Stuck thrust lever B733 sim scenario
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you LEM for supplying the details that were not available to me. However, I still can't see what the lower 41 E&E bay design had to do with this accident. Can you please explain and also tell me where you would place all the electronic equipment in your design of a large airplane?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The E&E bay had no direct relation with the accident itself, but as the NTSB pointed out, everytime the nose goes into the water after an overrun, all the electronic equipment suffer the most... in that case, the crew was unable to shut eng 1 down, and it was still at full power during the evacuation (which took place after a considerable dalay...).
Where would I place it? somewhere else, in the roof maybe!
Where would I place it? somewhere else, in the roof maybe!
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So next time AF or some other crew have an over run into the water, let's hope they don't submerge enough to flood the E&E bay (upper 41 section) on the roof. I really think you should submit this idea to Boeing and Airbus.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD, jokes apart, there would be SO MANY things to be suggested to aircraft manufacturers.
The industry wants us to believe that we are on the best possible track, as demonstrated by Airbus with the 380.
Bull****!
They are scared of losing money in case something should happen that the public opinion (ignorance, I might say) would attribute to different designs.
So we'll continue to have airworthy, but not crashworthy, airplanes.
We'll continue to have landing gears and engines attached to fuel tanks.
We'll continue to try to avoid disasters, not to make them survivable.
If you think moving the E&E bay would be a great deal, go to the Burnelli site - with an open mind, I hope....
For those who think we live in the best possible world!
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/
LEM
The industry wants us to believe that we are on the best possible track, as demonstrated by Airbus with the 380.
Bull****!
They are scared of losing money in case something should happen that the public opinion (ignorance, I might say) would attribute to different designs.
So we'll continue to have airworthy, but not crashworthy, airplanes.
We'll continue to have landing gears and engines attached to fuel tanks.
We'll continue to try to avoid disasters, not to make them survivable.
If you think moving the E&E bay would be a great deal, go to the Burnelli site - with an open mind, I hope....
For those who think we live in the best possible world!
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/
LEM
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry LEM, I think Burnelli is on magic mushrooms. Modern aircraft and systems are as safe as present day technology can devise them. Unfortunately us, human beings have to operate them and that is the weak link.
Let me quote an excerpt from Rudyard Kipling's poem,
The Secret of the Machines
Modern Machinery.
We can pull and haul and push and lift and drive,
We can print and plough and weave and heat and light,
We can run and race and swim and fly and dive,
We can see and hear and count and read and write!
But remember, please, the Law by which we live,
We are not built to comprehend a lie,
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive.
If you make a slip in handling us you die!
We are greater than the Peoples or the Kings-
Be humble, as you crawl beneath our rods!--
Our touch can alter all created things,
We are everything on earth--except The Gods!
Let me quote an excerpt from Rudyard Kipling's poem,
The Secret of the Machines
Modern Machinery.
We can pull and haul and push and lift and drive,
We can print and plough and weave and heat and light,
We can run and race and swim and fly and dive,
We can see and hear and count and read and write!
But remember, please, the Law by which we live,
We are not built to comprehend a lie,
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive.
If you make a slip in handling us you die!
We are greater than the Peoples or the Kings-
Be humble, as you crawl beneath our rods!--
Our touch can alter all created things,
We are everything on earth--except The Gods!
Last edited by HotDog; 8th Aug 2003 at 11:35.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That should have been evident in one of my previous posts. I think the Instructor was not correct but I have never operated two engine aircraft as all my experience is on three and four engine jets, I am certain in my mind that the engine should have been shut down prior to landing. Hope this answers your question LEM. I really don't know how we strayed off topic onto airplane re-design, do you? 
De rien.
De rien.
Last edited by HotDog; 16th Aug 2003 at 10:01.
stuck thrust lever(s)
I`ve not flown a-733, so what I suggest may leave me open to be shot-down, but maybe it might give you a few thoughts.
Personally , I would get away into free airspace, to experiment, as a starter. Use airbrakes, flap, gear,steep-turns, and climbs to get the speed down, as it will.Fly the a/c without all the electronics/Fms/ autopilot/; then you can start to sort out how much control you actually have! and simulate an approach and go around at a safe height.
