A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 15th 05, 03:40 AM
Ralph Nesbitt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old March 15th 05, 04:08 AM
Colin W Kingsbury
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"No Spam" wrote in message newsgsZd.4290

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  
Old March 15th 05, 05:00 AM
Bertie the Bunyip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Colin W Kingsbury"
thlink.net:


"No Spam" wrote in message newsgsZd.4290

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  
Old March 15th 05, 12:59 PM
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:08:51 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:


"No Spam" wrote in message newsgsZd.4290

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  
Old March 16th 05, 06:31 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 15th 05, 05:02 PM
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old March 16th 05, 06:07 PM
Bertie the Bunyip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old March 15th 05, 08:13 AM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.