My read of the text, is that some items are still open to be addressed in future recommendation without prejudice to any of the parties.

There is no doubt that this crew did a fabulous job. They were thinking pretty far ahead considering the number of surprises that the aircraft threw at them.

In my reading of the accident report, there is one thing that stands out to my tactical pilot eye, the use of the speed brakes.
Since I've never flown the type, I figured I'd ask some of you who have experience in the type.

I can understand the pilot's wish to keep the aircraft in a configuration that he had experienced before, thus retracting the speed brakes and arming the ground spoilers, but in this case, given an aproach ~95 knots faster than the usual, with the Flaps 1 selection aerodynamically limited, was it necessary to retract the speed brakes?

If the speed brakes had remain deployed, is it likely that the aircraft would not have had such an ungainly bounce which delayed activation of the spoilers and commencement of braking (as well as overstressing the nose and left main landing gear and scraping the #1 pod)?

I am not asking these questions with any intent to be critical of this crew, who handled a difficult situation with great professionalism. I am asking to see if there is anything else from this accident that might be learned, and to at least answer my own curiosity.

Prior to the date of this incident, had anyone received training in a similar type of dual engine problem scenario? It seems to me that a training scenario like this would likely be considered low probability and thus not given training emphasis.

What he did seemed to work out just fine.

No type experience and extreme reluctance to 'unpick' an excellent piece of flying from the benefit of my armchair in a situation I would have dreaded to find myself. However, since you have asked, my take:-

Yes, speedbrake would have helped dissipate the excess energy

I suspect it was 'stowed' for 2 reasons:-

1) We do not practice flaring and touching down with them deployed, so that would be an 'unknown', and the potential sink rates, possible change in pitch response and the buffet would have been dramatic and possibly disconcerting

2) It is driven into us that speedbrake must not be deployed below 1000', and with everything else they were handling at that time, it could have been an 'automatic' understandable reaction.

If the 330 is like the 320 then you can't arm the ground spoilers whilst keeping the speed brakes deployed. It's the same lever but in two different positions.

Landing with speed brakes deployed is a very bad idea and I believe it's also prohibited in the AFM.

JPJP - you said:

"A/P on at 1144'. Daytime departure.
Ha

Yeah. I noticed that. Perhaps the FO had been hand flying the aircraft so much he decided that some automation familiarization was in order ...."


JPJP, you were being condescending. Nice try wriggling out of it though.

I know some aircraft types have had tailstrikes when accidentally landing with speedbrakes deployed. However, if this situation were to happen on a shorter runway, it might be better than an overrun.

Speed brakes
 

Dont they are hinibited to deploy if you have power setting above idle?
Then my question is why engine one was not takent out the line by arming and eventually discharging the fire extinguish system? Asymmetric reverse thrust is recommended in similar events?
Good job crew anyway . A good happy ending story

That engine was still supplying hydraulic power to the green system, so why on earth would you shut it down in a situation where control of the aircraft was already compromised by "stuck" thrust on # 2.