Polish Crash Landing - No gear down at all

deejc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkPkJyVW0-I

lord lucan

Top marks to the crew,great work in getting her down safely. Appears they spent an hour circling over Poland trying to get the landing gear down but to no avail.

alan85

Think it was SP-LPC. 14.5 years old.

http://data.flight24.com/flights/lo16/
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/LOT16
http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b767-28656.htm

lord lucan

Awesome photo here:http://www.skrzydla.org/showphoto.php?photo_id=75244

flanzer

Wow, that pilot has gotta be up there with Chesley Sullenberger, if not even more esteemed. Not often you see that happening. Usually breaks up into pieces. Fair play to that pilot

beazee

lord lucan wrote: »

Appears they spent an hour circling over Poland trying to get the landing gear down but to no avail.

This was also a precautionary measure to lower the aircraft weight by burning the fuel remaining.
Two MiG-29 assistance was needed to determine whether this was just an indicator fault or actual landing gear trouble.
Warsaw airport closed until 8AM tomorrow morning to remove the wrackage and inspect the runway.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL-bNu7RlPA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqteUgV8tsE

Some photo:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/LOT---Polish/Boeing-767-35D-ER/2006893/L/

donvito99

They'll be needing their 787s pronto now

Mr Benevolent

Now that's a miracle.

BrianD

That YouTube seems to be disabled. More footage here:

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=90002&sitesection=mysanantonio&VID=23543468

Happyman42

Feck sake Sully, not again! :rolleyes::D

sparrowcar

Fair play to the crew... Kissed the runway.

pclancy

Awesome! Well done that man.

Can any 767 pilots comment on how all three wheels could remain up? Isnt there a manual gravity drop system?

Foggy43

It is a few years ago now but an incident I am aware of is where the landing gear lever 'came of in my hand'. I cannot be certain if it was a B767. It took a an hour or two but ground engineers did come up with a solution to get the gear down. It was the late 1990's and I think the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) played a part in getting the gear down. I am fully open to correction on this.

Artur.PL

http://avherald.com/h?article=4456bd6b&opt=0

Tenger

pclancy wrote: »

Awesome! Well done that man.

Can any 767 pilots comment on how all three wheels could remain up? Isnt there a manual gravity drop system?

Wonderful landing with no gear.
This and the Iran Air B727 really show how tough aircraft are built.

Apparently the pilot (I assume they mean Captain) is Tadeusz Wrona with 20 years of experience.

This link still works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N1L82VVoM&feature=share


Looking at it he kept the nose up and allowed the aft fuselage take the impact, I assume this was to bleed off speed before letting her settle on the runway?
The engines hitting the ground could have caused the aircraft to flip or they could have detached and impacted the fuselage.

Tenger

pclancy wrote: »

Awesome! Well done that man.

Can any 767 pilots comment on how all three wheels could remain up? Isnt there a manual gravity drop system?

Great pic on A.net:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/LOT---Polish/Boeing-767-35D/ER/2006893/L/


Wonderful landing with no gear.
This and the Iran Air B727 really show how tough aircraft are built.

Apparently the pilot (I assume they mean Captain) is Tadeusz Wrona with 20 years of experience.

This link still works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N1L82VVoM&feature=share


Looking at it he kept the nose up and allowed the aft fuselage take the impact, I assume this was to bleed off speed before letting her settle on the runway?
The engines hitting the ground could have caused the aircraft to flip or they could have detached and impacted the fuselage.

Bearcat

this is a beyond serious incident and maybe put down as an accident. Manual gear extention is deemed a given. If your last line of defense fails, well Boeing better have answers tomorrow. I am aware from pprune they had the failure post departure east coast USA. With one hydraulic failure with multiple systems available it is perfectly acceptable to continue. Thank heavens there were no injuries and well done to the Capt for executing a wheels up landing safely......a once in a life time event.

Foggy43

As far as I am aware the B767 does not have Manual Gear Extension. It has an alternate system, a switch that must be held in, that operates electrical motors to unlock the landing gear and it free falls down and locks.

McCrack

Would the pilots have used the thrust reversers on touch down or would that just have been out of the question? Would they have shut the engines down before touchdown?

Blue Punto

NO
Thrust reverse would not have been used on touchdown

Just a thought
The Hydraulic failure the aircraft experienced after takeoff from Newark may have effected the undercarriage doors which could explain why no wheels came down

Artur.PL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scUoqzG67-w

jayteecork

I always thought about this.

