..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

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.

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..

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.

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...:)

Did that training include a powerless landing or ditching? If it was simply a restart drill then it was window dressing.

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.

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.

I saw it a couple of times in the mid-1960s. Fools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

Always liked this one.

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.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6cc1828bbe.jpg
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.

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