Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bigsky on December 09, 2003, 06:02:36 PM
-
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Special%20Reports%20Hack.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=98&rnd=924.1514800606494
-
Geez they where lucky to land that thing:(
-
kudos to the pilot that got it back on the ground.
-
Landed on engine thrust only?
Wow.
No controls at all. Damn. I've brought down B17s in AH with no elevators on engine thrust but never without ailerons as well. Cannot even imagine the terror involved.
No hydraulics. That equals no elevators, no ailerons, no rudder and no wheel breaks, right?
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
Those pilots are lucky and good to have landed that thing.
Looks like most of it was fire damage. How much damage does an SA-7 do by itself (ie it doesn't start a fire)? Fortunately looks like not enough to bring down an airliner.
-
what's the story behind this?
i'm a little...er way...out of the loop here.
-
The biggest thing this proved was the survivability of Pod mounted Jet engined A/C versus internal arrangement...
-
Did you guys ever see the pic of an Israeli F-15 which landed missing the entire left wing ?
I'll have to look it up again, it was amazing.
-
While that article seems reliable there has been a lot of speculation about the actual events in some of the professional pilots forums.
As a non professional but somewhat in the know person I would say that the plane didn't suffer a total hydraulic failure.
The plane in question(A300) has three independent hydraulic systems and it uses ailerons and spoilers(speedbrakes) for roll control. If the damage is restricted to the area shown in the pictures, then only the aileron actuators were damaged and that would propabaly have breached 2 of the 3 hydraulic systems. However those systems have fuses and even if they fail there's the third system which operates spoilers differentially for roll control and elevator.
So my guess is that they still had some roll and elevator control left but no flaps or wheelbrakes. If they indeed had a total hydraulic failure then the flightcrew did the most outstanding feat in landing that plane with that little damage, using only engine thrust and elevator trim for control.
Anyway, here we can see why those "bus drivers" are paid so well and have earned it once again.
-
Increadable.
-
Lucky crew, engineers at Airbus should be proud. I know when that Airbus made the dead stick landing in Canada our RAT engineers at Sundstrand (who made the ram air turbine which saved everybody's life) had a big party. :)
-
Lucky crew, engineers at Airbus should be proud. I know when that Airbus made the dead stick landing in Canada our RAT engineers at Sundstrand (who made the ram air turbine which saved everybody's life) had a big party.
You mean the Canucks that set the A300 down in the Azores?
either way, nice bit of flying on both counts!
-
You're correct, I was thinking of the 1983 incident.
And IIRC the 2001 incident was caused by crew and maintenance errors, so I'd say "nice engineering" rather than "nice flying". :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Did you guys ever see the pic of an Israeli F-15 which landed missing the entire left wing ?
I'll have to look it up again, it was amazing.
whoa, i'd like to see that! find it please =]
-
rode an airbus 330 going back from holiday 2 years ago. 30mins into the flight and the captain announced that we were to divert and land at a nearby airport. the plane was acting sluggish and the attendants were giving us fake smiles and this guy in first class was shaking while reading his newspaper. we were getting anxious but we made it down in one piece. my cousin who works in that airport picked us up and told us we lost an engine midflight:eek:
that was one interesting experience
-
I doubt as well that all the hydraulics were lost...
First of all the hull wasnt damaged and unarguably an engine was still running and APU seemed to be available as well.
Just not a chance for all hydraulics to be lost.
If would be, then it would be totally crappy engineering on the plane :D
-
F-15 wingless landing (http://tailslide.firelight.dynip.com/f15wing.asp)
Gimli Glider (http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html)
-
You guys are really something.
Here is an account of some engineer who was part of the investigating team. He says that the aircraft lost all hyudralics. You (that is, the people sitting at home, reading about this on the inTARDnet) say that he is wrong.
Hillarious...in a sad and twisted way.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You guys are really something.
Here is an account of some engineer who was part of the investigating team. He says that the aircraft lost all hyudralics. You (that is, the people sitting at home, reading about this on the inTARDnet) say that he is wrong.
Hillarious...in a sad and twisted way.
I'm sure Trolltlund knows the person who wrote that article... Surely an "engineer who was part of the investigating team" is going to write his findings straight to the "inTARDnet" only after weeks of the incident...very professional.:rolleyes:
-
Hortlund,
I don't count the article as very reliable on the engineer's account...
