Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Overweight No Flaps Landing  
User currently offlineFlexo From St. Helena, joined Mar 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2844 times:

Yesterday I saw a report on TV about the 1992 EL Al 747 crash in Amsterdam (Link: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19921004-2), where both engines on the right side of the aircraft separated from the wing and took almost the entire leading edge with them shortly after take off.

Although the aircraft remained flyable, the stall characteristics of the right wing became worse causing it to stall before the left wing and thus causing the crash when speed was reduced for landing.

They quoted an expert on the show who said that it was impossible to land the aircraft safely and there was nothing the crew could have done after losing both engines and the leading edge of the right wing.

Hence my question: Assuming control of a 747 was still available but you lost the flaps and you had to land immediately after take off being at MTOW.
Has that been tried before? Is there a chance of a successful outcome? What would be your stall speed then?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 2003, 14077 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

If the pilots land the plane smoothly (and don't smash it on the runway), the only parts of the plane exposed to high stress are the wheel brakes and tyres. Since the brakes have to dissipate the kinetic energy of the plane in form of heat, the can easily overheat, causing the fuse plugs on the wheels to melt, which in turn would deflate the tyres.
The brakes will be VERY hot after such a landing and there will be a lot of time required to let them cool down (possibly assisted by fans blowing cold air over them or a fog of water spray, never a jet of water, which can cause cracking or distortion of landing gear components due to uneven cooling), before an inspection and, possibly a wheel and brake change can be carried out.
We hadsuch a case not too long ago, when a passenger of a 737 collapsed just after take-off to a distant destination and the plane had to land with almost MTOW. We let the brakes cool down for an hour (while the paramedics were treating the passenger), inspected the landing gear and sent it on it's way.

But in the case of the El Al plane, the plane was onlysemicontrollable after the loss of two engines and the leading edge devices on one wing. I don't see achance for it to come down smoothly.

Jan


User currently offlineTb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1615 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

I don't know if it has happened but I am pretty sure it would do it. It would be pretty fast but there are numbers for it, it's probably a part of certification.


Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2786 times:

The EL AL flight was at a disadvantage since the crew really didn't know what the configuration was. Had the crew kept their speed up, they would have been fine.

As for the 747/744 doing a no flap, yes it's possible. However, you will run up against the tire limiting speed of 225 knots (varies with mfg).

In real life, if for some reason you had a no flap/no slat configuration (highly unlikely) the first thing you would like to do is reduce weight as much as possible, (read dump fuel) and then land.


User currently offlineFlexo From St. Helena, joined Mar 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2756 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 3):
In real life, if for some reason you had a no flap/no slat configuration (highly unlikely) the first thing you would like to do is reduce weight as much as possible, (read dump fuel) and then land.

That's what I thought, too. In case of the El Al accident they were at almost MTOW and in the air for about 8 minutes after the problem occured. Why would they not dump as much fuel as possible during those 8 minutes?


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2834 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2736 times:



Quoting Flexo (Reply 4):


Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 3):
In real life, if for some reason you had a no flap/no slat configuration (highly unlikely) the first thing you would like to do is reduce weight as much as possible, (read dump fuel) and then land.

That's what I thought, too. In case of the El Al accident they were at almost MTOW and in the air for about 8 minutes after the problem occured. Why would they not dump as much fuel as possible during those 8 minutes?

Seems to me like their plate was pretty full in that 8 minutes...

Disclaimer: I have not read the report and don't know definitively that the crew did NOT dump fuel. Perhaps someone can shed some light on that.

Regardless of the situation, it is clear that the crew was unaware of the true status of the aircraft, and performed as well as could possibly be expected under the circumstances. It's always easy to see the solution when you have years to think about it with full knowledge of the facts; it's much more difficult when you are presented with multiple emergencies and incomplete information in a very time-compressed environment.