WTF happens if the landing gear fails before landing?!!

Fair play to the pilots, unreal landing.

LLU

Fair play to the crew - they made it look easy! Wonder what's the procedure for the emergency services when they know they're about to have a landing like this? In Dublin I believe that they call some units from the local fire brigade to the scene to have them standing by in addition to the airport firefighters. Do they wet or foam the runway beforehand, or is that only in films?! Is that plane a write-off now? (I'm guessing yes, if it's 14 years old.)

ShaunC

Looking at it he kept the nose up and allowed the aft fuselage take the impact, I assume this was to bleed off speed before letting her settle on the runway?
The engines hitting the ground could have caused the aircraft to flip or they could have detached and impacted the fuselage.[/QUOTE]

Would you blame him, he was sitting in the nose section.
Fantastic landing all the same.

beazee

LLU wrote: »

Do they wet or foam the runway beforehand, or is that only in films?! Is that plane a write-off now? (I'm guessing yes, if it's 14 years old.)

The runway was foamed. Although there is no simple answer if that is of any help. Some state foaming is unnecessary as lowers the friction lengthening braking distance and could cause turning sidewise...

homerjay2005

beazee wrote: »

The runway was foamed. Although there is no simple answer if that is of any help. Some state foaming is unnecessary as lowers the friction lengthening braking distance and could cause turning sidewise...

ya you can seem the foaming yesterday, surely that reduces friction and thus, lessens the chances of fire.

amazing stuff. been watching it on polish tv all morning.

Tenger

Amazing is the best word to describe.
Really hope the flight crew get full credit for what they achieved.
(I realise investigators will be looking at the reason for the gear failure, including the hydraulic fault noted after leaving JFK, however I think once they were in the air the only option was a belly landing)

Thinking about this incident, along with the Iran Air B727, the US Airways A320 in the Hudson River, the BA B777 at Heathrow and the Air France A340 at Toronto. (I may be stretching things with the AF incident)

It really shows how far aviation has come in the last 20-30 years ago. In the past these incidents would have had multiple deaths and injuries.

These events show how well built aircraft, knowledge gained from past accidents/crashes, well trained crew and good conditions/facilites all aid in creating a situation where the passengers/crew can survive what were previously mortal events.

beazee

It is worth noting Cpt. Wrona (eng: Crow) is a glider champion. Obviously gliding skills played main role in landing the plane safely on the ground.

LeakRate

They lost the center hydraulic system 30mins into the flight or so which controls gear extension and retraction,there is however an Alternate gear extension system that uses an electric motor to trip the locking mechanism for each gear.Selecting down on the alternate extension switch releases the door and gear uplocks and the gear should free fall down to the locked position,seems to have been a failure in the alternate extension motor also,top job by the crew,get that man a drink

shedweller

Artur.PL wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scUoqzG67-w

Amazing landing.
One of many on youtube but not this size of aircraft i think. At least with full gear up anyway.
Am i right in saying that the engines were on for quite a bit down the runway? Ok, there would be a sound lag due to the distance but not that long, maybe a second or two. Man they are tough engines! Can't wait for more pics!!
Kudos to the crew and fire dept.

beazee

Happyman42 wrote: »

Feck sake Sully, not again! :rolleyes::D

You,ve asked for it:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/11/01/erin-captain-sullenberger-poland-air-landing.cnn?iref=allsearch
"Sully" on LO16


She is now lift 1.5 m above ground with engines in place after taking much impact on landing.
This may suggest she'll become the first 763 Cargo in LOT fleet.

globemaster1986

beazee wrote: »

It is worth noting Cpt. Wrona (eng: Crow) is a glider champion. Obviously gliding skills played main role in landing the plane safely on the ground.

Really? How do you figure? Gliding has nothing to do with it given that both engines were functioning. It was a powered landing with no gear. I'm sorry but gliding really has nothing to do with it.

Fantastic job by the crew and all involved!

Tenger

globemaster1986 wrote: »

Really? How do you figure? Gliding has nothing to do with it given that both engines were functioning. It was a powered landing with no gear. I'm sorry but gliding really has nothing to do with it

While being a glider pilot may have given him a little extra confidence in this case.

This belly landing would have been carried out as per LOT SOP's, as you can hear in the video (taken form the left of the aircraft) the aircraft was powered on approach and landing. No professional pilot would ditch his SOP's in favour of something he does on the weekend.

pclancy

So they landed with both engines running? I guess to give them options of going around if the approach went wrong.

