When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Somewhere in my computer I have pictures of a russian sukhoi test plane after a belly touchdown. we never heard what exactly caused it, one theory was that they had turned off aural warnings during testing and then got no warning before landing.
Somewhere in my computer I have pictures of a russian sukhoi test plane after a belly touchdown. we never heard what exactly caused it, one theory was that they had turned off aural warnings during testing and then got no warning before landing.
Looks like the runway was foamed which means they knew it was going to be a gear up landing.
Looks like the runway was foamed which means they knew it was going to be a gear up landing.
Yes, that photo is LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16, a 767. Combination of a failure of the primary hydraulics and an open circuit breaker upstream of the electrically-driven backup. An attempted gravity-drop failed, so they flew it until the fuel was depleted, then bellied it onto a prepared runway.
Yes, that photo is LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16, a 767. Combination of a failure of the primary hydraulics and an open circuit breaker upstream of the electrically-driven backup. An attempted gravity-drop failed, so they flew it until the fuel was depleted, then bellied it onto a prepared runway.
I guess I dated myself... Used to be SOP in the Air Force if a suspected/confirmed gear malfunction was to foam the runway.
There is not universal agreement upon this in commercial aviation. The Boeing 757/767/777 flight crew training manuals state:
Gear Disagree
Consideration should be given to landing at the most suitable airport with
adequate runway and fire fighting capability. Foaming the runway is not
necessary. Tests have shown that foaming provides minimal benefit and it takes
approximately 30 minutes to replenish the fire truck’s foam supply.
By comparison, the Airbus A318/319/320/321 manual states:
LDG WITH ABNORMAL L/G
In all cases, weight should be reduced as much as possible to provide the slowest
possible touchdown speed. Although foaming of the runway is not a requirement, full
advantage should be taken of any ATC offer to do so.
Boeing's stress on time required to replenish suggests that this recommendation is motivated largely by the conservation of foam for later use in the event of a post-landing fire. And one of the reports I linked to above specifically noted that the #2 engine caught fire because the foam was unevenly applied and the airplane landed off-center to the right, whereas the #1 engine, which ingested a large quantity of foam during the landing, dig not catch fire.
There is not universal agreement upon this in commercial aviation.
Some commercial airports possess dedicated vehicles whose sole purpose is to evenly apply foam to the runway:
My frame of reference = mid 1970's and military. Our manuals weren't written in lawyer speak.
In the case of the LOT flight the aircrew showed the value of experience (hours) but even with that they got shitty luck (after all the miles, gear didn't extend after all even with backup system). Good crew training + no fire = successful emergency landing.
In the case of the LOT flight the aircrew showed the value of experience (hours) but even with that they got shitty luck (after all the miles, gear didn't extend after all even with backup system). Good crew training + no fire = successful emergency landing.
Yeah, I remember something my instructor once said to me. "A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is one where the airplane can fly again."
By any reasonable metric, that was a great landing.
Here's a video of people who have been certified by the FAA (or equivalent foreign agencies) to be sane and reasonable doing **** that scares me.
1
