Spoilers, no spoilers?

[Amine]

An Air Canada DC-8 crashed in 1970 because spoilers were deployed
before landing, which "by the book" is a definite no-no (cf. Air
Canada 621 disaster). How come the first officer (with over 5500 hrs
with that type of aircraft) made such a decision to deploy spoilers
while still in the air? What else, when full flaps and idle power
aren't enough, can a pilot use to handle a too high/too fast final
approach if not deploy spoilers?

As a side question, what is the functional difference between spoilers
and airbrakes?

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
> wrote:
> As a side question, what is the functional difference between spoilers
> and airbrakes?

Just read that section of the book for my PPL exam. I *think* that spoilers
can be used differentially for roll control, whereas speedbrakes both pop up
together so can't control roll.

But I'm probably wrong :)

Andy

[Bob F.]

> As a side question, what is the functional difference between spoilers
> and airbrakes?

Spoilers reduce lift. Speed brakes create drag. ...and each might do a
little of both. Bob F.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Amine wrote:
> An Air Canada DC-8 crashed in 1970 because spoilers were deployed
> before landing, which "by the book" is a definite no-no (cf. Air
> Canada 621 disaster). How come the first officer (with over 5500 hrs
> with that type of aircraft) made such a decision to deploy spoilers
> while still in the air? What else, when full flaps and idle power
> aren't enough, can a pilot use to handle a too high/too fast final
> approach if not deploy spoilers?

Go around.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Gary Mishler]

"Andy Hawkins" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>

> Just read that section of the book for my PPL exam. I *think* that
> spoilers
> can be used differentially for roll control, whereas speedbrakes both pop
> up
> together so can't control roll.
>
> But I'm probably wrong :)
>

Andy,

Spoilers deploy together symmetrically. What you are thinking of are
Spoilerons. Spoilerons come into play at slower speeds (typically when the
flaps are deployed beyond a certain point) to improve roll control at slower
airspeeds. Instead of the spoiler panels coming up symmetrically on both
wings to kill lift, only the panel on the wing with the "up" aileron will
deploy. Next time you are in an airliner watch the aileron/spoileron panels
work together at slower speeds. When the aileron moves up the corresponding
spoileron panel will move with it.

Mish

[F. Baum]

On Feb 7, 1:20*am, Amine > wrote:
How come the first officer (with over 5500 hrs
> with that type of aircraft) made such a decision to deploy spoilers
> while still in the air? What else, when full flaps and idle power
> aren't enough, can a pilot use to handle a too high/too fast final
> approach if not deploy spoilers?

Dudley got this one right (Go Around), but it is kinda a loaded
question because you cannot use flight spoilers or airbrakes beyond
certain flap settings . So if you had landing flaps, spoilers are not
an option. In the older jets you would get a warning horn if you had
any flaps deployed. The best thing to do when you are to high is to
get into the landing configuration early because this will cut the
ground speed and give you the best decent rate over a given distance.
>
> As a side question, what is the functional difference between spoilers
> and airbrakes?

Nothing. The current Boeing manuals make a distinction between
airbrakes and ground spoilers because not all of them deploy in
flight. Some only deploy on the ground during landing rollout or RTO.
As a side note the flight spoilers augument roll control when you pass
10 degrees of aileron deflection (This makes Xwind takeoffs
interesting). Hope this helps,
FB

[F. Baum]

On Feb 7, 8:40*am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> > As a side question, what is the functional difference between spoilers
> > and airbrakes?
>
> Nothing. The current Boeing manuals make a distinction between
> airbrakes and ground spoilers because not all of them deploy in
> flight.

Oops, should have said Flight spoilers and ground spoilers.

[F. Baum]

On Feb 7, 9:35*am, Bob Moore > wrote:
>
> As to the other question about slowing down, although not rated on the
> DC-8, friends who are have told me that the DC-8 reverse thrust can be
> selected in the air. With flaps up only 2 & 3 can be selected to reverse.
> With flaps down, all 4 can.

Are you sure about that ? I didnt fly the 8 either, but some good
friends did and they said 2 & 3 in idle reverse only and I seem to
recall altitude and speed restrictions on this. Any DC8 jockys out
there ?

Frank

[Snowbird]

"Bob Moore" wrote ..
> Amine wrote
>> As a side question, what is the functional difference between spoilers
>> and airbrakes?
>
> Spoilers and Speedbrakes are the same panels on top of the wings
> of Transport Category Aircraft. They deploy symmmetrically when
> activated by the Speedbrake handle and asymmetrically when
> activated by the aileron control (yoke).
>

I fly a lot as passenger in the BAe 146 (or Avro RJ) which has a different
arrangement. It has a speedbrake in the tailcone, which is often deployed on
short final. On top of the wings are spoilers, but I think they are only
used as ground spoilers to dump lift and put weight on the wheels to assist
braking (the RJ has no thrust reversers, presumably for noise reasons). I
know the plane was conceived as a STOL type for the London City Airport and
similar, but can anyone tell more about why this particular
speedbrake/spoiler configuration was chosen?

[Vaughn Simon]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
...
> the BAe 146 (or Avro RJ) which has a different arrangement. It has a
> speedbrake in the tailcone, which is often deployed on short final. On top of
> the wings are spoilers,

Getting back to the original side question: In my book, (I am a glider guy)
speedbrakes are any surface that deploys specifically to add drag. The
tailcone-mounted speedbrakes mentioned above are a great example. Spoilers are
a speedbrake installed on the wing that add drag and at the same time reduce
lift.

Just to confuse the issue, would it be OK to refer to flaps as speedbrakes?
I can point out some plain flaps on gliders that deploy to 90 degrees (or nearly
so) and produce some awesomely steep final approaches.

Vaughn

[brtlmj]

> deploy. Next time you are in an airliner watch the aileron/spoileron panels
> work together at slower speeds. When the aileron moves up the corresponding
> spoileron panel will move with it.

Aren't spoilerons ailerons that can move UP together, killing lift?

Bartek

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Feb 7, 2:46*pm, James Robinson > wrote:
> Amine > wrote:
> > An Air Canada DC-8 crashed in 1970 because spoilers were deployed
> > before landing, which "by the book" is a definite no-no (cf. Air
> > Canada 621 disaster). How come the first officer (with over 5500 hrs
> > with that type of aircraft) made such a decision to deploy spoilers
> > while still in the air?
>
> It was accidental.
>
> The spoiler handle could be used to do two things: Lift to arm the
> spoilers for automatic deployment when the aircraft landed, or pull out
> and down to manually deploy the spoilers. *The FO likely just wanted to
> arm them, but inadvertently deployed them instead. *
>
> The handle has since been mechanically interlocked to prevent that
> action. (1975 FAA AD)
>
> The irony of that accident was that the Captain had complained to the
> company management about the Air Canada procedure at the time. It
> required arming the spoilers as part of the prelanding checklist, at
> about the same time as the landing gear was lowered. *He felt that
> because of the handle design, it was too easy to inadvertently deploy
> them at that critical time in flight. *If he was flying, he would
> normally ask the FO to wait to deploy them manually only after the
> aircraft landed, which was contary to the airline's procedures.
>
> This particular first officer liked to arm the spoilers in the flare, and
> the captain agreed to that arrangement. *It appears that the FO both took
> action sooner than he should have in the flare, and instead of just
> arming them, he also inadvertently deployed them when the aircraft was
> still 60 feet in the air.

I think it was higher, but no matter, they tore the airplane in two.
I've read the tapes from this one. Chilling. The co-pilot just kept
saying "sorry Bob, sorry Bob, over and over as the airplane broke
up..




Bertie

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
> Amine wrote:
>> An Air Canada DC-8 crashed in 1970 because spoilers were deployed
>> before landing, which "by the book" is a definite no-no (cf. Air
>> Canada 621 disaster). How come the first officer (with over 5500 hrs
>> with that type of aircraft) made such a decision to deploy spoilers
>> while still in the air? What else, when full flaps and idle power
>> aren't enough, can a pilot use to handle a too high/too fast final
>> approach if not deploy spoilers?
>
> Go around.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

My thought exactly!

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

James Robinson wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> I've read the tapes from this one. Chilling. The co-pilot just kept
>> saying "sorry Bob, sorry Bob, over and over as the airplane broke
>> up..
>
> "Sorry Pete", actually. (Pete Hamilton) There was no question he was
> remorseful.

Yep:

http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_ac621.php

[Amine]

On Feb 7, 3:35 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Go around.
>

Well, let's play the devil's advocate... What if you can't go around?
(E.g. because of engine failure or in a glider). I mean, I understand
why you don't want to deploy spoilers if you're below minimums or if
you're flirting with stall speed. But if you're well above minimums,
with no risk of stalling, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't use
spoilers to bleed the extra momentum/altitude. The only disadvantage
would be that the final approach will be steeper and thereby would not
have the elegance of the perfect glide slope. But that's seems to be
more a matter of taste (and possibly performance) than an actual
safety issue.

After all, the "no-spoiler-in-midair"dogma isn't built in the design
of the pilot interface. If there truly was a physical reason why
spoilers should not come out in the air, it would have been an
engineering requirement to systematically disable their mechanism
unless, say, the gear is down and the wheels rolling.

