Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Someone posted here years ago that training pilots for an "engine out" on Meteors took more lives than actual engine outs did.Something quite odd happened yesterday. A newspaper clipping I have never seen before appeared on my desk. I can only imagine that someone was using it as a bookmark in a used book I bought recently and it fell out without my noticing it at the time.
A scan of the clipping is attached. It describes a horrific mishap that occurred on 30 March 1967. The crew of a Delta DC-8 were demonstrating their ability to land the airplane with two engines out on one wing. They crashed and all were killed, as were 13 people on the ground, including 9 schoolgirls on their senior trip. An experienced pilot, a congressman, pointed out that such a dual engine failure on one wing had never occurred on any commercial crash.
I could discuss FAA screw-ups at length, as could, I am sure, many others, but this one really wins the stupid bureaucrats prize!
Just how do you train crews for what may seem the unlikeliest of events? Do you even bother? Fortunately today there are much better simulators than in 1967.
That's the "big mitigator" in today's world that can avoid accidents like this. The full movement simulators used by major airline training centers are pretty awesome. I was fortunate enough to be able to get some training in one several years ago, amazing the failures that can be inputted into these sims.Just how do you train crews for what may seem the unlikeliest of events? Do you even bother? Fortunately today there are much better simulators than in 1967.
I think that's it exactly. At NASA, both the flight crew and ground team entered joint simulations being able to execute every malfunction in the book. Then the sim team would try to come up with creative combinations of failures that exposed flaws in our malfunction procedures. After each sim, we'd debrief and revise procedures as necessary based on lessons learned from the sim.Just how do you train crews for what may seem the unlikeliest of events? Do you even bother? Fortunately today there are much better simulators than in 1967.
Someone posted here years ago that training pilots for an "engine out" on Meteors took more lives than actual engine outs did.
But right to very end, the Canberra could not be trifled with. When I worked
in the RAF Inspectorate of Flight Safety, we calculated that more Canberras
were lost from practice asymmetric flying than from actual engine failures
themselves. The last of these took place in March 1991 when the station
commander of RAF Wyton asked to perform a simulated engine failure after
take-off (SEFATO) in a T4 for his currency training. Start-up and take-off
were normal until just abeam the ATC tower, where the undercarriage had
just retracted when the station commander called for a SEFATO on the
starboard engine. The T4 was seen to roll slightly left and then right but then
hold a slight right bank at about 200 ft AGL. The T4 then began to roll and
turn to the right at an alarming rate before descending. It then struck a road
sweeper that was parked between two buildings before hitting a small garage
and bursting into flames. None of the three aircrew on board survived.
But, how many didn't die because they did have training? Overall toll may have been way higher than what it was without training.The following quote is from:
Canberra Boys
Fascinating Accounts from the Operators of an English Electric Classic
Andrew Brookes
Grub Street 2017
CHAPTER 23
LIFE IN THE OLD DOG
pp271 of 313
The Sioux City crash (DCA89MA063.aspx). The center engine (a GE CF6-6) had a disk failure, which took out the entire hydraulic system.As I recall, the DC-10 that landed in a corn field, flown only by varying engine thrust, could not be sim flown by anyone, not even those pilots that did it in real life.
One would have to look into each engine failure, it's severity, and then determine if the training received can be attributed to the safe termination of the flight.But, how many didn't die because they did have training? Overall toll may have been way higher than what it was without training.
Look at US Airways Flight 1549 that losf both engines out due to a bird strike (actually a flock of Geese) while still climbing.
Something quite odd happened yesterday. A newspaper clipping I have never seen before appeared on my desk. I can only imagine that someone was using it as a bookmark in a used book I bought recently and it fell out without my noticing it at the time.
A scan of the clipping is attached. It describes a horrific mishap that occurred on 30 March 1967. The crew of a Delta DC-8 were demonstrating their ability to land the airplane with two engines out on one wing. They crashed and all were killed, as were 13 people on the ground, including 9 schoolgirls on their senior trip. An experienced pilot, a congressman, pointed out that such a dual engine failure on one wing had never occurred on any commercial crash.
I could discuss FAA screw-ups at length, as could, I am sure, many others, but this one really wins the stupid bureaucrats prize!
Great information! But I think the biggest take-away from this was:This pales into insignificance with the Real Amateur Air Force B-707 crash at Longford in Victoria in October 1991.
There is anecdotal evidence that Boeing had told them it was suicidal but they did it anyway - double engine failure on one wing with rudder boost turned off which halves their rudder travel. The RAAF's 707 "qualified flight instructor" did not even know the basic flight characteristics when side-slipping a swept wing aircraft
Brutal departure | Flight Safety Australia is a good summary
As a contrast I found here in the states there are many within the FAA with time in the military however many of those hired have some experience in the civilian world, at least from what I experienced.Unfortunately the Aus equivalent of the FAA is heavily staffed with ex RAAF people who bring their RAAF training etc with them and they always know better than the civilians with years of experience on civil aircraft. Repeated ICAO audits contain findings of excessive military and (one) airline staff managing areas they have absolutely no experience in.
I have found similar situations in Canada. It's been almost 20 years the last time I dealt with Transport Canada, don't know if that mindset is still in place.Yep. Those of us here who have worked under both regulators call the FAA the FRIENDLY Aviation Administration.
When it comes to new regulations the FAA publish NPRMs and listen to the input. Changes take forever but they are negotiated.
Here they started consultation committees in the mid 95 and I was my companies rep on several. Our first new reg was to do with bogus parts (unauthorized parts). The OLD produced a three page load of crap and we all said throw that out and take the FAR for most of it but use one para from the JAR. What became law for a few days was the three page crap with additions and included such wonderful requirements as a used part shall be affixed with a tag stating it is new.
They later went to NPRMs but ignore the input. Worse still they inflict their crap on foreign governments by way of AusAid.