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

[Scott M. Kozel]

http://www.gpiaa-portugal-report.com/

Accident Investigation Final Report
All Engines-out Landing Due to Fuel Exhaustion
Air Transat
Airbus A330-243 marks C-GITS
Lajes, Azores, Portugal
24 August 2001
Final Investigation Report 22 / ACCID / 2001 18 October 2004

On August 24, 2001, Air Transat Flight TSC236, an Airbus 330-243
aircraft, was on a scheduled flight from Toronto Lester B Pearson
Airport, Ontario (CYYZ), Canada to Lisbon Airport (LPPT), Portugal with
13 crew and 293 passengers on board. At 05:33, the aircraft was at
4244N/2305W when the crew noted a fuel imbalance.

At 05:45, the crew initiated a diversion from the flight-planned route
for a landing at the Lajes Airport (LPLA), Terceira Island in the
Azores. At 05:48, the crew advised Santa Maria Oceanic Control that the
flight was diverting due to a fuel shortage. At 06:13, the crew
notified air traffic control that the right engine (Rolls-Royce RB211
Trent 772B) had flamed out. At 06:26, when the aircraft was about 65
nautical miles from the Lajes airport and at an altitude of about FL
345, the crew reported that the left engine had also flamed out and that
a ditching at sea was possible.

Assisted by radar vectors from Lajes air traffic control, the crew
carried out an engines-out, visual approach, at night and in good visual
weather conditions. The aircraft landed on runway 33 at the Lajes
Airport at 06:45. After the aircraft came to a stop, small fires
started in the area of the left main-gear wheels, but these fires were
immediately extinguished by the crash rescue response vehicles that were
in position for the landing.

The Captain ordered an emergency evacuation; 16 passengers and 2
cabin-crew members received injuries during the emergency evacuation.

The aircraft suffered structural damage to the fuselage and to the main
landing gear.

See the URL for the rest.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

[Dave S]

Wow... thanks for the scoop...

You realize that this incident has already been reported on extensively
and that there has even been a documentary made about it (shown on the
program "Seconds From Disaster" or something like that.

Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> http://www.gpiaa-portugal-report.com/
>
> Accident Investigation Final Report
> All Engines-out Landing Due to Fuel Exhaustion
> Air Transat
> Airbus A330-243 marks C-GITS
> Lajes, Azores, Portugal
> 24 August 2001
> Final Investigation Report 22 / ACCID / 2001 18 October 2004
>
> On August 24, 2001, Air Transat Flight TSC236, an Airbus 330-243
> aircraft, was on a scheduled flight from Toronto Lester B Pearson
> Airport, Ontario (CYYZ), Canada to Lisbon Airport (LPPT), Portugal with
> 13 crew and 293 passengers on board. At 05:33, the aircraft was at
> 4244N/2305W when the crew noted a fuel imbalance.
>
> At 05:45, the crew initiated a diversion from the flight-planned route
> for a landing at the Lajes Airport (LPLA), Terceira Island in the
> Azores. At 05:48, the crew advised Santa Maria Oceanic Control that the
> flight was diverting due to a fuel shortage. At 06:13, the crew
> notified air traffic control that the right engine (Rolls-Royce RB211
> Trent 772B) had flamed out. At 06:26, when the aircraft was about 65
> nautical miles from the Lajes airport and at an altitude of about FL
> 345, the crew reported that the left engine had also flamed out and that
> a ditching at sea was possible.
>
> Assisted by radar vectors from Lajes air traffic control, the crew
> carried out an engines-out, visual approach, at night and in good visual
> weather conditions. The aircraft landed on runway 33 at the Lajes
> Airport at 06:45. After the aircraft came to a stop, small fires
> started in the area of the left main-gear wheels, but these fires were
> immediately extinguished by the crash rescue response vehicles that were
> in position for the landing.
>
> The Captain ordered an emergency evacuation; 16 passengers and 2
> cabin-crew members received injuries during the emergency evacuation.
>
> The aircraft suffered structural damage to the fuselage and to the main
> landing gear.
>
> See the URL for the rest.
>

[Roman Svihorik]

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

Dave S wrote:

> Wow... thanks for the scoop...
>
> You realize that this incident has already been reported on extensively
> and that there has even been a documentary made about it (shown on the
> program "Seconds From Disaster" or something like that.
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
>> http://www.gpiaa-portugal-report.com/

[Robert M. Gary]

I"m not sure why its such a surprise. The A330 has a great glide ratio.
The pilots had lots of good tools (speed brakes etc) to place their
landing. As I recall, they almost ended up being too high.

-Robert, CFI (Certified Flight Instructor)



Roman Svihorik wrote:
> 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

[Blueskies]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message oups.com...
> I"m not sure why its such a surprise. The A330 has a great glide ratio.
> The pilots had lots of good tools (speed brakes etc) to place their
> landing. As I recall, they almost ended up being too high.
>
> -Robert, CFI (Certified Flight Instructor)
>
>
>

Also gotta have one of these:
http://www.hamiltonsundstrandcorp.com/hsc/proddesc_display/0,4494,CLI1_DIV22_ETI2937_PRD30,00.html

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"No Spam" >
thlink.net:

> "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.

