Landing gear precautions

Panda_Turtle

What precautions do commercial airliners take in respect to landing gear. Is there a video feed to the cockpit or just some sensors?

I'm a crap passenger, always a bit nervous that the pilot has not deployed the landing gear properly cause I can`t see it. :pac:

Skatedude

Pilots get green indicators on each landing gear to indicate they are down and locked. Both pilots verbally acknowledge it as well as many built in alarms and safety checks etc,

so no chance of trying to land with gear not down and locked. And all aircraft landing gear can drop and lock under just it's own weight if there is an issue. it's required by aviation law when building aircraft

starvin

Just sensors on the modern stuff. The older 737's had a viewer in the cockpit floor and half way along the cabin floor to have a look at some indication lines painted on the lock links.

cppilot98

There's indicators in the cockpit and alarms even in light aircraft. No video though. In an airliner the crew would have to land with very loud alarms screaming in their ears if they forgot the undercarriage. Frankly it's something you never need to worry about.

Even if they did land without lowering the gear the most likely eventuality is a lot of scratching and scraping. On the upside you wouldn't have far to jump when you evacuated the aircraft.

In reality it's the least of your worries.

It's worth pointing out that you can always hear the gear being lowered if you pay attention. Whirr clunk! is a good clue.

imurdaddy

I remember a few years back a locheed electra belong to channel express attempted a gear up landing in shannon the crew only realised the error when the props hit the tarmac! They climbed out and made a safe approach and landing second time around!.....with gear down this time. If I recall right the aircraft was a total loss, pity Electra are a rare bird these days.

Alaba320

There are electrical limit switches that close a circuit when the gear is down and locked. There are actually 2 independant parallel circuits monitoring the gear position so it's very unlikely that you would get and "down and locked" indication if that wasn't the case.

It sometimes happens that one or all of landing gear does not deploy.. This is rare enough, as it is electrically controlled and hydraulically operated - both the electrical and hydraulic system on any commercial aircraft have a huge amount of redundancy. That said - nothing is 100% fool proof so most manufacturers have a final (last resort) measure, by which the pilots can perform a 'gravity extension' of the gear. This literally releases all the hydraulic fluid holding the gear up and the weight of the gear (gravity) causes it to drop down and lock.

In very very very rare cases the gravity extension may not be successful, and then it comes down to go old pilot skills.. A 'gear up landing', while not that common, does happen now and again, usually on smaller aircraft not used for commercial operation. These are usually very successful with the only damage caused being that to the aircraft belly. Pilots train for gear up landings in the simulator so there is no need to be worrying about landing gear scenarios.

The most famous gear up landing was done by a crew in LOT Airlines, there is a video of the landing on YouTube and you can see that the worst case scenario where there is no option but a gear up landing isn't really that bad at all. And remember - there is so much redundancy before you even get to that scenario.

ProfessorPlum

Alaba320 wrote: »

There are electrical limit switches that close a circuit when the gear is down and locked. There are actually 2 independant parallel circuits monitoring the gear position so it's very unlikely that you would get and "down and locked" indication if that wasn't the case.

It sometimes happens that one or all of landing gear does not deploy.. This is rare enough, as it is electrically controlled and hydraulically operated - both the electrical and hydraulic system on any commercial aircraft have a huge amount of redundancy. That said - nothing is 100% fool proof so most manufacturers have a final (last resort) measure, by which the pilots can perform a 'gravity extension' of the gear. This literally releases all the hydraulic fluid holding the gear up and the weight of the gear (gravity) causes it to drop down and lock.

In very very very rare cases the gravity extension may not be successful, and then it comes down to go old pilot skills.. A 'gear up landing', while not that common, does happen now and again, usually on smaller aircraft not used for commercial operation. These are usually very successful with the only damage caused being that to the aircraft belly. Pilots train for gear up landings in the simulator so there is no need to be worrying about landing gear scenarios.

The most famous gear up landing was done by a crew in LOT Airlines, there is a video of the landing on YouTube and you can see that the worst case scenario where there is no option but a gear up landing isn't really that bad at all. And remember - there is so much redundancy before you even get to that scenario.

Or in LOT's case, a circuit breaker . It was a really good gear up landing though!

