DHL 757 in the dirt in San Jose, Costa Rica

RyanB said:
Panties aren’t in a wad, just stating that you speak beyond your understanding a lot of times. This incident isn’t related to biomedical science.
Click to expand...

In my experience, those with advanced credentials in a particular field sometimes have a propensity to assume said credentials extend to other unrelated fields, and most times said assumptions are incorrect;).

Cheers.
 
Tantalum said:
That's Severe.

Did you read the article or check AvHerald? They declared Mayday for a hydraulic failure. Video of it landing show the gear doors open, presumably a gravity drop. If the gear locked up then it's not surprising it would veer off the runway, especially if you may not have nose wheel steering and a limited ability to control the plane in general.

But yeah, let's fire them for not doing a perfect landing after a mayday call for hydraulic failure. It was a nice day after all and the runway wasn't wet.
Click to expand...

Careful, we can't cast aspersions on the resident PoA "I Fly a Piston Single, But I'm Qualified to Criticize Flight Crews of Transport Category Aircraft" expert.
 
orca64 said:
They done good.

it’s not for us to judge when we know next to nothing.
Click to expand...

What? Come-on some of the guys here tried on their flight simulators and did a better job keeping plane on runway with blown tires, blindfolded. Give it a day and Dan will also have a YouTube Video on this.
 
Tantalum said:
Silly me to assume someone collected known facts before casting judgment
Click to expand...

For me it that poster’s assumption to know what would trigger DHL to fire a flight crew over an accident that investigation has yet to be completed on.

Especially considering that post has never been type rated on the subject aircraft nor employed by that carrier.
 
"You heard it here ... first!"
 
Tools said:
Flap up could have been involved. The reserve brakes are a little weird.

also typical to lose anti skid with hydraulic problems.

looks like they did ok. But it was definitely a ground loop!
Click to expand...

They lost the left system which does control NWS. Normal brakes are on the R system in the 757. Anti skid is available with backup braking. Even if all normal and backup braking fail the accumulator should stop the aircraft.
 
RyanB said:
At some point you’ll need to admit that you’re not as smart as you think you are in some areas.
Click to expand...
History has proven you wrong so far. There seems to be no limit to how smart he thinks he is.
 
geezer said:
It would appear that the left hydraulic system failed, as the left reverser was not functioning. They might have saved the plane had they reduced thrust on the right engine to limit the asymmetrical thrust as the plane slowed. Lack of nose wheel steering became critical when the plane slowed.

Flaps, slats, and nose wheel steering are on that system too. The wheels being down indicates an alternate to hydraulic extension.

Those two were dealing with a lot of failed equipment. I do not think their jobs are at risk, but a mechanic may have some explaining to do.


0712ebb2_b4d6_4f41_b0dd_d66e6ee4d675_6ab497d840a1fa5837930c13648bb8b3a1bece74.jpeg

From https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577598...-014_final.pdf
Click to expand...
I'm not commenting on this accident itself, but just in general. Just because the left reverser wasn't deployed doesn't mean they lost all the left hand stuff. There's a power transfer unit (PTU) that will power the flaps, slats, landing gear, and nosewheel steering using right hydraulic system power and left hydraulic fluid. There's a standpipe in the left hydraulic reservoir that will allow those four items to operate even if you lose the fluid in the system. Now, there's a small chance you develop a leak in the standpipe, then you're down to alternate gear, flaps, etc., but I can't say if that was the case with DHL.
 
Having been through 15 of these training courses, 911 set a train in motion, wasn’t totally self inflicted... I would say a pilot never really gets trained for an event such as this likely was.

done lots of weird brake landings in the sim, they were never a big deal. Way back pre AQP instructors would give you weird stuff that really challenged ya, things that weren’t likely to go well, and you saw how things could degrade like that. But not anymore.

I would love to know if they deliberately ground looped to just get it stopped...

