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: