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

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

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

"No Spam" wrote in message newsgsZd.4290

All pilots train to make such "dead stick" landings as
a routine part of training, in any type of airplane.


Perhaps now they do. If you read the detailed accounts of the "Gimli Glider"
episode when an Air Canada 767 lost both engines to fuel starvation, the
pilot clearly states that their training did *not* account for the
possibility. Understandably so- MTBF on those engines is in the 100s of
thousands of hours and airline procedures make fuel exhaustion unimaginable.
And unsinkable ships can't hit icebergs either.

I'm beginning to wonder a little about Air Transat. I just read about one of
their A310 rudders snapping off. The plane landed back in Varadero ok. So it
seems their pilots are trained OK but perhaps their maintenance & ops
departments need some work.

-cwk.

"Colin W Kingsbury"
thlink.net:


"No Spam" wrote in message newsgsZd.4290

All pilots train to make such "dead stick" landings as
a routine part of training, in any type of airplane.


Perhaps now they do. If you read the detailed accounts of the "Gimli
Glider" episode when an Air Canada 767 lost both engines to fuel
starvation, the pilot clearly states that their training did *not*
account for the possibility.

Well I had done deadstick landings in the sim looong before that happened.
And that wasn't the first deadstick jet either.



Bertie

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

"Bertie the Bunyip" XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX wrote in message
00.144...
"Colin W Kingsbury"
thlink.net:


"No Spam" wrote in message newsgsZd.4290

All pilots train to make such "dead stick" landings as
a routine part of training, in any type of airplane.


Perhaps now they do. If you read the detailed accounts of the "Gimli
Glider" episode when an Air Canada 767 lost both engines to fuel
starvation, the pilot clearly states that their training did *not*
account for the possibility.

Well I had done deadstick landings in the sim looong before that happened.
And that wasn't the first deadstick jet either.



Bertie

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

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

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

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

"Bertie the Bunyip" XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX wrote in message
00.144...
"Colin W Kingsbury"
thlink.net:


"No Spam" wrote in message newsgsZd.4290

All pilots train to make such "dead stick" landings as
a routine part of training, in any type of airplane.


Perhaps now they do. If you read the detailed accounts of the "Gimli
Glider" episode when an Air Canada 767 lost both engines to fuel
starvation, the pilot clearly states that their training did *not*
account for the possibility.

Well I had done deadstick landings in the sim looong before that
happened.
And that wasn't the first deadstick jet either.



Bertie

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

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

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

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

"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 newsgsZd.4290

All pilots train to make such "dead stick" landings as
a routine part of training, in any type of airplane.


Perhaps now they do. If you read the detailed accounts of the
"Gimli Glider" episode when an Air Canada 767 lost both engines to
fuel starvation, the pilot clearly states that their training did
*not* account for the possibility.

Well I had done deadstick landings in the sim looong before that
happened. And that wasn't the first deadstick jet either.



Bertie

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

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


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

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


"No Spam" wrote in message newsgsZd.4290

All pilots train to make such "dead stick" landings as
a routine part of training, in any type of airplane.


Perhaps now they do. If you read the detailed accounts of the "Gimli Glider"
episode when an Air Canada 767 lost both engines to fuel starvation, the
pilot clearly states that their training did *not* account for the
possibility. Understandably so- MTBF on those engines is in the 100s of
thousands of hours and airline procedures make fuel exhaustion unimaginable.
And unsinkable ships can't hit icebergs either.

I'm beginning to wonder a little about Air Transat. I just read about one of
their A310 rudders snapping off. The plane landed back in Varadero ok. So it
seems their pilots are trained OK but perhaps their maintenance & ops
departments need some work.

-cwk.

Isn't it the A310 that also lost a tail and crashed in New York City a
month or 2 after 9/11. IIRC, there is a particular airplane that the
manufacturer says "don't use the rudder too hard" because if you do,
the tail could break off. Imagine if you were test driving a car and
the salesperson said "don't turn too hard or the car will break in
half".

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.

"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 =----