It could been said by someone else... the words could been understood wrong by the writer... etc. etc.
Plus there isnt full conversation available.
and if they had hydraulics blown out, why were flaps still working better than basic controls?
Sure it must been hard to control, like any plane with a part of wing blown away, but having bits blown off the wing doesn't exactly render hydraulics useless.
I don't see any ... any damage at all to the fuselage or right wing.
and if they had all hydraulics blown out, they wouldnt have done the landing in just ~16 minutes with a go-around included.
Anyway, I'll be waiting for the throughout accident investigation report before relying on any 'all hydraulics lost' tales.
-
Lets entertain Hortlund with some more speculation. Imagine the loss of lift that damage must have caused. As a result there would have been signifcant tendency to roll to the left, which they would have had to counter with differential thrust, which mostly affects planes yaw not roll.
Ok they managed to stabilize the plane after being hit at 8000 feet, and make an approach in a very uncoordinated condition yawing heavily to the right(because of the thrust from the left engine which is countering the roll). Then they have to go around and position the plane again for the approach. This time they land smoothly to the runway(no blown tires except one) All this accomplished in just sixteen minutes.
Yes pure speculation, but I feel that all the things in that article just don't match.
-
*shrug* bottom line is, you guys are speculating, the guy writing that text has examined the aircraft and presumably talked to the crew.
Fishu, where did you get the information that the flaps were working? And if you remember the 1989 crash of FL370 at Sioux City where shrapnel from the no.2 engine damaged all three main hydraulic lines in the tail, causing a total loss of hydraulics aboard the aircraft.
Mora keep speculating. At the end of the day, you are sitting here guessing, and that guy examined the aircraft in question.
-
There's no way of knowing if the person who wrote that article has even seen the plane IRL, after all this is inTARDnet. I wouln't be too surprised if they indeed lost all hydraulics, the article just doesn't feel 100% reliable.
About the flaps, looking at the pictures the flaps and slats don't seem to be extended and part of the flap is missing.
-
Guess old Boeing still makes pretty tough birds....
-
I just heard on the radio that a USAF C-17 got hit by a missile in Iraq. They said an engine exploded, but it got down safely. Can anyone confirm this?
This needs to stop :mad:
-
From AP newswire:
"The guerrilla strike on the C-17, which took place on Tuesday, injured one of the 16 passengers and crew and highlighted the danger to air traffic at Baghdad's airport, a key entry point where last month a ground-fired missile hit a DHL cargo plane, which also landed safely. Just as in the DHL strike, the C-17 had just lifted off from Baghdad airport before dawn when its engine exploded and it was forced to land."
-
I bet that pilot could land a 262 with one engine, one wing, and no horizontal stab.
Dayam.
-
missed this one :)
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Guess old Boeing still makes pretty tough birds....
:rofl
Hahem ... A-300-B4
-
Looks like your boys hit it pretty good Straffo!
-
Originally posted by straffo
missed this one :)
:rofl
Hahem ... A-300-B4
my bad - should rephrase - I see those pesky Europeans make some pretty tough birdsat their French factory!!
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Looks like your boys hit it pretty good Straffo!
What ?
Do you want me to troll about this again ?
tss tss ... lack of context here :)
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
my bad - should rephrase - I see those pesky Europeans make some pretty tough birdsat their French factory!!
So far it can be yours also ,before leaving Airbus the brit were working on the wing (or engine) if I'm not mistaken.
And Airbus is not French btw :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
What ?
Do you want me to troll about this again ?
tss tss ... lack of context here :)
Just congratulating you and your cause for pulling off such a brave and well considered attack! Bravo!
-
_Shadenfreude_ I checked my doc. it's Hawker Siddeley wich made the wing, and the engine were either Pratt & Whitney JT-9D or GE CF6.
-
Originally posted by straffo
_Shadenfreude_ I checked my doc. it's Hawker Siddeley wich made the wing, and the engine were either Pratt & Whitney JT-9D or GE CF6.
Damn, I could see everyone getting into a major froth if it was French.....
-
hehe :)
Warning when writing that "French" word you'll have to use the lowest font size otherwise you take the risk of waking-up some "Deep Ones" or "Cthulhu" himself :)
-
Baghdad Airbus Landed Without Hydraulics?
