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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"David CL Francis" wrote in message ... 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 This tread was originally about the 757 that landed in the Azores after both engines shut down due to fuel starvation. That is the incident I am referring to. Apparently you are referring to the 767 incident referred to as "The Glimli Glider" incident. Perhaps we are confused over which incident each of us are referring to. Ralph Nesbitt Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type Posting From ADA |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Ralph Nesbitt"
gy.com: "David CL Francis" wrote in message ... 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 This tread was originally about the 757 that landed in the Azores after both engines shut down due to fuel starvation. That is the incident I am referring to. Apparently you are referring to the 767 incident referred to as "The Glimli Glider" incident. Perhaps we are confused over which incident each of us are referring to. Ralph Nesbitt Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type Posting From ADA Well, it was an A330 in the Azores, Ralph! Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 at 03:59:13 in message
, Ralph Nesbitt wrote: 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 This tread was originally about the 757 that landed in the Azores after both engines shut down due to fuel starvation. That is the incident I am referring to. Apparently you are referring to the 767 incident referred to as "The Glimli Glider" incident. Perhaps we are confused over which incident each of us are referring to. Ralph Nesbitt Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type Posting From ADA Clearly you are right there but wasn't the 757 you mention actually an A330? I shall have to "tread" more carefully. :-) -- David CL Francis |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 at 22:04:47 in message
, Jens Krueger wrote: 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. I guess you are right! Somewhere it changed between the two! I recall the A330 was in the thread and I knew something about that one but not as much as about the Gimli. Thanks David -- David CL Francis |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 at 00:06:13 in message
, Stefan wrote: 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. I have an open mind about that last bit! Can you find that URL for me? I cannot locate it amongst the thread items that have not expired. -- David CL Francis |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
This tread was originally about the 757 that landed in the Azores
after both engines shut down due to fuel starvation. That is the incident I am referring to. Apparently you are referring to the 767 incident referred to as "The Glimli Glider" incident. Perhaps we are confused over which incident each of us are referring to. Ralph Nesbitt Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type Posting From ADA Air Transat A330-200 (Airbus) had the wrong pipe (or whatever) fitted in the engine, hence fuel leaked (actually ****ed) out. the Air Canada 767 (gimli glider) had the wrong amount of fuel loaded because they failed to convert gallons to litre (or vice versa). |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.gpiaa-portugal-report.com/
David CL Francis wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 at 00:06:13 in message , Stefan wrote: 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. I have an open mind about that last bit! Can you find that URL for me? I cannot locate it amongst the thread items that have not expired. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 at 18:50:58 in message
, Frank F. Matthews wrote: http://www.gpiaa-portugal-report.com/ David CL Francis wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 at 00:06:13 in message , Stefan wrote: 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. I have an open mind about that last bit! Can you find that URL for me? I cannot locate it amongst the thread items that have not expired. Thanks a lot, I have downloaded it and it is very interesting. Compared to the Gimli glider they hit the ground very hard. -- David CL Francis |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |