What for? You certainly don't need the additional drag to stop and you certainly don't need the possibility of uneven drag from partial spoiler deployment due to the hydraulic failure, no spoilers is the correct procedure in this case.

Well, the mods seem to favor other postings now that this is a commercial forum, their right I suppose. Many of the knowlegeable veterans (e.g. Ignition Override and Shore Guy) have either left or rarely post any more after some of the summary deletions. I can certainly relate.

Some of the pictures posted earlier on this thread seem to show the tailskid down which would imply that C HYD was available at some point after the gear handle was put down. Unless of course, they crossed the pond with the gear up and the tailskid out, you would get both a Tailskid light and a Tailskid EICAS message in this condition. The tailskid on the -300 does not deploy with alternate gear extension.

This picture shows some of the spoilers (7 and 10 perhaps?) deployed on the uh, rollout:

Photos: Boeing 767-35D/ER Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

With engine nacelles scraped some further loss of hydraulics would be expected but perhaps not instantaneous, this was the case in a 737 gear up touch and go incident in TXL years ago.

Apologies for talking shop here but some of us actually do fly for a living...:)

Fine - now how do I get out of Warsaw?
 

Was on the BA 850 about 25 minutes behind the LOT flight. Quick swerve and off to the alternate - Krakow. Three and a half hours on Polish rail later....

The aircraft is still sitting there and BA has cancelled all flights to Warsaw today..

Any suggestions?

Spoilers are a non-event in this landing, I'm sure the co-efficient of friction once the aircraft touched down would have been high enough to do the trick.

(from an amateur observer) Watching the last of the landing videos that were linked, the belly warning lamp goes out about five seconds before touch down. Obviously, it might NOT have been but the questions are:

• Once commited to the belly landing, would SOP be to shut down the engines?
• and ALL possible electrical circuits?
• Would it be done Prior to or at touchdown?
• If such circuits are isolated - would that leave the handling pilot with no control surface?
• In which case, a prescribed list of circuits to be isolated to reduce fire risk?

Lowly SLF here, but wanted to offer a thought:

If the hydraulic failure left them with the option of a gravity drop, is it conceivable that they might have elected to the belly landing for fear that a gravity drop might have left them with an asymmetrical deployment? Per the video posted of a failed gravity drop test on a B767 - or perhaps other factors we don't know yet - could the crew have decided that a gravity drop created greater risk than a belly landing?

Kudos to the competent crew!

This is a major major incident for the Boeing 767. Folks are mentioning re cb's , resets etc. as a previous mentioned they had 8 hrs previous crossing the pond to go through all the eventualities in liaison with their maintenance folk. From the radar trace they must have held a good 40mins at Warsaw before commencing their approach as they I presume retraced all their options and set themselves up for a nightmare landing that none of us ever want to experience.

From an engineering view point, with all the damage incurred on the underbody will the repair cost exceed its hull value? Those 767s are a good age with LOT.

:D well done to the crew and the capt.

Come to think of it, regarding the decision to continue 30 min after departure with a HYD sys failure. If you knew you were doing a manual gear extension, would you expose the failed system/parts to -40 degree temps at FL360? Pure speculation but what if staying at that temperature for 7 hours straight might have frozen some part of the landing gear that would be gravity extended?

First of all, well done to the crew. Looks like very competently handled situation and the best outcome that could have been expected.

I share Captplaystation's concern that a CB tripping could lead to snags with the ALTN lowering system but I'm quietly confident that would have been talked about and checked while they hung around in the overhead chatting to the engineers.

Despite the QRH drill for C Hyd calling for flap 20, it certainly looks from the photos like they went for a flap 30 landing (for obvious reasons). No criticism at all; I would have done exactly the same thing (after discussing it with my colleagues, of course) and just offer the comment as an observation.

