727 departure
Kevin Isley
flight, rolled over, and suffered from Mach tuck (went supersonic in a
dive). The flight crew had to lower the landing gear to create enough
drag to recover the aircraft which resulted in several landing gear
doors being ripped off the aircraft. This supposedly happened between
1970 - 1978. I understood it to be a US registered airline and might
have occurred near Detroit, MI. Does anyone know where I can find a
news article about this incident?
Thanks
John
>I heard a story about a 727 (airline unknown) that departed
controlled
Never heard this story, so can't confirm or deny. I can tell you,
however, that the 727 is a wicked fast airplane, and the speed will
build quickly if you let it.
Regards,
John Gaquin
Norm Melick
Sounds like the Hoot Gibson incident.
William Douglas
seventies, I believe. The aircraft rolled for unknown but greatly
speculated reasons. They were unable to roll upright before a steep
dive resulted. The aircraft went supersonic and none of the control
surfaces were usable in recovery, including the speedbrakes. After
throwing down the gear and causing considerable damage to the wheels and
connecting structure (though extremely preferable to augering in), the
speed was reduced enough for a recovery at a relatively low altitude.
After an emergency landing and evacuating the passengers out of the aft
airstairs, they attempted to tow the plane off of the runway. After a
few feet the right main gear collapsed. Eventually the airline I work
for ended up with that plane after it was converted for cargo use.
Never flew it but heard that the plane never quite was right again.
Always had all kinds of door lights and fire warnings in turbulence.
There is a good account of the story (although fairly one-sided in favor
of Hoot and crew) in a book on aircraft incidents that I saw in Borders
Bookstore once. Can't for the life of me remember the name of the book,
but it'll be in the aviation section.
Bill Douglas
HECTOP
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/html98/auto_19991104.html
(the article discussed several other incidents)
On April 4, 1979, a TWA 727 was flying at 39,000 feet over Saginaw, Mich.,
when it suddenly rolled right and dived to below 4,000 feet in less than
minute. At the controls was Capt. Hoot Gibson, whom the National
Transportation Safety Board blamed for causing the plunge.
Gibson sued the NTSB to reopen its case and reverse its ruling. He believes
a malfunctioning rudder twisted the plane into a dive, and that a subsequent
glitch in the autopilot computer exacerbated the problem.
"In my case, the rudder system got us involved and then the autopilot was
working against the rudder and fighting me at the same time," Gibson said
today. Gibson won a court ruling ordering the NTSB to reopen his case. He
said the NTSB continues to dispute the court order.
Gibson regained control by deploying the landing gear, which slowed the 727
enough for him to pull it out of the dive.
"Kevin Isley" <kevin....@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3A59E2BC...@lmco.com...
Charles K. Scott
William Douglas <haam...@home.net> writes:
> Yeah, that was Hoot Gibson. The airline was TWA. Happened in the early
> seventies, I believe. The aircraft rolled for unknown but greatly
> speculated reasons. They were unable to roll upright before a steep
> dive resulted. The aircraft went supersonic and none of the control
> surfaces were usable in recovery, including the speedbrakes.
Are we all positive that it's possible for a 727 to go supersonic? I
don't doubt that it knocked on the door but I wonder if it's possible
for that big body to overcome the drag at transition.
How is it known that they went beyond Mach 1?
Corky Scott
John Mazor
<93db5a$r68$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU>...
The NTSB report says it reached .96 mach.
John Mazor
>Yeah, that was Hoot Gibson. The airline was TWA. Happened in the
early
>seventies, I believe. The aircraft rolled for unknown but greatly
>speculated reasons. They were unable to roll upright before a steep
>dive resulted. The aircraft went supersonic
Actually, the max was .96 mach, according to the NTSB report; but no
matter.
William Douglas
boom heard throughout the area and the mach indicator was above 1.0.
Don't know if it's accurate at that speed, but the airlines routinely
used to cruise at .85-.88 and it wouldn't take too much nose down to
make that slippery a plane go way past the clacker. And they went
practically straight down.
Bill Douglas
Razor
take much of a dive to go above 1.0, like to maybe 1.1 or 1.2
The Flight Data Recorder saves the airpeed, including the computed Mach
number, so supersonic flight can be verified by the recorded values.