Comhrá

Here it is.

artanevilla

If the crew aren't sure the gear is down, they can fly by the control tower and ask.ATC also. It's happened in cases where maybe the nose gear didn't lock or fully deploy and asked the tower for verification.

ProfessorPlum

artanevilla wrote: »

If the crew aren't sure the gear is down, they can fly by the control tower and ask.ATC also. It's happened in cases where maybe the nose gear didn't lock or fully deploy and asked the tower for verification.

That's generally considered a bad idea and not recommended by most airlines. If you do not have a gear down indication in the cockpit, it's best to assume the gear is not down locked - it may appear to be down, bit now locked and do will collapse on landing. In that case it's best to follow the procedure for gear not down locked.

billy few mates

Some A/C have two sets of LG position indicator lights with two sets of position sensors (in case one system fails) plus you can physically check by looking through a viewing window in the floor for a mark on the brace which indicates if the gear is properly down and locked and not just extended.
The A/C also has a landing configuration warning system which sounds if the crew try to put the A/C into a landing config when the gear is not down, basically if they select flap and retard the throttles without the gear down a warning horn sounds which can be cancelled, once you go beyond a certain flap setting (a landing flap selection) you can no longer cancel the warning and if (for whatever reason) you tried to land without the gear down and locked you would have a warning horn in your ear the whole way down.
That's how it works on the B737 anyway....

artanevilla

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

That's generally considered a bad idea and not recommended by most airlines. If you do not have a gear down indication in the cockpit, it's best to assume the gear is not down locked - it may appear to be down, bit now locked and do will collapse on landing. In that case it's best to follow the procedure for gear not down locked.

It is done though:

http://rt.com/usa/231015-dallas-philly-emergency-landing/

http://www.37000feet.com/report/341544/Aircraft-equipment-problem-Landing-gear-indicator-Tower-fly-by-showed-gear-down-tower

http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2015/01/no-light-means-its-time-to-shine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t00V6Cdc-Eo

Growler!!!

The problem with the low pass is that ATC or the fire crew observing cannot give a definite answer. The gear may be down but not locked.

The time I experienced this ATC only told us that they "observed" the gear to be down. We passed 300ft over the runway so tower and fire crew could have a look. Successfully landed on a parallel runway.

It turned out to be a loose connection on the primary system and a series of blown bulbs on the secondary!

ProfessorPlum

artanevilla wrote: »

It is done though:

http://rt.com/usa/231015-dallas-philly-emergency-landing/

http://www.37000feet.com/report/341544/Aircraft-equipment-problem-Landing-gear-indicator-Tower-fly-by-showed-gear-down-tower

http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2015/01/no-light-means-its-time-to-shine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t00V6Cdc-Eo

Just because something is doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Dining a low pass in anything other than maybe a light aircraft is a risky manoeuvre, and given that it won't give a definitive answer to the question you're asking, it really can not be justified.

TheBoss11

Alaba320 wrote: »

There are electrical limit switches that close a circuit when the gear is down and locked. There are actually 2 independant parallel circuits monitoring the gear position so it's very unlikely that you would get and "down and locked" indication if that wasn't the case.

It sometimes happens that one or all of landing gear does not deploy.. This is rare enough, as it is electrically controlled and hydraulically operated - both the electrical and hydraulic system on any commercial aircraft have a huge amount of redundancy. That said - nothing is 100% fool proof so most manufacturers have a final (last resort) measure, by which the pilots can perform a 'gravity extension' of the gear. This literally releases all the hydraulic fluid holding the gear up and the weight of the gear (gravity) causes it to drop down and lock.

In very very very rare cases the gravity extension may not be successful, and then it comes down to go old pilot skills.. A 'gear up landing', while not that common, does happen now and again, usually on smaller aircraft not used for commercial operation. These are usually very successful with the only damage caused being that to the aircraft belly. Pilots train for gear up landings in the simulator so there is no need to be worrying about landing gear scenarios.

The most famous gear up landing was done by a crew in LOT Airlines, there is a video of the landing on YouTube and you can see that the worst case scenario where there is no option but a gear up landing isn't really that bad at all. And remember - there is so much redundancy before you even get to that scenario.