Flipperb, I would suggest that thought would not have gone through their minds at all. Presented with a C Hyd failure you run the QRH. There is no reason to suppose the gear wouldn't come down on the ALTN system and I am quite sure the first time they would have thought 'now we've got a problem' is when it didn't. Until that point I reckon they would have been fairly relaxed with, let's face it, an unusual occurrence but something that is practised regularly in the sim and is not really a big deal.

Spoilers, schmoilers. They wouldn't have armed them for landing and not all of them work with a C Hyd fail anyway. IF I had time and remembered during the 'roll out' I like to think I might have popped the speedbrake lever but, as has been pointed out already, it really isn't going to help too much with the landing/sliding distance and it's just another thing to remember to stow prior to evacuating. It looks like this intrepid crew DID remember during the slide and just adds credence to a job well done :ok:

There was a case some time back on a B757 Freighter on a high security European flight (money) where the local plod insisted on inspecting the landing gear bays. So open the panel underneath, select the Door Arm switch and Doors Open. Nothing. Scratch head, check the books and try again -still nothing. So AOG - same system does the alternate gear. The B767 has the same system.

Congratulations to the crew for plugging the last hole in the Swiss Cheese.

Since I'm on a 'roll'; Sanjet, what if they had the C Hyd fail 1 hour prior to landing? The various bits of landing gear would have still been exposed to the same environmental conditions for the same time and I'm pretty certain Mr Boeing's components are meant to survive those conditions on every other flight the aircraft makes.

For the record, I'm in the 'continue' camp. Presented with the same symptoms after leaving Newark, having run the QRH, established there's nothing else wrong with the aircraft and agreed the same with my mate(s) on the flight deck, I would have done exactly the same and pressed on to WAW.

Having sown that seed, I'll now shut up and leave the Flight Sim 2000 brigade to shout down how wrong I'd be and how we don't know what caused the damage to cause the leak, that might have also damaged a pump that could overheat and set fire to the hyd fluid spraying from a leaking hose, causing the aircraft to crash in a huge fireball and proving, therefore, that my decision would have been wrong :)

Having time in the B767 as a captain I would agree with their decision to continue to their base and burn off fuel. It made the landing at a lower speed and lots of time to comunicate with their company. Why the alternate landing gear extention didn't work is still unknown.

Landing early in a situation like this to avoid a crossing of the Atlantic probably wouldn't have helped matters. Yes, possibility of further failures due to the loss of Center hydraulics must be considered but as I recall the center hydraulic system can be isolated and have no direct connection to the engines. I haven't flown one in 8 years because I turned 60 so don't remember.

As I recall it is all electric pumps and pnuematic air pressure pressurizing the center system. They did a great job of sliding it in and don't think they could have done anything more to improve the outcome.

Only speculation fratemate that is all. But with all due respect, a failed system exposed to 7 hours of -40 versus 1 hour of -40 temps would be a difference. I am not rated on boeing so I ask: does the failure of a HYD C sys result in a "Land ASAP" situation or Emergency status.
And yes I do agree in this situation to continue the flight with the given public data so far available.

Captain announced there were mechanical problems 4 hours into the flight.

Point of no return?

Perhaps, but with quite a few alternates, say Reykjavik, Shannon, Dublin, Heathrow, Gatwick, Schiphol etc. etc. While many interesting details are sure to emerge, at this point it appears to have been a calculated and rational decision that paid off. And whilst they fortunately had a few hours to work it out, it's not like they had days and days and the wisdom of hindsight in their favour. :8

Great job, guys. :D

What's the point of diverting to or Snn with a single Hyd fail and landing in the DARK? No thanks, they did the correct thing in continuing says me.

The big ?......what happened the Alt gear?

I kook forward to the report

It does not, I don't think the "what if" question entered their minds as to the alternate system failing, it is an electric release that lets the gear fall on its own weight, I don't see them thinking about temperature exposure any more that you would think about it when you operate the gear normally, it is the same up lock system that you are commanding to release when you operate the gear normally anyway

A lot of pilots would have probably handled this in a different manner but I think these pilots did a perfect job of handling their situation. I salute them.