Bob Moore
>Are we all positive that it's possible for a 727 to go supersonic? I
>don't doubt that it knocked on the door but I wonder if it's possible
>for that big body to overcome the drag at transition.
>How is it known that they went beyond Mach 1?
Don't know about Hoot's flight, but one of our first B-707 flights at
PanAm suffered a dive from altitude and exceeded Mach 1. It
happened during the first month of operating the B-707 on a VIP
flight from New York to Paris as I recall. The aging cockpit crew,
all nearing 60 ( ah the beauty of senority) and obviously new to the
airplane consisted of a Chief Pilot, Assistant Chief, and Chief FE.
After reaching cruise altitude at night the PIC went back to the cabin to
hobnob with the dignitaries, unfortunately tripping off the autopilot as he
left his seat. Being so much quieter that the DC-7s that they had been
flying, the copilot and flight engineer did not notice the slowly increasing
airspeed which as it increased, pitched the nose down even further.
When finally noticed, the airspeed was so high that the stabilizer trim
motor was overloaded and stalled. All attempts to recover by the copilot
failed. The flight engineer finally straddled the center consol and using
both right and left manual trim wheels/handles, was able to start a recovery.
The g's forced the PIC, trying to return to the cockpit, to his knees in
crawling back to the cockpit.
The a/c was removed from service and returned to Boeing for examination.
Boeing returned the plane to PanAm reporting that although the airframe had
been bent, the a/c was still serviceable. We flew the airplane for another
10-15 years during which it consistantly acheived the best fuel consumption
figures of any B-707 of the same type in the fleet.
Slippery airplanes, those Boeings.
Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)
Matt
that improved speed?
Jeffrey Osier-Mixon
> been bent, the a/c was still serviceable. We flew the airplane for another
> 10-15 years during which it consistantly acheived the best fuel consumption
> figures of any B-707 of the same type in the fleet.
BWHAHAHAHAHHA.. I have to wonder why they didn't put that crew at the front of
every 707 in the fleet to "adjust" the new ones to get better fuel rates.
Thanks for the great story, Bob
Dale
My understanding is: They would extend the trailing edge flaps a few degrees to
supposedly gain speed/better economy. To lower the flaps they first had to pull
the circuit breaker for the leading edge slats to prevent them from deploying
also. As they went to retract the flaps the circuit breaker was pushed in
before the flaps were retraced so the slats went out and one or more was torn
from the wing causing the unrecoverable roll.
727 drivers...This how things work?
> Wasn't it speculated they had the slats extended 2 degrees as legend had it
> that improved speed?
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.
http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3A5A5B32...@theramp.net>, Matt <mea...@theramp.net> wrote:
>
> My understanding is: They would extend the trailing edge flaps a few degrees to
> supposedly gain speed/better economy.
Yes. Some crews did it. Obviously, they were not supposed to, but
some crews new more than Boeing.
> To lower the flaps they first had to pull the circuit breaker for the
> leading edge slats to prevent them from deploying also.
Correct.
> As they went to retract the flaps the circuit breaker was pushed in
> before the flaps were retraced so the slats went out and one or more was torn
> from the wing causing the unrecoverable roll.
What happened was, the FE came back from the cabin and "noticed"
that the CB was pulled. He pushed it back in, the LE devices
extended, and the rest is history.
AOPA named him "Pilot of the Year".
That is when I quit AOPA.
Norm Melick
Capt.Doug
You can hear the local airflow over the top of the windscreen howling from
the shockwave that forms there. Push the nose over and the clacker goes off
real soon. I don't doubt that the plane can go near supersonic. One thing I
question is the mach tuck thing. Boeing's people told me that the 727
wouldn't go into mach tuck because the horizontal stab and tail stucture
will deform to prevent it.
D.
"<Charles...@dartmouth.edu> wrote in
Capt.Doug
and 747 can cruise m.84 or better, but the newer Boeings are optimized for
.m80.
D.
"Razor" <NOS...@razorsedgesoft.com> wrote in message
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3A5A5B32...@theramp.net>, Matt <mea...@theramp.net> wrote:
>
> My understanding is: They would extend the trailing edge flaps a few degrees to
> supposedly gain speed/better economy.
