all 767-400ERs are CF6).
Looking at the pictures I don't see anything definitive that would say PW4000 vs. CF6, but I think PW4000 would be a pretty good bet. The give away is the core exhaust (CF6 has an external plug, PW4000 is an internal plug), but I haven't seen a good view from that angle.
tdracer is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2013, 14:14
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 66
Posts: 298
engines

Per this site, it's got GE

Delta Airlines N182DN (Boeing 767 - MSN 25987) | Airfleets aviation
sb_sfo is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2013, 14:57
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,120
Per this site, it's got GE
Unfortunately, that site is wrong. It has PW4060s.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2013, 17:40
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,596
Assuming that is the correct aircraft, DaveReid is right. According to Boeing ACT (Aircraft Conf Tracking) N182DN has PW4060. It also has over 98,000 hours
tdracer is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2013, 23:15
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 321
This is probably the ultimate in stupid SLF questions, but did the excursion cause any additional damage or disruption beyond what would have occurred if they'd shut down on the runway?
Chu Chu is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 05:53
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 62
Posts: 410
There is so much wrong in this thread its hard to know where to start. The incident was investigated by the Spanish authorities, FAA and Delta Air lines. All 3 reached the same conclusion. The crew turned in a flawless performance.
The first indication of trouble was a bang at rotation. At 400 feet per Boeing logic multiple cautions and warnings came on. They lost the C and R hyd systems and breaking on the right truck. They also lost the right reverser. They assessed the situation and made a decision to make a overweight landing rather then circle a long term to burn off fuel since they were down to 1 hyd system. Only center fuel can be dumped and that tank was emptied. Approach speed was about 168 knots. All gear and configuration changes had to be made with alternate systems.
The landing was in the middle of the touchdown zone at the correct airspeed. Only braking available was the left truck and left reverser. The aircraft departed the runway off the left side and came to rest near a taxiway with minimal damage.
The investigation did not find or see any possible way to maintain the aircraft on the runway. The excursion off runway was at low speed after rudder effectiveness was lost. The incident was documented by the FDR and multiple cameras at the airport.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 14:02
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 361
Thankyou Sailvi767 for that report. Great job by the crew.
flite idol is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2013, 14:24
  #40 (permalink)  
Buttonpusher
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bloody Hell
Age: 61
Posts: 423

And the last no gear accident I watched 3 months ago was 1.000 times more professional landing than this one. The only reason for non stopping the aircraft is insuficient runway left, where not you told in sim to stop on the runway in a case like this?
Not a great job by the crew, according to an eyewitness that can determine professionalism to the thousandfold.

His piloting skills as a glider pilot must have placed him theoretically in the left seat so he could determine what level of professionalism occurred.
FLCH is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.