[F. Baum]

On Feb 8, 6:57*am, Amine > wrote:
> > Go around.
>
> Well, let's play the devil's advocate... What if you can't go around?
> (E.g. because of engine failure or in a glider). I mean, I understand
> why you don't want to deploy spoilers if you're below minimums or if
> you're flirting with stall speed. But if you're well above minimums,
> with no risk of stalling, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't use
> spoilers to bleed the extra momentum/altitude. The only disadvantage
> would be that the final approach will be steeper and thereby would not
> have the elegance of the perfect glide slope. But that's seems to be
> more a matter of taste (and possibly performance) than an actual
> safety issue.

This paragragh has several misconceptions as it relates to the OP.
First, An engine out missed in a DC8 or even a two engine jet is
doable and it is practiced all the time in the sim. Spoiler usage in
sailplanes is a completely different kettle of fish and it is normal
to use them into the touchdown in most ships. The crash discused in
the OP happened many years ago and it has been standard in the
industry as long as I can remember (I go back 20 years) to be on
glidpath, on speed, and fully configured with the landing checklist
complete by 1000 AGL (An exception to this is that in VMC you dont
have to be on speed but you must be slowing). No Ifs or Buts. The use
of spoilers below certain RAs and past certain flap settings is
prohibited in the Boeing products and you would be hard pressed to
find both a captain and fo who would ignore operating limitations. So
its not just a mater of taste.
>
. If there truly was a physical reason why
> spoilers should not come out in the air, it would have been an
> engineering requirement to systematically disable their mechanism
> unless, say, the gear is down and the wheels rolling.

Actually, this is the way it works. Only some of the spoilers deploy
inflight (Either through the spoiler handle or the Aileron/Spoiler
mixer ). The rest of the spoilers will not deploy until the plane is
on the ground.
F Baum

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:40:33 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
wrote:

>>
>. If there truly was a physical reason why
>> spoilers should not come out in the air, it would have been an
>> engineering requirement to systematically disable their mechanism
>> unless, say, the gear is down and the wheels rolling.
>
>Actually, this is the way it works. Only some of the spoilers deploy
>inflight (Either through the spoiler handle or the Aileron/Spoiler
>mixer ). The rest of the spoilers will not deploy until the plane is
>on the ground.

Or an airspeed lockout. If memory serves they won't deploy, even for
roll assistance, above a certain speed either. Don't they also
deflect at different angles depending on what system is activating
them? Highest angle off the wing is for full in-flight spoiler handle
(and some don't even come up for that), inboard segments deflect at a
greater angle than outboards for roll assistance (which is about 1/2
the angle off the wing compared to full spoiler), and everything comes
up at full for weight-on-wheels spoiler system?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Amine wrote:
> On Feb 7, 3:35 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Go around.
>>
>
> Well, let's play the devil's advocate... What if you can't go around?
> (E.g. because of engine failure or in a glider). I mean, I understand
> why you don't want to deploy spoilers if you're below minimums or if
> you're flirting with stall speed. But if you're well above minimums,
> with no risk of stalling, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't use
> spoilers to bleed the extra momentum/altitude. The only disadvantage
> would be that the final approach will be steeper and thereby would not
> have the elegance of the perfect glide slope. But that's seems to be
> more a matter of taste (and possibly performance) than an actual
> safety issue.
>
> After all, the "no-spoiler-in-midair"dogma isn't built in the design
> of the pilot interface. If there truly was a physical reason why
> spoilers should not come out in the air, it would have been an
> engineering requirement to systematically disable their mechanism
> unless, say, the gear is down and the wheels rolling.
The "go around" comment was meant as a general rule for any approach
situation that has the aircraft too high and fast for the runway.
Naturally, any approach situation ending with an accident assumes
something went wrong somewhere.
In the case of spoiler use, I can't speak directly to the DC8 scenario
as I'm not DC8 type rated, but obviously in this case, a spoiler
deployment scenario that had the POTENTIAL for problems had been noted
prior by the Captain (at least this is my understanding anyway).
In such a situation, with the first officer making the approach, the
scenario for an in-flight deployment error on the spoilers having been
noted, it would seem obvious to me that a go around call rather than ANY
attempt to use spoilers to save the approach would have been the prudent
call by the first officer.
I'm sure there is more to the story. There always is.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[F. Baum]

On Feb 8, 9:25*am, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 07:40:33 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >. If there truly was a physical reason why
> >> spoilers should not come out in the air, it would have been an
> >> engineering requirement to systematically disable their mechanism
> >> unless, say, the gear is down and the wheels rolling.
>
> >Actually, this is the way it works. Only some of the spoilers deploy
> >inflight (Either through the spoiler handle or the Aileron/Spoiler
> >mixer ). The rest of the spoilers will not deploy until the plane is
> >on the ground.
>
> Or an airspeed lockout. *If memory serves they won't deploy, even for
> roll assistance, above a certain speed either.

