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

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote...
Rumor has it U 2's have glided "Several Hundred Miles" & made
successful dead stick landings.

So have space shuttles (except for one), but then that's a little d'ferent.

"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

"Bertie the Bunyip" XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX wrote in message
00.144...
"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

I think all the commercial passenger jets have a better glide angle than the
normal glide slope of landing. DC-10 lost all engines off Florida a few
years ago, and landed safely. Mechanic had left the o-rings off the oil
plugs for all the engines.

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)

Calif Bill wrote:

I think all the commercial passenger jets have a better glide
angle than the normal glide slope of landing.

The normal glide slope for an ILS landing is around 2.5 to 3.0 degrees.
A 747 is supposed to have an optimum glide slope of about 3 degrees,
(19:1) making it at the top end of the ILS glide slope. That is the
optimum, but it will likely be steeper in practice. As an example, the
actual glide slope of the Gimli Glider was about 5 degrees. (11:1)

DC-10 lost all engines off Florida a few years ago, and landed
safely. Mechanic had left the o-rings off the oil plugs for
all the engines.

It was an Eastern Airlines L-1011, and it landed with one engine
operating. (It had been shut down earlier as a precaution, but
restarted.) The o-rings were left off the engine's chip detectors.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1984/AAR8404.htm

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".

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"Bertie the Bunyip" XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX wrote in message
00.144...
"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

I think all the commercial passenger jets have a better glide angle than
the
normal glide slope of landing. DC-10 lost all engines off Florida a few
years ago, and landed safely. Mechanic had left the o-rings off the oil
plugs for all the engines.

Was an EAL L1011. A/C was nearly to Nassau on Miami to Nassau leg when 1
engine was shut down due loss of oil pressure. Crew decided to return to
Miami. During return all three engines were out at one time or another due
low oil. All engines were restarted for landing at Miami.

This incident was caused by spare parts storage protocols prior to issuance
to mechanics. The supervisor would gather the chip detectors & O-Rings,
assemble them as individual components that were kept in the supervisors
desk until needed. In this instance the supervisor failed to put the O-Rings
on the chip detectors. The mechanic installed the chip detectors as he found
them in the supervisors desk without O-Rings.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:23:11 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

It was an Eastern Airlines L-1011, and it landed with one engine
operating. (It had been shut down earlier as a precaution, but
restarted.) The o-rings were left off the engine's chip detectors.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1984/AAR8404.htm

That isn't how my uncle, who was an Eastern Airlines check pilot
described it to me. He could have been mistaken of course, or I could
be remembering what he told me incorrectly.

He told me that the mechanics and the parts people had developed a
kind of non standard in-house procedure when it came to changing the
oil. Normally when the oil was changed in the engines, the procedure
required that the plug and O-ring be replaced, and this is what the
mechanics did routinely. But the parts counter guy was being helpful
and had gotten into the habit of pre-installing the O-rings for the
mechanics so that they did not have to bother.

On the day of the incident, or the day before, the aircraft was
serviced and the oil changed in all three engines. Per the routine,
the plugs were replaced. But this time when the mechanic walked to
the parts counter, there were no plugs ready for pickup. So the parts
guy had to walk back and get the plugs for the mechanic out of a bin.
This broke the routine and he forgot to get the O-rings as well. The
mechanic, used to them already being on, forgot to check for their
presence or ask for them. He had not had to ask for them for a long
time.

So the plugs went in without the O-rings installed.

The way the flight was described to me by my uncle, the airplane
climbed out routinely and at the altitude described in the above url,
one of the engines showed low oil pressure. So they shut it down and
I think they continued on as the destination was almost equally close
as Miami. A few seconds later however a second engine showed low oil
pressure and they shut that one down too and immediately turned back
towards Miami.

Feeling that whatever had happened to the first two engines could
affect the third one, they shut the last one down as a precaution and
glided towards the airport. Their intent was to save it for use when
they arrived at Miami.

As they approached Miami, they successfully restarted the engine that
had been running last and landed under power. Some of the passengers
immediately boarded another airplane to continue their flight, others
were more skittish and did not.

That's how it was described to me. My uncle's name was John Warner,
no longer with us now. He also told me the DC-3 hanging in the
Smithsonian Air and Space Museum was very familiar to him, he'd flown
it thousands of hours.

Corky Scott

This incident was caused by spare parts storage protocols prior to issuance
to mechanics. The supervisor would gather the chip detectors & O-Rings,
assemble them as individual components that were kept in the supervisors
desk until needed. In this instance the supervisor failed to put the O-Rings
on the chip detectors. The mechanic installed the chip detectors as he found
them in the supervisors desk without O-Rings.

Would this be (also) an error on the mechanic's part (failing to check
or notice) or is this something that is not evident to the mechanic who
installs the part?

Jose
(r.a.piloting is the only group retained)
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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".

Doesn't your airplane have any structural limitations? Just offhand, I can think
of max gear extension speed and never exceed speed as a couple of limitations on
mine. Unless you have a full authority fly-by-wire computer limiting what you
can do, you can break an airplane if you maneuver it outside its design limitations.