I know I'm going off in a tangent here but how exactly do hydraulics work on an aircraft?

imurdaddy

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Just because something is doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Dining a low pass in anything other than maybe a light aircraft is a risky manoeuvre, and given that it won't give a definitive answer to the question you're asking, it really can not be justified.

Sure a low pass can only confirm if the gear is down! it could be down and unlocked and fold up as soon as the gear touches the ground! Im sure there's plenty of cases of it over the years.

It must be clinched butt time when the cockpit lights indicate unlocked gear!

Irish Steve

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Just because something is doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Dining a low pass in anything other than maybe a light aircraft is a risky manoeuvre, and given that it won't give a definitive answer to the question you're asking, it really can not be justified.

Sorry, the only thing that knows the aircraft is close to the ground is the crew, and if I have a choice of hand flying accurately (to IFR limits) at 300 Ft or FL380, I'll take 300 Ft every time, the air is thicker, the aircraft will be less skittish. and the margins are wider, after that, it's a case of flying accurately, which should not be a problem to do for a pilot that's used to hand flying.

The handling pilot will be on instruments, flying heading, altitude and attitude, the PNF will be looking out of the window, and there should be nothing anywhere close, as those risks are being managed outside of the aircraft. A low pass is NOT risky, it's no different from hand flying at any other altitude, which is a standard part of every day operations.

That said, there is a problem that hand flying is not something that is done often enough by modern crews, but (living dangerously) it's something that SHOULD be done regularly, to keep the essential and critical skills that are needed to deal with emergencies current and alive. The bean counters prefer pilots to use the automation, to save money, but the skills to fly the aircraft without the automation may be the only thing that allow it to be landed safely in the event of certain failures, and it's those hand flying skills that are the same ones that make a low approach and fly by, with a subsequent go around a non event to a skilled crew.

ProfessorPlum

Irish Steve wrote: »

Sorry, the only thing that knows the aircraft is close to the ground is the crew, and if I have a choice of hand flying accurately (to IFR limits) at 300 Ft or FL380, I'll take 300 Ft every time, the air is thicker, the aircraft will be less skittish. and the margins are wider, after that, it's a case of flying accurately, which should not be a problem to do for a pilot that's used to hand flying.

The handling pilot will be on instruments, flying heading, altitude and attitude, the PNF will be looking out of the window, and there should be nothing anywhere close, as those risks are being managed outside of the aircraft. A low pass is NOT risky, it's no different from hand flying at any other altitude, which is a standard part of every day operations.

That said, there is a problem that hand flying is not something that is done often enough by modern crews, but (living dangerously) it's something that SHOULD be done regularly, to keep the essential and critical skills that are needed to deal with emergencies current and alive. The bean counters prefer pilots to use the automation, to save money, but the skills to fly the aircraft without the automation may be the only thing that allow it to be landed safely in the event of certain failures, and it's those hand flying skills that are the same ones that make a low approach and fly by, with a subsequent go around a non event to a skilled crew.

It's nothing to do with flying skill, automation or whatever. I know you have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about that stuff.
Try getting an airline to authorise a planned low fly past eg flight fest. There's a lot of planning and training to do it. Generally heavy aircraft should only be that close to the ground when they're landing, or attempting to. All the major airlines and manufacturers would have those recommendations. It's not a choice between flying by hand or thru the AP or flying at 390 ft or at FL 380, it's a choice between executing a risky manoeuvre for no real benefit, or not.

smurfjed

Sorry, the only thing that knows the aircraft is close to the ground is the crew, and if I have a choice of hand flying accurately (to IFR limits) at 300 Ft or FL380, I'll take 300 Ft every time, the air is thicker, the aircraft will be less skittish. and the margins are wider, after that, it's a case of flying accurately, which should not be a problem to do for a pilot that's used to hand flying.

But what are you going to achieve? You still have to follow the complete procedure for GEAR DISAGREE (or whatever) and there is no where in that procedure that calls for a low pass.

Irish Steve

You are going to give people on the ground (like maintenance engineers) a chance to look closely at what is where, which will be a clue about what may happen when attempting to subsequently land on that gear.

Not a dig at anyone here, just an observation, there have been plenty of incidents and accidents where there's nothing in the check list on how to deal with it. The attitude these days is becoming increasingly one of if it's not in the check list, you can't do it, but the problem with that is that the check list is written by people sitting comfortably at a desk doing zero knots at zero altitude, so they're not at risk,

The dilution in skill set of the modern pilot that is causing so many concerns, and that led to things like the AF447 crash is real, if there's a problem, the people at the sharp end have to do whatever they can to achieve a good outcome. Sioux City comes to mind as a situation where there was nothing in the check list to give any sort of guidance on how to control the aircraft, so they had to make it up as they went along, and they came very close to achieving the perfect resolution, and the eventual outcome was that a significant number survived an incident that went way beyond previous experience. One of the reasons for that was that the captain had spent time (unscheduled and unplanned by the airline) in a simulator, exploring the envelope of the aircraft in areas that were way outside of the normal expected operating parameters. A pilot seeking to do that in the modern environment is likely to be looked at with all manner of suspicion, or even concern that he's trying to "hide" a skill limitation, if there was even simulator time available to do it on, which with increasing numbers of third party operated simulators, is often now not the case.

smurfjed

Oops, wrong thread.....

ProfessorPlum

Irish Steve wrote: »

You are going to give people on the ground (like maintenance engineers) a chance to look closely at what is where, which will be a clue about what may happen when attempting to subsequently land on that gear.

I would have thought the lack of a confirmation of gear downlocked indication in the cockpit might give an indication on what might be expected on landing? An it would be a very foolish engineer on the ground that would try to confirm gear down just by looking at it from a few hundred feet.

I'm afraid you're on your own on this one Steve. Not a recommended procedure.

Not a dig at anyone here, just an observation, there have been plenty of incidents and accidents where there's nothing in the check list on how to deal with it. The attitude these days is becoming increasingly one of if it's not in the check list, you can't do it, but the problem with that is that the check list is written by people sitting comfortably at a desk doing zero knots at zero altitude, so they're not at risk,

The dilution in skill set of the modern pilot that is causing so many concerns, and that led to things like the AF447 crash is real, if there's a problem, the people at the sharp end have to do whatever they can to achieve a good outcome. Sioux City comes to mind as a situation where there was nothing in the check list to give any sort of guidance on how to control the aircraft, so they had to make it up as they went along, and they came very close to achieving the perfect resolution, and the eventual outcome was that a significant number survived an incident that went way beyond previous experience. One of the reasons for that was that the captain has spent time (unscheduled and unplanned by the airline) in a simulator, exploring the envelope of the aircraft in areas that were way outside of the normal expected operating parameters. A pilot seeking to do that in the modern environment is likely to be looked at with all manner of suspicion, or even concern that he's trying to "hide" a skill limitation, if there was even simulator time available to do it on, which with increasing numbers of third party operated simulators, is often now not the case.

I think we've all heard this from you already. Completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

Irish Steve

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I would have thought the lack of a confirmation of gear downlocked indication in the cockpit might give an indication on what might be expected on landing? An it would be a very foolish engineer on the ground that would try to confirm gear down just by looking at it from a few hundred feet.

I'm afraid you're on your own on this one Steve. Not a recommended procedure.



I think we've all heard this from you already. Completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

No, very relevant to the issue of how to fly an aircraft, which too many people today can't do without all manner of electronic aids to prevent them getting outside of the very limited envelope that is the norm in commercial aircraft operations. I can assure you I am far from being alone on this subject.

ProfessorPlum

Irish Steve wrote: »

No, very relevant to the issue of how to fly an aircraft, which too many people today can't do without all manner of electronic aids to prevent them getting outside of the very limited envelope that is the norm in commercial aircraft operations. I can assure you I am far from being alone on this subject.

Maybe try and read the above post again in order to actually understand it?

The 'on your own comment' is clearly under your landing gear opinions and in no way related to your other pet topic.

MoeJay

From an Ops Manual:

Low flypasts for Technical Inspection are hazardous in nature, doubtful in value and should be avoided. Considerations such as: language difficulties, absence of aircraft technical expertise in the tower, weather conditions and passenger apprehension can adversely affect the potential value of such a procedure. Where the suspected damage is extensive or affects the aircraft's structure or flight controls, manoeuvring close to the ground could be hazardous.

