FedEx 767 landing without left main gear extended
TURIN,
I see where you're coming from, I thought of that scenario and brake hydraulic line reconnection etc also. Hopefully mightyauster may have another angle, so to speak.
I see where you're coming from, I thought of that scenario and brake hydraulic line reconnection etc also. Hopefully mightyauster may have another angle, so to speak.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did watch the YouTube video with ATC transcripts. They did a great landing but I'm not sure if the whole thing was well handled. They did a series of flybys which is against the QRH, guidance note. The gear lights and EICAS would have confirmed the gear unsafe and nothing the tower could say would prove otherwise. They were trying to call the technical pilot and maintenance. It's not like they could get up there and fix the plane.
They did get the plane on the ground with a nice landing but for me, the rest was painful.
They did get the plane on the ground with a nice landing but for me, the rest was painful.
Last edited by Fair_Weather_Flyer; 22nd Aug 2020 at 15:41.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see nothing in the B767 QRH that even remotely looks like what you have posted. Perhaps your airline has this language, but not the FAA/ FedEx. Bottom line is they did a nice job and your pathetic comments do not reflect well on your knowledge or experience in the 767 regarding a gear up landing.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
They did a great landing but I'm not sure if the whole thing was well handled. They did a series of flybys which is against the QRH, guidance note. The gear lights and EICAS would have confirmed the gear unsafe and nothing the tower could say would otherwise? They were trying to call the technical pilot and maintenance. It's not like they could get up there and fix the plane.
On the other hand, some of the old school tricks like trying to do a hard bounce and go to dislodge the stuck gear have not ended well in some cases.
Here's the VASAviation video on the incident, he does a very good job as usual with the graphics and audio editing.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your input Airbubba. The FedEx QRH is different to the one I have. Mine has a note at the top of the partial or all gear up QRH checklist stating that low approaches to confirm gear status must not be performed.
So, given there is no such note in FedEx the crew acted in accordance with the QRH checklist. But, what do you think they gained by doing the low approaches and the calls to maintenance and the technical pilot? Is that note at the top of my airlines checklist a wise thing?
As for calling SME's, the airlines that I worked for have stated that they do not want you to do this. Do you remember the Alaska Airlines, crash where they called maintenance who told them to work the jackscrew to unjam the stabiliser? My employers have just wanted you to identify the problem, run the checklist and use the decision making tool (GRADE, PIOSEE etc).
That said, the pilots do seem have acted in accordance to their training and company doctrine and landed well. let's see what the NTSB make of it.
So, given there is no such note in FedEx the crew acted in accordance with the QRH checklist. But, what do you think they gained by doing the low approaches and the calls to maintenance and the technical pilot? Is that note at the top of my airlines checklist a wise thing?
As for calling SME's, the airlines that I worked for have stated that they do not want you to do this. Do you remember the Alaska Airlines, crash where they called maintenance who told them to work the jackscrew to unjam the stabiliser? My employers have just wanted you to identify the problem, run the checklist and use the decision making tool (GRADE, PIOSEE etc).
That said, the pilots do seem have acted in accordance to their training and company doctrine and landed well. let's see what the NTSB make of it.
Last edited by Fair_Weather_Flyer; 22nd Aug 2020 at 15:52.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would it hurt them to do so? I’ve had a similar problem (in a GA plane). Right then, you want as much information as you can get.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if the tower guy said that the gear appeared to be down? Would you just ignore the cockpit indications on the gear lights and EICAS and try to land normally? If they tell you that the gear is not extended, then they are not telling you anything you don't know from cockpit indications. What the tower sees is completely irrelevant as far as the Boeing checklists go and can only create confusion so the flyby is pointless.
Trust the unsafe gear warnings, attempt the emergency gear extension and if unsuccessful carry out the partial or all gear up landing checklist and land. I'm sure that this is what they ultimately did but the flybys just slowed the process down.
Trust the unsafe gear warnings, attempt the emergency gear extension and if unsuccessful carry out the partial or all gear up landing checklist and land. I'm sure that this is what they ultimately did but the flybys just slowed the process down.
Last edited by Fair_Weather_Flyer; 22nd Aug 2020 at 20:04.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair_Weather_Flyer
I suspect, but don't know that the language in your QRH was driven by the UAL DC8 accident many years ago where they ran out fuel after trouble shooting a gear problem. They landed a few miles short of the intended runway killing a significant number of pax and crew. It was used as an example for the need of CRM, that up to that time was non existent on many flight decks here in the US. Believe it or not, the QRH is not an FAA approved document, so the operator has considerable leeway in its presentation.
