Polish LOT 767 wheels up landing
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: uk
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of Capt Sully and Capt Wrona comparisons,
Not too take anything away from either, as both are highly professional pilots doing their respective jobs in times of stress, displaying very high levels of skill. but I suspect there will be one difference;
Capt Sully retired after the Hudson incident, entered the book world and speaker tour arena, and is now a Millionaire,
Capt Wrona will get some well deserved accolades and after a suitable amount of time will go back on the line...
Such is the world of Western publicity and hype.
oh, and both FO`s will forever be known as "the Copilot"
Not too take anything away from either, as both are highly professional pilots doing their respective jobs in times of stress, displaying very high levels of skill. but I suspect there will be one difference;
Capt Sully retired after the Hudson incident, entered the book world and speaker tour arena, and is now a Millionaire,
Capt Wrona will get some well deserved accolades and after a suitable amount of time will go back on the line...
Such is the world of Western publicity and hype.
oh, and both FO`s will forever be known as "the Copilot"
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think after departure the crew thought they have "just" a problem in the central hydraulics and decided that continue the flight with the ramaining systems to their own maintanace instead of retruning with an overweight landing and stranding the passengers far away from home is the better option.
many of you make one big mistake in this discussion :
the pilots after departure in new york surely DID NOT KNEW that the gear is completely failed !
the gear went up and they surely did not tried to lower it for a test- they focussed on the hydraulics.
the real eye opener came on final in warsaw when they moved the gear lever and nothing happened- not earlier ! then they made a go around and tried everything to get it lowered.
one another point: when we compare sully to wrona we have in both brave men one same thing : they both made in their life threatening situations the right decisions to save all lives on board- and this is the most important mission to every pilot.
beyond that the incidents were different- sully did not have the time to think about the situation, he had to make the ONLY right decision in seconds- a big decison in a pilots life- the decision to give up the hope that it will only be an incident and he will make it to an airport without scratching the plane and instead to go for a sure crash and ditching in the river because it will give the best option to save lifes - he was right. since the river was tall and long the decision to do it was bigger than the ditching by itself.
wronas situation was different : he had time to think , to go through the checklists, to try everything possible- but after no results were given he was finally faced with the situation that he has by hand to settle down a widebody on a runway without any gear, as smooth a s possible, and try to keep the plane on the runway.
in this case the hand skills on touchdown by itself were bigger that the decision to do it since he had time to analyse and finally no other option.
both mens did all right- all souls on board walked away.
many of you make one big mistake in this discussion :
the pilots after departure in new york surely DID NOT KNEW that the gear is completely failed !
the gear went up and they surely did not tried to lower it for a test- they focussed on the hydraulics.
the real eye opener came on final in warsaw when they moved the gear lever and nothing happened- not earlier ! then they made a go around and tried everything to get it lowered.
one another point: when we compare sully to wrona we have in both brave men one same thing : they both made in their life threatening situations the right decisions to save all lives on board- and this is the most important mission to every pilot.
beyond that the incidents were different- sully did not have the time to think about the situation, he had to make the ONLY right decision in seconds- a big decison in a pilots life- the decision to give up the hope that it will only be an incident and he will make it to an airport without scratching the plane and instead to go for a sure crash and ditching in the river because it will give the best option to save lifes - he was right. since the river was tall and long the decision to do it was bigger than the ditching by itself.
wronas situation was different : he had time to think , to go through the checklists, to try everything possible- but after no results were given he was finally faced with the situation that he has by hand to settle down a widebody on a runway without any gear, as smooth a s possible, and try to keep the plane on the runway.
in this case the hand skills on touchdown by itself were bigger that the decision to do it since he had time to analyse and finally no other option.
both mens did all right- all souls on board walked away.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are some photos, that shows putting the plane back on its gear. And I agree with Aerobat77 - cpt.Wrona said today that he didn't new about gear problem until he came to final approach at WAW. C hyd failure was handled using sop and there was no indication of further problems..
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: FL400
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to flying
Lots of Capt Sully and Capt Wrona comparisons,
Not too take anything away from either, as both are highly professional pilots doing their respective jobs in times of stress, displaying very high levels of skill. but I suspect there will be one difference;
Capt Sully retired after the Hudson incident, entered the book world and speaker tour arena, and is now a Millionaire,
Capt Wrona will get some well deserved accolades and after a suitable amount of time will go back on the line...
Such is the world of Western publicity and hype.
oh, and both FO`s will forever be known as "the Copilot"
Not too take anything away from either, as both are highly professional pilots doing their respective jobs in times of stress, displaying very high levels of skill. but I suspect there will be one difference;
Capt Sully retired after the Hudson incident, entered the book world and speaker tour arena, and is now a Millionaire,
Capt Wrona will get some well deserved accolades and after a suitable amount of time will go back on the line...
Such is the world of Western publicity and hype.
oh, and both FO`s will forever be known as "the Copilot"
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is it wise to leave an hydraulic system leaking everywhere inside for 7/8 hours ?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So far on my trainning during the last 20 years if you have a main system failure stay where you are and then think, look at the alternatives and then proceed, but surely I will not go 7-8 hrs over the atlantic if I have an alternate airport 30 minutes away, come on, it´s an hidraulic system failure, it´s not an FMS or one generator off line.
