Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Jet transport dead stick landings after loss of all engines in heavy rain and hail

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Jet transport dead stick landings after loss of all engines in heavy rain and hail

Reply

Old 3rd Jan 2019, 00:33
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: usa
Posts: 42
..Let´s not forget the SAS-flight..Remarkable job by the crew..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandi...nes_Flight_751

Fly Safe,
B-757
B-757 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 01:01
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
The airlines don't want to pay for such training. $$$ They would rather write off the rare loss of both engines. If they went there, then you get into sim training for a ditching far out in the ocean or over the polar routes.
There is a bit of a Catch 22 when it comes to what is required simulator training. Simulator time is a finite quantity, so the emphasis is on the sort of things a crew is most likely to encounter - such as engine failures. When a scenario becomes sufficiently rare, the regulators don't want to waste simulator time training for something that the crew is highly unlikely to ever experience.

I've had debates with the FAA about how the crew would handle an extremely rare failure - to wit the FAA wanted the fault considered catastrophic (and hence we needed to come up with a design such that it would never happen) - and we argued that the failure wasn't that difficult to deal with if the crew knew what to do. To which the FAA said isn't not practiced in the simulator so we need to assume the crew wouldn't react appropriately. We'd say 'add it to the simulator training', to which they'd respond 'it's too rare to be included in simulator training'. Catch 22...
Dead stick forced landings are extremely rare - and a surprisingly large percentage of those have happy endings (Sully, Gimli Glider, previously mentioned TACA). Given finite training resources, you can't train for absolutely everything - as desirable as it might be.
tdracer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 09:30
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by B-757 View Post
..Let´s not forget the SAS-flight..Remarkable job by the crew..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandi...nes_Flight_751

Fly Safe,
B-757
Just as in the Lion Air 610 accident, the SAS 751 crew also lacked knowledge of a critical system feature.
In that case, Wikipedia notes: '...the newly installed ATR prevented the pilots from successfully performing the normal remedial measure to halt compressor stall'. Dual engine failure and crash followed.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 12:29
  #24 (permalink)  
IZH
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: At home
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
The airlines don't want to pay for such training. $$$ They would rather write off the rare loss of both engines. If they went there, then you get into sim training for a ditching far out in the ocean or over the polar routes.
Well, I think that’s an exaggeration. We had the training included into our sim rides last year. With the new airbus checklist it‘s really a good training and not very time consuming.
IZH is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 13:08
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,928
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
Just as in the Lion Air 610 accident, the SAS 751 crew also lacked knowledge of a critical system feature.
In that case, Wikipedia notes: '...the newly installed ATR prevented the pilots from successfully performing the normal remedial measure to halt compressor stall'. Dual engine failure and crash followed.
Whilst the Wiki article is informative elsewhere, I don't see any reason why the pilot could not command a retard of the engine throttles in the early stages of climb..However it is true that the ATR in itself did command a thrust increase in a high workload condition.which greatly increased the onset of internal damage..
lomapaseo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jan 2019, 12:41
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 830
I have always wanted to know how to land my jet with zero thrust, and have never had the opportunity to practice it in the Sim.

The main thing I really want to know is, what is my glide at gear down (reduced flap, eg 737 gear down flap 15 or even 5). Is it 6 degrees? A guess at best.

If I knew, I might be able to get the aircraft in the right place to get it in. Eg, a gate of 5NM at 3000’ would be 6 degrees. Higher, I could sideslip or add more flap. Lower? Delay gear or Screwed.
Derfred is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jan 2019, 13:43
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 77
Posts: 624
Derfred,

I used to practice them for fun on the 747 simulator. I forget the glide angles with various stages of flap and with and without gear down, but one way of modifying the glide angle was to use sideslip, it worked in the simulator but I don't know how much could be used safely on the real aircraft. The other way of adjusting height to touchdown was to use a turning approach where you could cut the corner or tighten the turn as necessary and, for obvious reasons, taking great care to control the speed well above the stall.
Bergerie1 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 5th Jan 2019, 14:58
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vermont
Age: 62
Posts: 183
Rasmussen and Cedarmark did a spectacular job with SAS 751. And I don’t think anyone has yet mentioned Piche and de Jager flying Air Transat 236 to a successful deadstick landing at Lajes. Admittedly, they mismanaged the fuel problem, but their airmanship when it really counted was superb.

Many moons ago, whilst flying a 727 to an early morning arrival on BOS runway 22L, ATC had characteristically kept us quite high. Turning in toward the runway, I hung all of Miss Piggy’s appendages into the wind, and, as only the 727 can, was descending nicely into a standard glide path. The senior captain in the left seat said, “You ain’t gonna make it.”

