www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15543209
Amazing landing by LOT pilot at Warsaw after failure of landing gear:
|
Can't view it on the link, but just watched it on Youtube.
Smooth landing considering well done the pilot and all those responsible,
but i had to chuckle at one of the comments...smoother than a Ryanair landing on wheels.
|
CAN line failure?
Very nice job of putting it down safely.
|
|
Anybody seen the duck tape?
|
I wonder if everyone got the message about putting away their laptops and Blackberries this time. Nervous fliers worry about all the wrong things - it's not the capabilities of the aircraft and crew that bother me; it's those of my fellow passengers who are plugged into another world, and who are between me and the emergency exit.
No doubt the details of this one will emerge - and there'll be some 'miracle' guff in the cheap media - but this looks like an admirably professional job by the crew. I may have cause to fly with LOT soon, and this won't put me off.
|
|
They say old style soviet bloc pilots are the best. Due the sheer number of emergency events they used to endure flying the badly maintained Ill sheds.
|
>> I wonder if everyone got the message about putting away their laptops and Blackberries this
>> time. Nervous fliers worry about all the wrong things - it's not the capabilities of
>> the aircraft and crew that bother me; it's those of my fellow passengers who are
>> plugged into another world, and who are between me and the emergency exit.
>>
Mate of mine was on that 777 flight into Heathrow that nearly didn't make it back from China, there were people bickering about taking their shoes off, grabbing their laptops out of the OH lockers and all sorts. Then one guy lit a fag as soon as he was off the slide, despite the heady smell of avgas.
In terms of this landing then I was surprised they didn't put foam down the runway, or is that just something they do in Hollywood films?
|
>> In terms of this landing then I was surprised they didn't put foam down the
>> runway, or is that just something they do in Hollywood films?
>>
There used to be a couple of RAF bases (Manston in Kent was one) equipped to do this. In the BA case there wouldn't have been time. The crew only recognised the problem late on in the approach when applying power to catch drag from flaps, undercart etc.
|
Well heres a "conspiracy" theory I once heard in a pub mass debate:
The brace position they (Airlines) tell you to adopt, (hands behind head) is actually designed to kill you outright (same principle as hanging) when the rapid forward motion of the airliner is retarded either on impact or by obstruction.
It is Alledged that the Aiurlines would rather pay a one-off compensation claim for death, than the ongoing claims/support for severly disabled people over what could be the many remaining years of life.
|
I don't quite follow that. You can stay sitting upright and crash deceleration will smash your skull into the seat in front of you or you can put you head against the seat, padded with a pillow or item of clothing perhaps; that's got to be a better option, surely? In the Kegworth crash many people had double fractures of their lower limbs as the deceleration ripped all the seats off the floor and seat finish up in a heap at the front of the cabin and the brace position wouldn't have helped them.
www.snopes.com/travel/airline/brace.asp
|
|
If they were serious about crash survivability, all seats would face the back of the aircraft.
|
>>If they were serious about crash survivability, all seats would face the back of the aircraft.<<
Thats exactly the point.. They dont, and "They" aren`t! £££££ or$$$$$$$$
|
|
Wouldn't the same argument apply to cars?
|
probably why so many baby seats are rear facing.
Would make driving interesting tho` using a "front-view" mirror!
|
>> Would make driving interesting tho` using a "front-view" mirror!
Captain Scarlet
Last edited by: Focus on Wed 2 Nov 11 at 13:33
|
>> >> Would make driving interesting tho` using a "front-view" mirror!
>>
>> Captain Scarlet
>>
LOL, I was just thinking 'like an SPV' :-)
|
>> >> >> Would make driving interesting tho` using a "front-view" mirror!
Be a bit disconcerting if some of your fellow passengers didn't have a reflection....wooo is anybody there...;)
|
>> >> >> Would make driving interesting tho` using a "front-view" mirror!
>> >>
>> >> Captain Scarlet
>> >>
>>
>> LOL, I was just thinking 'like an SPV' :-)
wonder if they had airbags in the headrests then?
|
|
Only for passengers. The RAF have rear facing seats in their trooping aircraft, except the C130 which has sideways seats. The pilots face forward which seems sensible!
|
Kegworth's an interesting one. Fifty feet higher and they'd have cleared the m/way embankment and maybe even the airfield boundary. Even outside the field the appraoch lights are probably designed to snap if hit and apart from the A road it's pretty free of obstructions.
OTOH if the heathrow 777 had been fifty feet lower it'd have landed east of the A30 or on Hatton Cross Station.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 2 Nov 11 at 13:19
|
The problem is that they have vehicles to dispense foam onto fires and if you used one to foam a runway it wouldn't be available to put out a fire so they would have to buy, equip and man another vehicle just for the very rare times when an aircraft needs a foam strip. LOT seemed to do very well without one.
