Heavy landing by HeavyLiftfreight International
 

On 01/09/2008 at about 0950UTC a Dc8-63F Registration A6-HLC owned by Heavy Lift Freight of UAE made a hard landing at El Fasher Airport(HSFS), Darfur, Sudan, while landing on Runway 23.The aircraft sustained substantial damage to the left main landing gear requiring complete replacement.The incident happened in good weather . The approach seemed to have been very high and fast as the aircraft landed well after second intersection of Runway 23. The aircraft is still at El Fasher airport.
If you areHIGH and HOT you dont lose anything by executing a go round!!!!!!!!!!!

Wise words Mate!!

I'm sure that the crew involved already knew that, mate.
Let's wait for the report (if there ever is one).

There is a biiig difference between knowing and doing!

If they were fast, they should have used the speedbrake.:)

Apparently the use of speedbrakes inflight on DC8-63 series is a serious no-no:=

or side slip it :}

Smoothie

Should have used reverse thrust.;)

Sicknote:ok:

Sometimes when visiting R & N forum, I have to glance at the top because I get the feeling of having inadvertently clicked myself into Jet Blast...

You're kidding, right? The DC-8 has/had no speedbrakes AFAIK.

Opening a "dud" thread and sifting through chaff disappoints me every time.

Edit: Airbubba, I missed the meaning in your post the first time.
Hey, that one made reading this thread worthwhile. Thanks!;)

CF-TIW, spoilers operating as speed brakes due to incorrect operation.

More like something's mechanically wrong with the airplane if the spoilers are able to be deployed inflight symmetrically. Mr. Douglas made it that way on purpose. And inflight inboard reverse with flaps extended is a no-no according to him as well, but you're not mechanically restricted from being able to do it. Strangely, slipping works quite well if you're a little high or fast. Emphasis on "just a little"...

There weren't too high!! The airport was too close!:}

Thanks for the wise words mate :ok:

Maybe they should have gone somewhere cold and low instead :suspect:

Reverse in flight
 

have flown the 'late' for years and haven't used reverse in flight for many years. Not pleasant. DEFINITELY not for use at 1/000ft or below.
A go-round is cheaper than gear replacement !...

The DC8-50 series inboard T/Rs could be used in-flight, but with rather dramatic results according to some of our ( North African ) pax comments. Useful if you found yourself rather high on approach. But then, the pax were rather happy to be returning from Chad. Allegedly. :sad::cool:

We're very conscientious of using inflight reverse for descent in pax operations, and fortunately, it's a rare occurrence. Haven't had to do it myself, anyway. The ride isn't so bad in either a -60 or a -70 series airplane as long as you're relatively slow, 250+/-, not much worse than use of spoilers in other aircraft. Generally, if we need to use them to make an ATC restriction (arrival at LAX during busy times comes to mind), we'll use them, but if you need them because you screwed up your descent planning, tough on you!

Once you're in a situation where you're landing that long, though, it's time to go around. You're WAY beyond any condition where use of reverse can be of any help.

Inboard T/R in flight are allowed, but they do cause fuel leaks at the pylons. It is best to be on speed and altitude the first time. Nothing like being 100 miles out and knowing you are going to have to go around, or do some 360's.

I have been humbled many a times by the mighty 8, yet I still love her....:O

Very true!

Never knew any of our folks using T/R inflight with our acft in the US or Saudi, series 50/61/63 & re-engined 70s:ok:

The DC-8 (50, 61, 62, 71 - That's all I flew) is all airplane. There's none better with jet engines! If you treat her right, there's NO problem getting in the proper position to land. If ATC won't cooperate, tell 'em. Don't let them fly your airplane...simple. The only time I used reverse thrust in flight was in the sim. The -71 required starting down EARLY. Without seeing any report on this incident, it's hard to tell what went wrong, but it would seem like poor planning.:=

Fond memories, best a/c i ever flew!
DON'T EVER use ground spoilers while airborne though, i think a Canadian operator learned that the hard way long time back.

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

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.

Thank you DCATE---sad accident 109:(

Wait till 411A tells you what really is best ! :ok:

It is widely recognised that amongst first generation long range jet transports, that the DC-8 was a superb aeroplane...the B707 had many early problems, even though more were sold.
In fact, the 707 nearly didn't make it onto the British register, until DP Davies laid down the law to Boeing.

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...

He mentioned, in no uncertain terms, that the 707 rudder power system absolutely needed to be re-designed, period, least the 707-400 series aeroplanes, as ordered by BOAC not be allowed onto the British civil register.
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.

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.

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...)

The 707 rudder hard-over problems occured (as did the 737 similar problems) rather long after certification.

IE; not an initial consideration.

One cannot see into the future with much accuracy....seems to me, anyway.

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:O 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!

And, why not?
It's a Lockheed.:ok:

I flew the 1649 for awhile, a fine aeroplane, though complicated systems, Lockheed-style.:}

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)

None needed.
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.:ok:

Newspaper
 

You can open a newspaper in that cockpit?

AF

Very carefully, least you poke the First Officer in the eye....:}
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...:rolleyes:

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.

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.