Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kev367th on September 14, 2005, 02:05:56 AM
-
Air Transt flight 236 - Airbus A320 that developed a fuel leak, pilot glided it 98 miles!!!! to a landing in the Azores.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ts236/photo.shtml
-
How far did the Air Canada Gimli a/c glide? It also ran out of fuel. :eek:
-
Just looked up a "Gimli Glider" web site & it had no exact numbers, but said that a glide speed of 220kts was picked & it gave a 2000 - 2500 fpm rate of decent, & something else about "12 miles" so if you like math you can probably estimate the winner...i dont see "98 miles" anywhere in the airdisaster.com page, just that they lost the last engine 10 minutes after being 100nm out.
http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html
-
I remember reading a nugget somewhere that the 747 actually had the best g/r around - anyone got data?
-
Debonair,
Was just curious about the distance the Gimli Glider flew and that it was another AC a/c. Thanks for the link.:)
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
I remember reading a nugget somewhere that the 747 actually had the best g/r around - anyone got data?
Not sure about that, but I remember reading an air incident report where a 747 pilot performed an aileron roll after losing an engine and screwing up the procedures. (poss Air China)
Correction to my origianl post - Not an A320, an A330.
-
I went & looked around the next for airliner glide ratios & found 15:1 pretty conistently for B747, so at a cruise elevation it could make about a 140nm gliding aproach providing it was straight in & no headwind, etc.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Not sure about that, but I remember reading an air incident report where a 747 pilot performed an aileron roll after losing an engine and screwing up the procedures. (poss Air China)
Correction to my origianl post - Not an A320, an A330.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_33_13/ai_55493380
The crew of a China Airlines 747SP on a 1985 flight over the Pacific to Los Angeles was luckier. At 41,000 feet the number four engine experienced a compressor stall. After it was shut down, the autopilot began compensating for the yaw created by the asymmetric thrust from the remaining three engines. However, the yaw pushed the aircraft into a roll. Over the next two minutes, the airplane plummeted 32,000 feet (about six miles), rolling some 60 degrees to the right with the noise pointed nearly straight down. The crew throttled the remaining three engines to idle power and pulled back on the yoke. Passing through 30,000 feet, at some 295 knots indicated airspeed (the 747SP has a design maneuvering airspeed, Va, of some 230 knots IAS), the captain was pulling 5 G's on the airplane, and the stresses literally were pulling pieces off. Fortunately, he was able to pull the airplane out of the dive at 9,500 feet. The much-relieved crew climbed back to 27,000 ft. and limped to a diversionary landing at San Francisco. Post-incident inspection revealed loss of the entire left elevator, most of the right elevator and the outer 30-32 feet of the horizontal stabilizer. Reportedly, the auxiliary power unit (APU) mounted in the tail had been ripped off the airplane under the high G loading and today rests at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
-
OK, i dont know how this relates, but it is like the previous post...actually NTSB tells the story better
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20021127X05535&ntsbno=DCA03IA005&akey=1
-
This was on the military channel I believe. Something about a leaking fuel line in the right wing I believe. They went to transfer the fuel in the left tank into the right tank, unfortunately all of the transferred fuel was leaked as well. If I remember correctly the fuel line was cracked because of vibrations in the wing.
-
15 to 1 ????
You sure about that?
A normal light aircraft glides easily, - at 8 to 1 or so.
-
24 August 2001; Air Transat A330-200;
near the Azores Islands, Portugal: The aircraft was cruising across the Atlantic at 39,000 feet (11,900 meters) on a flight from Toronto to Lisbon when the right engine lost power. The left engine quit about 13 minutes later. Both engines lost power as a result of fuel starvation. There had been a leak in the fuel system near the right engine, and an open crossfeed valve allowed fuel to be lost from both wing tanks. The leak had been noticed by the crew about an hour prior to the engines shutting down, and the aircraft was already diverting toward Lajes military airfield in the Azores. After the last engine lost power, the crew was able to glide for 20 minutes for about 115 miles (185 km) to Lajes airfield and avert a mid-ocean ditching.
http://www.airsafe.com/events/noengine.htm
-
Originally posted by Angus
15 to 1 ????
