All Engines-out Landing Due to Fuel Exhaustion - Air Transat, 24 August2001

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 at 15:26:41 in message
1111004784.a9019d27a110ae4ad1846a4d754f6247@teran ews, nobody
wrote:
Obviously, the pilots would have received instruction on engine-out
operations, and the Transat pilots knew the high speed range for landing
gear, knew the low speed limiot for the RAT, knoew what systems worked
what didn't, knew that brakes would have a limited number of
applications, which is why after the second landing, he applied the
brakes big time because he freared that he would no longer had a 3rd
change (and the investigators found the pilot acted properly, even if it
meant that the tires/wheels/runway would be damaged).

What do you mean by 'after the second landing'? My information is that
only one landing took place and the nose wheel collapsed during braking.
The green light had not come on for the nose leg after using the
emergency system to drop the wheels.

Ref: 'Emergency: Crisis on the Flight Deck' by Stanley Stewart
--
David CL Francis

IRC the A/C bounced after the first touch down, touching down some 2,000'
down the Ry after the bounce per the final report.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

nobody
sednews:1111004784.a9019d27a110ae4ad1846a4d754f624 7@teranews:

wrote:

The training might not include the 767, but the Gimli Glider's captain
execute many similiar manouvers with his Cessna (or something like
that), that's why he managed to land the 767 quite safely.

Both the Gimli and the Transat reports make mention that the pilots
didn't have formal training on gliding that particular aircraft, but
that experience outside of their commercial pilots training cam in
handy. (the Gimli pilot had flow gliders).

Obviously, the pilots would have received instruction on engine-out
operations, and the Transat pilots knew the high speed range for landing
gear, knew the low speed limiot for the RAT,


The high speed range for the landing gear is irrelevant in that situation.
All that's going to happen is you'll lose some gear doors. Who cares?
As for the RAT, it's good down to 90 knots. I'f you're below that, you're
not flying anyway!



knoew what systems worked
what didn't, knew that brakes would have a limited number of
applications, which is why after the second landing, he applied the
brakes big time because he freared that he would no longer had a 3rd
change (and the investigators found the pilot acted properly, even if it
meant that the tires/wheels/runway would be damaged).

But receiving instruction != training in simulator for such situation.

We do, and have done for years.



Bertie

David CL Francis
:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 at 12:59:51 in message
, Mike
wrote:

Isn't it the A310 that also lost a tail and crashed in New York City a
month or 2 after 9/11. IIRC, there is a particular airplane that the
manufacturer says "don't use the rudder too hard" because if you do,
the tail could break off. Imagine if you were test driving a car and
the salesperson said "don't turn too hard or the car will break in
half".

When this subject is discussed it seems to me some very important points
are often omitted, that is does the airframe meet the design cases?
Surely there are design requirements for aircraft which are researched
and defined by the aviation authority?

So did the airframe meet design requirements for gust loading, yaw
deflections and angles, control movements, negative and positive 'g'
etc?

It did. It was certified, for chrissake.


Bertie

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 at 03:47:12 in message
, Ralph Nesbitt
wrote:
So did the airframe meet design requirements for gust loading, yaw
deflections and angles, control movements, negative and positive 'g'
etc? If it did not, then why not? Are the design requirements wrong or
did the airframe fail to meet them? Another factor is to what extent are
safeguards against excessively loads built in to airliners and to their
requirements?
--
David CL Francis

IRC the rudder went stop to stop several times in ~ 10 seconds. IMHO a
question which was not adequately addressed by the investigation was why the
rudder went stop to stop not once but several times. The rudder travel is
supposed to be limited at the speed the A/C was moving at the time the
rudder went stop to stop several times.

So that was more than enough to develop a pilot induced oscillation that
could easily drive the aircraft beyond its yaw limits. Time your
reversals so that they do the opposite of a yaw damper and you could
well go beyond any normal load case.

I was also told that the yaw damper was not switched on even though it
is a check list item?
--
David CL Francis

David CL Francis
:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 at 03:47:12 in message
, Ralph Nesbitt
wrote:
So did the airframe meet design requirements for gust loading, yaw
deflections and angles, control movements, negative and positive 'g'
etc? If it did not, then why not? Are the design requirements wrong
or did the airframe fail to meet them? Another factor is to what
extent are safeguards against excessively loads built in to
airliners and to their requirements?
--
David CL Francis

IRC the rudder went stop to stop several times in ~ 10 seconds. IMHO a
question which was not adequately addressed by the investigation was
why the rudder went stop to stop not once but several times. The
rudder travel is supposed to be limited at the speed the A/C was
moving at the time the rudder went stop to stop several times.

