There aren't many things for an engine to snag on right beside the runway. They like to design them that way. :-> More likely would be if he came in rolled to one side and only one engine scraped. He seemed to bring the plane down with equal weight on each engine. While watching the recording I kept thinking "This is how it's supposed to be done, but 'this is reality!'"
I know the crash position is probably a load of old XXXX designed to keep people vaguely calm etc, but, coming in with no landing gear I know my face would be in my crotch, Im sorta guessing most people on board felt that way too ,would make a boring film ;)
Edit, unless you mean the flight crew,in which case, A, I hope they didnt have their faces in their crotches and B, hope they were busy doing other stuff :)
SeanBM, PWEI, delphie, pip - they were holding while trouble-shooting. Standard procedure as you said, they were probably on the phone (satcom, phone link, acars, etc depending on their equipment) double and triple checking that they'd exhausted all other options. No one wants to bend any metal when they land.
Fuel dumping, although a possibility on the 767, almost certainly didn't happen, by the time they crossed the Atlantic their center fuel tank was empty and that's the tank you dump from on the 767. At this point burning fuel (i.e. flying) was their only option of lowering the landing weight of the aircraft, they definitelly wanted to land with the lowest amount of gas onboard possible. For one, "gas is your friend in the air but your enemy in a potential fire on the ground" but also because the lighter the weight the shorter the landing distance. With a gear-up landing (or ditching in the ocean) it's critical to keep the wings perfectly level for as long as possible, which they did.
Their possibly worst case scenario would've been if only one of the main landing fears had deployed, I'd have rather landed with no gear (think stability during the landing phase) than with just one main gear deployed.
Again, they did a good job, just like its taught in training, my flying career started by flying gliders but frankly I'm not sure if it'd have helped me in those circumstances, the engines worked fine and they brought the airplane to a "normal" landing with the exception of the gear not being deployed. Fairly calm winds and good weather helped too. Like I said, they did a great job but I think they'd be very uncomfortable if they read some of the "hero" comments on here; this was a well planned, methodically executed emergency landing with the gear in the up and locked position. Great professionals for sure.
Also, Boeing sending investigators to Poland is a normal procedure for ALL aircraft manufacturers, Airbus would've done the same. What is it with the hateful "Yankee" comments? Totally unnecessary to use hate toward America as an excuse to attack Boeing.
BBman: It's amazing that the LOT pilot was able to keep the plane straight. In contrast, watch this video.
BBman - although I know you wanted to emphasize the great job the LOT crew did - which they did - your comparison is very flawed. You wanna talk about true heroes? The pilots on the aircraft plummeting into the ocean are indeed real heroes. Hijacked, beaten up, cut up with knives, one of them bleeding to death, they manage to wrestle the controls from their suicidal hijacker right before he attempts to crash the airplane into a hotel. Note that one engine is already dead, they'd run out of gas. So they attempt to save the passengers by ditching it into the ocean, with one engine inoperative and the second about to flame out, while both pilots are being stabbed with a knife from behind, over and over again. The fact some 50 passengers survived is a true miracle. Yeah, some very, very different circumstances.
Skysoulmate ... can I ask you for your (expert) opinion, please?
The new Dreamliner is mainly made out of other materials than aluminium. I'm sure you know that aluminium has a higher melting point than the other materials used in the Dreamliner.
As far as you know or can tell, do you think a wheels-up landing would be "as simple" in a Dreamliner as in an aeroplane made from aluminium? Could it be that because of the lower melting point of the materials, the outcome of a wheels-up landing could be different? Could there be an increased chance of the fuselage catching fire?
Just try your two pence worth. I am interested in your thoughts about this.
Sidliste - sorry, missed your earlier comment but you're correct on the landing speeds and why we prefer to land light. --------
Ok, brace for a long reply...
pip: "...boeing sent people over to cover their asses..." - Nonsense, it's a standard procedure for all accident and all aircraft manufacturers. IF they find some kind of structural damage, fatigue corrosion, design flaws, etc. they will promptly issue a mandatory AD (airworthiness directive) to all Boeing 767 operators worldwide. Again, airline safety is based on learning from ALL incidents and accidents, worldwide. No conspiracy here.
pip: "...I have flown transcontinental warsaw to north america loads of times. I will not do it until Lot gets their new fleet. The planes are falling apart. I have personal experience with this. This latest event is even more reason to not fly Lot."
- Really? Would you please share your experience of LOT airplanes falling apart?? Are you saying they're falling apart because they're old? Is that it? An airplane's age isn't as critical as most people seem to think but for the sake of your argument, do you realize that LOT puts most US and Canadian airlines to shame when it comes to their fleets' average age?