It is essential that before undertaking a flypast for technical inspection, Commanders should carefully consider its usefulness in the circumstances. Unless there is good reason to believe that the information to be gleaned will be valid and make a significant contribution to the safety of the landing, low flypasts should be avoided.

If it is decided that such a flypast is necessary, all appropriate precautions should be taken. Cabin crew should be informed and an announcement should be made to the passengers.

Irish Steve

Commanders should carefully consider its usefulness in the circumstances

I don't think we disagree, that's why captains get paid big bucks, there are (rare) occasions when significant decisions have to be made in order to arrive at the bigger decision.

Alaba320

Irish Steve wrote: »

Sorry, the only thing that knows the aircraft is close to the ground is the crew, and if I have a choice of hand flying accurately (to IFR limits) at 300 Ft or FL380, I'll take 300 Ft every time, the air is thicker, the aircraft will be less skittish. and the margins are wider, after that, it's a case of flying accurately, which should not be a problem to do for a pilot that's used to hand flying.

The handling pilot will be on instruments, flying heading, altitude and attitude, the PNF will be looking out of the window, and there should be nothing anywhere close, as those risks are being managed outside of the aircraft. A low pass is NOT risky, it's no different from hand flying at any other altitude, which is a standard part of every day operations.

That said, there is a problem that hand flying is not something that is done often enough by modern crews, but (living dangerously) it's something that SHOULD be done regularly, to keep the essential and critical skills that are needed to deal with emergencies current and alive. The bean counters prefer pilots to use the automation, to save money, but the skills to fly the aircraft without the automation may be the only thing that allow it to be landed safely in the event of certain failures, and it's those hand flying skills that are the same ones that make a low approach and fly by, with a subsequent go around a non event to a skilled crew.

Never heard so much sh1te! Airlines (in Europe especially) have phased out low fly-pasts years ago. Most airlines forbid them and what in gods name is going to change when you do a fly-past? The green light isn't going to magically illuminate just because you are doing a fly-past. You still have to treat it as a gear unsafe indication whatever the ATCO says.. So why bother carrying out a manoeuvre that will scare some PAX and increases risks for the sake of nothing??

You comment about things not been on checklists is ridiculous.. You can bet your bottom dollar that there is a reason for them not being there! Checklists have evolved over years and years of crashes and incidents and items are removed from checklists as often as they are added.. SOPs have been written to ensure best practice and provide the best outcome - so stick to them!

I do understand that some scenarios are not covered by SOPs or checklists, in this case it's up to pilot experience to come up with a solution.. But faults and failures such as a gear unsafe warning aren't new to the industry and you can be sure there are SOPs and Checklists for this.

A low fly-past is prohibited in the airline I work for and As far as I know this is the case for most airlines!

You certainly do have a bee in your bonnet with automation.. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sensing a bit of jealousy and I'm guessing that the plane you fly (if you do fly) doesn't have an autopilot. Am I right?

lord lucan

Some great discussion in this thread but it's starting to get a little personal. Just a gentle reminder to keep it on topic and civil, and to attack the post not the poster. Thanks.

Spanish Eyes

tippman1 wrote: »

Here it is.

Wow, just wow!

These pilots should get a medal.

billy few mates

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Wow, just wow!

These pilots should get a medal.

Or sacked for not spotting the tripped circuit breaker that caused the whole event....?

billy few mates

You are going to give people on the ground (like maintenance engineers) a chance to look closely at what is where, which will be a clue about what may happen when attempting to subsequently land on that gear.

Your maintenance engineers must have pretty good eyesight to be able to "look closely" at your A/C and accurately diagnose your problem as you shoot past at 150mph two hundred feet above their heads.....

Irish Steve

Alaba320 wrote: »

You certainly do have a bee in your bonnet with automation.. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sensing a bit of jealousy and I'm guessing that the plane you fly (if you do fly) doesn't have an autopilot. Am I right?

No you could not be further from the truth. I have no issue with automation, I've used it, used it very intensively when flying single crew IFR in busy airspace in order to manage the workload, but my issue is the situation that arises when for whatever reason, pilots can't fly accurately without it, and there are a number of situations where that has become a significant factor in accidents and incidents.

