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.

It was a brake rod breaking that caused the G-VSKY main u/c hang-up.

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.

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.

The current training is that you contact the company and enlist the aid of SME's, Subject Matter Experts when you have a technical problem. They possibly recommended the flybys and g maneuvers. Why wouldn't you want to try to see if the gear was partially down or all the way up? You want to burn off the extra fuel anyway, right? What is the QRH guidance note that forbids a flyby? There are no uplocks on the main gear on a 767 as I recall, the gear sits on the doors when the actuators are unpressurized.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Can you really have too much information? They had the fuel to go around several times. I'd want everything available.

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.

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.

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?

This incident will be covered in an upcoming issue of the FedEx ALPA Training Committee publication. The publication's name is '...Gear Up!'

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".

Quote:

---

“They look like they’re down from here”. How that gonna change what you do?

---

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.

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.

Uplinker

Are you suggesting that, without a flyby, the crew won't know which engine is going to scrape along the runway until the sparks start to fly ?

:rolleyes: 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).

ok, how likely is that to happen on a modern Jet with 2 proximity sensors per gear?

Without a fly by, would the pilots have guessed that the nose gear was stuck side way?
Nothing wrong with it IMHO. That would be actually the fun part! :E