If only they could have jumped onto pprune and asked around for help :}

I think they already know we support them and they did the right thing. Glad I didn't have to go through this **** on one of my flights. 23,000 hrs and nothing happened. Maybe I was just lucky???

Some more info to drop in - the pair of F16s came in to check for visual (they expected electronic failure for gear expansion lights) and confirmed no wheels - and captain asked them to clear their altitude, so they can try to "drop" the wheels with higher G maneuvres. So I'd bet they tried everything, had plenty of time. They also contacted HQ for technical advisory, so I guess we should wait for preliminary report, which is scheduled to come in a month time.

On the other idea - it's still too early for judging, but just a quickie - we assume no gear landing was an effect of no hydraulic pressure. Just give a thought to opposite - if there was a problem with gear which caused then a leak and loss of C system? We'll have to wait till report, anyways.

I think water landing and gear up landing can't be compared really. Polish pilots did a very good job but it has been done before. In 2000 Hungarian TU154 in Greece landed gear up by crew mistake, the tower noticed too late, but they managed to take off again, perform a go-around and land normally. And in 2008, Kd-Avia B737 in Kalinigrad, Russia, also landed gear-up and at night time. It was a crew error and not a real emergency. They were probably other occasions too.
So, Hudson landing must still be No1, or maybe Ethiopian, given the circumstances, bigger plane and ocean, no river to land on.

Just had a quick read, and all I got to say is cr@@@@p", man they are one tough bird.

Doesn't the Center Hydraulic System control symmetrical spoilers?

On the subject of drag, how does the co-efficient of drag of aluminium and composites on a foamed runway compare with braked rubber on a non-foamed runway?

On twr, we didn't get any information about problems until they were on approach, so it's pretty obvious they expected the altn systems to work normally. And only then did the problem arise. After that they circled for 90 mins, in contact with hq and one instructor pilot, so I assume all possibilities were checked, though of course we're only humans.
On our request, police closed the road just outside the airport perimeter. And then just waiting for the outcome, and lots of smell afterwards.

it will take a few weeks before we know why this gears did not extend and the beautiful Boeing design of a back-up system...:rolleyes:
until then, the 767 is still blocking WAW airport, any clue how to remove it from the runways intersection ?:8

just got a funny idea ... may be it can go on its own wheels :ok: as they stayed in their compartment and if they have not been too damaged by the bely landing, a crane, lift-up, gear extension (manually) and towed to the gate !!!

Nseu well spotted mmm! (my point previous post)To me only inboard aileron seemed visible.
As for deploying spoilers manually I would have once the aircraft had fully settled. But do not think that would be an important issue.

> just got a funny idea ... may be it can go on its own wheels
> http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif as they stayed in their compartment and if they have
> not been too damaged by the bely landing, a crane, lift-up,
> gear extension (manually) and towed to the gate !!!

The pilots did their best to lower the gear on fly-in. While it turned out to be impossible, I'd bet against it. Especially considering landing and possible additional damage.

A few observations;

Its been done before. !!!! No kidding! Really? How many hundred times I wonder? (the go-around stunt was even acheived with moderate success by a prop plane, an Electra in Shannon with a crew of instructors as the perpetrators) Now that was an impressive feat.

The only planned pax transport jet ditching ever as far as I know was a DC9 in the Caribbean back in the 70s. I think the Hudson incident was the only other successful and deliberate jet ditching under control but was hardly premeditated. Ethiopian was a forced crash and hardly a success.

No need for spoilers, coefficient of friction. The crew would know the figures from a table in the manual I suppose? The landing distance required non normal config no gear (incidentally that is no "gear", not "gears") table perhaps? The coefficient of friction of metal on tarmac is not necessarily very high. When I tried it - no nosewheel only - the aircraft showed no discernable deceleration whatsoever. I'd suggest that in such an event you'd want to ensure you stop asap to minimise risk of a high speed runway departure or overrun, so unless the checklist says no spoilers or they are inop I'd have thought them very useful.

