double engine failure landing
Guest
Posts: n/a
double engine failure landing
In a 767, or any other big jet, what would the procedure be to land with both /all engines out, say with 20% fuel left ?
Say you're at 10,000 feet within 10-20 miles of the airport, so gliding range shouldn't be a problem. Severe clear day ... just to make it a bit easier
In the last few miles to the airport, what kind of flap setting would be used ?
When would you extend the gear ?
(Both related to minimizing your drag ...)
Mike
Say you're at 10,000 feet within 10-20 miles of the airport, so gliding range shouldn't be a problem. Severe clear day ... just to make it a bit easier
In the last few miles to the airport, what kind of flap setting would be used ?
When would you extend the gear ?
(Both related to minimizing your drag ...)
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
Procedure ? Is there one ?
I think you would summon together all your luck skill and daring. As far as flaps and gear are concerned, play it by ear ! If you get it all right nobody will critisise whatever flap selection you chose or when you decided to put the gear down (ask the AC 767 crew in the Gimli incident).
I think you would summon together all your luck skill and daring. As far as flaps and gear are concerned, play it by ear ! If you get it all right nobody will critisise whatever flap selection you chose or when you decided to put the gear down (ask the AC 767 crew in the Gimli incident).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok 'technique' then , I don't mean 'company procedure'.
i don't fly jets, I'm curious about the way this situation would be flown.
I.E. flaps, adding them in is going to reduce your stall speed, but at some point where do you start getting to much drag
Mike
i don't fly jets, I'm curious about the way this situation would be flown.
I.E. flaps, adding them in is going to reduce your stall speed, but at some point where do you start getting to much drag
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
BA used to (or maybe still) do practice approaches in the 747 sims with all engines inoperative, I understand thay have landed an aircraft after all four engines have quit. Air Canada also used to do "shuttle" approaches in the B767/B727 for all engines inoperative landings. Ansett Australia also has an incident with a BAE-146 with all engines becoming inoperative.
To my understanding this practice is not carried out anymore by Air Canada.
The Air Canada B767 after a glide approach
The full story can be found here The Gimli Glider
Another account of the same incident can be found here The Crash of Flight 143
To my understanding this practice is not carried out anymore by Air Canada.
The Air Canada B767 after a glide approach
The full story can be found here The Gimli Glider
Another account of the same incident can be found here The Crash of Flight 143
Guest
Posts: n/a
I read in a flight safety magazine reagarding Gimli glider report, the investigators came up with this gem of an observation:
“It is unlikely that either Boeing or Captain Pearson’s employers had ever imagined the side slip manoeuvre being applied to a wide body jet airliner.”
------------------
Flying is easy - just throw yourself at the ground and miss.
“It is unlikely that either Boeing or Captain Pearson’s employers had ever imagined the side slip manoeuvre being applied to a wide body jet airliner.”
------------------
Flying is easy - just throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To answer your question, if you can see your runway then use pitch to keep a constant aimpoint and drag devices to control the speed.ie/ start clean and assume about 3-4 miles per 1000' at best glide speed (not normally the best relight speed!) When you can see the field you are in a position to judge your glide visually, so you must strive to maintain a constant aimpoint, say the threshold or vasis (difficult to do from 10-15 miles out, or if joining via a very wide base) The technique is to keep the runway in the same part of the windscreen, ie not moving up or down. Your aimpoint should appear stationary whilst surrounding features appear to move away from your aimpoint as you move closer. This is difficult to achieve accurately from long distance and most of us remember struggling with it in the circuit at some stage of our training!
Too high or low? The answer will be in your speed. To maintain the aimpoint and the speed starts washing off, you're probably too low, and I'm afraid may not make it. If the speed is increasing, you'll make the runway alright but it's time to start getting some drag out. Personally I'd take the gear first if I felt confident of making it. (With windmilling engines you should have normal hydraulics as well). All the time you use pitch to keep your aimpoint the threshold of the runway (or the touchdown zone if you wish for some insurance). Is the speed coming back? Good. Now for flap. You may set of some overspeed warnings here. Ignore. Use whatever flap you need to achieve a safe final approach speed (say 150 kts). Bottom line is, pitch for aimpoint, gear/flaps to control speed. Err on the fast side.
On a CATIII day, you should have stayed in bed!
Another thought, I flew a few fast jet types and we practised no-power landings using a high key/low key position. The high key was essentally next to the threshold, low key abeam the threshold (base position) a few thousand feet lower. The trick was to reach high key at the prescibed altitude, and you could be confident of making it in by following the practised high key-low key-threshold descending turn. But you do lose sight of the runway during the turn. Not for the faint hearted.
Hope this helps.
Too high or low? The answer will be in your speed. To maintain the aimpoint and the speed starts washing off, you're probably too low, and I'm afraid may not make it. If the speed is increasing, you'll make the runway alright but it's time to start getting some drag out. Personally I'd take the gear first if I felt confident of making it. (With windmilling engines you should have normal hydraulics as well). All the time you use pitch to keep your aimpoint the threshold of the runway (or the touchdown zone if you wish for some insurance). Is the speed coming back? Good. Now for flap. You may set of some overspeed warnings here. Ignore. Use whatever flap you need to achieve a safe final approach speed (say 150 kts). Bottom line is, pitch for aimpoint, gear/flaps to control speed. Err on the fast side.