I know from my own experience that if I didn't do some hand flying on a regular basis, my ability to fly to IFR limits in genuine IFR was compromised. I could still fly the aircraft, but I knew that my ability to maintain heading and height etc. wasn't quite as good, so the solution was to turn some of the automation off and fly the thing myself, and do it on a regular basis.

My concern is that normal commercial operations only use probably 20% of the aircraft performance envelope, and that's done for all sorts of comfort and commercial reasons. 99.9 recurring % of the time, that's fine, and nothing goes wrong, but when something does, there may be a requirement to use every last scintilla of the performance capability of the aircraft, and if the pilot doesn't know what the limits of the performance are, using them can indeed be dangerous, and counter productive. The Airbus as an example has all manner of protections to prevent over banking, or excessive angle of attack, but if for some reason those protections are not operating, (AF447 being the clearest example, there have been others), if the crew then can't either recognise the excursions and manage them, or use the extremes of the envelope to effect a recovery, then there is a gap in their knowledge that is potentially dangerous or even fatal.

Pre 9/11, when things were less restricted, I've seen 747-400 line pilots who were given an out of normal operations challenge in the sim to do a hand flown landing on any runway from 10,000 Ft in CAVOK in the shortest possible time who broke the airplane up in the descent because they couldn't cope with flying outside of the SOP of a flight director and magenta line to follow to a 3 degree glide slope to follow the ILS to land it.

So what you may say, as did others, until they were then told that the thinking behind the scenario was that they had a fire, and needed to get it on the ground ASAP, rather than flying around the parishes for the next 20 minutes. The same 747-4 instructor that showed us that scenario also did a demonstrated landing of the 747 into Chicago Meigs, a runway little longer than London City. It wasn't a by the book approach using the "book" figures, but it got the aircraft safely on to a runway that under normal circumstances wouldn't even be considered as suitable to put a 747-4 on to, but because he knew the absolute limits of the airframe, he was able to use them to do things that could be the difference between safe and dead.

That's where I'm coming from, and why.

eatmyshorts

Our OM-A explicitly forbids low approaches.

Chuck Aaron

SAR Helicopter has warning indicators that go off when it's a under a specific height off the ground so that the landing gear must be down.

Bussywussy

''too low-gear'' from the GPWS On commercial aircraft

pepe the prawn

A bell goes off in the cockpit of a cessna 210 when the manifold pressure goes below 12 inches with the gear retracted, there's technology for ye

Wibbs

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Wow, just wow!

These pilots should get a medal.

I know, very smooth. I've been in rougher looking landings with the gear down.

smurfjed

Originally Posted by Spanish Eyes View Post
Wow, just wow!

These pilots should get a medal.

A medal??? Surely you mean that they should have been fired!

Reoil

smurfjed wrote: »

A medal??? Surely you mean that they should have been fired!

Eh?!

smurfjed

They had a means of extending the undercarriage.

Shortly after the evacuation, a team from the Polish State Commission for Aircraft Accident Investigation arrived, and discovered that the C829 circuit breaker, which protects a number of systems including the alternate landing gear extension system was "popped". The C4248 breaker for the alternate landing gear remained closed.

After the plane was lifted off the runway, the C829 circuit breaker was closed, and the landing gear was extended, using the alternate system. The plane was then towed to the LOT maintenance hangar, for repairs and further investigation.

Reoil

Depends if it was in the flight procedure manual or not?

billy few mates

Many flight manuals would allow for one reset of a CB except for some things like fuel pumps, the problem in this case was that it wasn't spotted.

smurfjed

Mr Boeing says this in the B777 FCOM....

Inflight, flight crew reset of a tripped circuit breaker is not recommended. However, a tripped circuit breaker may be reset once, after a short cooling down period(approximately two minutes), if in the judgement of the Captain, the situation resulting from the circuit breaker trip has a significant adverse effect on safety

I assume that the B767 is similar.