Polish Airlines LOT average fleet age is -> 8.7 years. That's pretty old right?
Or is it?
American Airlines -> 15.1 years Delta -> 15.4 United Airlines -> 14.0 years Southwest Airlines -> 15.3 years USAirways -> 12.8 years
Well, at least all those Canadian airlines have brand-spanking new airplanes, right?
Not quite, only West Jet has newer aircraft with an average fleet age of 5.7 years. The remaining larger players:
Air Canada -> 11.4 years Air Canada Jetz -> 18.6 years Can Jet -> 10.8 years
(airfleets.net/ageflotte/fleet-age.htm)
Frankly you probably won't find an airline in the US with a newer fleet. JetBlue and Virgin America are possibly the only exceptions because both are fairly new start-ups. Of course, they only fly domestically and exclusively use narrow body aircraft.
The rankings on the website aren't necessarily 100% accurate as they change daily when airplanes are sold off, leased out, etc. but also because some airlines list their "express" subsidiaries separately. Overall however, the numbers clearly show that LOT's fleet is fairly "young" and of good quality.
You see, there's much more to aviation safety than just the airplanes' age. In my second, part-time guard job I fly heavy 4-engine jets all over the world without any problems whatsoever. Yet the average age of the fleet is - are you ready? - hold on to something -> 40+ years! With good maintenance, upgrades, training and adherence to procedures airplanes can be like wine, they get better with age. :-)
Don't use aircraft age as your only airline discriminator. Just because something looks new or is expensive doesn't mean it's actually "better". An unintelligent woman in new and very expensive shoes might look great but eventually she'll have to talk. Putting blahniks, chanels, or ferragamos on her feet won't make her any smarter. Likewise, a man won't grow wiser simply by driving an expensive car (nor will any of his body parts get any bigger lol)
What's my point here? Well, pilots, mechanics, dispatchers and flight attendants are the brains of an airline's operation. They don't need new, shiny tools to make it safe. Give them proper training, keep them motivated, help them to stay in love with their profession and miracles will happen.
I'm sure LOT has problems like all other airlines, I know nothing about their customer service but frankly that's not on my radar. My primary concern is airline safety.
pip: "I have also flown loads of times in my life. both my parents were in the Canadian air force- in no way would I ever claim to be an expert but I did grow up living on military bases and going to military schools- this pilot knew what he had to do and he did it. there is no conspiracy."
Agree 100% except I'd revise your comment from "this pilot..." to "THOSE pilots knew what THEY were doing."
There's no conspiracy here which is why I find it so surprising you'd attack LOT's safety record right after this greatly executed emergency landing? Imagine a team of cardiologists successfully performing an ultra complicated and a delicate quadruple-bypass surgery on a patient; as they're doing their rounds the very next morning they're being told - "I will never use this hospital again, the wall paint in the surgery room looks very old and ugly, and the vending machines in your waiting room are falling apart! I'll wait until you revamp this entire hospital before I use your services again." Would that be a logical response?
Pip - I used your reply because your comments irked me a little, felt like you were unnecessarily attacking my fellow aviators. Yet my reply is geared toward everyone on this thread, not just you - I didn't mean to single you out .
- I see too many strange, often erroneous assumptions about LOT and maybe even the entire country of Poland on this thread. Not too long ago Poland was withering away under the yoke of a tyrant - Związek Radziecki (Soviet U), she was abandoned behind the iron curtain. Yet those days are over. The entire country along with the 80+ years old airline has long moved on. The transition has been painful, expensive and sometimes slow BUT Poland of today is firmly a western-style democracy and LOT is firmly a safe, western-style airline.
Ok, rant over, sorry had to get it out of my system.
Just my view of course, ymmv.
--------
STU - just saw your question. Let me think about it before I reply. The real answer is way above my pay grade but I'll give you my personal thoughts on it once I get some sleep.
Pip - I used your reply because your comments irked me a little, felt like you were unnecessarily attacking my fellow aviators. Yet my reply is geared toward everyone on this thread, not just you - I didn't mean to single you out .
Truth be told I found her comments equally disparaging and ill informed.
I read an independent report on LOT Pilots and they are some of the best out there. In fact there is a competition held for airline pilots (A World Championship if you will) and the current holder is a LOT pilot.
I have an awful fear of flying following an emergency landing in Montivideo but I have ALWAYSfelt safe on LOT flights.