Surprise that the nose did not touch. Just think where the main gear is relative to the nacelles. Of course it didn't, it couldn't. Move pax to the back? OMG! Do they do that in flightsim I wonder?

Surprise that this didn't end in disaster. Why? The ring-frame in the nacelles are designed to cope with the loads. The rear fuselage is just tin so unless there is major disruption of the structure the danger of a significant fire is minimal.

Speculation about return/continue transatlantic. If we don't know what the malfunction/s were or when they occurred it's an empty exercise isn't it? The crew made a professional judgement. Leave it be until the report is published.

Heroism? Bolleaux. Utter bolleaux. It had to be done, there was no option, it was done skilfully. A highly professional landing for sure, but heroism doesn't enter into it. But its no good telling the maggots of the media that I suppose.
Just remember the poor sod who did similar in the Iranian 727 last week - he's had hic licence suspended pending what sounds like a criminal investigation and is probably deeply in the dwang. Nice!

In my incident (UK international scheduled public transport) it never made the press, my accident report was never submitted to the Authority and all I got was a bottle of wine and made "redundant" a few weeks later. No cries of heroism there. There are many different ways airlines choose to skin this particular cat.

But why? The ground spoilers put the weight on the wheels so that the brakes are most effective. This had no wheels or brakes therefore there use is surely largely reduced and possibly negligeble though every little helps. I wouldn't have thought it a make or break decision.

Also, as far as I can tell, it would have been rather tricky to deploy the spoilers if the C system was INOP, which is what all indications are pointing to...

Still wondering if anybody could weigh in on my previous question though, regarding if the gear doors would have opened with the ALTN EXT procedure being used, regardless of if the uplocks released or not.

As far as heroism; I don't think it qualifies as heroism in the English sense of the word, but in the Polish sense it does (bohater).

The 767 QRH gives advice depending on stopping distance. If it is considered critical, "Extend the speedbrakes after all gear, or the nose or engine nacelle have contacted the runway."

The spoilers powered by the left and right systems are still available. As you would expect, each is paired with the same panel on the opposite wing.

can a local guy spot the location of the wreck on the airport chart, and location of LOT maintenance facility ?

Professional crew certainly, hats off from here.

But I have to wonder if there is engineer at LOT right now wondering "Eish, I think nobody tested the alt gear extension last time gears were maintained on that bird..."

Increasing the weight on the tarmac/metal interface has the same effect as a tarmac/rubber interface in terms iof increasing friction.

(Note, I make no comment on spoiler use. I have no idea of the proportion of runway used, what the qrh says etc. But most assuredly the basic physics is comparable.)

Voila:

52.166772, 20.966206 do Warszawa - Mapy Google

Lot maintenance base is under the roof with big …. blue/white LOT:).

One thread in these 'ere forum moaning and groaning about pilots loosing their flying skills thanks ( or no thanks ) to all the electronic gadgetry in the cockpits.
Then, within a short time span ( LOT , Iran Air ), we see pilots at their best, outperforming racks full of hardware with gigabytes full of software...

I'm sure this is a conspiracy. A secret brotherhood of pilots, hellbent on discrediting those doomsayers at A and B, by generating emergencies to show off their skills...Muahaha (deranged laughter) ;)

A bit of information. From the Boeing FCTM for 75/6. Not the entire story but the first para.

As a current 75/6 pilot I can only hope that I can aspire to the outcome achieved by these guys. I would suggest the deployment or otherwise of the speedbrakes is of little consequence given this outcome.

They start to say a few bull ****....:hmm: we will see what is next :=
so if I read well, 7 hours before the landing, Warsaw airport was in emergency already, and central hydraulic failure would be the only cause to avoid the deployment of the landing gears :rolleyes: