|
Originally Posted by Airmann
(Post 10545678)
Makes me wonder about whether putting gear down is really the best option in an emergency landing? I mean doesn't gear increase the chances of damage since you fully expect them to rip off after hitting the ground? Could rupture fuel tanks, fuselage? I think manufacturers reason for having them down is that they would soften the impact somewhat.
|
1975 - B732 landed in a harvested corn field...
They made a soft landing with gear down.
Picture is attached. https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....97c886cd66.jpg After sitting there for 16 days and building a 600m long metallic improvised runway, it took off again. This airplane was hijacked and I don't know if they landed with engines on with low fuel or engines flamed out. Not the same case, but it shows how a gear down worked nice. https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch...tober_1975.jpg |
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
(Post 10546267)
What factual evidence do we have that both engines lost power and were not recovered by crew actions?
Regarding the landing gear or not, the results speak for themselves. Who cares if they get to use the plane again? |
Plus what crew actions recover a damaged engine spitting flames? On today's newer engines the engine controls will do it automatically albeit possibly with EGT exceedances |
Hats off to both the pilots and the engineers of the plane. There are many factors of course, pilots being crucial and lady luck helping out but the plane held together, the seats didn't break, the belts held and a thousand other little details that nobody other than techs know about all conspired to defeat Mr Murphy. That is one for us.
|
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
(Post 10546384)
On older engines you retard the throttle and then advance as necessary
On today's newer engines the engine controls will do it automatically albeit possibly with EGT exceedances The min speed for a windmill start attempt on the 737 is 300 kts btw. An APU start would itself take longer than the glide portion of their flight |
Geez, what a tough crowd that can't wait to start crucifying the pilots for not handling it the way these keyboard captains would have. My hats off to you Captain Yusupov, the outcome could not have been better. |
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
(Post 10546267)
What factual evidence do we have that both engines lost power and were not recovered by crew actions?
In the video, the pilot starts talking at about 6min in. They had "some" thrust on engine 2, but not enough to return. Also deliberate choice not to put down gear because of the ditches seen. |
From interview with the Captain:
- After struck left engine totally failed. - 1st decision was to return and he asked permission from tower. - But the right engine wasn't working at full thrust and they wasn't able even to maintain the altitude they had. - So they had to land immediately, they stopped engine and didn't down gears deliberately. - He refuses to be called a hero, he just did that they were trained for. |
Originally Posted by LEM
(Post 10545965)
Warning the cabin crew about the imminent crash IS INDEED A PRIORITY. You can forget all the rest, the checklist, the gear, the flaps, but SHOUTING loudly in the PA, yes SHOUTING Brace for impact, is a must, and easy to remember and to do. I think flying the airplane in such circumstance is by far the easiest thing to do, quite easy in fact. Applying the correct procedure is the real challenge, in every situation. |
"Applying the correct procedure..." - ridiculous comment under the circumstances!
1. I think we will find, when investigating the training background of the pilot, that his ab initio was not conducted by a 21 year old, who did not know that a cessna 172 could be flown without a checklist or the appreciation of concepts like a rotation speed... 2. The misconception that automation complacency begins with the act of engaging the autopilot is evident in many of the posts, if the first course of action this close to the ground is to grab the QRH, who grabs the controls? 3. The primary ersponsibility of the captain is the safety of the occupants of the aircraft, under normal circumstances this can be achieved most reliably using tried and tested procedures, but as the conversation tends towards a lambasting for not entering a holding pattern and completing the ECAM actions, I worry about the degree to which pilots understand the machines they fly, the environment they operate in and the risks of believing that your LPC is representative of that instant that these pilots went with instinct and saved everyone on board. |
Originally Posted by LEM
(Post 10545965)
Warning the cabin crew about the imminent crash IS INDEED A PRIORITY. You can forget all the rest, the checklist, the gear, the flaps, but SHOUTING loudly in the PA, yes SHOUTING Brace for impact, is a must, and easy to remember and to do. I think flying the airplane in such circumstance is by far the easiest thing to do, quite easy in fact. Applying the correct procedure is the real challenge, in every situation. |
Interesting. The Captain used to be a lawyer, he worked in this profession for a few years and became a pilot thereafter.
|
Originally Posted by LEM
(Post 10546060)
As I said, the call Brace for impact is a must. And... try to apply the procedure. Flaps 2, gear DOWN. ahhh..better to die in a ball of flames with checklists complete than use good old airmanship and instinct to keep everyone alive? Surely you must be kidding! I admit I’m a 330 driver but I assume the 320 goes straight into Emer Elec Config with both donkeys out which means NO NORMAL GEAR EXTENSION, NO FLAP EXTENSION, NON-NORMAL FLIGHT CONTROLS and a whole lot of bells and whistles, all at less than 1000ft...do you seriously think there’s time for the APU to start (loaded question..the answer is NO because it takes over 50secs to start the APU). Given the RW length one assumes the take off wold have been inConfig 1+F so leaving it as is was surely the best bet. The crew did an AMAZING job and hopefully we can all learn from their experience once the reports are published, but for me, good old airmanship prevailed and thank God he didn’t decide to focus on checklists or the outcome may have been different. |
If I understand it correctly, eng#2 was running until shortly before impact.
|
Originally Posted by gearlever
(Post 10546513)
If I understand it correctly, eng#2 was running until shortly before impact.
|
pilots had seconds to decide, they decided, landed the airplane in the corn field. That is all that matters. Post festum lamentation and discussion what they should have and not should have done is irrelevant. The only thing relevant at this point is information, weather they were trained in small airplanes first (so they DO know how to fly an aircraft), or they were one of those "iPad" pilots (which I doubt).
|
If I understand it correctly, eng#2 was running until shortly before impact. |
In my experience, there are times (very very few) when your only option is to chuck the checklist out of the window and fly the aircraft. It takes a good airman to know when. And this seems to me to be one of those times. Of course, it would have been nice to shout, "Brace, Brace" on the PA, but not at the expense of getting the landing right - priorities, priorities, priorities!
How many of you armchair pontificators have ever had to make a decision like the one faced by this crew? |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10545980)
If you're going to come down in a field with the gear still up, a crop of nicely frangible maize is probably as good as it gets.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:42. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.