Not too sure on this. On all the jets I have experience with, the
boards are usable to VMO/MMO. On some some of the older ones, like the
727 they will blow down a bit as you approach the pole.


>*Don't they also
> deflect at different angles depending on what system is activating
> them? *Highest angle off the wing is for full in-flight spoiler handle
> (and some don't even come up for that), inboard segments deflect at a
> greater angle than outboards for roll assistance (which is about 1/2
> the angle off the wing compared to full spoiler), and everything comes
> up at full for weight-on-wheels spoiler system?

They deploy proportionate to the roll or spoiler input. On several of
the newer airliners there is a flight detent and full range for ground
deployment. Exceeding the flight detent results in buffeting. As an
interesting side note, on the Boeings, if you have the boards about
half way extended and then try a turn, you get a dramatic increase in
the roll rate.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 18:14:48 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
wrote:

>Not too sure on this. On all the jets I have experience with, the
>boards are usable to VMO/MMO. On some some of the older ones, like the
>727 they will blow down a bit as you approach the pole.

Yea, brain cramp there, you can pull spoiler all the way up but above
some speed they don't go into roll-assist mode.

>They deploy proportionate to the roll or spoiler input. On several of
>the newer airliners there is a flight detent and full range for ground
>deployment. Exceeding the flight detent results in buffeting. As an
>interesting side note, on the Boeings, if you have the boards about
>half way extended and then try a turn, you get a dramatic increase in
>the roll rate.

That must get your attention pretty quick.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

James Robinson > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> James Robinson > wrote:
>>>
>>> Amine > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > An Air Canada DC-8 crashed in 1970 because spoilers were deployed
>>> > before landing, which "by the book" is a definite no-no (cf. Air
>>> > Canada 621 disaster). How come the first officer (with over 5500
>>> > hrs with that type of aircraft) made such a decision to deploy
>>> > spoilers while still in the air?
>>>
>>> It was accidental.
>>>
>>> The spoiler handle could be used to do two things: Lift to arm the
>>> spoilers for automatic deployment when the aircraft landed, or pull
>>> out and down to manually deploy the spoilers. *The FO likely just
>>> wanted to arm them, but inadvertently deployed them instead. *
>>>
>>> The handle has since been mechanically interlocked to prevent that
>>> action. (1975 FAA AD)
>>>
>>> The irony of that accident was that the Captain had complained to
>>> the company management about the Air Canada procedure at the time.
>>> It required arming the spoilers as part of the prelanding checklist,
>>> at about the same time as the landing gear was lowered. *He felt
>>> that because of the handle design, it was too easy to inadvertently
>>> deploy them at that critical time in flight. *If he was flying, he
>>> would normally ask the FO to wait to deploy them manually only after
>>> the aircraft landed, which was contrary to the airline's procedures.
>>>
>>> This particular first officer liked to arm the spoilers in the
>>> flare, and the captain agreed to that arrangement. *It appears that
>>> the FO both took action sooner than he should have in the flare, and
>>> instead of just arming them, he also inadvertently deployed them
>>> when the aircraft was still 60 feet in the air.
>>
>> I think it was higher, but no matter, they tore the airplane in two.
>> I've read the tapes from this one. Chilling. The co-pilot just kept
>> saying "sorry Bob, sorry Bob, over and over as the airplane broke
>> up..
>
> "Sorry Pete", actually. (Pete Hamilton) There was no question he was
> remorseful.
>

OK. Been a while. A year or two after the event, in fact.

> A number of on-line sources say 60 feet, and that the spoilers were
> deployed just as the power was being reduced for the flare. My
> recollection at the time, like yours, was that it was higher, but I
> guess the 60 foot number comes from the official accident report.

Well, my memory is probably playing tricks is all. hard to imagine 60
feet being that bad, but OTOH all spoilers up... Not nice.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47abb90d$0$93284$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

> James Robinson wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> I've read the tapes from this one. Chilling. The co-pilot just kept
>>> saying "sorry Bob, sorry Bob, over and over as the airplane broke
>>> up..
>>
>> "Sorry Pete", actually. (Pete Hamilton) There was no question he was
>> remorseful.
>
> Yep:
>
> http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_ac621.php
>

And it's just as chilling now as it was then. I've read a good few of those
over the years and nothing has ever got to me like that one.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Amine wrote
>> As a side question, what is the functional difference between
>> spoilers and airbrakes?
>
> Spoilers and Speedbrakes are the same panels on top of the wings
> of Transport Category Aircraft. They deploy symmmetrically when
> activated by the Speedbrake handle and asymmetrically when
> activated by the aileron control (yoke).

Well, not all of them Some just use outer panels for roll, a couple more
for speedbrakes mand then one or two more for ground only.

Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47abb90d$0$93284$804603d3
> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>
>> James Robinson wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> I've read the tapes from this one. Chilling. The co-pilot just kept
>>>> saying "sorry Bob, sorry Bob, over and over as the airplane broke
>>>> up..
>>> "Sorry Pete", actually. (Pete Hamilton) There was no question he was
>>> remorseful.
>> Yep:
>>
>> http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_ac621.php
>>
> And it's just as chilling now as it was then. I've read a good few of those
> over the years and nothing has ever got to me like that one.

Ever see the theatrical show "Charlie Victor Romeo"? They reenact the
final minutes of a half dozen (or so) flights in the cockpit, using the
CVR transcripts as scripts. You want to talk chilling... This particular
accident wasn't in the performance I saw in NYC a few years ago, though.

The show has been staged for industry and military flight safety
audiences as well. The Air Force recorded it as training video. Here's
one scene from that:

http://media.pbs.org/ramgen/wnet/egg/203-Granby-hi.rm?altplay=203-Granby-hi.rm

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47abb90d$0$93284$804603d3
>> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>>
>>> James Robinson wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> I've read the tapes from this one. Chilling. The co-pilot just
>>>>> kept saying "sorry Bob, sorry Bob, over and over as the airplane
>>>>> broke up..
>>>> "Sorry Pete", actually. (Pete Hamilton) There was no question he
>>>> was remorseful.
>>> Yep:
>>>
>>> http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_ac621.ph
>>> p
>>>
>> And it's just as chilling now as it was then. I've read a good few of
>> those over the years and nothing has ever got to me like that one.
>
> Ever see the theatrical show "Charlie Victor Romeo"? They reenact the
> final minutes of a half dozen (or so) flights in the cockpit, using
> the CVR transcripts as scripts. You want to talk chilling... This
> particular accident wasn't in the performance I saw in NYC a few years
> ago, though.

I've heard of it. (probably through ADA) but hadn't seen any of it. I'd
probably only see the technical holes in it.


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
> . net:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47abb90d$0$93284$804603d3
>>> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>>>
>>>> James Robinson wrote:
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> I've read the tapes from this one. Chilling. The co-pilot just
>>>>>> kept saying "sorry Bob, sorry Bob, over and over as the airplane
>>>>>> broke up..
>>>>> "Sorry Pete", actually. (Pete Hamilton) There was no question he
>>>>> was remorseful.
>>>> Yep:
>>>>
>>>> http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_ac621.ph
>>>> p
>>>>
>>> And it's just as chilling now as it was then. I've read a good few of
>>> those over the years and nothing has ever got to me like that one.
>> Ever see the theatrical show "Charlie Victor Romeo"? They reenact the
>> final minutes of a half dozen (or so) flights in the cockpit, using
>> the CVR transcripts as scripts. You want to talk chilling... This
>> particular accident wasn't in the performance I saw in NYC a few years
>> ago, though.
>
> I've heard of it. (probably through ADA) but hadn't seen any of it. I'd
> probably only see the technical holes in it.

Well, considering the dialogue is straight from the CVR transcripts,
about the only errors available in that realm would be pronunciation
ones. (There's at least one obvious one in the video I linked to). The
cockpit used for all the scenes is a schematic one and not intended to
be an accurate simulation of each type, so you could get them on the
hand movements, of course.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47ae5665$0$93290
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Well, considering the dialogue is straight from the CVR transcripts,
> about the only errors available in that realm would be pronunciation
> ones. (There's at least one obvious one in the video I linked to). The
> cockpit used for all the scenes is a schematic one and not intended to
> be an accurate simulation of each type, so you could get them on the
> hand movements, of course.
>



Dunno, it's more the tone, I think. That one I saw was actualy OK, though.

Bertie

[Scott Skylane]

F. Baum wrote:
/snip/ As an
> interesting side note, on the Boeings, if you have the boards about
> half way extended and then try a turn, you get a dramatic increase in
> the roll rate.
>

Well, that certainly is one of the many characteristics that made the
727 so fun to fly, but it is definately not present on the 737-200. In
fact, the 37's spoilers in general are an anemic stepchild compared to
the massive boards on the 27. I don't have experience on any of the
other Boeings.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Scott Skylane > wrote in
:

> F. Baum wrote:
> /snip/ As an
>> interesting side note, on the Boeings, if you have the boards about
>> half way extended and then try a turn, you get a dramatic increase in
>> the roll rate.
>>
>
> Well, that certainly is one of the many characteristics that made the
> 727 so fun to fly, but it is definately not present on the 737-200. In
> fact, the 37's spoilers in general are an anemic stepchild compared to
> the massive boards on the 27. I don't have experience on any of the
> other Boeings.

Nothing goes down like the 727! First time I flew it I ended up level at
2,000' 30 miles form the airport. and that was without the spoilers!
With them it was like a brick!


Bertie

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 7, 9:06*pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> James Robinson wrote:
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> I've read the tapes from this one. Chilling. The co-pilot just kept
> >> saying "sorry Bob, sorry Bob, over and over as the airplane *broke
> >> up..
>
> > "Sorry Pete", actually. (Pete Hamilton) *There was no question he was
> > remorseful.
>
> Yep:
>
> http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_ac621.php

Thanks for the link Ruch. Just read the transcript. Wow!
Sobering...

Wil

[Amine]

On Feb 11, 1:54 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> Nothing goes down like the 727! First time I flew it I ended up level at
> 2,000' 30 miles form the airport. and that was without the spoilers!
> With them it was like a brick!
>

If I understood correctly the last sentence, you did use spoilers in
midair?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Amine > wrote in news:e921c55d-67f0-4b42-8b9b-
:

> On Feb 11, 1:54 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Nothing goes down like the 727! First time I flew it I ended up level at
>> 2,000' 30 miles form the airport. and that was without the spoilers!
>> With them it was like a brick!
>>
>
> If I understood correctly the last sentence, you did use spoilers in
> midair?
>

Oh sure. All the time!

The 707 was restricted against it in latter years because of a stab spar
problem, but everything else uses them. There are a couple of them that are
only used on the groun on most airplanes, though. That function is fully
automatic, though.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

James Robinson > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Amine > wrote:
>>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nothing goes down like the 727! First time I flew it I ended up
>>>> level at 2,000' 30 miles form the airport. and that was without the
>>>> spoilers! With them it was like a brick!
>>>>
>>> If I understood correctly the last sentence, you did use spoilers in
>>> midair?
>>
>> Oh sure. All the time!
>>
>> The 707 was restricted against it in latter years because of a stab
>> spar problem, but everything else uses them. There are a couple of
>> them that are only used on the groun on most airplanes, though. That
>> function is fully automatic, though.
>
> I have a recollection of reading about an incident years ago on a DC-8
> where a crew purposely deployed the ground spoilers at FL350 or
> thereabouts. It did not go well.
>
> The pilot had previous experience on B-727s, and had been recently
> qualified on DC-8s. As they were cruising along, they got to
> wondering (always dangerous) if the spoilers on the DC-8 could be used
> as speed brakes, like on the '27s.
>
> As I recall, the FE had to override an interlock by holding a
> hydraulic pump switch, and the pilot slowly moved the spoiler handle,
> expecting the spoilers to gradually rise with handle movement, like
> the other aircraft he was used to. Instead, when he reached a certain
> point with the handle, the spoilers instantly popped up to full
> height, as they were designed to do.
>
> In the excitement, the FE let go of the switch, dropping power to the
> pump, and they couldn't retract the spoilers. Down they went.
>
> They eventually recovered things at something like FL150, and learned
> why they are called ground spoilers and not speed brakes.

OK. Never flew the DC 8. Would liked to have, though! you couldn't
deploy the ground spoilers on the 727 in he air unless you somehow
fooled the air/ground switch into thinking you were on the ground. Same
goes for most airplanes. ( spoilers and speedbrakes are pretty much the
same thing for the purposes of this discussion) I can't imagine why
anyone would try and deploy the ground spoilers in flight, though..
People do stupid things!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

