108 replies to this topic

[Prancer]

roboa, on Oct 30 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

Perriwen, on Oct 30 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

Once you go manual, the 767 isn't too much different to fly than a beech baron, just feels a lot heavier.

Did you really just say that?    Have experience flying a REAL 767? If you do then i'll shut up and not return to this topic.

Do you? (and the LDS/captain sim crap doesn't count)

[Cactus]

Perriwen, on Oct 30 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

If the main gears touch the tarmac, get them off as quick as possible before you kill someone. Shut the A/T off and slam the engines full forward.

Doing "this" has a greater chance of killing someone than landing on an unoccupied taxiway to begin with.

"Oops the flaps in the wrong setting"
"Oops the spoilers are still deployed"
"Oops we're overspeeding the aircraft and we're getting distracting warning horns"

[Prancer]

Duke, on Oct 30 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

"Oops the flaps in the wrong setting"
"Oops the spoilers are still deployed"
"Oops we're overspeeding the aircraft and we're getting distracting warning horns"

Raise the flaps
Retract the spoilers
Reduce throttle once you get out of the danger zone.

[roboa]

No I don't, never claimed to have. Do you? If not (which i suspect) how the can you make a comparison like that?

[Cactus]

  

Waste of time, guys

[Prancer]

roboa, on Oct 30 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

No I don't, never claimed to have. Do you? If not (which i suspect) how the can you make a comparison like that?

It's kind of common sense...both are twin engine planes. All planes operate the same way. Stick, throttle, rudder. Both have alierons, elevators, and a rudder that operates the same way.

[THBatMan8]

Let's try not to jump on eachothers throats here. No, you can't compare a turbofan to a prop simply because of the added inertia and the fact that turbines aren't all that responsive to thrust inputs. A 767 carries a lot of inertia behind it and if you're used to flying category A aircraft (PANS-OPS), a jump to category D aircraft (such as the 767) will seem foreign.

[roboa]

Silly question but don't suppose you considered the SIZE + WEIGHT difference? duh

[Prancer]

I actually referenced the difference in my original post. Don't tell me you think I was being literal...

[roboa]

Do. Not. Bite. Leave.

[AmericanAirFan]

Perriwen, on Oct 30 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Reduce throttle once you get out of the danger zone.

Highhhway to the Danga Zone

[TheBearJew]

My company once hired a CFI with over 3000 hrs instructing in light singles and twins as a 727 FO. I was in the sim instructing him and after 3 horrendous hours in the 727 sim he broke down in tears and said he just couldn't get a handle on the plane and that the pace that things come at you on a commercial jets fligth deck was much too much for him to handle. He packed up his dreams of flying jets and went home to continue as an ainstructor.

Not evryone has it. It certainly is not the same as a Beach Baron or anything you'd be used to flying if you had just come from general aviation. It's much more complex much more involving, and much more intense. If you are behind the plane and can't seem to get your brain to match the speed that things happen you will never be succesful flying a jet transport.

When I fly GA airplanes nowdays I actually get disoriented on final when we have to slow to 70 kts. I'm not used to flying that slowly any more and it kind of freaks me out. I'm used to crossing the threshold at 145 kts. Not 60.

GA X = JET

Edited by DC8SUPER72, 31 October 2009 - 03:30 AM.

[Cactus]

This post is dedicated to every "armchair pilot" on the internet who refused to believe that real life is more complicated than Flight Simulator. Bonus point for those who made reference to ILS and runway lighting.

NTSB: Complex error chain preceded Delta 767 taxiway landing

Quote

A series of atypical circumstances preceded an early morning taxiway landing of a Delta Air Lines Boeing 767 at the Atlanta Hartsfield International airport from Rio de Janeirio on 19 October, according to a preliminary incident report published by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on 23 December.

None of the 182 passengers or 11 crew on Delta Air Lines Flight 60 were injured in the incident, which occurred in pre-sunrise darkness and good weather at 06:05 EST that morning, nor was the aircraft damaged, according to the NTSB.

The chain of events that led to the incident appears to have begun during cruise flight, when a check airman in the cockpit became sick and was relocated to the main cabin.

While the nature of airman's medical problem was not identified, the NTSB says the crew notified Delta dispatchers of the situation "and a medical emergency was declared to air traffic control via the company". A decision was made to continue to Atlanta with the remaining two pilots, the NTSB continues.

Inbound to the airport, the air traffic controller handling the flight offered to switch the aircraft's landing runway from 27L to a parallel runway, 27R, via a "sidestep" manoeuvre in order to put the aircraft closer to the terminal for a planned medical evacuation of the sick check airman. The pilots accepted the modified clearance.

With a sidestep, pilots can fly the instrument approach to 27L, manoeuvring to the line up with 27R after sighting the runway visually on the approach.

The instrument landing system for 27R was not operating as it was not the baseline runway for the approach that night. Approach lights for runway 27R were also inoperative due to maintenance being performed.