Company officials won't confirm it but, if it's true, the missile attack on a DHL Airbus last month in Baghdad is one hell of a flying story. Shortly after the incident, AVweb received word that the missile knocked out all three hydraulics systems on the A300 and the unidentified crew had to make the emergency landing using only differential thrust for directional control. DHL has steadfastly refused to confirm the story. In an e-mail to AVweb Wednesday, company spokesman Claus Korfmacher said he wouldn't comment until all the various investigations were completed. "Unfortunately, the situation hasn't changed," said Korfmacher. "Investigations are still ongoing therefore we cannot provide any additional information. This applies for our flight crew members as well." According to an Aviation Week and Space Technology story, an unnamed source said the Airbus lost hydraulics about a minute after the missile hit. The source also said the pilot of the Airbus had recently attended a seminar in which one of the speakers was retired United Air Lines Captain Al Haynes. He was the pilot who crash landed a DC-10 at Sioux City, Iowa, in 1989 on engine thrust alone after an engine failure took out his aircraft's hydraulics (see AVweb's interview with Haynes). Aviation Week quotes the Belgian Cockpit Association Secretary General Pierre Ghyoot as saying the organization is planning to give an award to the DHL pilots.
So... according to this they did lose all 3 systems.
Link to full AVWeb issue is http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/163-full.html
-
I guess we'll have to wait for the final report for confirmation. If it did lose all hydraulics this is going to be the most amazing flying story ever by a wide margin. The cvr transcript will be interesting to read, they might even release the actual recording as all went well.
-
Has anyone seen my SA7 missles? They seem to have gone missing?
-
I'll admit up front that I know nothing of A300 construction, but don't most planes usually have the wheel brakes on a completely independent system from the rest of the hydraulic components?
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
I'll admit up front that I know nothing of A300 construction, but don't most planes usually have the wheel brakes on a completely independent system from the rest of the hydraulic components?
Yes
Also, the flight control system may be able to handle failure modes where only engine thrust is available. I'm not sure how it works on each Airbus model but I know that the newest ones have control algorithms which adapt to different failure modes and use all available means to carry out the pilot's flight control inputs via yoke and rudder. If that is how this plane landed then it would be an unprecedented triumph for Airbus engineers and would be a vindication of their oft-maligned reliance on automation.
-
I googled this up:
http://www.chipsplace.com/helpful/Airbus/Hydraulics.htm
It's about A320 but I believe the hydraulics are quite similar.
"Green system – 1 pump: engine driven. Two power sources: engine 1 pump & PTU
Blue system – 2 pumps: 1 electric and the emergency RAT. Two sources of power: electric pump & RAT pump.
Yellow system – 3 pumps: 1 engine, 1 electric & 1 hand pump. 4 sources of power: engine 2 pump, electric pump, hand pump and PTU.
Green is the “heavy” system with landing gear, flaps/slats, N/W STRG and Normal Brakes.
Blue is basically for redundancy with the only unique items on it being L & R spoiler 3 and the Emergency Generator which are “backup” items themselves.
The alternate brakes are powered by the Yellow hydraulic system and will automatically become selected if Green hydraulic is insufficient for normal brakes. Yellow brakes have the same capabilities as normal brakes except for autobrake capability."
So it appears that the brakes are powered by 2 of the hydraulic systems.
I know I have too much time on my hands...:p
-
Weird, no mention of primary flight controls on any of those circuits. Is Airbus using electric actuators for primaries? Or is that info wrong?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yes
Also, the flight control system may be able to handle failure modes where only engine thrust is available. I'm not sure how it works on each Airbus model but I know that the newest ones have control algorithms which adapt to different failure modes and use all available means to carry out the pilot's flight control inputs via yoke and rudder. If that is how this plane landed then it would be an unprecedented triumph for Airbus engineers and would be a vindication of their oft-maligned reliance on automation.
I remember reading that it was developed by NASA after Sioux City. It was implied on the MD-11 but no other planes to my knowledge(not sure about this). DC-10 series planes have the advantage of the tail engine which can be used to control horizontal axis aswell.
Edit: Info about flight controls is here: http://www.chipsplace.com/helpful/Airbus/Flight%20Controls.htm#FlightControls
Index: http://www.chipsplace.com/helpful/Airbus/Airbus320TOC.htm#TOC
Edit#2 A320 has FBW flight controls unlike A300 which is traditional '70s tech.
-
Actually the DC-10 incident was caused by uncontained failure of the center engine. They only had the wing engines to work with.