ShaunC

And they were using more fuel that way. The less fuel onboard the better when crash-landing.

globemaster1986

pclancy wrote: »

So they landed with both engines running? I guess to give them options of going around if the approach went wrong.

I would imagine so should they need to go around. The engines can be heard quite clearly in many of the videos until touchdown

beazee

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I'm sorry but gliding really has nothing to do with it.

Powered landing with both engines running - fact.
Cpt. training and scoring best notes in glider championships - fact.
Slower approach and gentle touchdown - common for gliding and getting the beast down while wheels up.

What i say is experience in landing gliders on much worse runways was a boost of confidence much needed then. Any higher speed on approach could end up much worse. And as for SOPs - they are there for a reason.

lord lucan

Yesterday saw a gear down but off the tarmac landing at MUC. An SQ 773 landed and then veered off the runway to the left and then back across the runway and onto the grass.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=445873f3&opt=0

Bigcheeze

pclancy wrote: »

So they landed with both engines running? I guess to give them options of going around if the approach went wrong.

Of course they landed with both engines running, what else would they do ?

They want as much control of descent rate and speed as possible.

Another reason why the Hudson ditching was a lot more challenging than this.

ScouseMouse

Someone had a camera phone

Superb footage.

Cessna_Pilot

The aircraft had it's two engines available to it. They used them. Thus, aircraft was not a glider in this case. Period.
Being a glider pilot helped in the Hudson because they lost total engine power, this case is entirely different.

BrianD

superscouse wrote: »

Someone had a camera phone

Superb footage.

All very calm as well. Love the calm announcement about you must wear your seatbelt. Only chaos seemed to be the passengers running around the runway. Even the ambulances and buses had to find them.

Off the plane and on the bus in 4 min as well (if the video isn't edited). Luggage, I would guess, was a tad longer.

Bigcheeze

Poles must have ice running through their veins!

There's even a little ripple of applause long before the plane stops. If it was me I'd still be worried about fire.

Happyman42

superscouse wrote: »

Someone had a camera phone

Superb footage.

Could he not keep the dang thing steady?! :rolleyes:

ScouseMouse

He was probably a little stressed at the time although I cannot think why!:rolleyes:

AfterDusk

Glad to see he had more concern for hits on his YouTube account than he did for his own safety - the brace position is not for the fecking craic of it!! Some people are just stupid beyond words.

Snowc

neil2304 wrote: »

Glad to see he had more concern for hits on his YouTube account than he did for his own safety - the brace position is not for the fecking craic of it!! Some people are just stupid beyond words.

Like yourself?
Did you look at the video? most of the video shows the camera pointing at the seat in front presumable because he was in the brace postion.

kona

neil2304 wrote: »

Glad to see he had more concern for hits on his YouTube account than he did for his own safety - the brace position is not for the fecking craic of it!! Some people are just stupid beyond words.

Its just to kiss your ass goodbye :pac:

AfterDusk

Snowc wrote: »

Like yourself?
Did you look at the video? most of the video shows the camera pointing at the seat in front presumable because he was in the brace postion.

And what happens if the impact is quite severe, the camera slips out of his hand and becomes a missile flying around the cabin?

Snowc

neil2304 wrote: »

And what happens if the impact is quite severe, the camera slips out of his hand and becomes a missile flying around the cabin?

Are you taking the piss?If the impact was severe enough to cause the phone to act like a missile around the cabin there probably wouldnt be much left of the plane after the landing.I am suprised you didnt say he could have caused the plane to crash before the runway by having his phone on inside the plane.

Cessna_Pilot

Snowc wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?If the impact was severe enough to cause the phone to act like a missile around the cabin there probably wouldnt be much left of the plane after the landing.I am suprised you didnt say he could have caused the plane to crash before the runway by having his phone on inside the plane.

Are you serious?
Yes, you're damn right he shouldn't have had his phone on inside the aircraft during a super critical stage of flight!
But hey, I guess he wanted his 5 minutes of fame.

Hypothetical situation: say the landing was not quite so smooth, guy drops his expensive phone, at the same time the number one engine goes up in flames and fire starts spreading. Aircraft has stopped on the runway and already smoke emerging in the cabin, mass hysteria.
Now, the evacuation has become a more panicked one, but this guy is flutering around looking for his precious phone. Ideal situation? The rules for non use of phones during critical phases of flight are there for a reason, not just to annoy the great unwashed daily mail readers.
Back on topic!;)