The Flight Manual will give you a list of most common emergencies, but it won`t cover all, so that is why you are highly paid - first of all to consider all the options, then to think of all the possibilities...
Where better to look at a bit of lateral -thinking than in the sim. doing a "what- if" scenario , as opposed to normal tick-in-the box t/o, cruise, etc,,
You might also like to consider jammed stick/ rudder/ ailerons/spoilers. Remember the Sioux City DC-10 crash, the crew in that a/c never gave up flying until they hit the ground, and a lot of people alive today owe it to their efforts ..
If you fly light a/c , you can of course practice them at a safe height, using trimmers,flaps, secondary effects of control to see how much you can do, and I think you would be surprised.
Now, do I hear" incoming"???
Personally , I would get away into free airspace, to experiment, as a starter. Use airbrakes, flap, gear,steep-turns, and climbs to get the speed down, as it will.Fly the a/c without all the electronics/Fms/ autopilot/; then you can start to sort out how much control you actually have! and simulate an approach and go around at a safe height.
The Flight Manual will give you a list of most common emergencies, but it won`t cover all, so that is why you are highly paid - first of all to consider all the options, then to think of all the possibilities...
Where better to look at a bit of lateral -thinking than in the sim. doing a "what- if" scenario , as opposed to normal tick-in-the box t/o, cruise, etc,,
You might also like to consider jammed stick/ rudder/ ailerons/spoilers. Remember the Sioux City DC-10 crash, the crew in that a/c never gave up flying until they hit the ground, and a lot of people alive today owe it to their efforts ..
If you fly light a/c , you can of course practice them at a safe height, using trimmers,flaps, secondary effects of control to see how much you can do, and I think you would be surprised.
Now, do I hear" incoming"???
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the original question.
I've now tried the scenario in the sim and to keep the engine running on the approach seems to me to be the more risky option. I'm not saying it can't physically be done, but it's definitely more "seat-of-the-pants", and results in a much less stable approach than with one engine shut down.
Sure, keep it running if you've still a long transit to make, but in my opinion it should be shut down in preparation for the approach.
Why?
1.) Because even with flap 40 and the other engine at idle, the speed still wants to run away. This should not be overlooked as a minor inconvenience. It presents a fairly major handling problem. It may be necessary to exceed flap limiting speeds and use speedbrake with flaps at very low level to control the speed.
2.) Now we're making a flap 40 approach, yet we don't have full thrust available for the go-around.
3.) Rudder pedal inputs need considerable attention as they are not what we are used to single engine.
4.) It's not easy to get the aircraft on to the ground in the flare with 77% still pushing away and some excess speed as well. Runway then gets eaten up as the engine (will it be the correct one) is shut down.
5.) All the above requires the aircraft to be operated in a totally non standard manner.
The idea of "experimenting" in free airspace is fine if we have a truly serious control problem. However, all we actually need to do is shut the engine down when ready for the approach, and we can then fly the aircraft within the SOP's as we are trained to do, hopefully in a calm and stable manner to an uneventful landing. I know which one I'd go for.
I've now tried the scenario in the sim and to keep the engine running on the approach seems to me to be the more risky option. I'm not saying it can't physically be done, but it's definitely more "seat-of-the-pants", and results in a much less stable approach than with one engine shut down.
Sure, keep it running if you've still a long transit to make, but in my opinion it should be shut down in preparation for the approach.
Why?
1.) Because even with flap 40 and the other engine at idle, the speed still wants to run away. This should not be overlooked as a minor inconvenience. It presents a fairly major handling problem. It may be necessary to exceed flap limiting speeds and use speedbrake with flaps at very low level to control the speed.
2.) Now we're making a flap 40 approach, yet we don't have full thrust available for the go-around.
3.) Rudder pedal inputs need considerable attention as they are not what we are used to single engine.
4.) It's not easy to get the aircraft on to the ground in the flare with 77% still pushing away and some excess speed as well. Runway then gets eaten up as the engine (will it be the correct one) is shut down.
5.) All the above requires the aircraft to be operated in a totally non standard manner.