Not including the Osprey, of course, where one of the possibilities put
forward in how to deal with an engine failure was to point a gun at the
pilot's head that would go off in such an eventuality so he wouldn't have
to worry about it.

Bertie
>
>


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

[No Spam]

"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.

[harry k]

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

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"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

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"No Spam" > wrote in message news:pgsZd.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.

[Rog']

"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.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"Colin W Kingsbury" >
thlink.net:

>
> "No Spam" > wrote in message news:pgsZd.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

[Calif Bill]

"Bertie the Bunyip" <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
00.144...
> "Colin W Kingsbury" >
> thlink.net:
>
> >
> > "No Spam" > wrote in message news:pgsZd.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.

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[James Robinson]

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

[Mike]

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

>
>"No Spam" > wrote in message news:pgsZd.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".

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"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 news:pgsZd.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

[Corky Scott]

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

[Jose]

> 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.

[Dave Butler]

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.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"Calif Bill" >
rthlink.net:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" <XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX> wrote in message
> 00.144...
>> "Colin W Kingsbury" >
>> thlink.net:
>>
>> >
>> > "No Spam" > wrote in message news:pgsZd.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.
>

They had restrated one engine. They'd done a precautinary shutdown on one
engine when they lost pressure onit and restarted it when the other two
failed. It was a TriStar, BTW. They wouldn't have made it back gliding.
and the glide is about 17/1 with engines windmilling on a modern high
bypass fan aircraft.


Bertie

Bertie

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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Mike >
:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:08:51 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"No Spam" > wrote in message news:pgsZd.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.

Actually, that's all of them. They didn't "use the rudder too hard" they
banged it back and forth fairly violently. There's no jet transport flying
designed to take that. It's outside certification requirements and until
materials with a considerably higher strength-weight ratio can be developed
it will remain that way.



Bertie

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

[Keith W]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1110897377.464227@sj-nntpcache-5...
> 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.

It was an airbus A-300 that crashed and since that isnt a
FBW aircraft the pilot had full control authority. The NTSB
report cited pilot error in applying excessive rudder for
the aircraft speed

Oh and many cars will respond very badly to excessive
steering inputs. SUV rollovers are a major source
of fatal accidents, thats why they put warning stickers
in rental company SUV's

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Corky Scott >
:

> 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.

Fairly accurate except for the bit where hey shut down the second and third
because of low oil pressure. Those both failed and they were frantically
trying to get anything going after that. The one that started for them was
the one they had shut down first.


Bertie

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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"Keith W" >
:

>
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> news:1110897377.464227@sj-nntpcache-5...
>> 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.
>
> It was an airbus A-300 that crashed and since that isnt a
> FBW aircraft the pilot had full control authority.

Well, even the FBW busses still have their rudders linked to the pedals..

Bertie

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

[Robert M. Gary]

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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"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

[[email protected]]

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?

[nobody]

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, 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.

[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? 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

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> 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? 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.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

[John Mazor]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> 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? 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?

The certification standards only address the stresses from one full rudder
deflection event, because the designers couldn't imagine a pilot doing more
than one full deflection. The 587 rudder went over about 5 times, IIRC, and
the entire tailfin broke off.

The Air Transat rudder loss probably didn't result from any pilot inputs and
only involved the rudder, as far as I know, so that's a different case.

[Mike]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:56:12 -0000, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>
>"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
>news:1110897377.464227@sj-nntpcache-5...
>> 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.
>
>It was an airbus A-300 that crashed and since that isnt a
>FBW aircraft the pilot had full control authority. The NTSB
>report cited pilot error in applying excessive rudder for
>the aircraft speed
>
>Oh and many cars will respond very badly to excessive
>steering inputs. SUV rollovers are a major source
>of fatal accidents, thats why they put warning stickers
>in rental company SUV's
>
>Keith
>
There is a bit of a difference between the SUV and airplane exapmles.
For the SUV, the steering inputs result in a loss of control which
results in a crash. For the airplane example, it is the control
inputs that cause the damage, and the crash is a result of the
damage.

[Thomas Borchert]

David,

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

Yes.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roman Svihorik]

Hmm, why...
A great glide ratio - OK. But.
They have just one attempt only. If failed...
The precise calculation, correction maneuvers - I know.
But if mistaken there is no go around.
Considering terrain outside the strip...
Still impressed.

BTW, was that plane written off?
Roman
P.S. Actually, I am the glider sport pilot so I know quite well what it
is about to land without engines :-)
IMHO a jet plane with 300+ passengers aboard hardly be compared to a glider.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I"m not sure why its such a surprise. The A330 has a great glide ratio.
> The pilots had lots of good tools (speed brakes etc) to place their
> landing. As I recall, they almost ended up being too high.
>
> -Robert, CFI (Certified Flight Instructor)

[nobody]

John Mazor wrote:
> The Air Transat rudder loss probably didn't result from any pilot inputs and
> only involved the rudder, as far as I know, so that's a different case.


Maybe the co-pilot made a really go joke and the captain laughed so hard
that he accidentally extended one leg to the max, deflecting the rufdder
to the maximum while at cruise speed, causing rudder to break off ?

Would the FDR have data to gauge any sideways acceleration (however
momentary it might have been) indicating the the rudder did move in one
direction before breaking off ?

Could a fault in the hydrolics cause the rudder to deflect to max
position on one side at high speed ? If this were to happen, and the
pilot didn'T have his feet on the rudder pedals, if it fair to state the
the pilot woudln't have any feedback that this happened ?

[Bonzo]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:48:54 -0500, nobody > wrote:


>
>Could a fault in the hydrolics cause the rudder to deflect to max
>position on one side at high speed ? If this were to happen, and the
>pilot didn'T have his feet on the rudder pedals, if it fair to state the
>the pilot woudln't have any feedback that this happened ?

There was a good (non-sensational) TV documentary about this incident.
It claimed that the a/c hit turbulence from a previous departure and
did, indeed, try to control the situation by several consecutive
opposite full rudder deflections. The controversy was that at the time
this was fine according to the operator, who tried to blame Airbus
because of what happened.

As part of the investigation someone did the sums to see what forces
would be present in such circumstances and, guess what, it turned out
that it would break not only a modern composite rudder but also a
conventional metal one.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"Bonzo" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:48:54 -0500, nobody > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Could a fault in the hydrolics cause the rudder to deflect to max
> >position on one side at high speed ? If this were to happen, and the
> >pilot didn'T have his feet on the rudder pedals, if it fair to state the
> >the pilot woudln't have any feedback that this happened ?
>
> There was a good (non-sensational) TV documentary about this incident.
> It claimed that the a/c hit turbulence from a previous departure and
> did, indeed, try to control the situation by several consecutive
> opposite full rudder deflections. The controversy was that at the time
> this was fine according to the operator, who tried to blame Airbus
> because of what happened.
>
> As part of the investigation someone did the sums to see what forces
> would be present in such circumstances and, guess what, it turned out
> that it would break not only a modern composite rudder but also a
> conventional metal one.
>
Questions/Food for thought. With the autopilot engaged the autopilot would
attempt to correct changes in heading resulting from turbulence encounters.
The pilot would have nothing to do with this.

When rudder movements are recorded on the FDR is source of movement
recorded, i.e. whether movement was due input from pilot or autopilot?

Does manual use of the rudder disengage the auto pilot?

Does the rudder limiter react differently to inputs from pilot & autopilot?
If so is there any difference at differing speeds?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

[Blabla]

Roman Svihorik wrote:
> Hmm, why...
> A great glide ratio - OK. But.
> They have just one attempt only. If failed...
> The precise calculation, correction maneuvers - I know.
> But if mistaken there is no go around.
> Considering terrain outside the strip...
> Still impressed.
>
> BTW, was that plane written off?
> Roman
> P.S. Actually, I am the glider sport pilot so I know quite well what it
> is about to land without engines :-)
> IMHO a jet plane with 300+ passengers aboard hardly be compared to a
> glider.
>
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> I"m not sure why its such a surprise. The A330 has a great glide ratio.
>> The pilots had lots of good tools (speed brakes etc) to place their
>> landing. As I recall, they almost ended up being too high.
>>
>> -Robert, CFI (Certified Flight Instructor)

M.Robert How is your loosing critical engin training ;-) hmmm on the
old twin we have to pumpout the landing or used the emergency gas extent
procedure only one shout, pump out the flaps by hands etc.

What I really mean is no engin give you little functionnality, of
course there is the little wind turbine for electricity to cockpit
instrument and command hydrolic, but if I remember, not speed brake,
no flaps (this will increase your landing speed alot ...), landing gear
out bu no retract ...
I dont think it was so easy ...

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 at 15:26:41 in message
<1111004784.a9019d27a110ae4ad1846a4d754f6247@terane ws>, 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

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 at 15:26:41 in message
> <1111004784.a9019d27a110ae4ad1846a4d754f6247@terane ws>, 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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

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
>

[Bertie the Bunyip]

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

[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.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

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

[David CL Francis]

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

[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

[Stefan]

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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

David CL Francis >
:

> 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

[Jens Krueger]

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.

[Ralph Nesbitt]

"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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

"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

[David CL Francis]

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

[David CL Francis]

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

[David CL Francis]

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

[[email protected]]

> 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).

[Pooh Bear]

wrote:

> > 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).

I think it was a confusion between pounds and kilograms actually and they
used the wrong specific gravity ( the pounds one ) for the kilograms
required.

Graham

[Frank F. Matthews]

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.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Pooh Bear >
:

> wrote:
>
>> > 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).
>
> I think it was a confusion between pounds and kilograms actually and they
> used the wrong specific gravity ( the pounds one ) for the kilograms
> required.
>

No, they didn't.


Fjuwkit.



Bertie

[David CL Francis]

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