When pilots still knew their aerodynamics

[KL-666]

PS it would have went into direct law.

That would have meant an immediate crash. Pilots are hardly trained at many airlines nowadays, and certainly not in any other than normal law.

Kind regards, Vincent

[SHM]

[bomber]

Yeh that is interesting...

Did I read "the engine fell off"...... this might be a translation issue and not a literal meaning... ie the engines power fell off... or it might actually mean the engine fell off it's wing pylon.

If it's the latter then that's pretty catastrophic and operating the fire extinguishers around all engine cowlings might be considered a precautionary action...

Also interesting is that the surrounding countryside rises, so even though he's managing to keep the plane in the air, that isn't enough it has to climb. And at the height he's talking about we're well into ground effect which is increasing the lift and reducing the vortex drag stretching out the glide path. so it's somewhat understandable that Boeing engineers says the plane can't fly at the speeds stated as no one in their right mights would have a clue as the performance changes of ground effect on such a plane, they might now though.

And then we're into the loading of the plane... which might not be 'total full up weight' but instead 'full up journey' weight'... Ok he's carrying Americans but that doesn't mean his first stop isn't Zurick or Moscow where he might fuel up for the trans Atlantic crossing.

The statement that he didn't jetison the required amount of fuel needs looking at... which is real dodgy as the undercarriage isn't rated to land with anything but it's landing weight, having burnt fuel off.. naughty naughty. He could well have saved everyone's life and then thrown it away with that stingy decision.

But if he was only carrying the fuel for the journey then that might explain the successful landing

all in all a good days work

[HJ1an]

Probably translation, but there were many comments I found odd. Retracting the gears right after take off is understandable to reduce drag; but he mentioned retracting the flaps as I understanding it; I'm curious as to what kind of aerodynamic change are we talking about here when one retracts the flaps at speeds apparently that of just below flying at near 0 AGL?

I'm reminded of a crash that happened when the pilot didn't deploy the flaps during takeoff; and also I'm reminded of the BA B777 at Heathrow - the pilot also retracted the flaps, and according to the story, apparently that extended the glide. Certainly these are the kinds of things that they can't train for in real life, and cannot be simulated properly, you really needed to have a really deep understanding of the characteristics to know to do it at that exact moment... seems like a tricky balancing act for the flaps/non-flaps profile.

Also I think this is the gist at what KL-666 was talking about when he typed in the title of this thread..

[KL-666]

I suppose the text is a Greek article that went through a translation machine. Such is always most notable when words are chosen that are completely out of context. A human would at least chose a synonym somewhat in context. As i regard (news) articles about aviation of low factual value, i think we have actually nothing to seriously discuss about, except the words of the pilot.

The way i understood the pilot, he retracted gear soon after liftoff, but not flaps. Only when he gained speed again and dared to climb slowly, he retracted flaps at the appropriate speeds.

Btw, as Bomber noticed the remark about fuel dump, it surprised me too. But unfortunately we have nothing to crosscheck it with, except the text of dubious quality below the video.

The BA 777 at Heathrow was on landing (full) flaps. They were not retracted, but only retracted one notch. In the high flap settings such action reduces drag very much and has little effect on lift. It indeed gives you a longer glide path.

The flap action at Heathrow shows that even nowadays some airlines still take the time to teach their pilots aerodynamics thoroughly, even though many of their competitors think it is superfluous. This is exactly one of the reasons why tickets are priced accordingly at airlines like BA.

Edit:
Oh and let me not forget to compliment the pilot flying (first officer) too. Counter natural he did not try to reach the runway, but kept the speed on by gliding steeper. Always keep the plane flying (speed) and any result is better than to stall into a certain crash. Again proof of thorough training at BA.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Isn't it actually worth simulating ?

[jwocky]

Appears, that incident didn't draw too much interest in the media back then because short time later a 727 went down and all were killed. I guess, that was the September crash when a 727 collided with a Cessna. All dead is of course a higher priority and sells more copies than pilot landed his damaged plane successfully.

[HJ1an]

Appears, that incident didn't draw too much interest in the media back then because short time later a 727 went down and all were killed. I guess, that was the September crash when a 727 collided with a Cessna. All dead is of course a higher priority and sells more copies than pilot landed his damaged plane successfully.

Ahh, I know that one. Some photographer at a children's party even took a photo of the flaming jet falling out of the skies. Good link of the timelines..

[HJ1an]

Isn't it actually worth simulating ?

Yes, assuming that FG can actually simulate such things happening. I suspect any FG aircraft will just fall out of the sky at some 30knots below stalling..

..and, I need to update my copy of FG as it wasn't working at the moment.

The way i understood the pilot, he retracted gear soon after liftoff, but not flaps. Only when he gained speed again and dared to climb slowly, he retracted flaps at the appropriate speeds.

Aah, I guess I got the timelines mixed up somehow.