ProfessorPlum

Iirc the CB was pulled on the ground for a maintanence procedure and never reset before the flight. I also recall that checking the CBs is part of the preflight for that type. (just from memory, so I'm open to correction)

Kind of reminds me of the crew that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic due a fuel leak and made a very impressive and successful glide approach into the Azores (I think). Heroes for a day or two until it transpired that they're open the fuel cross feed and allowed all the fuel from the intact side of the system to piss out the big hole on the other side. Ouch. Stories like that certainly concentrate the mind when ever auctioning any of those buttons and knobs!

artanevilla

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Iirc the CB was pulled on the ground for a maintanence procedure and never reset before the flight. I also recall that checking the CBs is part of the preflight for that type. (just from memory, so I'm open to correction)

Kind of reminds me of the crew that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic due a fuel leak and made a very impressive and successful glide approach into the Azores (I think). Heroes for a day or two until it transpired that they're open the fuel cross feed and allowed all the fuel from the intact side of the system to piss out the big hole on the other side. Ouch. Stories like that certainly concentrate the mind when ever auctioning any of those buttons and knobs!

Would you not pop a tag on the CB in that case?

FWVT

Alaba320 wrote: »

Never heard so much sh1te! Airlines (in Europe especially) have phased out low fly-pasts years ago. Most airlines forbid them and what in gods name is going to change when you do a fly-past? The green light isn't going to magically illuminate just because you are doing a fly-past. You still have to treat it as a gear unsafe indication whatever the ATCO says.. So why bother carrying out a manoeuvre that will scare some PAX and increases risks for the sake of nothing??

You comment about things not been on checklists is ridiculous.. You can bet your bottom dollar that there is a reason for them not being there! Checklists have evolved over years and years of crashes and incidents and items are removed from checklists as often as they are added.. SOPs have been written to ensure best practice and provide the best outcome - so stick to them!

I do understand that some scenarios are not covered by SOPs or checklists, in this case it's up to pilot experience to come up with a solution.. But faults and failures such as a gear unsafe warning aren't new to the industry and you can be sure there are SOPs and Checklists for this.

A low fly-past is prohibited in the airline I work for and As far as I know this is the case for most airlines!

You certainly do have a bee in your bonnet with automation.. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sensing a bit of jealousy and I'm guessing that the plane you fly (if you do fly) doesn't have an autopilot. Am I right?

A bit harsh. There have been plenty of low flypasts by commercial aircraft, most recently on Sunday. Eight such reports so far in 2015 alone and 20 in 2014.

http://avherald.com/h?search_term=%22low+approach%22&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=-862&search.y=-102

So they're widely prohibited?

smurfjed

We were discussing fly-bys to have the tower assess if the gear was locked down or not, in the Aeroflot case it was different..

The airline reported the gear was fully retracted upon departure and indicated fully locked up, however, enroute the crew received indication the gear was no longer fully locked up.

So its more a case of having someone look at tell them if they have any gear hanging out or not, its not a case of confirming that their gear was locked down

The joys of aviation, different situations call for different solutions

eatmyshorts

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Kind of reminds me of the crew that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic due a fuel leak and made a very impressive and successful glide approach into the Azores (I think). Heroes for a day or two until it transpired that they're open the fuel cross feed and allowed all the fuel from the intact side of the system to piss out the big hole on the other side. Ouch. Stories like that certainly concentrate the mind when ever auctioning any of those buttons and knobs!

The difference there was that they followed the checklist procedure. After that incident Airbus rewrote the checklists.

ProfessorPlum

eatmyshorts wrote: »

The difference there was that they followed the checklist procedure. After that incident Airbus rewrote the checklists.

They did follow the checklist procedure - for a fuel imbalance, whereas their primary (undiagnosed) problem was a fuel leak. After that incident, Airbus did indeed include a caveat in the imbalance procedure to confirm the issue wasn't due to a leak before balancing fuel.

I guess my point is that like the LOT flight, the guys did a fabulous job with the situation they ultimately found themselves in - both incidents could probably not have been handled better in fairness. However, the heroes welcome lost a bit of its sparkle when the full facts came out. Not to take away at all from the flying skills of the crews.

After all, there but for the grace of god etc....

the_monkey

So how did that happen to the LOT 767, if they are supposed to be able to come down and lock under their own weight ?

roundymac

If I remember there was another switch which they had not/forgotten to press.