"The crew landed on taxiway M, located 200ft north of runway 27R," says the NTSB. "After landing on the taxiway, the flight crew taxied to the ramp without further incident."

http://www.flightglo...67-taxiway.html

Edited by Duke, 30 December 2009 - 11:20 AM.

[THBatMan8]

^

Thanks for the bump. That clarifies what happened.

[FL050]

Perriwen, on Oct 30 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

Duke, on Oct 30 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

"Oops the flaps in the wrong setting"
"Oops the spoilers are still deployed"
"Oops we're overspeeding the aircraft and we're getting distracting warning horns"

Raise the flaps
Retract the spoilers
Reduce throttle once you get out of the danger zone.

Horrible decision.

The crew made the right decision.

[AirFranceSST]

Well this doesn't really surprise me, just hope everyone was alright.
I've heard of aircraft taking off from taxiways at KPHX that barely avoided being hit.

Edited by AirFranceSST, 30 December 2009 - 11:53 AM.

[Flying_Scotsman]

FL050, on Dec 30 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

Perriwen, on Oct 30 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

Duke, on Oct 30 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

"Oops the flaps in the wrong setting"
"Oops the spoilers are still deployed"
"Oops we're overspeeding the aircraft and we're getting distracting warning horns"

Raise the flaps
Retract the spoilers
Reduce throttle once you get out of the danger zone.

Horrible decision.

The crew made the right decision.

Dead easy to say in hindsight mate, system failures, lights not working, ILS not working, side step, medical emergency....but

What if there was a 747 taxiing towards them, heading for 27 takeoff.  What if it was half way down the taxi way, perhaps giving the 767 about 20 seconds to get back in the air.  If the 767 had started to flare, the pilots realised they had made a huge mistake, disabled the ap&at, retracted the spoilers and and gave 100% power and managed to clear the 747.  From what I have read, this sounds like an impossible task to do in the 767??

Edited by Dr...Watson, 31 December 2009 - 12:30 AM.

[THBatMan8]

Dr...Watson, on Dec 31 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

FL050, on Dec 30 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

Perriwen, on Oct 30 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

Duke, on Oct 30 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

"Oops the flaps in the wrong setting"
"Oops the spoilers are still deployed"
"Oops we're overspeeding the aircraft and we're getting distracting warning horns"

Raise the flaps
Retract the spoilers
Reduce throttle once you get out of the danger zone.

Horrible decision.

The crew made the right decision.

Dead easy to say in hindsight mate, system failures, lights not working, ILS not working, side step, medical emergency....but

What if there was a 747 taxiing towards them, heading for 27 takeoff.  What if it was half way down the taxi way, perhaps giving the 767 about 20 seconds to get back in the air.  If the 767 had started to flare, the pilots realised they had made a huge mistake, disabled the ap&at, retracted the spoilers and and gave 100% power and managed to clear the 747.  From what I have read, this sounds like an impossible task to do in the 767??

^

I sure hope they wouldn't have the A/P and A/T engaged in a sidestep approach. A sidestep approach is a NPA. You begin the approach by aligning with 27L, then sidestep to 27R when you have the runway in sight above the MDA. Cleaning up the aircraft near Vref will also invite the inevitable stall, and it's not a recommended procedure for the 767 because of the amount of time it takes for the LP and HP spools to spin up RPM's. The 767's thrust isn't all that responsive to throttle inputs compared to other planes. The GA flap setting is flaps 20, and leading edge slats extended. The approach lighting, LOC and G/S for 27R was inoperative because 27R wasn't a active runway at the time.


If they left the A/T and A/P on during the approach, the aircraft would autoland at 27L, because that's the frequency that would be tuned in the ILS transceiver. You don't need the LOC and G/S to be operational for 27R if you're doing a sidestep. However, having the approach lighting operational would have been nice.

Edited by THBatMan8, 31 December 2009 - 05:31 AM.

[Flying_Scotsman]

Yeh, I know what a sidestep approach is....

Well, if they were hand flying it, all they had to do was rectract spoilers and give 100% power, yeh I know spool up times are slow but we are talking a few seconds not longer.

The aircraft has more than enough thrust for a full flap takeoff, the performance of the aircraft at landing weight and full power is unbelievable.

If he crashed into another aircraft on the taxi way, say after he had reduced speed to 50kts, or even if the taxi way was under repair or something, everyone would have been wondering why he didn't go around.

Edited by Dr...Watson, 31 December 2009 - 05:44 AM.

[THBatMan8]

Dr...Watson, on Dec 31 2009, 05:37 AM, said:

Yeh, I know what a sidestep approach is....

Well, skipping the technical stuff, you agree that when the aircraft is close to approach or touched down, they should have continued the landing even if they realised at that point that they were on a taxi way?

Well, that wasn't aimed at you in particular but to those who didn't understand. Personally if I was flying the plane I would have continued with the landing. You're pretty much committed to landing once you're below the MDA and initiating a GA that close to ground level in something like the 767 is inviting the inevitable because of the inertia that plane carries behind it.