From the summary linked in the original post:

El Al cargo flight 1862 departed New York-JFK Airport for a flight to Tel Aviv via Amsterdam. The aircraft arrived at Amsterdam at 13:40 for a crew change, cargo processing and refueling. The total amount of cargo was 114.7 tons, gross weight of the aircraft 338.3 tons (21 tons below the maximum allowable). The aircraft taxied out to runway 01L at 17:14 and started the takeoff roll at 17:21. At 17:27:30, as the aircraft was climbing through 6500 feet, the no. 3 engine and pylon separated from the wing in an outward and rearward movement, colliding with the no. 4 engine causing this engine and pylon to separate as well. An emergency was declared and the crew acknowledged their intention to return to Schiphol Airport and reported that they had a no. 3 engine failure and a loss of engine thrust of both no. 3 and 4 engine. At 17:28:57 the Amsterdam Radar controller informed the crew that runway 06 was in use with a 040 deg / 21 knots wind. The crew however requested runway 27 for landing. A straight in approach to runway 27 was not possible because of airplane altitude (5000 feet) and distance to the runway (7 miles). The Amsterdam Arrival controller then instructed the crew to turn right heading 360deg and descend to 2000 feet. During this descending turn the El Al crew reported that the no. 3 and 4 engine were out and that they were having flap problems. Final clearance was given to turn right heading 270 to intercept the final approach course. When it became apparent that the aircraft was going to overshoot the localizer, the controller informed the crew accordingly and directed them to turn to heading 290 to try and intercept the final approach path again. A further instruction was given a 310 heading and descent clearance for 1500 feet. These instructions were acknowledged and the crew added that they were experiencing control problems now as well. While reducing speed in preparation for the final approach, control was lost and the aircraft crashed into an eleven-floor apartment building the Bijlmermeer suburb of Amsterdam.


User currently offlinePoint8six From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

The actual flight conditions experienced by the crew will never be known. It is possible to experiment separation of one engine in the simulator - the warnings and vibration are excessive. With two engines separated, I would imagine the vibration would be both disorientating and frightening and it it easy to see why the crew sought an immediate return without fuel-dumping (only 2000kgs per minute).

User currently offlineFlexo From St. Helena, joined Mar 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2618 times:



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 5):
Regardless of the situation, it is clear that the crew was unaware of the true status of the aircraft, and performed as well as could possibly be expected under the circumstances. It's always easy to see the solution when you have years to think about it with full knowledge of the facts

Hey, I'm not trying to be the know-it-all 16 years later who would have done it all better. The reason I asked is more that I was wondering if dumping would have even been an option for them considering that they were not at altitude and circling over populated area.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2591 times:



Quoting Flexo (Reply 7):
The reason I asked is more that I was wondering if dumping would have even been an option for them considering that they were not at altitude and circling over populated area.

It's always *an* option...it just might not have been a good one given all the other stuff they had going on at the time. Dumping fuel at low altitude over populated areas has been done before...it's a PR mess, and expensive to clean up, but better than crashing.

Tom.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2562 times:



Quoting Point8six (Reply 6):
The actual flight conditions experienced by the crew will never be known. It is possible to experiment separation of one engine in the simulator - the warnings and vibration are excessive. With two engines separated, I would imagine the vibration would be both disorientating and frightening and it it easy to see why the crew sought an immediate return without fuel-dumping (only 2000kgs per minute).

There is no reason why engine separation of itself would produce excessive vibration. That's just the way that simulator is programmed. I'm not sure vibration was a factor in this. The crew had no idea the leading edge was so badly damaged. Excessive vibration might have alerted them.

As for fuel dumping, you can't dump much fuel in eight minutes.

Even given the loss of two engines and two hydraulic systems they would still have had alternate (electric) flaps, so may not have been planning a flapless landing. However alternate flaps on a 747 take much longer to extend, so you have to think well ahead. The leading edge damage made the crucial difference, but given better luck they might still have got the aircraft down safely. Had they elected to stay in the air and assessed the problem more fully, who knows what might have happened?

El Al used to put all their 747 crews thought the AMS accident scenario in the simulator. Crashing as a result was not seen as failure, they just wanted to have the crew experience the stress of the situation. That way if it happened again they would be better prepared.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2512 times:



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 9):
As for fuel dumping, you can't dump much fuel in eight minutes.