Real close.
They would extend the flaps to 1 degree to generate more lift to
climb/cruise a little higher. To do this and prevent the leading
edge flaps from extending, the crews would pull the CB for the LE
devices. Obviously, they were not supposed to do this, but some
crews knew more than Boeing. Little thing called the "coffin
corner".
> To lower the flaps they first had to pull the circuit breaker for the
> leading edge slats to prevent them from deploying also.
Correct.
> As they went to retract the flaps the circuit breaker was pushed in
> before the flaps were retraced so the slats went out and one or more was torn
> from the wing causing the unrecoverable roll.
What happened was, the FE came back from the cabin and "noticed"
Capt.Doug
230KIAS or 245 KIAS for the advanced. The -727s with the winglet mod from
Duganair leave the trailing edge flaps reflexed a couple of degrees in
cruise flight.
D.
"Dale" <df...@NOSPAMak.net> wrote in message
Norm Melick
>
> Why did Boeing build the 737?
Well, for starters.
1. Self contained, i.e. airstairs versus roll up ramp.
2. More economical than the other 700 series.
Norm
George R. Patterson III
>
> Why did Boeing build the 737?
They're great for passenger service into relatively short fields. Like
Asheville, NC. Piedmont used to own lots of them.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
John
Capt.Doug wrote in message ...
>Why did Boeing build the 737? To get in everyone's way.
the 72s were being used, but 2 engines vice 3, 2 pilots vice 3,
etc.....
The 707, 720, 727, and 747 can cruise m.84 or better, but the newer
Boeings are optimized for .m80.
We used to often run afoul of company policies that stipulated M.80
cruise for fuel economy. The 727 would do much better at M.84. Of
course, if you were stuck in a line behind 737s or DC9s, it didn't
really matter. The 747 Classic was an absolute dog at .80,
particularly when heavy. Did it's best at M.85.
Regards,
John Gaquin
David CL Francis
<kevin....@lmco.com> writes
Stewart.
4th April 1979, TWA Flight 841, a Boeing 727-100, registered N840TW on a
flight from JFK to Minneapolis/St Paul.
They climbed to 39,000 ft and were on autopilot with the thrust levers
adjusted to give mach 0.81.
The pilots were blamed for the initial problem but this was strenuously
denied. According to the crew the Captain was distracted for a few
moments collecting a map and felt a slight buzzing in the aircraft.
Turning back he saw the wings were level but the yoke was 20-30 degrees
to the left. He disconnected the autopilot and held the yoke left
himself.
Suddenly the aircraft yawed to the right and then again. After the
second yaw the aircraft started to turn and skid to the right. The nose
went down and it rolled rapidly to the right.
It went over on its back and dived down. I will miss out a lot here
(it's all in the book) but the descent rate went up to 46,000 ft a
minutes and touched 76,000 ft a minute. At 30,000 ft 450 knots showed on
the ASI and it climbed to 470 knots. Sonic booms were clearly heard on
the ground. That was when the captain called for the undercarriage down.
That stabilised the descent and bought the 727 back under control. The
Captain is believed to have applied 6g in his subsequent pull out at
around 5,000 ft..
He over did it and speed dropped low in the 50 deg nose up climb that
followed.
The damage to the undercarriage was extensive. He had to fly final
approach at 205 knots to keep control.
He got it down but when they tried to tow it away it moved 10 ft and the
right landing gear started to come away. When they jacked it up the gear
fell away in three separate pieces.
The dispute seems to be about the slats. Had the crew deployed then at
39,000 ft?
Worth reading the details.
--
Francis E-Mail reply to <fli...@dclf.demon.co.uk>
HECTOP
be replaced afterwards....
HECTOP
"David CL Francis" <fli...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZQDT5PAC...@dclf.demon.co.uk...
Chris Jardine
documentary about the building and test flying of the 727 they show
many things. One of these is that they flew the prototype to Mach .99
to prove it's high speed capabilities. They also showed the wing tufts
that were installed that showed a shock wave occurring over a portion
of the wing which I believe means that the air moving over that
portion was supersonic. Considering the damage done to this particular
aircraft I would think that it may have gone supersonic (the TWA one).
