Jet transport dead stick landings after loss of all engines in heavy rain and hail
Thread Starter
Jet transport dead stick landings after loss of all engines in heavy rain and hail
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR7803.pdf Well worth re-visiting. Old accident but little has changed in terms of procedural advice to operators. DC9 into a severe thunderstorm. Loss of both engines due heavy rain and hail ingestion. Pilot error in throttle handling. Forced landing attempted on a road. Fatal.
On 4 April 1977, a US registered DC-9 forced landed on a highway after loss of both engines in a thunderstorm. Many of todays pilots reading this accident report would not have been born by then. Yet the circumstances of the accident and lessons learned apply just as much today as all those years ago. The CVR reading was invaluable to the investigators. While the length of the NTSB report may put off those who prefer a shorter version via IPhone this scribe nevertheless recommends study of the complete report to gain full professional value.Some edited extracts may help.
For example: The feet of a number of survivors was cut and some were burned because they had no shoes for protection. The FA had briefed the passengers to remove their shoes to prevent damage to the evacuation slides.
Para. 1.17.1 discusses in depth the glide ratio of the DC-9 assuming double flameout.
Para. 1.17.3 discusses the limitations of aircraft weather radar in heavy rain. Severe rainfall within the antenna field (100 feet) disperses the beam with consequent reduction of radar performance. In several cases all targets disappear and an indistinct haze may appear at the indicator origin.
Paragraph 2.1.1. Engine failure and flight crew reaction. Regarding the dual engine failure with no thrust available to correct flight path misjudgements. Consequently, instruction and practice are required to develop these skills and the flight crew never received or were they required to receive any instruction of practice in emergency landings with all engines inoperative. Moreover, the approved operating manuals contained no guidance or procedure on the subject.
Para. 3.2. Loss of thrust was cause by the ingestion of massive amounts of water and hail which in combination with thrust lever movement induced severe stall in and major damage to the engine compressors. Similar circumstances to a Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-300 on 16 January 2002. Penetrated a severe thunderstorm and experienced a flameout of both engines in heavy rainfall followed by total electrical failure. At the time the weather radar was ineffective in heavy rain. The aircraft was ditched flapless. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_T...t_C-5_accident
On 4 April 1977, a US registered DC-9 forced landed on a highway after loss of both engines in a thunderstorm. Many of todays pilots reading this accident report would not have been born by then. Yet the circumstances of the accident and lessons learned apply just as much today as all those years ago. The CVR reading was invaluable to the investigators. While the length of the NTSB report may put off those who prefer a shorter version via IPhone this scribe nevertheless recommends study of the complete report to gain full professional value.Some edited extracts may help.
For example: The feet of a number of survivors was cut and some were burned because they had no shoes for protection. The FA had briefed the passengers to remove their shoes to prevent damage to the evacuation slides.
Para. 1.17.1 discusses in depth the glide ratio of the DC-9 assuming double flameout.
Para. 1.17.3 discusses the limitations of aircraft weather radar in heavy rain. Severe rainfall within the antenna field (100 feet) disperses the beam with consequent reduction of radar performance. In several cases all targets disappear and an indistinct haze may appear at the indicator origin.
Paragraph 2.1.1. Engine failure and flight crew reaction. Regarding the dual engine failure with no thrust available to correct flight path misjudgements. Consequently, instruction and practice are required to develop these skills and the flight crew never received or were they required to receive any instruction of practice in emergency landings with all engines inoperative. Moreover, the approved operating manuals contained no guidance or procedure on the subject.
Para. 3.2. Loss of thrust was cause by the ingestion of massive amounts of water and hail which in combination with thrust lever movement induced severe stall in and major damage to the engine compressors. Similar circumstances to a Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-300 on 16 January 2002. Penetrated a severe thunderstorm and experienced a flameout of both engines in heavy rainfall followed by total electrical failure. At the time the weather radar was ineffective in heavy rain. The aircraft was ditched flapless. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_T...t_C-5_accident
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And lets not forget TACA 110, good work gentleman.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every time I get leftover time in the SIM and I ask to try a dead stick landing I get turned down. Except once. Mid North Sea, 20,000ft. Both engines chopped, emergency descent to 10,000ft then a glide to AMS. APU failed to start as well. So clean +20 and I needed to circle AMS twice to get the height off. So many runways to choose so not really the best placement to try it but surprising how well the 737-800 glides clean. And what a difference it is with flaps out!! got down OK but lots to ponder over.
As a regular flyer I was interested in RVF s comment s. With almost all aircraft now 'only' having two engines and seemingly an increasing frequency of extreme weather especially around storms it seems a reasonable thing to include in training details . After all there must be a very considerable startle factor to say the least and having at least some idea of initial actions to preserve altitude and speed and thus buy time for some considered analysis would appear invaluable.
On the whole, commercial pilots seem to have done fairly well with dead-stick landings. Even BA38, where the crew had only two miles and under 800 feet of height to make it happen.
