![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "harry k" wrote in message ups.com... No Spam wrote: "Roman Svihorik" wrote in message ... Yes, Dave, I saw it on the National Geographic channel a year or so ago. Personally, I felt impressed - I just could not believe such a plane can land without engines and total structural damages and passenger toll... Roman Just about ANY airplane can be landed safely without engines, as long as the elevation and glide ratio allow a long enough glide to reach (and maneuver to) a runway. All pilots train to make such "dead stick" landings as a routine part of training, in any type of airplane. As attested to by the 'gimli glider'. Hope 'gimli' is correct, it has been awhile. Harry K Rumor has it U 2's have glided "Several Hundred Miles" & made successful dead stick landings. Ralph Nesbitt Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type Posting From ADA |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "No Spam" wrote in message news ![]() All pilots train to make such "dead stick" landings as a routine part of training, in any type of airplane. Perhaps now they do. If you read the detailed accounts of the "Gimli Glider" episode when an Air Canada 767 lost both engines to fuel starvation, the pilot clearly states that their training did *not* account for the possibility. Understandably so- MTBF on those engines is in the 100s of thousands of hours and airline procedures make fuel exhaustion unimaginable. And unsinkable ships can't hit icebergs either. I'm beginning to wonder a little about Air Transat. I just read about one of their A310 rudders snapping off. The plane landed back in Varadero ok. So it seems their pilots are trained OK but perhaps their maintenance & ops departments need some work. -cwk. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Colin W Kingsbury"
thlink.net: "No Spam" wrote in message news ![]() All pilots train to make such "dead stick" landings as a routine part of training, in any type of airplane. Perhaps now they do. If you read the detailed accounts of the "Gimli Glider" episode when an Air Canada 767 lost both engines to fuel starvation, the pilot clearly states that their training did *not* account for the possibility. Well I had done deadstick landings in the sim looong before that happened. And that wasn't the first deadstick jet either. Bertie Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:08:51 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote: "No Spam" wrote in message news ![]() All pilots train to make such "dead stick" landings as a routine part of training, in any type of airplane. Perhaps now they do. If you read the detailed accounts of the "Gimli Glider" episode when an Air Canada 767 lost both engines to fuel starvation, the pilot clearly states that their training did *not* account for the possibility. Understandably so- MTBF on those engines is in the 100s of thousands of hours and airline procedures make fuel exhaustion unimaginable. And unsinkable ships can't hit icebergs either. I'm beginning to wonder a little about Air Transat. I just read about one of their A310 rudders snapping off. The plane landed back in Varadero ok. So it seems their pilots are trained OK but perhaps their maintenance & ops departments need some work. -cwk. 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". |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. Really, any pilot would like to fly the aircraft without any engine at all, either for the sake of curiousity or wanting to prepare incase one did happen. As for rotary wing aircrafts (helicopters, Osprey, and so on). Well... They do landing like a gyroplane incase they lost their engine(s). As for Air Transat. Well... What if their maintenance and ops departments did a very good job? What else? Blame the pilots? Blame the aircraft manufacturers? What if they already done their jobs quite good and it's their fault? What if someone clipped the horizontal stabilizer during the flight? Will the N.T.S.B. said that, or will they blame it on the pilot? Or the maintenance? Or the aircraft manufacturer? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In most planes your entire let down is done with engines at idle. Some
planes (like the MD-80) automatically increase their idle thrust after the gear is down (to allow for quicker go arounds). That extra thrust makes it even more difficult to manage the energy created from the let down. Slowing down is always the hard part. Gliding shouldn't be. -Robert |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Robert M. Gary"
groups.com: In most planes your entire let down is done with engines at idle. Some planes (like the MD-80) automatically increase their idle thrust after the gear is down (to allow for quicker go arounds). That extra thrust makes it even more difficult to manage the energy created from the let down. Slowing down is always the hard part. Gliding shouldn't be. Big difference between idle and a windmilling engine, though. And actually, the incresed idle speed is mainly for the engine's own sake (preventing flameouts) and on the CF6 it's because the thrust bearings don't like being pushed ! Bertie Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roman,
I just could not believe such a plane can land without engines and total structural damages and passenger toll... fell for the "dropping out of the sky like a stone" rethoric perpetrated by the media? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is Your Airplane Susceptible To Mis Fu eling? A Simple Test For Fuel Contamination. | Nathan Young | Piloting | 4 | June 14th 04 06:13 PM |
Buying an L-2 | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 13 | May 25th 04 04:03 AM |
faith in the fuel delivery infrastructure | Chris Hoffmann | Piloting | 12 | April 3rd 04 01:55 AM |
Use of 150 octane fuel in the Merlin (Xylidine additive etc etc) | Peter Stickney | Military Aviation | 45 | February 11th 04 04:46 AM |
50+:1 15m sailplanes | Paul T | Soaring | 92 | January 19th 04 01:59 AM |