Incidentally skysoulmate, how do you compare the Hudson river landing with this one? Comparable? Of the two which was the greater achievement. If it is possible to make such a comparison.
With a gear-up landing (or ditching in the ocean) it's critical to keep the wings perfectly level for as long as possible, which they did.
No need for guessing , it is widely presented by the Polish media .
First : the purpose to fly over Warsaw for 1 hour was to make sure that the cockpit lamps didn`t mislead the pilot , that`s why the two F16 were sent from the air base in Lask near Lodz to confirm failure of landing gear , to allow the capitan to try using manual gears and gravity to open the landing gear and also to give the time for landing preparation for emergency units in case of not successful landing and at last to combust the fuel ( 767 had 7 tones of fuel at Newark , 4 tones were combusted during the flight , so the plane was not empty , 3 tones of fuel were still in the tank.
The planes is not alowed to dump any fuel , it can only be done in special zones . But anyway the fuel doesn`t reach the ground if its ejected , because it gets evaporated in the air.
Second : the whole action was successful because it was not a result of chance or luck, but was the result of professionalism of all departments that have demonstrated their professionalism in every way. It showed that we have the best pilots in the world, professionally actiing ground services and the latest of technology ground equipment. The airport has got CAT II ILS system - which means the best.
Now it is the highest time to stop playing blaming game of polish pilot for the Smoleńsk disaster , if the same conditions of the airport infrastructure were given to him he would land safely. .
Ed - I hate comparisons, it's not fair to the pilots involved and frankly somewhat hard to measure. Hudson River - minutes to make a potentially fatal decision followed by a water landing (they've ran the very same scenario in the simulator trying to glide back to the airport - they wouldn't have made it.) Warszawa, over 7 hours of preparations (if the reports of early gear/hydraulic system malfunction indications are true) but a much heavier aircraft. I'd say both crews performed very well under stress. I'd say they should be proud of themselves and they all make us proud.
I like competitions but this whole idea of "our pilots are the best of the best" is something I leave to the pilots themselves. Too often it turns into nationalistic bashings on Internet message boards. Personally I wouldn't call any of the pilots involved a hero but a great aviator. Trust me when say they'd much prefer that title. I went to a seminar with Sully where he said he hated being called a hero. He understood people's need for a hero but felt the title belonged to those in the military risking their lives each and every day. He also hated the media's focus on him only, didn't like the fact they'd forgotten the rest of his crew. I agree with all of his assertions.
So to summarize my reply, all the pilots involved in the two incidents performed admirably. No single nation holds the title of "best pilots in the world."
PS. Sorry about your fear of flying, it can be overcome with some help but I sympathize with your thoughts based on your past, bad experiences.
As you can see some of them were successful some were not .
But for a jumbo jet like 767 landing without landing gear I think it was the first time in history . Can you find any other similar case?
Watching the video did anybody else think it took the fire service ages to reach the plane?
Not at all . Where do you think they should stand and wait ? In the middle of the tarmac ? No, they stand at the end . When the plane passes them , they start the engines and they rush as fast as they can . The Warsaw airport is equipped with state of the art fire trucks that have the same acceleration as cars . They were at the plane in seconds , before the evacuation started .
Polmed - just a few minor corrections - in an emergency an airplane can and will dump fuel if necessary (if properly equipped of course), no such thing as "not allowed" in an emergency. You're correct about the jet fuel evaporating prior to reaching ground BUT only if it's done approximately 5000 feet above the ground or higher. Ambient temperature changes that altitude somewhat.
As many of us here mentioned before, the crew did in fact perform very well under the circumstances. Kudos to them all. I bet the crew would find the "best pilots in the world" hurrahs somewhat embarassing but whatever suits your boat.
As far as Cat II approaches - yes, those are pretty standard approaches worldwide. I'll have to dig through my charts but I'm fairly certain Warszawa has cat IIIB approaches (much better than II) which basically allows us to land with practically no visibility. Most larger airports have those.
Smolensk - I'd much rather leave it out of here but just re-read the very last sentence in your own comment starting with "if the same conditions..." and focus on the word "given". As a captain (or commander when on a mil mission) nothing can be "given" to me. I can and very often refuse ATC's requests. I won't spoil this thread with any more comments on that subject. This is a great thread, please let's keep it that way. Let's leave out nationalism and focus on professionalism. Much appreciated.
From what I've seen on one of the videos, it took the first fire engine just about 30 seconds to reach the plane. And it came from the back of the aeroplane, by the way.
Edit 2:
There were many landings called gliding landing :
This wasn't a gliding landing, in my humble opinion, since the engines were fully operational.