You sure about that?
A normal light aircraft glides easily, - at 8 to 1 or so.
Cessnas ~ 1 to 10 and bigger airliners 15-20 to 1 at best.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air
From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Subject: Re: unpowered glide ratios
Date: 19 Sep 94 01:28:35
In article ,
Thomas Sloane wrote:
>
>For some Boeing planes, or others, what are typical,
>unpowered, sustainable glide ratios?
Just in general, one can assume a glide ratio in excess of 20 to 1.
The 737 is around 22 to 1, depending on the exact model and configuration.
This is assuming the engines are at idle, or at least windmilling. It does
get worse if they are not turning at all.
Terry
--
Terry
drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com
-
wow that link at top game me 4 popups :mad:
-
Always thought that the airliners would fall like bricks.
What's the wingloading compared to a little aircraft BTW?
-
The big airliners do fall like bricks. The Gimili Glider page I looked at said rate of decent was 2000-2500 fpm, but the glide best glide speed is also very high & of course the airline guys are a bunch of alt monkeys
-
What the Gimli Glider link doesn't mention is that the 767 that glided into Gimli had no functioning vertical speed indicator so judging rate of descent and planning a descent profile was extemely difficult. So using this incident to judge the 767s gliding capability probably won't give an accurate figure. However, anyone unfortunate enough to use a 767 as a glider would probably be in a similar predicament and unable to judge descent rate. In fact the 767 was dropping much faster than Cpt. Pearson and F/O Quintal expected when at 9500ft Winnepep informed them that they still had 35 nm to go(to Winnepeg, the planned emergency destination).
I remember a story about a British Airways 747 (G-BDXH) that lost all engines (!) over Java in Indonesia in 1982. It had flown through a volcanic ash cloud, which resulted in all engines shutting down. They glided a fair distance before they got them running again. They landed safely in Jakarta and needles to say, the flight crew had lots of medals thrown at them for that one. It was a night time incident, so an unpowered descent and landing would have been disasterous.
The following comes from the investigation's recordings of the radio exchanges from this incident.(the 747s callsign was Speedbird 9):
Speedbird 9: "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, Speedbird 9, our position is 100 Miles south of Halim (one of Jakarta's airports). We have lost all four engines. We're descending and we're out of flight level 370."
Silence for a few moments...then
Air Traffic Control: "Jakarta, Speedbird 9, have you got a problem?"
Speedbird 9: Speedbird 9 (said carefully and slowly) we have lost all four engines, we are descending and we are out of level 360."
Another pause...
ATC:" Speedbird 9 understand you have lost number 4 engine?"
At this point, Captain Greaves (piloting the 747) turned to his co-pilot and said, " The F@*k Wit doesn't understand!"
Speedbird 9: (trying to control his frustration) Jakarta, Speedbird 9, (spoken very clearly and distinctly) we have lost ALL four engines, repeat ALL four engines. Now descending through flight level 350"
The Jakarta controller was still unable to understand but fortunately a Garuda Indonesian Airways flight on the same frequency interupted the exchange:
Garuda 875: "Jakarta, Garuda 875, Speedbird 9 has lost all four engines, he's lost ALL four engines."
At last Jakarta had got the message and Captain Greaves could get on with the matter in hand.
Oh the joys of international flying.
KD
-
Did you see some results of the Greek air disaster from the other day?
I've heard that the oxygen supply failed in the cockpit, but worked in the passanger area.
Anyway, the bottom line was that the Pilot and copilot could not co-operate due to language problems. So, they screwed up and fainted before solving the problem (quick descend to 15K), - leaving the aircraft to cruise untill it hit the ground.
-
Jeez!
I've yet to look at that one in detail. I didn't know about the language problem. Nasty. I suppose it was all Greek to him. Er, sorry...