And it's not even eight minutes. It's not like the instant they have a problem they start dumping. I don't know exactly how long it would take but there are checklists and procedures to go through. Also they might be busy with more pressing stuff than dumping.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFlexo From St. Helena, joined Mar 2007, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

So from what we learned from the accident, if that happened again and the crew were aware of these problems: No flaps and no engines on the right wing, near MTOW.

What would be the best way to proceed? Stay in the air in a greatly damaged aircraft, dump fuel and hope the plane stays aloft long enough or try to perform an overweight landing asap with no flaps?


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2397 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 9):
As for fuel dumping, you can't dump much fuel in eight minutes.

See, I really need to find a way to make my baggage-dumping concept a reality. Provided bomb-bay-style doors were installed, it would be both cheaper and faster than dumping fuel.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9156 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2386 times:



Quoting Flexo (Thread starter):
Hence my question: Assuming control of a 747 was still available but you lost the flaps and you had to land immediately after take off being at MTOW.

That is a big assumption, the loss of the mass of those engines will have significantly changed the stability and control of the aircraft, that is effectively an instant 10,000 kg change in mass and CG position.

A reduction in airspeed would result in lower control effectiveness, with the CG change, one may need full deflection at a higher airspeed just to maintain control, and fuel dumping may make the CG problem even worse.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineZuluAviator994 From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2311 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 12):
it would be both cheaper

I don't know about cheaper, what about repaying all the pax for their lost baggage?  Wink



If Speed is life, Altitude is life insurance. No one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offline3MilesToWRO From Poland, joined Mar 2006, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2247 times:

I think a passenger can stay with his/her baggage if (s)he wants.

User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2243 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 12):
See, I really need to find a way to make my baggage-dumping concept a reality. Provided bomb-bay-style doors were installed, it would be both cheaper and faster than dumping fuel.

It would be better to have a system that dumps fuel at a higher rate. If you wanted to be liberal with numbers and figure 100lbs per bag, 2 bags per pax, and 400 pax, you end up with 80k in baggage. The difference between MGTOW (870k) and MGLW (630k) is 240k, so you would still be 160k overweight. A dent, but not worthwhile for the extra weight of carrying such a system for a slim chance of use.

I also think people would rather have some jet fuel fall on their houses than have luggage containers raining down. Especially if it was an accidental jettison!!



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting ZuluAviator994 (Reply 14):

My theory is that the value of the fuel will soon exceed the cost of reimbursing the passengers for the loss of their bags...  Wink

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2215 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 17):
My theory is that the value of the fuel will soon exceed the cost of reimbursing the passengers for the loss of their bags...



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 12):
I really need to find a way to make my baggage-dumping concept a reality. Provided bomb-bay-style doors were installed, it would be both cheaper and faster than dumping fuel.

This post started out about a horrible accident that MAY have been avoided by a quicker/better fuel dump system. But before you get too carried away with bomb bay doors et all, remember that MOST incidents that require fuel dumping are Air Turn Backs that require no necessity for rapid dumping. Very rarely do you have to dump as fast as possible and get back on the ground. Perhaps an inflight fire or as we always saw in the sim a 2 eng failure in a 3 eng jet.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Overweight No Flaps Landing
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
No Flaps Landings... posted Wed Nov 1 2006 20:19:13 by UsAirways16bwi
Flaps Landing Vs Flaps Takeoff posted Fri Oct 29 2004 01:23:19 by Flybynight
No Flaps Takeoff On Airbus 300? posted Sun Sep 5 2004 05:53:18 by N229NW
RE: Flight OS111 No Engine Landing: Procedures? posted Mon Jan 5 2004 16:01:19 by Klm-md11
No T/R On Landing posted Tue Dec 23 2003 23:46:44 by Mlsrar
No-slats Landing In A 707-320C? posted Fri Dec 12 2003 21:19:27 by Happy-flier
Takeoff With No Flaps Extended, Is It Posible? posted Fri Sep 19 2003 20:29:10 by Capri
A320 Flaps 3 Landing posted Wed Sep 3 2003 15:53:08 by Vrandar
A300/310 Take Off No Flaps? posted Thu Mar 6 2003 13:16:06 by Airbus Lover
Why No Main Landing Gear Doors On The 737? posted Sat Sep 23 2000 22:57:00 by Starship

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format