The idea of "experimenting" in free airspace is fine if we have a truly serious control problem. However, all we actually need to do is shut the engine down when ready for the approach, and we can then fly the aircraft within the SOP's as we are trained to do, hopefully in a calm and stable manner to an uneventful landing. I know which one I'd go for.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good idea....?
One poster here mentioned going off route to 'experiment' with varoius configurations etc, to enable the offending engine to remain running.
Experimentation can be carried just a bit too far.
Recall Alaska Airlines and their ill-fated MD-80 just offshore in California with tailplane trim problems.
Had these folks diverted when this problem was first noticed, they might well be alive today, together with all their passengers.
Leave the test flying to the test pilot pros, and use your standard simulator practiced abnornal procedures for unusual situations.
Don't end up dead trying to be a hero.
Experimentation can be carried just a bit too far.
Recall Alaska Airlines and their ill-fated MD-80 just offshore in California with tailplane trim problems.
Had these folks diverted when this problem was first noticed, they might well be alive today, together with all their passengers.
Leave the test flying to the test pilot pros, and use your standard simulator practiced abnornal procedures for unusual situations.
Don't end up dead trying to be a hero.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had one stuck Power Lever (Throttle) at 90% N1 at Top Of Descent. The lever couldn't be moved, neither by the F/O nor by the F/E. Our plan was to shut the engine down when established on final approach, but the Power Lever became unstuck when passing a lower Flight Level. I wouldn't want to touch down with an engine stuck in a high power setting, unless it's a single engine landing.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATPL student here.
Anyone considered what the wind is on the runway? Lets say the No1 (left) hairdryer is stuck at 77%. The aeroplane is going to want to go right all the time. Lets say we have a lot of crosswind from the right. We need lots of right aileron and left rudder to compensate. But we are already using lots of left rudder to counteract the asymmetric thrust. Does that make any sense?
With regard to the hydraulics etc - we have standby system/PTU etc so that we can keep everything moving in the event of loss of a system/engine. So shutting down an engine - is it really that dangerous from a loss of hydraulics point of view?
Only a humble student here, but IMHO I would keep the engine running until just before final approach, then shut down so as electrics/hyd/air con and press still available etc. But it surely much safer to do a single engine approach and landing because that is one of the most trained for emergencies, rather than try and do something that you have probably never done before.
Anyone considered what the wind is on the runway? Lets say the No1 (left) hairdryer is stuck at 77%. The aeroplane is going to want to go right all the time. Lets say we have a lot of crosswind from the right. We need lots of right aileron and left rudder to compensate. But we are already using lots of left rudder to counteract the asymmetric thrust. Does that make any sense?
With regard to the hydraulics etc - we have standby system/PTU etc so that we can keep everything moving in the event of loss of a system/engine. So shutting down an engine - is it really that dangerous from a loss of hydraulics point of view?
Only a humble student here, but IMHO I would keep the engine running until just before final approach, then shut down so as electrics/hyd/air con and press still available etc. But it surely much safer to do a single engine approach and landing because that is one of the most trained for emergencies, rather than try and do something that you have probably never done before.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people have expressed different opinions, but shutting the engine down before final approach is definitely much safer than trying to proove your test pilot skills.
LEM
LEM
IMHO use the engine in cruise and descent, if the throttle doesn’t unfreeze during the descent, shut the engine down when established on the approach. Perform a normal single engine approach.
Don’t go experimenting......
Mutt.
Don’t go experimenting......
Mutt.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: beyond PNR .. as always
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THR LVR Stuck
I want to ask W.SHIRRA, in the 'coolbox' was it the Boz telling you that the THR LVR stucked or the Sim can produce the problem?..he..he..just curious
I go with 18-WHEELER, when it's giving me the hard time, I'll go SE, but not instantly.
I go with 18-WHEELER, when it's giving me the hard time, I'll go SE, but not instantly.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to ask W.SHIRRA, in the 'coolbox' was it the Boz telling you that the THR LVR stucked or the Sim can produce the problem?..he..he..just curious
Yes the sim can reproduce that.
We shut the engine down before approach.
Not doing so would have meant a bust!
Power was stuck at 60% ( a perfect setting for the approach), but nevertheless our chief pilot confirmed it's unthinkable to land like that.
SHUT IT DOWN!