Also, pre AQP you did every procedure in the books, in the sim. Now with AQP we only do probably half of them. Really understanding all the ramifications of certain system losses is HARD. If they had never been through that scenario in training, that could easily be a factor. What’s worse, if you screw up a VERY complicated procedure, that you’ve even never practiced, you carry a great deal of that burden.
 
Just a few things I see, though the planned flight wasn’t real long, they come back somewhat heavy. 24 minutes before landing the observation showed an 8 kt tailwind for Rwy 7, yes, could change quickly there. At best they may of had is calm at the time.

The airport is 3k, msl, 9800’, warm out. They likely came back partial flaps, higher speed, degraded spoilers & braking.

I realize not a lot of 12k’ sea level airports nearby. Had they had that option, I’m thinking we wouldn’t be discussing the accident. The required distance can really jump up with the non-normal configuration landing distance tables. Just saying, the deck may of been somewhat stacked.
 
What's off the end of that runway? Any chance the pilot made a deliberate move to broadside it because going off the end would be worse. Probably not. Just wondering though. There are some runways without much overrun and nothing but seriously bad news off the end. Put aside the the right side/left side hydraulic issues with this one. Can any of youse big iron guys think that a pilot could, in some situation, do it.
 
Unless there's been some information out there that I haven't seen, I think it's a bit early to speculate that they were trying to make the taxiway exit. The proximity of a taxiway to where they exited the runway is likely a coincidence.

Generally, with a hydraulic issue, you're going to bring the airplane to a stop on the runway and evaluate the aircraft status before deciding if you are going to taxi or have a tug come out and tow the airplane.
 
Bell206 said:
From another site:
dhl_757_final_position_sjo_db133e88862def0fcb9224849f0493b6673f3e31.jpg
Click to expand...
Thread derail: Man, they park the planes close together in San Jose. Overlapping wings and tails isn’t something I’m use to seeing.
 
Arm3 said:
Thread derail: Man, they park the planes close together in San Jose. Overlapping wings and tails isn’t something I’m use to seeing.
Click to expand...
FYI: you"ll find those "overlapping" wings are just optical artifacts due to image stitching.
 
Jeez with all the things going wrong there they did a great job walking away.
 
benyflyguy said:
Jeez with all the things going wrong there they did a great job walking away.
Click to expand...
Really. We spend all that time saying, "any landing you can walk away from is a good landing", then we criticize when it actually happens. I wish my CFI wouldn't be so picky.
 
yessir. Boxes never b---h. Or in my case, the extra gas. :D

GraveFamiliarBobwhite-max-1mb.gif

#winning #bolter #myfavoritecaptain
 
hindsight2020 said:
GraveFamiliarBobwhite-max-1mb.gif
Click to expand...

For those who aren't familiar with this accident, it was at Edwards AFB during a manufacturer's certification test flight.

The purpose of the test was to collect landing distance data.

The test pilot failed to maintain a stabilized approach which resulted in a touchdown rate that exceeded design limits. The only injury was one flight test engineer, who was standing during the landing, who broke his ankle from the force of the touchdown.

https://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/look.php?report_key=169
 
Larry in TN said:
For those who aren't familiar with this accident, it was at Edwards AFB during a manufacturer's certification test flight.

The purpose of the test was to collect landing distance data.

The test pilot failed to maintain a stabilized approach which resulted in a touchdown rate that exceeded design limits. The only injury was one flight test engineer, who was standing during the landing, who broke his ankle from the force of the touchdown.

https://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/look.php?report_key=169
Click to expand...

ya--
hang-over-but-did-you-die.gif

;) /TC
 
Larry in TN said:
For those who aren't familiar with this accident, it was at Edwards AFB during a manufacturer's certification test flight.

The purpose of the test was to collect landing distance data.

The test pilot failed to maintain a stabilized approach which resulted in a touchdown rate that exceeded design limits. The only injury was one flight test engineer, who was standing during the landing, who broke his ankle from the force of the touchdown.

https://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/look.php?report_key=169
Click to expand...
Found a new way to increase drag dramatically- probably best record for shortest landing.
 