-
Originally posted by KD303
I remember a story about a British Airways 747 (G-BDXH) that lost all engines (!) over Java in Indonesia in 1982. It had flown through a volcanic ash cloud, which resulted in all engines shutting down. They glided a fair distance before they got them running again. They landed safely in Jakarta and needles to say, the flight crew had lots of medals thrown at them for that one. It was a night time incident, so an unpowered descent and landing would have been disasterous.
The following comes from the investigation's recordings of the radio exchanges from this incident.(the 747s callsign was Speedbird 9):
Speedbird 9: "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, Speedbird 9, our position is 100 Miles south of Halim (one of Jakarta's airports). We have lost all four engines. We're descending and we're out of flight level 370."
Silence for a few moments...then
Air Traffic Control: "Jakarta, Speedbird 9, have you got a problem?"
Speedbird 9: Speedbird 9 (said carefully and slowly) we have lost all four engines, we are descending and we are out of level 360."
Another pause...
ATC:" Speedbird 9 understand you have lost number 4 engine?"
At this point, Captain Greaves (piloting the 747) turned to his co-pilot and said, " The F@*k Wit doesn't understand!"
Speedbird 9: (trying to control his frustration) Jakarta, Speedbird 9, (spoken very clearly and distinctly) we have lost ALL four engines, repeat ALL four engines. Now descending through flight level 350"
The Jakarta controller was still unable to understand but fortunately a Garuda Indonesian Airways flight on the same frequency interupted the exchange:
Garuda 875: "Jakarta, Garuda 875, Speedbird 9 has lost all four engines, he's lost ALL four engines."
At last Jakarta had got the message and Captain Greaves could get on with the matter in hand.
Oh the joys of international flying.
KD
The captains name was actually Eric Moody (http://www.ericmoody.com/) and he also made the understatement of the millenium!
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."
-
Absolutely interesting!!!!
(just not good before boarding an airliner perhaps)
Is there a website for stuff like that?
-
Maint had installed the wrong fuel pump on the Azores A3x0 flight.
Since the pump was a different size one of the fuel lines leading to it couldnt be fastened properly. Vibration from the engine caused the fuel line to separate from the pump and cause the leak.
The co-pilot noted that the fuel burn rate was off and did not match with what the insturments were telling them. The Pilot didnt believe the insturments and ignored them until the right engine quit. Then he became a believer.
Since the flight was at night (early AM), no one could see the fuel vapor streaming behind the aircraft.
They diverted to the Azores and landed hard and fast on the runway, stopping a mere 100 feet from the end of the runway and with all tires blown. They walked away.....good landing ;-)
The glide path on the Canadian flight was actually cut SHORT. They decided to land at an abandoned airport that was closer than the major airport. The pilot was an experience glider pilot, and used flat rudder turns to bleed both speed and alt to make the landing. They really surprised the folks who went to the airport to fly/drive model airplanes and cars.
Thats what I remember from the two stories....so you really can use the Canadian Flight to estimate a glide path. Oh, btw...they took a dozen top pilots, put them in a simulator to try to re-enact the emergency....all 12 crased the sim. Good glider pilot ;-)
-
Originally posted by mora
The captains name was actually Eric Moody]
Yeah, my mistake. I was actually quoting the F/O, SFO Roger Greaves, not the captain. I just put "Captain" before his name cos I'm brain dead.
Actually, I've flown extensively in Indonesia and I've never encountered anything quite so scarey, either volcanic or language related.
-
Originally posted by Softail
They really surprised the folks who went to the airport to fly/drive model airplanes and cars.
Taken from a Gimli Glider web page:
Only Gimli, the site of an abandoned Royal Canadian Air Force Base remained as a possible landing spot. It was 12 miles away. It wasn't in Air Canada's equivalent of Jeppensen manuals,but Quintal was familiar with it because he'd been stationed there in the service. Unknown to him and the controllers in Winnipeg, Runway 32L (left) of Gimli's twin 6800 foot runways had become inactive and was now used for auto racing. A steel guard rail had been installed down most of the southeastern portion of 32L, dividing it into a two lane dragstrip. This was the runway Pearson would ultimately try and land on, courting tragedy of epic proportions.
