Fedex 1376

T/O w/FSII said:
I disagree. The more you know about the problem the better you can be prepared. Use all available resources. If you can’t fly down the runway straight and level at 500 feet I don’t know what to tell you.
Click to expand...
Fair. But how would you conduct the approach, landing, and post landing decisions differently if the tower said the gear was down, but you had unsafe gear indications vs. if they said the gear was up? How does that knowledge change your plan for the approach and landing vs. how you would conduct the approach and landing in the absence of that knowledge? I cannot identify a single thing I would do differently. Does a QRH procedure bifurcate actions based on that knowledge? Absolutely not.
 
T/O w/FSII said:
Nice work by ATC. Also a reminder that ATC generally doesn’t care how many minutes of fuel you have.

They want gallons. They aren’t staging equipment based on minutes.

Nice work, they got lucky on the over run.
Click to expand...

It depends. In the enroute environment, minutes. Near the airport in the terminal environment, pounds. Although the .65 specifically says to get minutes and never mentions pounds anywhere.
 
T/O w/FSII said:
Nice work by ATC. Also a reminder that ATC generally doesn’t care how many minutes of fuel you have.

They want gallons. They aren’t staging equipment based on minutes.

Nice work, they got lucky on the over run.
Click to expand...

They want minutes so they know just how quickly they've got to move traffic out of your way. Pounds is nice for the ARFF guys to know how big of a boom they might have to deal with.
 
NovemberEcho said:
It depends. In the enroute environment, minutes. Near the airport in the terminal environment, pounds. Although the .65 specifically says to get minutes and never mentions pounds anywhere.
Click to expand...

I meant ARFF, not ATC my bad. Since the tower just fowards that info to the FD anyway.
 
ATC indeed wants minutes. ARFF, gallons/pounds doesn’t make much of a difference to me. I have the firefighting equipment I have. If a fire starts, it’s either 1. enough for full extinguishment, 2. enough for covering exits only for egress and possibly rescue, or 3. Not enough for either. If no fire, all is N/A. So basically, it’s a nice to know versus a need to know.
 
Maurus said:
Maybe we need gear up landing distance charts 😳

I'm pretty sure overrunning runways into ALS systems have contributed to pilot deaths in past accidents. I wonder if that was part of the decision process or not. A 757 isn't exactly that tall once the gear is gone...
Click to expand...

One of about nearly 40 people I've personally known who have perished in aircraft accidents, perished this exact way. Oddly, Ive lost exact count of how many, unless I sit down and actually think about it.

This guy I knew who (for unknown reasons) did a high speed takeoff abort at Misawa, Japan in his F-16, ejected as the jet was leaving the end of the runway. His canopy separation, seat ejection, seat/man separation, and parachute inflation, all go as advertised. Jet goes through the localizer antenna just past the overrun and explodes into a ball of JP-8 fire. Ronin's parachute carries him right down into the middle of the wreckage. A JASDF 2-man crash truck crew and a USAF enlisted man who happened to be nearby at the end of the runway ran straight into the fire to pull him out of the middle of the burning wreckage, where he was still face down in the burning fuel and conscious. He lived for almost 2 months at the burn center in San Antonio before passing away.

Unforunate series of events, and to this day it's not known why he initiated abort. No post-accident indications of any kind of aircraft problem, engine problem, or systems problem. Some intersting things that were factors; the departure end of the runway had a BAK-12 arresting cable at 2500' remaining, and a BAK-14/12 at 1250' remaining. The cable at the 1250' remaining point was out of service, due to the BAK-14 portion having been dismantled due to a scheduled conversion to a BAK-12-only configuration. The BAK-12 cable was physically there at the 1250' point, but was unusuable because the BAK-14 was down. However, there was a SAFE-BAR arresting net located at the departure end of the runway, similar to a BAK-15 system (looks like an aircraft carrier net that catches the whole aircraft), but sits in the down position, and is activated "up" by the tower personnel when an abort is in progress and announced by the pilot. Ronin announced his abort, went idle/speedbrakes, dropped his hook but was already past the 2500' BAK-12. Tower didn't have time to activate the SAFE-BAR and the jet rolled over the top of it and into the overrun at not too fast a speed, where he ejected, then into the localizer antenna where it broke apart and caught fire. His ejection seat carried him up to about 300 AGL for chute deployment, and the JASDF personnel reported that he was trying to steer himself away from the fireball. So yeah….not that he rode the jet into the lighting system and antenna in this case, but dead all the same.

IMG_4586.jpeg
IMG_4587.jpeg
 
obx said:
Fair. But how would you conduct the approach, landing, and post landing decisions differently if the tower said the gear was down, but you had unsafe gear indications vs. if they said the gear was up? How does that knowledge change your plan for the approach and landing vs. how you would conduct the approach and landing in the absence of that knowledge? I cannot identify a single thing I would do differently. Does a QRH procedure bifurcate actions based on that knowledge? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...

A low approach isn’t any kind of difficult maneuver or anything that some special training requires. It’s a simple traffic pattern maneuver.

It depends on the aircraft and what the configuration is. Some aircraft, you either make an all gear down, or an all gear up, landing, if at all possible. Dissimilar landing gear configurations can have catastrophic consequences in these aircraft. So having a visual confirmation of what’s actually going on down there will help in the decision for those.

ATC will never tell you your landing gear is down anyway. The best they will do is “appears down”, or “appears partially down”, etc; as they obviously have no way to confirm that it’s down and safe from their vantage point, and are merely relaying a general observation.
 