James Robinson > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> James Robinson > wrote:
>>
>>> I have a recollection of reading about an incident years ago on a
>>> DC-8 where a crew purposely deployed the ground spoilers at FL350 or
>>> thereabouts. It did not go well.
>>>
>>> The pilot had previous experience on B-727s, and had been recently
>>> qualified on DC-8s. As they were cruising along, they got to
>>> wondering (always dangerous) if the spoilers on the DC-8 could be
>>> used as speed brakes, like on the '27s.
>>>
>>> As I recall, the FE had to override an interlock by holding a
>>> hydraulic pump switch, and the pilot slowly moved the spoiler
>>> handle, expecting the spoilers to gradually rise with handle
>>> movement, like the other aircraft he was used to. Instead, when he
>>> reached a certain point with the handle, the spoilers instantly
>>> popped up to full height, as they were designed to do.
>>>
>>> In the excitement, the FE let go of the switch, dropping power to
>>> the pump, and they couldn't retract the spoilers. Down they went.
>>>
>>> They eventually recovered things at something like FL150, and
>>> learned why they are called ground spoilers and not speed brakes.
>>
>> OK. Never flew the DC 8. Would liked to have, though! you couldn't
>> deploy the ground spoilers on the 727 in he air unless you somehow
>> fooled the air/ground switch into thinking you were on the ground.
>> Same goes for most airplanes. ( spoilers and speedbrakes are pretty
>> much the same thing for the purposes of this discussion) I can't
>> imagine why anyone would try and deploy the ground spoilers in
>> flight, though.. People do stupid things!
>
> I wonder whether the accusation by Boeing and the NTSB of the pilot
> playing with the leading edge slats on the TWA 727 was influenced by
> this earlier DC-8 episode? Since one pilot did something that would
> normally be considered dumb, just maybe another one did something dumb
> also. Since they couldn't (or some say wouldn't) point their fingers
> on what actually did happen, blame the pilot by default.

My understanding is that the NTSB guy had done this in Phantoms and had
come up with the theory based on that. Boeing eventually admitted that
it was possible for the slats to have deployed after several other
airplanes had the same problem ( at lower altitudes) I wouldn't be
surprised if the DC 8 incident didn't play some role in that reprt,
however.
The crew were never sanctioned for this. Not by the FAA or their
company, but none were happy with the report, obviously.
I was just discussing this with someone who does know al the facts and
who also posts here. he might pipe up at this point.
>


Bertie

[Amine]

On 11 Feb, 15:33, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Amine > wrote in news:e921c55d-67f0-4b42-8b9b-

> > If I understood correctly the last sentence, you did use spoilers in
> > midair?
>
> Oh sure. All the time!
>
> The 707 was restricted against it in latter years because of a stab spar
> problem, but everything else uses them. There are a couple of them that are
> only used on the groun on most airplanes, though. That function is fully
> automatic, though.
>
> Bertie

Now I'm confused. It's like we're back to square one with the issue
raised in the original post. I thought spoilers were never to be used
in midair, either because of structural limitations or because of
other safety reasons I am still trying to figure out... But now you're
saying you used them all the time on the 727.

Conclusion: it is OK to use spoilers to kill altitude/momentum.
Therefore, a too high/fast approach can be dealt with via spoilers
(when a go around isn't an option).

Or...?

[F. Baum]

On Feb 11, 11:29*am, Amine > wrote:
>
> Now I'm confused. It's like we're back to square one with the issue
> raised in the original post. I thought spoilers were never to be used
> in midair, either because of structural limitations or because of
> other safety reasons I am still trying to figure out... But now you're
> saying you used them all the time on the 727.

Heres the deal, it is OK to use spoilers in the air. They are used as
speedbrakes and for roll control. Older jets had restrictions against
using them with flaps deployed (Newer jets allow some flaps, usually
up to 10 degrees or so, depending on the jet). Also, there is a
resticion against using spoilers within a certain proximity to the
ground (Usually 800 to 1000 ft RA). So you CANNOT use spoilers when
you are in the landing configuration. I am not to familiar with the
crash mentioned in the OP but this is what I understand happened. It
is normal to have the autospoilers armed (by moving the spoiler handle
out of the detent) at 1000 AGL as part of the before landing
checklist. When you touch down all of the flight spoilers and all of
the ground spoilers will fully deploy automatically. This is sensed by
a Z bar on some of the older jets, or a squat switch, or wheel speed
sensors that requier the power levers to be closed (Idle).
>
> Conclusion: it is OK to use spoilers to kill altitude/momentum.
> Therefore, a too high/fast approach can be dealt with via spoilers
> (when a go around isn't an option).
>
> Or...?

Once again, cant use em in the landing config.
Frank

[Allen[_1_]]

Here are some spoilers for the type of aircraft we fly
http://www.powerpacspoilers.com/

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.