To say that runway 32L was being used for auto racing is perhaps an understatement. Gimli's inactive runway had been "carved up" into a variety of racing courses, including the aforementioned dragstrip. Drag races were perhaps the only auto racing event not taking place on July 23rd, 1983 since this was "Family Day" for the Winnipeg Sports Car Club. Go-cart races were being held on one portion of runway 32L and just past the dragstrip another portion of the runway served as the final straightaway for a road course. Around the edges of the straightaway were cars, campers, kids, and families in abundance. To land an airplane in the midst of all of this activity was certain disaster.
Six miles out Pearson began his final approach onto what was formerly RCAFB Gimli. Pearson says his attention was totally concentrated on the airspeed indicator from this point on. Approaching runway 32L he realized he was too high and too fast, and slowed to 180 knots. Lacking divebrakes, he did what any sailplane pilot would do: He crossed the controls and threw the 767 into a vicious sideslip. Slips are normally avoided on commercial flights because of the the tremendous buffeting it creates, unnerving passengers. As he put the plane into a slip some of Flight 143's passengers ended up looking at nothing but blue sky, the others straight down at a golf course. Says Quintal, "It was an odd feeling. The left wing was down, so I was up compared to Bob. I sort of looked down at him, not sideways anymore."
The only problem was that the slip further slowed the RAT, costing Pearson precious hydraulic pressure. Would he be able to wrestle the 767's dipped wing up before the plane struck the ground? Trees and golfers were visible out the starboard side passengers' windows as the 767 hurtled toward the threshold at 180 knots, 30-50 knots faster than normal. The RAT didn't supply "juice" to the 767's flaps or slats so the landing was going to be hot. Pearson didn't recover from the slip until the very last moment. A passenger reportedly said "Christ, I can almost see what clubs they are using." Copilot Quintal suspected Pearson hadn't seen the guardrail and the multitude of people and cars down the runway. But at this point it was too late to say anything. A glider only gets one chance at a landing,and they were committed. Quintal bit his lip and remained silent.
Why did Pearson select 32L instead of 32R? Gimli was uncontrolled so Pearson had to rely on visual cues. It was approaching dusk. Runway 32L was a bit wider, having been the primary runway at Gimli in prior year. Light stantions still led up to 32L. And the "X" painted on 32L, indicating its inactive status, was reportedly quite faded or non-existent. Having made an initial decision to go for 32L the wide separation of the runways would have made it impossible for Pearson to divert to 32R at the last moment. Pearson says he, "Never even saw 32R, focusing instead on airspeed, attitude, and his plane's relationship to the threshold of 32L."
The 767 silently leveled off and the main gear touched down as spectators, racers, and kids on bicycles fled the runway. The gigantic Boeing was about to become a 132 ton, silver bulldozer. One member of the Winnipeg Sports Car Club reported he was walking down the dragstrip, five gallon can full of hi-octane racing fuel in hand, when he looked up and saw the 767 headed right for him. Pearson stood on the brakes the instant the main gear touched down. An explosion rocked the 767's cabin as two tires blew. The nose gear, which hadn't locked down, collapsed with a bang.. The nose of the 767 slammed against the tarmac, bounced, then began throwing a three hundred foot shower of sparks. The right engine nacelle struck the ground. The 767 reached the tail end of the dragstrip and the nose grazed a few of the guardrail's wooden support poles. (The dragstrip began in the middle of the runway with the guardrail extending towards 32L's threshold) Pearson applied extra right brake so the main gear would straddle the guardrail. Would the sports car fans be able to get out of the way, or would Pearson have to veer the big jet off the runway to avoid hitting stragglers?
The 767 came to a stop on its nose, mains, and right engine nacelle less than a hundred feet from spectators, barbecues and campers.
I've run my Camaro at Gimli Dragways a few times... actually met some people who were there the day the Gimli Glider came calling. They had some very cool stories.