On a CATIII day, you should have stayed in bed!
Another thought, I flew a few fast jet types and we practised no-power landings using a high key/low key position. The high key was essentally next to the threshold, low key abeam the threshold (base position) a few thousand feet lower. The trick was to reach high key at the prescibed altitude, and you could be confident of making it in by following the practised high key-low key-threshold descending turn. But you do lose sight of the runway during the turn. Not for the faint hearted.
Hope this helps.
Guest
Posts: n/a
When there is time left in the simulator it is always big fun to practice engine out landings (757 / 767).
Best - to my humble opinion - is the planning for flying a high downwind (4000 ft. region) with a quite normal distance , also a normal turn to base. The base turn depends on your altitude and in this way , changes of making it wrong are strongly reduced.
As for all airplanes plan to land at a third of the runway.
Whenever this seems to work , ad flaps to sink-in to more of the beginning of the runway. Experience and practice works always good. A save landing is almost assured when within gliding range.
A straight in planning from far away is harder than planning high overhead and making a high downwind - again in my opinion.
Gear and flaps :
Always extend gear ofcourse ! with a long straight in and narrow margin , I once choosed a very late gear down - using the alternate gear down i.s.o. the slow normal cycle (reducing drag is long as possible)
Flaps are an option: if low don't use them but land with the full +/- 200kts and full manual braking and evac as the wheels will get hot.
Normally: use flaps , easy when flying the high downwind !
757 : hydraulics don't extend the flaps anymore - alternate flaps are electric.
767 : when apu is running , the air driven pump provides hydr. to operate the flaps up to the full down position
both 757 and 767 of course have the RAT for hydr. steering
cheers !
Best - to my humble opinion - is the planning for flying a high downwind (4000 ft. region) with a quite normal distance , also a normal turn to base. The base turn depends on your altitude and in this way , changes of making it wrong are strongly reduced.
As for all airplanes plan to land at a third of the runway.
Whenever this seems to work , ad flaps to sink-in to more of the beginning of the runway. Experience and practice works always good. A save landing is almost assured when within gliding range.
A straight in planning from far away is harder than planning high overhead and making a high downwind - again in my opinion.
Gear and flaps :
Always extend gear ofcourse ! with a long straight in and narrow margin , I once choosed a very late gear down - using the alternate gear down i.s.o. the slow normal cycle (reducing drag is long as possible)
Flaps are an option: if low don't use them but land with the full +/- 200kts and full manual braking and evac as the wheels will get hot.
Normally: use flaps , easy when flying the high downwind !
757 : hydraulics don't extend the flaps anymore - alternate flaps are electric.
767 : when apu is running , the air driven pump provides hydr. to operate the flaps up to the full down position
both 757 and 767 of course have the RAT for hydr. steering
cheers !
Guest
Posts: n/a
On the 732/733 endorsement programs, we usually throw in a couple of 10,000 foot downwind double engine failures abeam the threshold.
Considering those students who get in - which is surprisingly many - it doesn't seem to matter much which school of philosophy is followed. I have seen the gear and flap out at 9000 feet followed by a slowish descent and a nice touchdown at 1000 feet, 250 knots to mid final, and lots of variations within those extremes.
The principal determinants of success hinge around energy management and a good monitoring of profile, allowing for a significantly steeper path without the idle thrust contribution.
I like the earlier comment regarding a constant window picture and drag as necessary to control the energy.
Considering those students who get in - which is surprisingly many - it doesn't seem to matter much which school of philosophy is followed. I have seen the gear and flap out at 9000 feet followed by a slowish descent and a nice touchdown at 1000 feet, 250 knots to mid final, and lots of variations within those extremes.
The principal determinants of success hinge around energy management and a good monitoring of profile, allowing for a significantly steeper path without the idle thrust contribution.
I like the earlier comment regarding a constant window picture and drag as necessary to control the energy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alosaurus,
The 3-4nm/1000' was a ball park calculation at max l/d (clean)speed, or if you prefer, green dot speed. Please don't confuse it with a normal ILS where you already have slats/flaps extended to some degree.
But the main thing I was trying to pass on was the "pitch for aimpoint, gear/flap to control speed" concept.
In any case, hope I never have to use it for real.
The 3-4nm/1000' was a ball park calculation at max l/d (clean)speed, or if you prefer, green dot speed. Please don't confuse it with a normal ILS where you already have slats/flaps extended to some degree.
But the main thing I was trying to pass on was the "pitch for aimpoint, gear/flap to control speed" concept.
In any case, hope I never have to use it for real.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Say you're at 10,000 feet within 10-20 miles of the airport, so gliding range shouldn't be a problem. Severe clear day ... just to make it a bit easier..."
This being the case, as originally proposed, I think it might be an idea to advise the back end prior to devising gliding distance algorithms. They'll be as busy ensuring pax safety us.
This being the case, as originally proposed, I think it might be an idea to advise the back end prior to devising gliding distance algorithms. They'll be as busy ensuring pax safety us.
