767 Gear up in Poland

I don't think they foam anymore. Its been years/decades since I've heard of it. Something about it not being as useful as thought and possibly hindering rescue crews. Plus the clean-up.
 
Skill or luck, everyone walked away. I'd buy that crew a pint.
 
In one news article a passenger is quoted as saying "We owe our lives to the pilot." In what other flights (where you safely get to where you wanted to go) do the passengers not owe their safety to the pilot? Is he only there for emergencies? Seems to some folks that he's only important if something goes wrong.

Dan
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I don't think they foam anymore. Its been years/decades since I've heard of it. Something about it not being as useful as thought and possibly hindering rescue crews. Plus the clean-up.
Click to expand...

Another issue, I'm told, is that you have lots of foam spread out where it can't do much good, instead of still in the trucks where it can be used to good effect if the plane catches on fire.

It's not the runway that they want to save from burning up - it's the people inside the potentially burning airplane.
 
JesseD said:
Skill or luck, everyone walked away. I'd buy that crew a pint.
Click to expand...

Sounds like they did a good job, but gear up landings have a long history of not hurting people. As Rick Durden said on Avweb:

Resolve that you will do nothing to make an emergency worse. While a gear up landing is considered an emergency, it is as benign an emergency as there is. I have been unable to find any reports of gear up incidents (by definition, a gear up landing is very, very rarely an "accident") in civilian airplanes since World War II in which someone was hurt, so long as the pilot didn't add to the problem by trying to stop the propeller. There were serious injuries and fatalities in gear up landings where the pilot decided to practice bleeding (to add a second emergency to the mix -- that of landing with a shut down engine). Why in the world a person would try a brand-new maneuver -- one that he has never, ever practiced, and involves the creation of a true emergency -- when he already has one, is worth a long study in abnormal psychology. ("Have an emergency?" "No, thanks, just had one.") Unfortunately some of those we would desire to study killed themselves and their passengers. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/187251-1.html
 
Love this quote:

According to LOT's president, the Boeing 767 is the youngest of their fleet and was in perfect condition.
Click to expand...

This may be asking the obvious, but "If it was in perfect condition, what happened?":wink2::wink2::D
 
The pilot did a really nice job.
 
wsuffa said:
This may be asking the obvious, but "If it was in perfect condition, what happened?":wink2::wink2::D
Click to expand...
Some discussion on PPW that while the gear is hydraulic and will freefall with no pressure, the gear uplocks on the 76 are purely electrical....so if the aircraft experienced an electrical failure while crossing the pond and they didn't get the gear down before the batteries were drained, then the gear just isn't coming down.

Don't know if that is what happened, but a possibility.
 
sba55 said:
I fail to see how this is a story.
Click to expand...
Isn't it up like the first gear up landing of a widebody aircraft (Airbus or Boeing) in a decade or two? You bet it is a story. Gear up landings of all transport category aircraft are rare enough and no wonder they show up prominently in the media. I fail to see your point.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Some discussion on PPW that while the gear is hydraulic and will freefall with no pressure, the gear uplocks on the 76 are purely electrical....so if the aircraft experienced an electrical failure while crossing the pond and they didn't get the gear down before the batteries were drained, then the gear just isn't coming down.

Don't know if that is what happened, but a possibility.
Click to expand...

The main gear are held up by latched main gear doors on the B767. The nose gear is held up by it's own uplatch. Both main and nose gear normal extension is accomplished by haudraulically releasing their respective up lock mechanisms. Alternate gear extension uses electric actuators to release the uplocks. For all the gear to remain up, that aircraft must have been seriously messed up.
 
wsuffa said:
Love this quote:

This may be asking the obvious, but "If it was in perfect condition, what happened?":wink2::wink2::D
Click to expand...
And if that's their idea of perfection, what's the rest of the fleet like!? :hairraise:

Fearless Tower said:
Some discussion on PPW that while the gear is hydraulic and will freefall with no pressure, the gear uplocks on the 76 are purely electrical....so if the aircraft experienced an electrical failure while crossing the pond and they didn't get the gear down before the batteries were drained, then the gear just isn't coming down.

Don't know if that is what happened, but a possibility.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have blown down bolts, or SOME alternate way to get them down, if that's the case. Even the Saab (340) has explosive bolts if all else fails to open the uplocks. Greg, Boeing insight?

EDIT: Thank you MadDog.
 
olasek said:
Isn't it up like the first gear up landing of a widebody aircraft (Airbus or Boeing) in a decade or two? You bet it is a story. Gear up landings of all transport category aircraft are rare enough and no wonder they show up prominently in the media. I fail to see your point.
Click to expand...
So? This shows what's wrong with the media. Nobody except maybe Boeing is actually affected by this.

How I wish people would care about the important things :(
 
sba55 said:
So? This shows what's wrong with the media. Nobody except maybe Boeing is actually affected by this.

How I wish people would care about the important things :(
Click to expand...
Launch a crusade to change media. Frankly 99% of the stuff reported by the media doesn't affect you or me. There are far more useless stuff in the media than 767 gear up landing which by the way I am glad it got reported on front pages since it did deserve prime time, regardless what you think.
 
Nowadays, it's just easier to BE the media. Put out the "important" stuff yourself. If enough people agree, they'll watch/listen/whatever. Ignoring the mass media is the fastest way to make it die or reform.
 
A fine job landing the plane without injuries. BTW: It was the former FAA spokesman who compared this to Sully. A typical FOX entertainment media, spends lots of time and video on something that merits a bare mention.
 
olasek said:
Isn't it up like the first gear up landing of a widebody aircraft (Airbus or Boeing) in a decade or two? You bet it is a story. Gear up landings of all transport category aircraft are rare enough and no wonder they show up prominently in the media. I fail to see your point.
Click to expand...

It is a story, but it isn't A STORY. Just like anything else aviation related, the media has to sensationalize it.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I don't think they foam anymore. Its been years/decades since I've heard of it. Something about it not being as useful as thought and possibly hindering rescue crews. Plus the clean-up.
Click to expand...
Foam used to be de rigeur for intentional belly landings, but the Air Force did a study on it back in the 70's or so and found that for the stated reasons and others not mentioned (including engine damage due to foam ingestion), overall risk was reduced by not using foam, so they stopped, and everyone else followed suit.
 
Ron Levy said:
Foam used to be de rigeur for intentional belly landings, but the Air Force did a study on it back in the 70's or so and found that for the stated reasons and others not mentioned (including engine damage due to foam ingestion), overall risk was reduced by not using foam, so they stopped, and everyone else followed suit.
Click to expand...

Except Poland, apparently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top