"Amine" > wrote in message
...
> On 11 Feb, 15:33, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Amine > wrote in news:e921c55d-67f0-4b42-8b9b-
>
>> > If I understood correctly the last sentence, you did use spoilers in
>> > midair?
>>
>> Oh sure. All the time!
>>
>> The 707 was restricted against it in latter years because of a stab spar
>> problem, but everything else uses them. There are a couple of them that
>> are
>> only used on the groun on most airplanes, though. That function is fully
>> automatic, though.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Now I'm confused. It's like we're back to square one with the issue
> raised in the original post. I thought spoilers were never to be used
> in midair, either because of structural limitations or because of
> other safety reasons I am still trying to figure out... But now you're
> saying you used them all the time on the 727.
>
> Conclusion: it is OK to use spoilers to kill altitude/momentum.
> Therefore, a too high/fast approach can be dealt with via spoilers
> (when a go around isn't an option).
>
> Or...?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Amine > wrote in
:

> On 11 Feb, 15:33, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Amine > wrote in news:e921c55d-67f0-4b42-8b9b-
>
>> > If I understood correctly the last sentence, you did use spoilers
>> > in midair?
>>
>> Oh sure. All the time!
>>
>> The 707 was restricted against it in latter years because of a stab
>> spar problem, but everything else uses them. There are a couple of
>> them that are only used on the groun on most airplanes, though. That
>> function is fully automatic, though.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Now I'm confused. It's like we're back to square one with the issue
> raised in the original post. I thought spoilers were never to be used
> in midair, either because of structural limitations or because of
> other safety reasons I am still trying to figure out... But now you're
> saying you used them all the time on the 727.

Use them all the time on al jets I've flown.
>
> Conclusion: it is OK to use spoilers to kill altitude/momentum.
> Therefore, a too high/fast approach can be dealt with via spoilers
> (when a go around isn't an option).

Well, there is usualy a restriction on their use regarding altitude.
depends on the type, but we're not alowed to use them below 1,000' ( you
shoud be stable there anyway) and Boeing restrict their use on the 757
to 20 degrees of flap or less ( most all jets have a similar
restriction)
>
> Or...?


Well, you might mean ground spoilers, also called lift dump. The
inflight spoilers have two functions. One is as a speedbrake and the
other is roll control. When aileron deflection exceeds x amount the
spoilers on one side start to come up to augment roll control. It varies
from airplane to airplane, but usually the outermost two or three
spoilers are used for roll control as well as speedbrake through a mixer
of one form or another ( obviously computerised in 'busses, for
instance) and there are one or two inboard of those used on the ground
only. We don't get to decide. the aileron ones work all by themselves.
The speedbrake is just a single handle next to the thrust levers, and
the ground spoilers are on the ground.
The Lockheed Tristar had a unique use for them in that they controlled
glidepath on the approach. I've only had it described to me, but
basically the airplane maintatined a stwady pitch angle and workng the
stick back and forth brought the speedbrake up and down to control
glide. Don't quote me on that, though.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:ef16d6a2-5341-4090-b4d7-
:

> On Feb 11, 11:29*am, Amine > wrote:
>>
>> Now I'm confused. It's like we're back to square one with the issue
>> raised in the original post. I thought spoilers were never to be used
>> in midair, either because of structural limitations or because of
>> other safety reasons I am still trying to figure out... But now you're
>> saying you used them all the time on the 727.
>
> Heres the deal, it is OK to use spoilers in the air. They are used as
> speedbrakes and for roll control. Older jets had restrictions against
> using them with flaps deployed (Newer jets allow some flaps, usually
> up to 10 degrees or so, depending on the jet). Also, there is a
> resticion against using spoilers within a certain proximity to the
> ground (Usually 800 to 1000 ft RA). So you CANNOT use spoilers when
> you are in the landing configuration. I am not to familiar with the
> crash mentioned in the OP but this is what I understand happened. It
> is normal to have the autospoilers armed (by moving the spoiler handle
> out of the detent) at 1000 AGL as part of the before landing
> checklist. When you touch down all of the flight spoilers and all of
> the ground spoilers will fully deploy automatically. This is sensed by
> a Z bar on some of the older jets, or a squat switch, or wheel speed
> sensors that requier the power levers to be closed (Idle).

My understanding with that DC8 accident was that they were doing something
a bit non-standard. Don't know what since I never flew one.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

James Robinson > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> The Lockheed Tristar had a unique use for them in that they
>> controlled glidepath on the approach. I've only had it described to
>> me, but basically the airplane maintatined a stwady pitch angle and
>> workng the stick back and forth brought the speedbrake up and down to
>> control glide. Don't quote me on that, though.
>
> Yep. They called it Direct Lift Control. It made for very accurate
> autolands. It was set up when the flaps were extended for final
> approach.
>
> I remember flying in a couple of Tristars where the engine RPMs would
> drop at the beginning of descent, and there would be no power changes
> until the flare. The DLC system would control things on the glide
> slope without the need for any power changes. I remember asking myself
> how the pilot was so accurate with the power setting the first time it
> happened, before I knew about the system.
>

That's it. I thought it sounded awful, but everyone i knew who flew them
thought it was fanatastic.


Bertie