I don´t know B757/B767 systems but lots of my friends do and fly them daily but me question is, you´ve already beaten murphy´s once today, then twice with that alternate system not working at all and you fly over the atlantic where murphy´s is most expected to come again (it did at the end)

Great landing for the guys, I wish I could do one like that but still don´t get the point to risk that long flight back to Warsaw. You´re ETOPS, is still the aircraft ETOP´s if you get that system failure?

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.

In my book it was a controlled belly landing on a foamed runway well executed by a professional crew. It would take considerable bad luck for it to end up a wreck with fatalities.

Too many OTT remarks in this thread in my opinion.

lear60
 

Keep in mind that they discovered the gear won't come down, even by means of alternate extension, and they will be landing on the belly just a few minutes prior to landing, and not back over the U.S.

If you would have chosen to divert, that is fine, you choice and call. The fact they chose to continue, is fine just as well, and in compliance with their SOPs, and in my humble opinion was a good and calculated call, given the knowledge they seemed to have at the time.

kpt. T. Wrona has just said it was a loss of quantity on the center hydraulic system. Don't know if that has been mentioned here yet.

I saw the footage and it looked really smooth and well executed.

I can't wait for the report and subsequent findings. I'm betting there's a whole department of engineers over at Everett scratching their heads right now.

With all due respect Lear60fellow you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

The ALTN GEAR extension malfunction wouldn't have manifested itself until the crew actioned the deferred items in the QRH (CTR HYD SYS PRESS) [if in fact this was the root cause] so your point is moot.

With this hyd failure (767) ETOPS is not affected (in my experience).

Honestly, you wish you could "do one like that"....Back to your computer and leave the conjecture to those a little more informed....

Nice piece of flying from this LOT Captain and crew.The only thing that counts when things go wrong up there is airmanship and this was a perfect example of that.You can do all the CRM courses and study the SOP manuals till you're blue in the face but it wont amount to a hill of beans when something like this happens.In the final analysis,only airmanship counts for anything.Some airlines know this.Some dont.

Well, you do lose the HDG (aka HMG in the MEL). And, as you point out, you can be dispatched ER(=ETOPS) with the HDG inop with the other generators operating normally. For over 120 minutes ETOPS you need to run the APU during the ETOPS part of the flight.

Whether it is wise or legal to continue ETOPS with the loss of center hydraulics will be debated by the geniuses with diagrams and highlighters in the training building for years to come.:)

Some news reports seem to indicate that the hydraulic problem was not evident until the gear was lowered for landing. Anybody have an update on that?

lear60

very interesting, so you would gladly continue all over Atlantic without FMS or a Generator :*:}

Well, you can certainly be dispatched out of the blocks over the Atlantic with an inoperative generator on the 767 under 120 minute ETOPS. And you can enter ETOPS airspace with an inoperative FMC (you need two IRU's and two CDU's).

arc-en-ciel:

A/c stopped exactly on the intersection of runways (11/29 and 15/33, landing was on 33), that's why the other runway can't be used, and AD had to be closed. LOT hangars are in the northeast part of the AD, near MIL apron, if you take a look at the chart. And no, AD certainly wasn't in emergency phase 7 hours prior to landing, there was no reason for it. As I said, first indication of any problems was only at final approach, HighSpeedAluminum is correct, altn gear extention malfunction was supposed to work correctly. So only after it's failure, AD was initially put on uncertainty phase, then alert (emergency).

Sullenberger commenting on the LOT 016 landing.

CNN.com International - Breaking, World, Business, Sports, Entertainment and Video News

Very clear confirmation of the need of good flying skills to achieve such outcome.

The system of alternate gear extension are quite different on B757 and B767. the B757 has electrical switches that operate a hyd pump that uses L HYD to power the door locks open.
On the B767 a rotary actuator under the flight deck floor operates a cable system that mechanically opens the door up locks.
Strange that the B767 has mechanical cables under the floor of the flight deck, but a small electrical actuator to operate them. Why not a hatch in the floor like B737? Perhaps the switch is for commonality with the B757, to make the pilots think that two different systems are the same.

thanks criss for info,
really a shame it stopped right at the intersection ,
any guess how the aircraft will be removed ? cranes ? lift bags ? on its own wheels or on jacks ?

I agree with you that airport was not in emergency 7 hours prior to the landing, that's why I don't quite understand the LOT announcement, neither that they have stated the center hydraulic only. It would have been more correct for LOT to write that BOTH Center and alternate hydraulics failed. Aviation accidents are rarely due to only one cause.

So if I understand correctly, the B767 has a handle in the cockpit to operate the gear in emergency, with one cable that goes to the 3 gears, and then 3 electrical actuators (one on each gear) to open the uplock , correct ?
then or :
- the handle got broken :eek:
- the cable got broken :{
- the 3 different actuators all failed at the same time ?!?!? :hmm:

please don't tell me the 3 actuators are supplied by the same busbar:ugh:

I would want all 3 actuators controlled by the same bus. Could really ruin your day if the left main gear deployed and the right didn't...

arc-en-ciel:

There is no handle in the cockpit for operation of the alternate gear extension system.
There is a guarded switch below the landing gear handle - by selecting this switch to ON supplies power to an electrical actuator which is connected to the uplocks with cables.
So a failure in this arrangement could explain the failure of all the 3 gears to extend.
See also #173.

SP-LPC smiles
 

Already towed back to hangar on her own wheels.

Not only all people saved, but probably the machine as well.

It is more and more probable that she will fly again. :)

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/1/10578/z1057...oeinga-767.jpg

You would, I wouldn't, always better one gear than nothing (text book)

so when was the last maintenance of this actuators/cables/back-up system performed?

is it wise to leave an hydraulic system leaking everywhere inside for 7/8 hours ?

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"

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.

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..

Back to flying
 

Not sure where I read this but apperatly Captain Wrona is due back within a week for a flight to Hanoi not much rest for him then. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif

Do your homework please. If pressure cannot be restored, the QRH directs that all the associated system pumps are selected off.

Yeah, right! It's not like an FMS or a generator isn't required for an ETOPS flight or anything :rolleyes:

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 :D :D :D

That is the perceived wisdom and the manufacturer procedure for most types but having seen how well the landing went with no gear its hard not to question that line of thinking to be honest. Nice job.

Well, actually you can certainly do ETOPS on the '76 with an FMC or a generator inop as I and another poster have observed. Did someone tell you otherwise?

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.

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.

We knew this one was coming...:p

I did, 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

Depends on the system, where the system is damaged and how much is lost. From memory, the 767 has standpipes in the reservoirs which save fluid for certain critical user systems.

Everywhere inside the aircraft?

Freeze point of Skydrol <-62.2C. Freeze point of Jet A fuel -40C.

Do you have any examples of these other systems?

ALL OR NOTHING
 

Arc-en-Ciel

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.

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...

In a todays interviews in the radio and on tv, the capitan said:

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.

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:rolleyes:

Great Circle track Newark to Warsaw

Ok it's probably a bit of an approximation to the actual track but not far off.

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.:ok:

Well done Captain Wrona:D