Manston was picked as the RAF didn't use it much, it is close to the London airports and it has a double width runway, a hangover from when it was used as a landing site for damaged WW2 bombers, retuning from Boche bashing!
|
I can't imagine bracing yourself would have any beneficial effect in the event of an aircraft hitting anything solid (like the ground or a mountain for example). Strikes me it's just something to do to take your mind off the inevitable. Holding your head between your knees surely only improves the chances of your final moments being spent shoving your head up your own fundament. I'd ask them for a couple of decent malts instead I think...
:-)
|
|
No but it may help in a not too violent deceleration, as might have occurred if LOT had gone off the runway and decelerated more harshly.
|
All the more reason to get on the shorts. Less chance of spilling it if you ask for a decent sized tumbler.
:-)
|
>> All the more reason to get on the shorts. Less chance of spilling it if
>> you ask for a decent sized tumbler.
>>
My mate could fall asleep on a bar stool, fall off, land in crumpled heap on the floor and never spill a drop from a full pint.
.;)
|
>> There used to be a couple of RAF bases (Manston in Kent was one) equipped
>> to do this. In the BA case there wouldn't have been time. The crew only
>> recognised the problem late on in the approach when applying power to catch drag from
>> flaps, undercart etc.
Realised after I'd posted that q about foam related to LOT and not the BA Heathrow accident. If foam is to be layed it needs time and planning.
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhLJDm1_CbQ&feature=youtu.be
Just seen another clip of this event. This one shows what a beautiful soft landing this was.
|
It was wasn't it?
Pictures of the underside here - they might even be able to use the aeroplane again.
www.pprune.org/rumours-news/467899-polish-lot-767-wheels-up-landing-12.html#post6787880
|
|
Repair has been discussed on an aviation forum and thinking is that as the aircraft is 12 years old it might not be economic. However, the landing was so smooth jacking it up, getting the wheels down and repairing some engine nacelles and fuselage underbody panels might be enough.
|
|
Looks as if the runway was covered in some white substance (from that rear shot)
|
There was foam laid apparently.
There's been a bit of discussion on pprune about the greater necessity for foam where there are composite materials used in the aircraft's construction (B787/A380) which will ignite at much lower temperatures than the older all metal structures, with a greater probability of fuel fires in similar emergency landings.
In this case there were hours to prepare, and the facilities were available to lay foam. Where there is less time available or such facilities don't exist, the composite aircraft will potentially be less safe.
|
The American pilot who ditched his Airbus in the Hudson did a pretty good job too.
I reckon that his training as a military pilot helped a great deal (they must do loads of emergency training - stalls, flame outs etc)
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhLJDm1_CbQ&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> Just seen another clip of this event. This one shows what a beautiful soft landing
>> this was.
>>
Oh yes, plenty of foam in evidence there, I'm happy now.
|
|
And me - spamcan - I wanted it to be thus. A proper Hollywood stunt thingy.
|
I'd read before seeing any of this on here they'd laid something to stop sparks or something. Possibly foam.
What a good landing that was! Obviously not go in the normal sense. When my wife saw it on the news she said she was surprised but glad that such a landing was possible. I agreed. I makes you realise planes are safe to travel in most of the time. Assuming you use well maintained fleets.
I can vouch for aircraft from one travel company knowing about what goes on to maintain them.
With this particular landing it was smoother than most I've been on and they used the undercarriage!
I do wonder if that hadn't been practiced in a simulator though. Can our pilot comment? Did he become the Ferret btw?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 3 Nov 11 at 22:20
|
|
The two RyanAir landings I've experienced went straight in at No 1 and 2 in roughness in my personal top ten.
|
Never tried RyanAir. Had flights booked in 2006 and couldn't go so tried to cancel. You can't. I told them I won't be travelling and I know I can't get the money back so please resell them. They came back and said 'you might still decide to travel'. I said I wouldn't... but alas they had no way of flagging me as not travelling.
I find it surprising as RyanAir charge for so many extras. Selling three seats twice must appeal surely?
|
>> The two RyanAir landings I've experienced went straight in at No 1 and 2 in
>> roughness in my personal top ten.
>>
I thought jumbo jets, took off, and landed them selves - At least that's what I was told, that the pilot was only there if something went wrong.
If they do take of and land themselves, then is it the case that Ryan air did not buy that bit of software or the cheaper version to keep costs down one wonders.
I have ever only flown to Bristol from Newcastle in my Entire life however next year I am flying to New York for my Honeymoon - Mixed feelings about it nervous and excited at the same time (the flight that is) - Considering getting my partner to drug me at take off, and wake me up when we get there. ;-)
|
|
Google "fly themselves" site:salon.com for a comprehensive rebuttal of that idea from a 767 first officer who writes a regular and informative - if occasionally repetitive - column on the realities of commercial flying.
|
Ryanair don't skimp on the aircraft, unless you count cabin trimmings. The fleet is all new 737-800s IIRC.
As far as landing's concerned, there's a lot to be said for banging it on firmly - better than floating halfway down the runway, according to my CPL friend. Maybe that's the Ryanair policy.