I looked around, trying to figure out the problem. “What are you talking about? It’s coming together just fine…” I said. He says, again, “You ain’t gonna make it!”

Frustrated, I said, “Bill! What the hell are you talking about?” He smiles, and says, “You’re gonna have to add power…”

Finally recognizing the tug at my leg, I said, “Well, yeah…I was sort of planning on that…” And he replied, “We never used to…”

Hmmm...
Mansfield is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jan 2019, 13:33
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,085
Originally Posted by IZH View Post


Well, I think that’s an exaggeration. We had the training included into our sim rides last year. With the new airbus checklist it‘s really a good training and not very time consuming.
Did that training include a powerless landing or ditching? If it was simply a restart drill then it was window dressing.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jan 2019, 15:22
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,177
I’ve trained dual engine failure and dead stick landings on the 737.
The tendency is to end up in a high situation as the aircraft glides much better than you think.
The art of sideslipping is your way out of this situation. Best to stay on the high side since when you add drag you go down pretty fast.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jan 2019, 16:13
  #31 (permalink)  
IZH
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: At home
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
Did that training include a powerless landing or ditching? If it was simply a restart drill then it was window dressing.
On the Airbus we have a checklist for the so called „Sully case“, that‘s what we did. We trained dual engine failure at about 3500ft with ditching or relanding, depending on the situation.
IZH is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jan 2019, 23:18
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 351
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
Did that training include a powerless landing or ditching? If it was simply a restart drill then it was window dressing.
We did as IZH. Engines are seized because of the simulated birds digested by them, so no restart. APU on to regain normal electrical config. Try to make it to departure airfield, but energy is at a premium here so if you waste a tad too much that option is quickly gone, so into the water you go, down until (hopefully) a full stop with a somewhat survivable airframe.
Escape Path is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jan 2019, 07:55
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
Funny you said that ;
Many moons ago ( 1980's somewhere ) there was a Varig Captain that was famous in Brazil for his stunts and one of his specialty was dead stick landings on the 707. I was invited in the jumpseat of one of his flight from Rio to Brasilia , night time, low traffic. . Cruising at 330, he kept looking at his watch , then asked ATC for a straight in continuous descent . The guys knew what it was about and it was approved .He then put the 4 engines on flight idle and started to descent. When 20 min or so later , stabilized on finals a bit high , he lost the excess altitude slipping the 707 , landed on the numbers, kept rolling until the gate not adding any power during the taxi. . He never.touched the throttles during the whole time .and never said a word , just slightly used the brakes to vacate and again at the gate. Only then he turned at me and winked and smiled.
I forgot to note his name. But he must be known to any Brazilian .



Great stuff



I saw a bit of that kind of behavior at the beginning of my career


I’m very glad to not see it anymore
stilton is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jan 2019, 10:33
  #34 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,309
Interestingly, there appears to be all sorts of ways to handle a double failure. We used to throw this in for play time exposure years ago and it was good value. I recall some Chinese military VIP pilots transitioning onto the 732. They all did something different in the way of managing the descent, approach and landing .. and all of them nailed it nicely ... one guy did touch down about 2000ft in but he was the exception.

Impressive to watch from the panel operator's seat.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jan 2019, 14:25
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,085
Originally Posted by stilton View Post





Great stuff



I saw a bit of that kind of behavior at the beginning of my career


I’m very glad to not see it anymore
I saw it a couple of times in the mid-1960s. Fools.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jan 2019, 19:47
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: toronto
Age: 53
Posts: 32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

Always liked this one.
standbykid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 01:29
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by standbykid View Post

I remember that, it was a big story

Until two weeks later
stilton is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 20:48
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 298
Fokker had a procedure in the QRH and I remember training it at least once. One big question is whether the Sim reflects actual glide performance. Operations-wise it's a tough call to decide between high speed and bad glide ratio to restart the engines or best glide speed but no chance of restart. A little less tough, whether to try starting the APU to have more equipment and usually more flight controls working.

Austrian 111 probably qualifies as well. Engines were running but with negligible thrust due to the fan airflow being blocked by dislodged ice impact panels. Landed in a field around 2.5 NM short of the threshold with only minor injuries to occupants.
Alpine Flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 23:10
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 49
Posts: 757

Originally Posted by Alpine Flyer View Post
Austrian 111 probably qualifies as well. Engines were running but with negligible thrust due to the fan airflow being blocked by dislodged ice impact panels. Landed in a field around 2.5 NM short of the threshold with only minor injuries to occupants.
All occupants left the airplane without assistance via the forward passenger door exit.

At the time I was totally in awe of that crew, actually still am.
flash8 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Jan 2019, 13:55
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 333
I recall Hapag Lloyd bit the dust during a wheels down ferry and ran out of fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapag-Lloyd_Flight_3378
sheppey is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service