The way they got the speed of Mach .99 was to fly the plane in a dive.
Fly Safe,
Chris Jardine
On 8 Jan 2001 21:23:54 GMT, Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K.
Scott) wrote:
CJ Electronics
Ditch
>>don't doubt that it knocked on the door but I wonder if it's possible
>>for that big body to overcome the drag at transition.
The DC-8 did it.
-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*
William Douglas
Norm Melick wrote:
>
> They would extend the flaps to 1 degree to generate more lift to
> climb/cruise a little higher. To do this and prevent the leading
> edge flaps from extending, the crews would pull the CB for the LE
> devices.
There is no 1 degree flap setting in the 727. They were supposedly
extended to flaps 2.
> Obviously, they were not supposed to do this, but some
> crews knew more than Boeing.
Doubtful, considering the result.
>
> What happened was, the FE came back from the cabin and "noticed"
> that the CB was pulled. He pushed it back in, the LE devices
> extended, and the rest is history.
>
This is the reason I seriously doubt this version of the story. Anyone
who has served as an FE knows that coming back from the lav at night the
very last thing they would ever notice would be a popped circuit
breaker, especially one on the P6 panel behind the engineer's panel and
the coats, if there were any. One would have to specifically look for a
popped breaker to see one.
As it turned out, the passenger that the NTSB used as a witness to say
that the FE left the flight deck mistook a cabin steward retrieving the
crew meal trays for the engineer. The engineer was in his seat for the
duration as corroborated by the cabin steward in question.
Bill Douglas
Capt.Doug
hard over. At 250 KIAS, they were over the speed for critical alpha angle
and maintained control of the aircraft (unlike the USAir 737 at PIT). At
FL390, Gibson's flight would be showing around 250KIAS also. They should
have maintained control.
There are always 2 sides to every story.
D.
"William Douglas" <haam...@home.net> wrote in message > This is the reason
William Douglas
authority. Hoot's contention was that there was an uncommanded
deployment of a slat which then departed the plane in the dive. The
NTSB agreed that that would have caused the yaw and bank, but they
believe the slat deployed due to the actions of the crew.
Bill Douglas
Capt.Doug
reconstructed? The TOW was known. The fuel burn to top of climb is flight
planned, and perhaps recorded by the FE. Were they at a weight that would
permit FL390 without trailing edge flaps being extended? Did the NTSB show
were the weight was too high for normal safe flight at FL390? The B-727 has
to on the light side to make FL390, especially with -7 or -9 engines.
D.
"William Douglas" <haam...@home.net> wrote in message
Norm Melick
>
> Norm Melick wrote:
> >
> > They would extend the flaps to 1 degree to generate more lift to
> > climb/cruise a little higher. To do this and prevent the leading
> > edge flaps from extending, the crews would pull the CB for the LE
> > devices.
>
> There is no 1 degree flap setting in the 727. They were supposedly
> extended to flaps 2.
Yep. Got the '72 confused with the '73.
> > Obviously, they were not supposed to do this, but some
> > crews knew more than Boeing.
>
> Doubtful, considering the result.
I was being facetious. But you knew that.
> > What happened was, the FE came back from the cabin and "noticed"
> > that the CB was pulled. He pushed it back in, the LE devices
> > extended, and the rest is history.
> >
>
> This is the reason I seriously doubt this version of the story. Anyone
> who has served as an FE knows that coming back from the lav at night the
> very last thing they would ever notice would be a popped circuit
> breaker, especially one on the P6 panel behind the engineer's panel and
> the coats, if there were any. One would have to specifically look for a
> popped breaker to see one.
That is why I put the word "noticed" in quotations. The story, as
told to me by one of the cremembers, said that the FE pushed in the
CB as a "joke". Their story changed during the ensuing months. In
any event, on long flights, after listening to all sorts of noises
emanating from who knows where, it was not uncommon to specifically
look for a popped breaker.
Found a few too.
> As it turned out, the passenger that the NTSB used as a witness to say
> that the FE left the flight deck mistook a cabin steward retrieving the
> crew meal trays for the engineer. The engineer was in his seat for the
> duration as corroborated by the cabin steward in question.