It was just a ***** to slow the aeroplane down ... ;).
Full kudos to everyone involved, be it the pilot, the co-pilot, the flight attendants, ATC, the emergency services, etc ... etc ... etc ... . It was obvious that they have been training for a possible emergency again and again and again. It showed.
It has nothing to do with nationalism, but all with professionalism.
Hurray to them.
BTW ... only real heroes don't consider themselves to be one.
And it came from the back of the aeroplane, by the way.
They should have come from the back , as they chase the plane from the moment the plane passes them and reaches the begining of the tarmac . Then they follow the flying plane as fast as they can . That was explained by the ground emergency units director in one of the TV programs .
This wasn't a gliding landing, in my humble opinion, since the engines were fully operational.
It was just a ***** to slow the aeroplane down ... ;).
You have to read all my post before you answer on me stating that I claimed that that was a gliding landing .
I did not claim in any post it was a gliding landing .
One poster wanted to hear a comment about that Hudson river landing in comparison to that 767 landing without a gear landing . So I posted a link to a site in which there was a list with similar to Hudson river gliding landing . Then I asked if someone could find any case of jumbo jet landing without the landing gear .
Then I asked if someone could find any case of jumbo jet landing without the landing gear .
Can you find an example of a Jumbo jet landing without any landing gear? No, you can not. But don't let truth get in the way of your posts.
As for examples of belly landings, here's one from the very same month when a Turkish 737 suffered the collapse of half its undercarriage and the pilot slid it to a stop with no injuries:
Oh, behave, to lots of people,especially I imagine people with english as a second language "jumbo jet" is nothing more than the "Hoover" of the large jet airliner world......
From what I've seen on one of the videos, it took the first fire engine just about 30 seconds to reach the plane. And it came from the back of the aeroplane, by the way.
Yes, it was quite quyick. Presumably they were on standby.
There's a grim echo of one of the previous crashes at Warsaw where they decided to land at Okecie rather than (the nearer) Modlin due to there being better support, but sadly didn't make it.
Could it be that because of the lower melting point of the materials, the outcome of a wheels-up landing could be different? Could there be an increased chance of the fuselage catching fire?
Just try your two pence worth. I am interested in your thoughts about this.
Dosn't totally answer your question but worth a read inc the comments blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/11/02/lets-not-try-this-again-with-a-787
As for your claim that no pilot has ever been so skilled in the past:
Don`t distort my posts , I asked about similar cases in my post .
From what you posted there is no similar case of landing without the landing gear .
It doesnt matter how you name an aircraft ,everybody knows what I meant . Both 747 and 767 are wide body aircrafts with similar capacity 747 - 366 seats and with 767 depending on the model 181 - 375 seats .
As of August 2011, the 767 had received 1,057 orders from 71 customers, of which 1,007 had been delivered, and 837 were in service. The most popular variant is the 767-300ER, with 552 delivered, and Delta Air Lines is the largest operator, with 94 aircraft. Competitors have included the Airbus A300, A310, and A330-200, while a successor, the 787 Dreamliner, entered service in October 2011.
Oh, behave, to lots of people,especially I imagine people with english as a second language "jumbo jet" is nothing more than the "Hoover" of the large jet airliner world......
For me jumbo jet means a common name for large jet airliners . I didnt take this name out of nowhere but from the media which uses such term .
There's a grim echo of one of the previous crashes at Warsaw where they decided to land at Okecie rather than (the nearer) Modlin due to there being better support, but sadly didn't make it.
Actually the tragic story Lot flight 5055 was that they were refused landing by idiot military flight control at modlin even when their the plane was burning up.
@polmed
For me jumbo jet means a common name for large jet airliners . I didnt take this name out of nowhere but from the media which uses such term .
Don`t distort my posts , I asked about similar cases in my post .
You said "But for a jumbo jet like 767 landing without landing gear I think it was the first time in history ."
From what you posted there is no similar case of landing without the landing gear .
Please either show me the undercarriage in this picture (which I posted) or admit that your statement above is a lie:
historyofpia.com/apayw2b_acdp1.jpg
Both 747 and 767 are wide body aircrafts with similar capacity 747 - 366 seats
366 is the minimum: there are 747s out there that are designed to seat 550 and one once took off with 1,087 official passengers and landed with 1,089 officially on board (the real number was 1,122). But don't let facts get in the way of your posts.
More proof you know nothing about aviation.
Sad really, given that she's the daughter of a Polish airforce commander and discusses aviation issues with him.