At this stage and with the facts we all barely know, all I can say is: Kudos to the crew, you've done your job brilliantly (AFAIK) under quite a significant deal of pressure and the outcome couldn't had gone any better. Kudos extend to the cabin crew for a successful evacuation
You would, I wouldn't, always better one gear than nothing (text book)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yeah, right! It's not like an FMS or a generator isn't required for an ETOPS flight or anything
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captplaystation - they were in touch with ops, mechanics, and training captain, and circuit breakers were one of the first things they checked, and quite extensively. We we listening to their freq on twr.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does a manufacturer get an aircraft certified that can have three separate gear actuation systems fail at the same time. Airbus would never have this happen, last gear up I can think of before this was the Virgin Atlantic 340 years ago and the airbus system allowed for alternate to work if required.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: French Riviera
Age: 50
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do your homework please. If pressure cannot be restored, the QRH directs that all the associated system pumps are selected off.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... when there is a leak (loss of quantity indicated) then , there is no chance for pressure !!!
and even when the pumps are off, when there is a leak, it leaks everywhere inside the aircraft....
...and at minus something for hours hydraulics can freeze or damage other systems when the fluid is not contained in a tank/pipes
Do you have any examples of these other systems?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALL OR NOTHING
You would, I wouldn't, always better one gear than nothing (text book)
Theoretically,yes.But as max Angle says,flying isnt covered by a book.In this case,the belly landing worked..to perfection.One main gear down(as recommended by the book) may or may not have been so propitious if that had even been an option..The nosewheel collapse in the Gimli incident was a "fortune in disguise"...so a Captain has to consider these options that arent covered in the "book"..a deliberate all main gear UP landing over one main gear UP or a nosewheel UP landing with both main down as a deliberate tactic in the event of total hyd fail on a limiting runway.Its not in the book.Its airmanship.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reading all the pages in this thread and the question was forming in the back of my mind early, had to read to the ninth page before someone beat me to it.
Unless the authorities have recently relaxed the minimum system requirements for entering ETOPS areas, my many years of plowing twin Boeings and Airbuses across oceans left me with the distinct memory that the relevant QRH page left no doubt: three functioning hydraulic systems required to fly beyond sixty minutes of an adequate airport.
Maybe the references to it failing half an hour or an hour after departure are incorrect and the sole mention of it happening four hours out is correct.
If it failed subsequent to ETOPS entry then continuing became an option.
Nice landing, nonetheless...
Unless the authorities have recently relaxed the minimum system requirements for entering ETOPS areas, my many years of plowing twin Boeings and Airbuses across oceans left me with the distinct memory that the relevant QRH page left no doubt: three functioning hydraulic systems required to fly beyond sixty minutes of an adequate airport.
Maybe the references to it failing half an hour or an hour after departure are incorrect and the sole mention of it happening four hours out is correct.
If it failed subsequent to ETOPS entry then continuing became an option.
Nice landing, nonetheless...
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Poland
Age: 48
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
many of you make one big mistake in this discussion :
the pilots after departure in new york surely DID NOT KNEW that the gear is completely failed !
the pilots after departure in new york surely DID NOT KNEW that the gear is completely failed !
1. 30 mins into the flight they got information about fluid loss in central hydraulic sys.
2. They separated the centr hydraulic system, switched off the pumps "to have the rest of the systems safe".
3. They new that they would have to use alternate gear extension method at the arrival.
It was said in two different interviews.
Luckily, at least the alternate flaps extension mechanism worked.
It is possible to do the northern route over N. Quebec-Greenland-Iceland-Norway non ETOPS, it added a penalty of about 35-40' to the JFK-BUD route. The EWR-WAW GC route would be more northerly, it woud probably not be very different from the non-ETOPS path. I do not see why continuing on two hyd systems plus two generators and a functioning APU would be in breach of any rules. In such an event our procedures would have been to check position, distance to alternates along planned route, and if all within limits continue to maintenance base rather than have a stuck aircraft at JFK. I'm sure the line of thinking at LOT would be very similar.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Over the Pacific mostly
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure there were many minds involved in that decision making process too, is not like these guys would have just "wing it" I'm sure they had their maintenance and operations department fully aware of the situation and they were in contact with them from the get go, we can't make assumptions based on some news paper article, we know very well how accurate those are
Great Circle track Newark to Warsaw
Ok it's probably a bit of an approximation to the actual track but not far off.
Ok it's probably a bit of an approximation to the actual track but not far off.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the A330 (I imagine the same general rule to 767 would apply), the loss of single hydraulic is not a cause for diversion unless you don't fit into destination. Neither does it warrant a change in ETOPS once airborne. There is no land ASAP at all. Your capability is degraded to CAT3A, yes, so why divert and land at possible worse off adequate (which might only be a VOR anyway) airfield when home base might be fine with sufficient reserves and runway/weather/you name it. All legal and fine, that's why we fly redundant aircraft, and it so happens the gear gets stuck and is only confirmed once the effort is made to lower it
Further more, when will you know if the gear is hooked/hung up jammed??? of course when you try to lower it on final approach landing anywhere and in this case home base. Perhaps earlier, but it does not make a difference does it? He passed Boston, Halifax, Gander, St John, Rejkavik, Shannon, Dublin, Manchester, Standsted, Heathrow, Brussels, Amsterdam and he picked home base. That's fine by me, the rules were not broken and it turned out absolutely fine. Could you imagine diverting to a small insignificant adequate airfield only to find out the gear won't come down at 2000ft???
I believe the crew did a fine and outstanding job and I will not second guess them.
Well done Captain Wrona
Further more, when will you know if the gear is hooked/hung up jammed??? of course when you try to lower it on final approach landing anywhere and in this case home base. Perhaps earlier, but it does not make a difference does it? He passed Boston, Halifax, Gander, St John, Rejkavik, Shannon, Dublin, Manchester, Standsted, Heathrow, Brussels, Amsterdam and he picked home base. That's fine by me, the rules were not broken and it turned out absolutely fine. Could you imagine diverting to a small insignificant adequate airfield only to find out the gear won't come down at 2000ft???
I believe the crew did a fine and outstanding job and I will not second guess them.
Well done Captain Wrona