Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LOT Polish Airlines flight LO 016 EWR-WAW Emergency Landing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    moderator AJ is a 767 pilot. maybe he can fill in some blanks for us

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      The pilot did a nice smooth landing, as probably many other times. That the gear was up was beyond the pilot's powers (I guess and hope).

      A gear-up landing doesn't require any particular flying skill that a gear-down-and locked landing doesn't.

      All in all, the crew did their job in a stressful situation, and they did it very well. As expected.
      Actually, I thought their performance sucked...if they had adjusted their touchdown point by about 1000 ft, they would not have blocked the runway intersection.

      Crappy airmanship!

      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        Actually, I thought their performance sucked...if they had adjusted their touchdown point by about 1000 ft, they would not have blocked the runway intersection.

        Crappy airmanship!

        Where did I hear something like that?

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #34
          Sadly Boeing do not publish a "Landing Slide Distance Guidance Information - All Gear Up" graph, making landing slide distance calculation difficult .

          Comment


          • #35
            Amazing job.

            Mr. Boeing's checklist tells you to land on any available gear and use Flaps 30.

            The tailskid extended could mean one of two things. The first possibility is that it never retracted after departure from JFK as the first symptom of the centre hydraulic system failure. Secondly it was the only part of the landing gear system that operated normally on arrival in WAW.

            Problems have been encountered on Boeing aircraft before with the design behind the landing gear lever. I hope this isn't a re-occurrence as it will lead to an urgent AD. I saw an issue on the 744 when the landing gear level was placed to OFF the body gear doors fell open!

            United fell victim to an issue with the selector valves in a 744 that resulted in a landing on the wing gear only: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...12X24039&key=1

            It will be very interesting to follow the findings.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
              I'd have to say the Sully landing was a bit more challenging.
              I did say "rank close to" !!

              ....although the LOT pilot could still have got it wrong and nosed it in ?
              If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Leo 747 View Post
                ????
                Ah, you don't know "Gabriel" here then ?

                The number one expert...

                ....in ripping holes in other peoples congratulatory comments.
                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Peter_K View Post
                  Captain Tadeusz Wrona


                  ...and in his younger days (first from the left):

                  Interesting....another glider pilot.....just like Sully was !
                  If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                    Interesting....another glider pilot.....just like Sully was !
                    The Gimili pilot as a sailplane pilot too (flashback, a 767 with inop fuel quantity indicators is fueled with what the crew thought was "fuel to spare", except there was a confusin between Imperial and Metric units and it had about 1/4 of the fuel they thought it had, they run out of fuel at cruise and glided to and landed in a closed airport).

                    Form these three cases, undoubtly the Gimili case is the one where sailplane experience could have helped most.

                    This was just a landing. That the gear didn't come down doesn't change much what the pilot has to do to land the plane.

                    The Sully case was a glide on very little power (very little thrust but at least enough engine power to keep all hydro and hidraulic systems on-line and for the plane to ramin in normal law). The difference is that if the touchdown was 1km sooner or later would not have made a lot of difference.

                    In the Gimili case they had to glide for what I think was a hundred of Km and be able to touchdown at the beginning of a runway at a mangable speed with all systems down except emergency electric and hydro power supplied by the RAT.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                      Ah, you don't know "Gabriel" here then ?

                      The number one expert...

                      ....in pointing out factual flaws in other peoples congratulatory comments, and stimulating intelligent discussion.
                      Fixed.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        What has being a glider pilot got to do with this? They didn't lose the engines.

                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        The Sully case was a glide on very little power (very little thrust but at least enough engine power to keep all hydro and hidraulic systems on-line and for the plane to ramin in normal law). The difference is that if the touchdown was 1km sooner or later would not have made a lot of difference.
                        I still disagree with this. The East River gets a lot busier below 34th St, and a lot choppier below Battery Park. I don't know what he had in view, but I think he had to get it down near the spot he chose. But let's not open that can of worms here...

                        One thing: we are seeing this as a failure of both the primary and alternative gear systems, and finding it hard to believe both would fail at the same time. But is it possible that the alternative gear system had failed long before this and the fault had gone undetected, and then only revealed when the center hydraulic system failed and they put it to use? How often is this system tested? Could other aircraft have similar unknown failures?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          My guess is Sully didn't choose the spot to put it down, rather he ran out of energy and took what he had. He didn't have any option for extending the glide, otherwise he would have chosen Teterborough.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                            Interesting....another glider pilot.....just like Sully was !
                            Sullys' comments on the landing:

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              One thing: we are seeing this as a failure of both the primary and alternative gear systems, and finding it hard to believe both would fail at the same time. But is it possible that the alternative gear system had failed long before this and the fault had gone undetected, and then only revealed when the center hydraulic system failed and they put it to use? How often is this system tested? Could other aircraft have similar unknown failures?
                              I'm not sure. My (limited) understanding is that the alternate system is simply to release the locks (which are the same than for the primary system) and let Newton bring the gear down, and Newton can't fail.

                              There are a number of issues that would block both system though. One is a lock to fail to release. Another is a foreign object (chocks, stowaway) blocking the gear extension, and yet another one is a mechanical jam in the extension gear. That said, I guess that any of them would affect only one gear, not all three at the same time. Except maybe something that "blocks" the order to release the locks.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                                Interesting....another glider pilot.....just like Sully was !
                                ... as was the AF447 co-pilot
                                Qualified Investigator: www.airdisaster.com (2006)
                                Career Mileage: http://my.flightmemory.com/reubee

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X