Larry in TN said:
For those who aren't familiar with this accident, it was at Edwards AFB during a manufacturer's certification test flight.

The purpose of the test was to collect landing distance data.

The test pilot failed to maintain a stabilized approach which resulted in a touchdown rate that exceeded design limits. The only injury was one flight test engineer, who was standing during the landing, who broke his ankle from the force of the touchdown.

https://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/look.php?report_key=169
Click to expand...
Test pilots are made of something else
 
Larry in TN said:
For those who aren't familiar with this accident, it was at Edwards AFB during a manufacturer's certification test flight.

The purpose of the test was to collect landing distance data.

The test pilot failed to maintain a stabilized approach which resulted in a touchdown rate that exceeded design limits. The only injury was one flight test engineer, who was standing during the landing, who broke his ankle from the force of the touchdown.

https://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/look.php?report_key=169
Click to expand...
I thought Beech was experimenting with putting jet engines on a Duke.
 
...because it would always be parked in front of the FBO.
 
I love the look of the Duke, but I couldn't afford one if it was given to me, along with a $20k per year maintenance budget. I'd like to try, though....
 
LesGawlik said:
I love the look of the Duke, but I couldn't afford one if it was given to me, along with a $20k per year maintenance budget. I'd like to try, though....
Click to expand...

Whenever a Duke is mentioned, the little voice in my head starts saying "It can't be that much trouble and expense to own one."

So far I've resisted.

:D
 
The Duke is up there with the Aerostar in my book.
 
Tantalum said:
The Duke is up there with the Aerostar in my book.
Click to expand...

In what way. I have about ten minutes flying the Duke, and owned and flew an Aerostar for about 300 hours. There is no comparison except in operating costs that I know of. :D

Tim
 
tspear said:
In what way. I have about ten minutes flying the Duke, and owned and flew an Aerostar for about 300 hours. There is no comparison except in operating costs that I know of. :D

Tim
Click to expand...
They're both cool machines, but in this "unobtanium" kind of sense.. they don't look like your typical GA piston twin, both will turn heads, and both of them require a big $$ commitment from the operator!

The T-Bone is cool (from the other thread) but to me it doesn't have that same sex appeal the Duke and Aerostar do.
 
jordane93 said:
If the L hydraulic system takes a dump you’ll have no nose wheel steering. You have anti skid available for all brake systems
Click to expand...

Not normally. Only if the PTU fails to do its job for some reason.

Sluggo63 said:
Just because the left reverser wasn't deployed doesn't mean they lost all the left hand stuff. There's a power transfer unit (PTU) that will power the flaps, slats, landing gear, and nosewheel steering using right hydraulic system power and left hydraulic fluid. There's a standpipe in the left hydraulic reservoir that will allow those four items to operate even if you lose the fluid in the system. Now, there's a small chance you develop a leak in the standpipe, then you're down to alternate gear, flaps, etc.
Click to expand...

This is exactly correct. And it would be obvious to the crew. Checklist will direct to turn off left hyd pumps. If left system pressure remains, as viewed on the status page, it indicates that the PTU is working. Flaps, slats, gear, and steer would still function normally by pulling off the right system.
Without the PTU, the left system pressure would indicate zero. Flaps, slats, and gear will still work but only via the alternate methods. This condition will also require a non-normal (flaps 20) landing landing configuration. Obviously a faster approach. The gear would have to be manually extended, which only take a few seconds. Anytime you manually extend the gear the main doors will remain down and not retract.
The steering however would remain inoperative, which doesn’t normally cause much of a handling issue (in the sim):) but we’re not playing that with one T/R.
I wouldn’t bank on it’s ability to track properly with full asymmetric reverse thrust below about 80 knots, which is about when rudder authority seems to diminish and vmcg can become an issue.
 
Jdm said:
I wouldn’t bank on it’s ability to track properly with full asymmetric reverse thrust below about 80 knots, which is about when... vmcg can become an issue.
Click to expand...
Vmcg? On a landing aircraft? But I get the larger point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top