Don't know about that. The story I related was from one who was
there, while riding my jump seat from LAS to SAT. He also bragged
about hiding undocumented jump seat riders in the belly of the
L-1011 that he flew from South America to the U.S. According to
him, once established enroute, he would open the hatch on the floor
of the cockpit, and "up they'd pop".
I wasn't impressed.
Norm Melick
Ron Parsons
<haam...@home.net> wrote:
>> They would extend the flaps to 1 degree to generate more lift to
>> climb/cruise a little higher. To do this and prevent the leading
>> edge flaps from extending, the crews would pull the CB for the LE
>> devices.
>
>There is no 1 degree flap setting in the 727. They were supposedly
>extended to flaps 2.
There is no detent for 1 degree, but the flaps move to match the handle
if it is between detents.
--
Ron
Ron Parsons
<haam...@home.net> wrote:
>Yeah, but the critical alpha angle has to do with aileron over rudder
>authority. Hoot's contention was that there was an uncommanded
>deployment of a slat which then departed the plane in the dive. The
>NTSB agreed that that would have caused the yaw and bank, but they
>believe the slat deployed due to the actions of the crew.
The FAA has blind faith that anything that is certified not to happen
can't have happened. Boeing maintained there could be no uncommaned slat
movement and the FAA went with that.
However, I've seen 1 extend when 2 and 3 were retracting as the flaps
went from 2 to up and then once they were up, retract itself. Needless
to say, that even at 200 kias the aircraft twists around a bit.
I was unaware of the Nov incident, but that crew would have had benefit
of recent training which Hoot did not. First Boeing rudder problem for
AAL that I'm aware of since AA1 went into Jamaica Bay in the late 50's.
--
Ron
Capt.Doug
Half a unit of rudder kept the plane straight.
D.
"Ron Parsons" <jr...@gte.net> wrote in message
Ron Parsons
"Capt.Doug" <Capt...@theworldnet.att.net> wrote:
Stuck up or down was not that uncommon and is covered in the manuals.
What the FAA refused to believe was uncommanded motion.
--
Ron
Charles K. Scott
gove...@aol.compost (Ditch) writes:
John, you say the DC-8 "did it". How do you know? My understanding of
the aerodynamics is that it takes lots of thrust or a narrow profile or
both to achieve supersonic flight, and it helps if the fuselage and
wings are designed for such flight to begin with. None of the
commercial airliners qualify in regards the above.
Sonic booms can occur with localized airflow over those big wings and
appendages but that does not mean that the entire airframe achieved the
speed of mach 1.
I just wonder how people know the airframes went supersonic??? Hearing
booms doesn't verify anything since they are probably hearing the
effects of shockwaves building up on the wings and tail.
Corky (still not convinced) Scott
David CL Francis
<Charles...@dartmouth.edu> writes
>John, you say the DC-8 "did it". How do you know? My understanding of
>the aerodynamics is that it takes lots of thrust or a narrow profile or
>both to achieve supersonic flight, and it helps if the fuselage and
>wings are designed for such flight to begin with. None of the
>commercial airliners qualify in regards the above.
>
Hmm. The Vmdf for the 747 is 0.95 (maximum demonstrated diving speed
during test flying)
>Sonic booms can occur with localized airflow over those big wings and
>appendages but that does not mean that the entire airframe achieved the
>speed of mach 1.
>
I do not see such localised shocks being be heard as booms, as they do
not propagate far from the aircraft. Since the whole airframe is not
supersonic there is no bow shock. I have seen aircraft do high subsonic
passes at air-shows where the over-wing shocks are visible but I have
never heard of such a shock wave being audible.
>I just wonder how people know the airframes went supersonic??? Hearing
>booms doesn't verify anything since they are probably hearing the
>effects of shockwaves building up on the wings and tail.
Stanley Stewart's book gives two figures for the descent of the 727 on 4
April 1979.
One is a peak descent rate of 76,000 ft/min and the other is an
instrument reading of 450 knots at 30,000 ft. Both of those seem to
indicate a definite supersonic speed.
Ditch
Maybe my memory is way off, but I recall the USAF did testing of the DC-8 and
took it just past mach. I've talked to friends of mine who fly DC-8's for a
living who have told me the same thing.