So that was more than enough to develop a pilot induced oscillation
that could easily drive the aircraft beyond its yaw limits. Time your
reversals so that they do the opposite of a yaw damper and you could
well go beyond any normal load case.

the yaw damper only makes tiny inputs. Couple of degrees. IOW it had nothng
whatsoever todo with it.


I was also told that the yaw damper was not switched on even though it
is a check list item?

Bull****, and evenit it wasn't switched on it would have had nothing to do
with, well, anything. Low altitude, it's strictly for comfort, and igh
altitude it prevents reversal problems asociatied mach compications brought
on by dutch roll.


Bertie

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 at 14:52:15 in message
, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
David,

So did the airframe meet design requirements for gust loading, yaw
deflections and angles, control movements, negative and positive 'g'
etc?


Yes.

I never thought anything else (although I cannot be absolutely certain
because I don't know) but so many times people make comments as though
the aircraft was unsafe and badly built - when how do they know?
--
David CL Francis

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 at 04:28:19 in message
, Ralph Nesbitt
wrote:
What do you mean by 'after the second landing'? My information is that
only one landing took place and the nose wheel collapsed during braking.
The green light had not come on for the nose leg after using the
emergency system to drop the wheels.

Ref: 'Emergency: Crisis on the Flight Deck' by Stanley Stewart
--
David CL Francis

IRC the A/C bounced after the first touch down, touching down some 2,000'
down the Ry after the bounce per the final report.

No mention of that in Stanley Stewart's book; I quote:

"Pearson touched down perfectly within 800ft of the threshold at about
175 knots but as he did so the two pilots saw to their horror that
people and vehicles milled about at the far end of the runway. Children
were playing and cycling in the area. Beyond the activity there were
tents and caravans in which the racing drivers and their families were
staying for the week end. The 767 sped towards the gathering with no
reverse power or ground spoilers available to help slow the machine. In
one camper vehicle parked near the runway a racer's wife, Jo Ann Barry,
was washing dishes after their evening meal when she heard a boy shout
that a jet was landing.

'I opened the camper door and there was this huge plane coming at us.'

Pearson hit the brakes hard and the aircraft reduced speed, but as it
did so the unlocked nose wheel collapsed. The nose dropped to the ground
and the nose wheel was forced back into the housing. Showers of sparks
were thrown into the air as the nose section scarped along the ground.
As it turned out, the fallen nose gear was a blessing in disguise for
the friction slowed the aircraft rapidly and the 767 shuddered to a halt
well short of the race meeting."

If you have a better source of information let me know - I have a
number of books on airliner accidents and am always interested to hear
of more.
--
David CL Francis

David CL Francis wrote:

IRC the A/C bounced after the first touch down, touching down some
2,000'
down the Ry after the bounce per the final report.

No mention of that in Stanley Stewart's book; I quote:
....
If you have a better source of information let me know

The original poster cited the URL where you can read the official
report. You may or may not consider the official report a better source.

Stefan

David CL Francis
sednews
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 at 14:52:15 in message
, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
David,

So did the airframe meet design requirements for gust loading, yaw
deflections and angles, control movements, negative and positive 'g'
etc?


Yes.

I never thought anything else (although I cannot be absolutely certain
because I don't know) but so many times people make comments as though
the aircraft was unsafe and badly built - when how do they know?


In actual fact, the fit and finish on the structure of the early 'busses is
a ting to behold. They are exceptionally well made airplanes. In this, they
are certainly superior to just about any other airliner flying today. The
pax doors, for instance,are a thing of beauty. They work so smoothly. They
close tight as a drum. I'm certainly not saying Boeings are junk by
comparison, because they're not, but the A300 in particular is a very
nicely engineered airplane indeed. It also is a wonderful airplane to
fly.It's extremely mannerly in all aspects. There are a few funky
mechanical eccentricities. but these things were, after all, built by the
same people who built the Citroen DS, the Humber Super Snipe and Heinkel
Bubble car. You can certanly live with the bizarre speed brakes and overly
complex flight control system because it all works so well overall in
practice.
Plus it's as comfy as you can get. All it's missing is a nice log fire
inthe corner of the cockpit...

BTW, I've loved every Boeing I've flown as well, before the inevitable twit
pipes up and says the obvious...... Oh wait, Pooh's missing!


Bertie

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

David CL Francis wrote:

The 767 sped towards the gathering with no
reverse power or ground spoilers available

I think you guys are confusing the two incidents. The OP was talking
about the Transat A330 and you were quoting from the 767 Gimli Glider.

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.