They are also usually on a quick turnround, so maybe they are hoping for an earlier runway exit as well;-)
I've used Ryanair a lot, and never felt unduly concerned about safety (as opposed to customer service!)
|
>> Ryanair don't skimp on the aircraft, unless you count cabin trimmings. The fleet is all
>> new 737-800s IIRC.
Our resident pilot had a different take on this. His view is they skimp on optional extras an example was automatic weather uploads.
|
>> I thought jumbo jets, took off, and landed them selves - At least that's what
>> I was told, that the pilot was only there if something went wrong.
I can happily refute this in that the last two years on the A320, I've only ever seen one autoland and during that time the aircraft thought it an excellent idea to aim for the terminal instead of the runway, so it wasn't exactly an runaway success.
Autolands are uncommon for many reasons, the primary one being that extra protection to the ILS (instrument landing system) needs to be put in place at the airport - for example, restricted areas are enforced near the transmitters and a large part of the infrastructure needs to be switched over to diesel generators.
No jet can take-off by itself. The autopilot is not even on the minimum equipment list, so we could, in theory, fly the plane quite legally (albiet below 29,000 ft) without it.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Fri 4 Nov 11 at 14:01
|
>> And me - spamcan - I wanted it to be thus. A proper Hollywood stunt
>> thingy.
>>
My late father was part of the fire crew at Luton Airport in the 1950s, so I consider myself an expert on this sort of stuff ;-)))
All this 767 needed was an 'Airplane' style convoy of emergency vehicles including hot dog vans, tanks etc.
|
>>My late father was part of the fire crew at Luton Airport in the 1950s
My parents were friends with one of them. Lived in Felmersham road IIRC. I remember him telling me what a main ingredient of foam was - urea!
|
>> >>My late father was part of the fire crew at Luton Airport in the 1950s
>>
>> My parents were friends with one of them. Lived in Felmersham road IIRC. I remember
>> him telling me what a main ingredient of foam was - urea!
>>
It's never occurred to me before, but I have no idea where my parents lived in Luton before I was born; must check with my mum at the weekend.
|
Old memories coming back.
We used to be invited to firefighting competitions. A race between teams to roll out hoses, join them and hit a target at a distance with the water jet. Laporte sports ground springs to mind, alas no more: g.co/maps/48d8c
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=scUoqzG67-w&feature=player_embedded
An uninterrupted view of the landing from the other side of the runway.
It shows very clearly how much runway was required before it came to a halt.
|
|
A very interesting video. I did the 'auto translate' and the comments below are gibberish!
|
>> Old memories coming back.
>>
>> We used to be invited to firefighting competitions. A race between teams to roll out
>> hoses, join them and hit a target at a distance with the water jet. Laporte
>> sports ground springs to mind, alas no more: g.co/maps/48d8c
>>
Oh yes, I can recall my father (Albert Inman) talking about those competitions, he participated in them (roughly 1955 to 1960). Indeed I think my mum still has some photos of the events, I really must get her to dig them out so I can scan them.
|
|
I used to participate in these comps at various places throughout the U.K, when I was a fire-fighter for one of the large Pharmacutecal companies.We used to compete against other Business fire-teams, Airport and Chemical etc, and as far as I know they are still running them! I used to be fit between 1986-1990!!
|
Back in those days many factories had their own fire-fighting team (albeit small) with their own vehicles.
Around Luton IIRC Vauxhall, Luton airport, Laporte chemicals (not surprisingly), Skefko bearings, AC Delco, Commer trucks, Bedford trucks.
|
>> Back in those days many factories had their own fire-fighting team (albeit small) with their own vehicles.
>>
Back in the seventies when I worked at the Bacofoil plant in Silvertown we had an in house fire tender, nothing more than an adapted internal transport vehicle packed with extinguishers and fire blankets of various types.
Working in the ink mixing department we had to call on them a few times prior to the automatic arrival of the LFB as ours was the most hazadous area of the factory and the odd container of lacquer going up in flames wasn't too unusual.
|
>> Back in the seventies when I worked at the Bacofoil plant in Silvertown we had
>> an in house fire tender,
tate and Lyle in silvertown had their own fire brigade for a long time
|
>>
>> tate and Lyle in silvertown had their own fire brigade for a long time
>>
I know there are all sorts of hazardous processes in the manufacture of most things, but is sugar itself volatile when mixed in certain proportions with air? I know flour is and the Spillers plant along the same road had a major incident at one time, I believe.
|
|
As far as I know sugar wont spontaneously combust, but is pretty explosive with a suitable ignition source.
|
|
Sugar dust in the air is highly explosive, like flour.
|
>> Sugar dust in the air is highly explosive, like flour.
>>
Had a tour round the only working windmill in Hampshire a couple of weeks back, the guy explained that they have to monitor the flour temperature every few minutes for this reason.
www3.hants.gov.uk/windmill.htm
|
767 emergency landing - -