Of note, the rural-highway landing (not the cause of engine failure) from the 1977 accident was swiped for a segment of the movie U.S. Marshalls - watching that for the first time I though "Wait a minute! I know this scenario."
Of note, the rural-highway landing (not the cause of engine failure) from the 1977 accident was swiped for a segment of the movie U.S. Marshalls - watching that for the first time I though "Wait a minute! I know this scenario."
After Sully I'm surprised Boeing didn't introduce dead stick landing procedure into the QRH. During sim checks (757/767) I would invite crews to have a go if they wanted to and there was time available. I compiled a set of notes which I thought might be helpful and included it in my 'How to do well in the sim' paper (page 9) before I retired 10 years ago.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After Sully I'm surprised Boeing didn't introduce dead stick landing procedure into the QRH. During sim checks (757/767) I would invite crews to have a go if they wanted to and there was time available. I compiled a set of notes which I thought might be helpful and included it in my 'How to do well in the sim' paper (page 9) before I retired 10 years ago.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After Sully I'm surprised Boeing didn't introduce dead stick landing procedure into the QRH. During sim checks (757/767) I would invite crews to have a go if they wanted to and there was time available. I compiled a set of notes which I thought might be helpful and included it in my 'How to do well in the sim' paper (page 9) before I retired 10 years ago.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they went there, then you get into sim training for a ditching far out in the ocean or over the polar routes.
Maintaining VREF 40 at 200-300 fpm rate of descent until start of the flare then rotating smoothly to a touchdown attitude of 10-12 degrees while maintaining airspeed and rate of descent with thrust,seems to be beyond the capability of most pilots instrument flying skills. Skill at raw data instrument flying is essential which few possess nowadays it seems.
Maintaining VREF 40 at 200-300 fpm rate of descent until start of the flare then rotating smoothly to a touchdown attitude of 10-12 degrees while maintaining airspeed and rate of descent with thrust
I've skipped it recently, but for a long time during recurrent training at my US Major, I'd ask for the double flameout in the sim after the normal training is completed.
This has been in various conditions, used to be LGA where the Instructor would flame out both while headed down Manhattan Island at low level at 350 kts, roll 90 degrees
between the World Trade Center Towers (The visuals were removed from the sims weeks after 9/11), turn left and deadstick on RW04 at LGA. Good energy management practice
even though some flight scenarios were suspect. Fun part was managing energy to a normal landing and coasting to a Gate.
It's tough learning the glide skills in most US or Europe busy sectors. Endless ATC commands for speed and altitude wipe out most brain work for descent planning.
I understand the limitations in attempting to practice such events, but those flying should try to manually gauge their energy to a field without the Flight Directors, ND Map displays and vertical path indicators.
Fly it like a sick J3 Cub. You never know when you might need the skill set. Tough to do in many airspace environments as well as long duty days with fatigue issues, but worth the try. (safely within your accepted ops limits of course)
This has been in various conditions, used to be LGA where the Instructor would flame out both while headed down Manhattan Island at low level at 350 kts, roll 90 degrees
between the World Trade Center Towers (The visuals were removed from the sims weeks after 9/11), turn left and deadstick on RW04 at LGA. Good energy management practice
even though some flight scenarios were suspect. Fun part was managing energy to a normal landing and coasting to a Gate.
It's tough learning the glide skills in most US or Europe busy sectors. Endless ATC commands for speed and altitude wipe out most brain work for descent planning.
I understand the limitations in attempting to practice such events, but those flying should try to manually gauge their energy to a field without the Flight Directors, ND Map displays and vertical path indicators.
Fly it like a sick J3 Cub. You never know when you might need the skill set. Tough to do in many airspace environments as well as long duty days with fatigue issues, but worth the try. (safely within your accepted ops limits of course)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the discussion is about dead-stick landings (loss of all engines - see title) - walk me through how this applies.
Good point. Thread drift to general simulator training rather than dead stickers
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: California
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another 737 was Garuda Flight 421 (January 2002) which lost both engines due to hail ingestion and ditched successfully into the Bengawan Solo River in Java. One Flight Attendant died but the aircraft pretty well stayed in one piece. I suppose as long as the energy is managed and there is a clear place to go, it's workable. Night-time would be quite exciting. Best to avoid the weather in the first place.
Garuda 421
[...] Similar circumstances to a Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-300 on 16 January 2002. Penetrated a severe thunderstorm and experienced a flameout of both engines in heavy rainfall followed by total electrical failure. At the time the weather radar was ineffective in heavy rain. The aircraft was ditched flapless. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_T...t_C-5_accident
Last edited by Plumb Bob; 2nd Jan 2019 at 08:15. Reason: Error in my first try!
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fun part was managing energy to a normal landing and coasting to a Gate.
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 .
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Probably from the same flying school as the WW1 pilot who was renowned for deadsticking his aircraft to its drip tray inside the hangar at Netheravon. It had no brakes.
Only half a speed-brake
As noble as the story is, one, four, or even eight on idle is not dead-sticking. On a glide with all on idle (or not installed) the A/C behaviour still fits the trained skill.