Just read this story.

"A Singapore Airlines Airbus jet lost power on all of its engines mid-flight"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/singap...203400306.html

OP how well would these pilots have been able to maneuver the aircraft to a possible airport without power or would they just have to find a good spot to ditch?

W0X0F can add a lot more colour, but here's a list of flights that lost all engine power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...quired_gliding

Personal Favorites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

This is very likely the case, but it might have also been wake turbulence from following the previous plane too closely. We usually keep a minimum of five miles between our plane and the preceding plane.

I just had a brush with wake turbulence last week, flying out of Atlanta. I was flying and, as we climbed through 1000', the plane rolled to the right about 15°. As I corrected for this, it rolled back to the left about the same amount. I'm sure it was the wake turbulence from the Airbus 340 (large four-engine jet) that took off before us and I told the FO to report it when we got our frequency change to Departure Control. I just wanted the tower to know that perhaps he was getting a little loose with his spacing behind a Heavy.

Any time we're flying over terrain above 10'000, we have a bail out plan in case of engine failure or a loss of pressurization (both of which will necessitate a descent) and we practice these scenarios in the simulator.

Emergency descent profiles are spelled out in our Airway manual for certain areas of the world and they are very specific (headings, airways, minimum altitudes until clear of certain points, etc). All of the procedures are designed to get us down to 10'000 within about 12 minutes, which is about how long the passenger oxygen lasts (this varies slightly among different types of aircraft).

If there's a region where it's impossible to construct such a descent profile, we would not traverse that area. For your example, I'm don't know if there are airways over the highest part of the Himalayas, but as long as there is lower terrain reachable with a descent profile within that 12 minutes, there would be no reason we couldn't fly there.

After you bail out, what happens to the passengers?

I give Wired a lot more credibility than USA Today, or just about any other major media source.

It's all about glide ratio and distance to the field. I know that I've mentioned it before itt, but back in 2001 AirTransat glided over 100 miles to a deadstick landing in the Azores. In my last recurrent sim session in the 767, I asked the instructor if I could try a deadstick landing. We took the plane up to 35000' about 90 miles east of San Francisco and then shut down both engines. I was able to glide to a landing at SFO.


From Wikipedia:


(oops...just saw that jj posted a very similar list about deadstick landings.)

Yeah, that was a poor word selection.

The stuff conspiracies are made of!

When you are training these scenarios in the simulator, is there simulated air traffic control chatter/clearances/routing, or do you just focus on the aviate and navigate part?

It's pretty much just flying the scenario. On the LOE (Line Oriented Evaluation) portion of the check ride or recurrent training, many instructors will attempt to add a little realism by simulating chatter with other flights, and it's not unusual for ATC (the instructor) to issue changes in our clearance.

Does using the ram air turbine affect the hydraulics and the feel of the controls? Are some of the flight deck equipment cut off if you have to use it? Do all airlines have one?

Not all planes have a ram air turbine (RAT). For those that do have a RAT, the services provided vary among aircraft types. On the CRJ, for example, the RAT will provide limited electrical power and also power a hydraulic pump. (Note: on the CRJ, they call it an Air Driven Generator, or ADG). On the 757 and 767s, the RAT powers a hydraulic pump. Some of these planes have a Hydraulic Drive Generator (HDG) which will provide electrical power from the RAT-driven generator.

The RAT or ADG can be deployed manually, but it will automatically deploy if both main AC power busses lose power while the plane is airborne. Once deployed, it can only be stowed by a mechanic after landing. On the 757, the RAT deploys just behind the right wing. On the CRJ, it pops out from the right side of the nose, as shown here.



In order to provide the rated power, the propeller must have a certain minimum RPM and that means that it doesn't work when the plane gets too slow (I believe the minimum speed required on the CRJ is 130 kts). This isn't a problem because the aircraft battery will provide essential electrical power for about 30 minutes. The only hydraulic demand is for the brakes and for that we have a hydraulic brake accumulator which stores enough hydraulic pressure for up to seven brake applications. For this reason, a pilot in this situation is cautioned to not pump the brakes but instead make one smooth steady application of brakes. Once stopped, the nosewheel steering won't work since it needs hydraulic pressure; the airplane will have to be towed off the runway.

OP, you can now land on runway 15R/33L, on brand new ILS equipment. We just handed over the installation to Incheon Airport last week. 6 months of testing done.

Be warned, I'm going back this fall to install a new DVOR - you might want to request landing at Gimpo from September to December just to be on the safe side...

Here is a fresh doc, up to date as of today June 2nd:

PDF - 2p2 thread - 1877(!?) pages

And as an added bonus, here is the equivalent PDF summary of the thread with W0X0F from flyertalk.com (this thread died back in July 2013, so this doc hasn't changed since then):

PDF - FlyerTalk thread - 278 pages

NOTE: This document now also includes the posts from our resident helicopter pilot ("d10"), who has tagged along on this thread since the very beginning, asking excellent questions while also providing his own share of interesting responses from the rotary-wing perspective.

Nice work.

There is a thread active on FT right now regarding an A320 (your company) having to offload close to 20 pax and almost all passenger baggage on a flight from Salt Lake City to Boston. Some feel this was due to weather and a slightly circuitous routing (adding about 200 miles to the route), while others feel it was likely the need to ship something very heavy and very important. Have you had many issues with domestic flights (on mainline aircraft) where passengers were offloaded due to weight? Care to speculate on the most likely cause?

Thanks

I've never heard of anything like this. When flying the smaller planes at ACA, I had the occasional flight where we would find ourselves weight limited but we knew this before boarding; I can't remember ever having to take people off in order to satisfy takeoff performance requirements. For this to happen on a mainline plane sounds incredible to me and I can't imagine what was going on. An extra 200 miles added to the route wouldn't do it.

Thanks for the quick reply. Seems odd to me is well. Just based on what was provided for passengers who took the bump and what is typically offered for delayed luggage, it would have cost upwards of $15k. I can only assume that there was some very precious, very heavy cargo.

20 year old makes a successful emergency landing on the 101 Freeway



http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...on-6313964.php

Pretty interesting documentary series on the lengths rookie pilots go through to gain hours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqkjRxzztJQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fANLpftuC9A

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting.

While some pilots are probably there to boost their hours, I believe most are there for the adventure and challenge. Bush flying is my dream job...

So, yet another newbie on this thread (currently on page 140/452), so sorry if similar question was asked before.
I was reading some airline accident incident report, where sudden depressurization required emergency descent from FL370 to FL100.
But at FL330 the ATC asked the airplane to stop the descent due to conflicting traffic at FL310. The crew did change heading by 30 degrees and slow the descent (disengaged spoilers) for ~30s and then they received permission to continue the descent (at around FL280).
Is this actually permissible thing for ATC to do? Shouldn't emergency traffic always have priority over regular one?
If you were in similar situation, would you stop the descent, slow the descent as the crew did, or would you ignore the ATC's instructions and tell them off?
The report said the commission didn't inquire into ATC's decision.

Emergencies do get priority over all other traffic, but ATC is still responsible for separation. It seems that the controller gave vectors to the emergency (and possibly to the conflicting traffic), and further descended the emergency when it was clear of traffic.

The linked report has a graph of the plane's descent, and the plane clearly never levels off at anytime until it's below 10,000 feet. It slows down for about 15 seconds around 32,000 feet AFAICT, but the y-axis is really hard to read.



If the need to descend was greater than the risk of a mid-air collision (or is unable to maintain altitude), then yes, the pilot in command can do whatever he or she wants after an emergency is declared.