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

"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

"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

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

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

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

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).

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

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.

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

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