Listening to the ATC comms, curious why a hesitancy to declare an emergency earlier, even after stating they had a flight control issue. They finally did declare an emergency with the unsafe landing gear, and did so with the souls on board and fuel in time correctly and efficiently passed without having to be queried for that info. It’s also helpful that dispatch did some coordination with ATC. And good that TRACON kept them on an SFA.

CHA ARFF only has two crash trucks; and the emergency was of such a nature that bypassing a suitable recovery field, especially with the flight control issues, was not a reasonable option, even with CHAs shorter runways. Fine job. Be interesting to hear the full story.
 
MikeD said:
Listening to the ATC comms, curious why a hesitancy to declare an emergency earlier, even after stating they had a flight control issue. They finally did declare an emergency with the unsafe landing gear, and did so with the souls on board and fuel in time correctly and efficiently passed without having to be queried for that info. It’s also helpful that dispatch did some coordination with ATC. And good that TRACON kept them on an SFA.

CHA ARFF only has two crash trucks; and the emergency was of such a nature that bypassing a suitable recovery field, especially with the flight control issues, was not a reasonable option, even with CHAs shorter runways. Fine job. Be interesting to hear the full story.
Click to expand...

The FDX culture is emergencies are reserved for the most dire of situations. As civilian only myself, I sometimes wonder how the military treats emergencies and how that correlates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
grchase90 said:
The FDX culture is emergencies are reserved for the most dire of situations. As civilian only myself, I sometimes wonder how the military treats emergencies and how that correlates.
Click to expand...

Military, emergency is treated as needed. Better to declare and not need it, than to not declare and need to. That should be a standard culture across the board; but it isn’t unfortunately.

The civilian culture has always been reluctant to declare an emergency, ATC has to either practically drag it out of the pilot, or ends up declaring for the the affected aircrew. I’ve never understood why the civvie culture is so hesitant to declare. In this case, the mention of any flight control issue IS an emergency. ATC had to inquire twice whether they were declaring, even after they mentioned the flight control problem. Only after the landing gear issue, did they declare and they did it efficiently and correctly.

An early declaration also makes it easier for ARFF forces. As one of those myself, I would much much rather have an announced emergency that I have information on such as persons onboard or cargo/HAZMAT, have time to respond and get setup at the standby locations on, have time to formulate a specific plan of what to focus on first rather than just a general one, have time to ensure that things that I need for that particular emergency are identified and readied-forward, etc. I would very much prefer that and end up having it cancelled or turning out to not be needed; than to ever have an unannounced emergency/crash that I’m rolling out to cold, with no information, with a clock that’s now ticking for survival, with no specific plan of action…..only a general fire suppression or rescue one….because I have no prior information, etc.

The more time I’m given in an announced emergency to prepare, the better service I can provide without trying to play catch-up. Of course, unannounced emergencies/crashes happen, and we are as prepared as we can be for those. I’m talking specifically known ones where there was time to declare an emergency, yet none was ever declared for whatever reason(s).
 
grchase90 said:
The FDX culture is emergencies are reserved for the most dire of situations. As civilian only myself, I sometimes wonder how the military treats emergencies and how that correlates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Military treats literally everything as an emergency
 
knot4u said:
i wonder if that's because they value the people more than the metal. I have no dog in this fight having never served.
Click to expand...

I cant really answer your question, but I will say that the E word is still kinda taboo in the military, at least amongst more junior aviators. Somehow all of aviation is a little too proud to say it. I am not. I declared twice this year. Once after an engine failure, once after tower told us the field was closed at the initial (and we diverted immediately). I dont GAF. PIC, not trying to break rules, but I’m not about to wait for ATC to send me down a rabbit hole of indecision. I will say that deployed US Mil is pretty used to telling foreign ATC to get bent. As we did almost every day over Pak going into AFG.
 
///AMG said:
I cant really answer your question, but I will say that the E word is still kinda taboo in the military, at least amongst more junior aviators. Somehow all of aviation is a little too proud to say it. I am not. I declared twice this year. Once after an engine failure, once after tower told us the field was closed at the initial (and we diverted immediately). I dont GAF. PIC, not trying to break rules, but I’m not about to wait for ATC to send me down a rabbit hole of indecision. I will say that deployed US Mil is pretty used to telling foreign ATC to get bent. As we did almost every day over Pak going into AFG.
Click to expand...

USAF its not much of an issue, if there’s a situation that is an emergency. Flight control issue would come under that, as would a host of other aircraft-related items, some specific to airframe, and even including ordnance emergencies.
 
MikeD said:
USAF its not much of an issue, if there’s a situation that is an emergency. Flight control issue would come under that, as would a host of other aircraft-related items, some specific to airframe, and even including ordnance emergencies.
Click to expand...

It normally doesn’t in USN either, but i work in a place where its either a really newly winged student you’re flying with, or a pretty new active duty instructor.......neither of which are comfortable in their own skin. And on that side note, it is weird adjusting to the scenario where you are almost always the senior aviator, and sometimes you are just polling for an honest opinion.......and everyone just agrees with you, even if you dont know it is the right answer. Come on man, I know I’m not the smartest person on the radio.
 
NovemberEcho said:
It’s possible because the Wing at my base was F-22/15 students that the criteria for emergency was much lower
Click to expand...

I dont know your base, but i do know the stories of Tyndall F-22’s and loss of electricity. And how silly that SOP recovery became.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top