-
See if you can find a manual for an A300 (the type involved in Bagdhad). Between Creamo and Toad and I we can figure out what the deal is.
Full designation: A300B4-203F
-
That's right. I was referring to the MD-11 design, where horizontal control is also available.
G'night, enough tech talk for tonight. 3am here and I have a "little christmas" tomorrow with some standard sauna&nudity&booze.:D
-
Actually MD-11 and DC-10 are basically the same airplane. Maybe I am misunderstanding you?
Anyways, have fun and drink a lot. :)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
See if you can find a manual for an A300 (the type involved in Bagdhad). Between Creamo and Toad and I we can figure out what the deal is.
Full designation: A300B4-203F
I'm trying to get one from a friend (but that dweeb keep flying all around this planet so I don't expect the document soon :)).
As soon as I get it I'll send it to you.
I've found some information about the A320 (if you want I can try to get the manual of the 320 too)
Unfortunatly it's in french ...
http://faq.bigip.mine.nu:8008/dom/dominique17.php
http://faq.bigip.mine.nu:8008/dom/dominique27.php
http://faq.bigip.mine.nu:8008/dom/dominique7.php
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Actually MD-11 and DC-10 are basically the same airplane. Maybe I am misunderstanding you?
Anyways, have fun and drink a lot. :)
Well there's quite a lot differencies really. The info I have is from a documentary I saw years ago, but basically MD-11 has a backup system like you described, and propably new Airbusses have one as well then, would make sense. Do you know about this Straffo?
-
From other sources I can't reveal there was a lost of 2 circuit 1st followed by the 3rd.
I don't understand your question Mora ?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yes
Also, the flight control system may be able to handle failure modes where only engine thrust is available. I'm not sure how it works on each Airbus model but I know that the newest ones have control algorithms which adapt to different failure modes and use all available means to carry out the pilot's flight control inputs via yoke and rudder. If that is how this plane landed then it would be an unprecedented triumph for Airbus engineers and would be a vindication of their oft-maligned reliance on automation.
Straffo, I was referring to this system that Funked decribed, where the aircraft could be controlled by differential thrust from pilots stick inputs. I've never heard of Airbus having this system, can you confirm this?
-
Dunno but I'll ask my favorite A320 monkey errr pilot ;)
I just figured that Funked was speaking of the A300 I guess the answer is no as the 300 got traditional control and no electrical/software controled one .
Except if it was changed for this particuliar version,but I doubt as the cost of this kind of retrofit would be extremly huge.
-
I forgot to mention that I mean the never models, so please go ahead and ask.
-
The answer I got is :
Negative for the A300 and A320 ,it's not possible (unknown for the 380)
-
Thanks Straffo.
Here's some info about the differential thrust studies conducted by NASA: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1998/PDF/H-2232.pdf
-
Originally posted by straffo
hehe :)
Warning when writing that "French" word you'll have to use the lowest font size otherwise you take the risk of waking-up some "Deep Ones" or "Cthulhu" himself :)
Just set a poodle on them.....
-
Thx Straffo. It makes sense that A300 (older model) wouldn't have anything like that. I know the newer ones have control systems that adapt to failures of actuation systems. It would be interesting to know if it goes as far as using engine thrust.
-
Actually ,I reread your post and asked my favorites monkeys :)
They said that according to their knowledge the software doesn't use differential thrust even in case of failure.
Afterall they are supposed to be intelligent monkey (at least they pretend to be but I've some proof that with a slow amount of alcohol they can fail any basic test :D)
-
Help me understand two things please,
1. I was to understand that the primary flight controls were elect. on an Airbus not hydraulic.
2. How do you control and twin engine aircraft with differential power with only one engine making power?
Thanks,
-
[list=1]
- The command are Electric on A320 (*) but not for a A300 like in this case
- I don't know if the left engine was down (I don't think so)
[/list=1]
The engine are (IMO) not controled by hydraulic even in a old A300.
The usage of electric command for the engine control started with Concorde years before the creation of the A300 ... but I can be wrong.
(*) some are still mecanical like rudder if I'm not mistaken.
-
I'm pretty sure there are no mechanical backups in any Airbus. On the FBW models the rudder is traditionally controlled, and in case of a total electrical breakdown the pilot still has control by rudder pedals and elevator trim wheel.
This is where I got the info on the FBW, you might find it interesting: http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm