LOT Polish Airlines flight LO 016 EWR-WAW Emergency Landing

[Evan]

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

Originally Posted by Gabriel

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?

[Deadstick]

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.

[Peter_K]

Originally Posted by brianw999

Interesting....another glider pilot.....just like Sully was !

Sullys' comments on the landing:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video...iref=allsearch

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Evan

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.

[reubee]

Originally Posted by brianw999

Interesting....another glider pilot.....just like Sully was !

... as was the AF447 co-pilot

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by reubee

... as was the AF447 co-pilot

Was he? Even more amazing...

[justLOT787]

Video from inside the plane upon crash landing

http://www.tvn24.pl/0,1723138,0,1,hu...wiadomosc.html

[mpe]

Originally Posted by Evan

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?

Apparently the alternate gear relies on an electric motor. The centre hydraulic system's primary power is provided by two electric pumps.

So maybe some sort of electrical failure is involved. However there's also an air driven pump which can power C system.

[guamainiac]

Evan is quite correct. There is probably a lot of truth in the glider pilots ability to keep things in perspective with the engines out however.

You are used to forced landings since every landing is in essence, a forced landing. Practice is nice but coming into a farm field with instructor or examiner ready give the throttle back is close but not the same.

This fellow did a marvelous job and that does not detract from his performance but how much difference is there between a normal approach and an approach without gear. Probably about 10' or 12 feet?

He had the luxury of a go-round if things did not line up, Sullenberger had no such luck. He was going down.

Regarding the connection with AF 447 .... it's absurd.

Glider pilot or not, the FO would have no shot at night unless he had a very, very, very bright lights and was aware of the situation. Perhaps if the lights of Smolensk were trained on ... I have never even heard of a glider night operation and probably for a good reason.

Regarding foam or no foam, I am surprised that some feel that foam is academic at best. I thought it lessened the friction and reduced the heat and spark potential?

[Peter_K]

Originally Posted by guamainiac

He had the luxury of a go-round if things did not line up, Sullenberger had no such luck.

I wonder if he did. Tower offered to put another layer of foam on the runway, which would take about 15 min. but they refused saying that they may not have enough fuel for that.

[Peter_K]

Down under:

[Deadstick]

I know of glider pilots that have flown on a very bright moonlit night. I wouldn't do it.

[Peter_K]

Originally Posted by Deadstick

I know of glider pilots that have flown on a very bright moonlit night. I wouldn't do it.

I knew a glider pilot who did a loop... around a bridge. I also wouldn't do it.

[justLOT787]

That picture down under looks not that bad. To me it looks like she might be rebuild and flying again. Is damage like that easy to fix and how long will it take to get her flying or she will never fly again? What you think? Patch her up, put new engines on fix the hydraulics and we are good to go.

[guamainiac]

I used to know a guy like that. He took out our tow plane in the pattern.

Sadly, he took two other good people with him.

I refused to launch any planes with him anywhere near the pattern (club field), and got grief for it. What he was doing; his final act speaking of loops, he would fly the pattern "hot", do a low high speed pass and into a loop to land.

He never saw the tow plane when he looked down to clear the field prior to his "stunt", it wasn't on the ground, it was at 800 feet and dead ahead of him.

[guamainiac]

Nice pic Peter (makes me cringe being a former tin-bender), I guess he burned off and dumped every spare ounce of fuel.

That had got to make you wonder, not second guess or criticize, but wonder what the right thing to do is .. by the book. Dump fuel or leave enough for another pass?

[Peter_K]

Originally Posted by justLOT787

That picture down under looks not that bad. To me it looks like she might be rebuild and flying again. Is damage like that easy to fix and how long will it take to get her flying or she will never fly again? What you think? Patch her up, put new engines on fix the hydraulics and we are good to go.

Very likely she will fly again but it will take more detailed tests and inspections than just looking at the bottom side and kicking the tires.

[guamainiac]

Speed tape and a little TLC?

[Peter_K]

Originally Posted by guamainiac

Speed tape and a little TLC?

And off to some African carrier it goes .

[Highkeas]

Originally Posted by Peter_K

Very likely she will fly again but it will take more detailed tests and inspections than just looking at the bottom side and kicking the tires.

Major aircraft companies have teams that specialize in repairing damaged aircraft. Here is info on the Boeing team.
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-to...epair_247.html

I am intrigued what will happen to a composite aircraft such as the 787 in this type situation.