I suspect, but don't know that the language in your QRH was driven by the UAL DC8 accident many years ago where they ran out fuel after trouble shooting a gear problem. They landed a few miles short of the intended runway killing a significant number of pax and crew. It was used as an example for the need of CRM, that up to that time was non existent on many flight decks here in the US. Believe it or not, the QRH is not an FAA approved document, so the operator has considerable leeway in its presentation.
Perhaps, but most modern Jets have a TPIS which tells you if the wheels are inflated or not, indeed we even have external cameras that can see the gear in the daylight.....Flybys may not be necessary or prudent.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: 43N
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Airman,
I don’t know what FedExs’s manuals state and this is not a comment on their actions. This is my opinion.
My outfit doesn’t prohibit fly bys but does strongly discourage them. I agree. The tower operator isn’t a pilot (most likely) isn’t an A and P (most likely) and isn’t a trained to provide input to an aircraft flying by with an anomaly and ultimately will not provide, as far as I am concerned, actionable information.
I’ve also never flown nor practiced in the simulator a flyby in a commercial aircraft. I’ve also never landed partial gear nor practiced it in the sim, but a flyby would be optional, landed partial gear wouldn’t.
I don’t know what FedExs’s manuals state and this is not a comment on their actions. This is my opinion.
My outfit doesn’t prohibit fly bys but does strongly discourage them. I agree. The tower operator isn’t a pilot (most likely) isn’t an A and P (most likely) and isn’t a trained to provide input to an aircraft flying by with an anomaly and ultimately will not provide, as far as I am concerned, actionable information.
I’ve also never flown nor practiced in the simulator a flyby in a commercial aircraft. I’ve also never landed partial gear nor practiced it in the sim, but a flyby would be optional, landed partial gear wouldn’t.
not sure what fed ex manuals say but our company says the following about unsafe gear indications:
”It is unlikely that a low flypast of the control tower will add much to the information derived from the Cockpit indications. A low flypast should only be undertaken when there is good reason to believe that knowledge of the state of the landing gear, wheels, tyres etc. can be improved by such a manoeuvre.”
Not sure that some guy who’s not a pilot or an engineer with a pair of binoculars looking at the underside of my 130T jet in the dark moving at 150 knots is going to be able to add much useful information.
“They look like they’re down from here”. How that gonna change what you do?
”It is unlikely that a low flypast of the control tower will add much to the information derived from the Cockpit indications. A low flypast should only be undertaken when there is good reason to believe that knowledge of the state of the landing gear, wheels, tyres etc. can be improved by such a manoeuvre.”
Not sure that some guy who’s not a pilot or an engineer with a pair of binoculars looking at the underside of my 130T jet in the dark moving at 150 knots is going to be able to add much useful information.
“They look like they’re down from here”. How that gonna change what you do?
If the manufacturer says that a fly-by is not advisable, then so be it.
Dark is a fair point. But otherwise; even a non-pilot could say "I can see three legs sticking down". Or more importantly: "I can only see the front leg and one of the back legs". Or, "One of the landing legs is at an angle".
It won't, but if they said "I can only see two legs hanging down", you would at least know what to expect, and which way the aircraft will fall.
Not sure that some guy who’s not a pilot or an engineer with a pair of binoculars looking at the underside of my 130T jet in the dark moving at 150 knots is going to be able to add much useful information.
Dark is a fair point. But otherwise; even a non-pilot could say "I can see three legs sticking down". Or more importantly: "I can only see the front leg and one of the back legs". Or, "One of the landing legs is at an angle".
“They look like they’re down from here”. How that gonna change what you do?
Last edited by Uplinker; 26th Aug 2020 at 08:45. Reason: missing word
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair_Weather_Flyer
You forgot the part about: Consider burning off fuel to reduce landing weight. If you have fuel, there is no hurry getting the aircraft down.
These guys did a good joob. Stop trying to discredit them.
You forgot the part about: Consider burning off fuel to reduce landing weight. If you have fuel, there is no hurry getting the aircraft down.
These guys did a good joob. Stop trying to discredit them.
I am not the one advocating fly-bys, but if for example you had no gear indications at all - up or down - then if someone on the ground could eyeball it through binocs, well, what have you got to lose? (as long as you could fly by safely).Last edited by Uplinker; 26th Aug 2020 at 12:40.
