767 Glide Ratio - TV
Gregory R. TRAVIS
>One of my none flying friends called me yesterday and asked me about
>this. In the past, we have talked about the glide path of my Cessna and
>how much time a pilot might have to solve a power failure situation and
>make a successful forced landing. The other night one of the networks
>aired a movie that showed a 767 losing power (fuel prob?) at FL41.
>I didn't see the show... but apparently the pilot glided this thing for a
>LONG time 30 - 40 minutes? and made a landing???
>So...
>What IS the glide ratio of a 767? Did this really happen?
The story really happened - to an Air Canada 767.
Jet airliners have, actually, guite GOOD glide ratios. Much better than
your average Cessna. Around 16:1 or so, if I remember correctly, while
you average 172 has a glide ratio of about 9:1. A glider is up
around 20:1.
greg
Bill
>From: tjl...@comark.com (Tim Lytle)
>Subject: 767 Glide Ratio - TV
>Date: 23 Feb 1995 13:28:38 GMT
>One of my none flying friends called me yesterday and asked me about
>this. In the past, we have talked about the glide path of my Cessna and
>how much time a pilot might have to solve a power failure situation and
>make a successful forced landing. The other night one of the networks
>aired a movie that showed a 767 losing power (fuel prob?) at FL41.
>I didn't see the show... but apparently the pilot glided this thing for a
>LONG time 30 - 40 minutes? and made a landing???
This was another typical "Airplane" movie. Very little technical correctness,
as usual - they attempted to wring every last bit of emotion from life's
laundry list of goofy passengers. A boring TV movie interspersed with eight
zillion commercials.
Steven R. Hall
gr...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) writes:
> Jet airliners have, actually, guite GOOD glide ratios. Much better than
> your average Cessna. Around 16:1 or so, if I remember correctly, while
> you average 172 has a glide ratio of about 9:1. A glider is up
> around 20:1.
Only a very bad glider. Good sailplanes have glide ratios of 40:1 or
better.
I'm sure that the airframe of a 767 is much less draggy than a 172. I
wouldn't be surprised at all if the glide ratio with engines at idle is
16:1. The problem is that those big, efficient turbofans out on the
wings become big, efficient drag producers when then engines quit.
Does anyone KNOW what the glide ratio is when the engines flame out?
Marc Zeitlin
|> One of my none flying friends called me yesterday and asked me about
|> this. In the past, we have talked about the glide path of my Cessna and
|> how much time a pilot might have to solve a power failure situation and
|> make a successful forced landing. The other night one of the networks
|> aired a movie that showed a 767 losing power (fuel prob?) at FL41.
|> I didn't see the show... but apparently the pilot glided this thing for a
|> LONG time 30 - 40 minutes? and made a landing???
|> What IS the glide ratio of a 767? Did this really happen?
Yes, the movie was based on an actual incident of a Canadian airliner which
ran out of fuel. The pilot glided the 767 approximately 60 miles, and
although I don't know the actual altitude he started at, the movie claimed
it was around 22,000 feet. This would give a glide ration of ~15:1.
That's not completely rediculous.
|> I thought passenger airliners had a lousy glide ratio and that (generally)
|> when the lights went off, your life followed shortly thereafter.
No, not really. To go 550 mph, they've got to be pretty clean. The issue
is that they will have this 15:1 glide ratio at a VERY high speed (I'm
guessing around 200 mph) and therefore a high sink rate. The hard part is
the final approach without power to adjust things. In this case, the pilot
dead-sticked it in to a closed airport on which a drag race was occurring.
He landed and stopped it (after collapsing the nose-gear) without hitting
any of the vehicles or people. The guy did an AMAZING job of getting the
thing down and on the ground safely - no-one was injured.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: ma...@an.hp.com \
| Mail Stop - MS-460 |
| Patient Monitoring Division (PMD) HP Telnet: 1-659-3421 |
| Hewlett Packard Voice: 1-508-659-3421 |
| 3000 Minuteman Road Fax: 1-508-685-5371 |
| Andover, Ma. 01810-1099 |
|_____________________ WWW: http://www-msy-me.an.hp.com/~marcz/ |
| (c) copyright 1995 \ (HP Internal ONLY) |
\______________________\________________________________________________/
Tom Gartley
an Air Canada 767 to run out of fuel east of Winnipeg.
When the pilot and co-pilot (Bob Pearson and Maurice Quintal) realized
that they couldn't make Winnipeg, they opted for Gimli. As I recall
from the book (titled "Free Fall", I think) Quintal had trained at
Gimli at some point.
The movie was accurate in some respects, but no so accurate in others.
No doubt everyone realizes that Gimli is not at sea level, as the
altimeter indicated when they landed. But, Pearson actually did
side-slip that 767 to lose altitude on final -- no-one had ever
done that before, nor has anyone likely done it since.
The book explains in detail all of the the little incidents which
led to the fuel mis-management. It was a combination of cold-soldered
curcuits in one of the fuel management systems, reset circuit breakers
and mis-calculations of fuel weight and volume.
BTW, contrary to what seems to be popular myth south-of-the-border
(not Mexico), Toronto's Pearson Int'l airport is not named for
Bob Pearson, but for our former Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson;
personally, I'd be happy to see it renamed.
----- Gart
Christopher Story
In article <3ij8g6$m...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, gr...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory R. TRAVIS) writes:
|> >What IS the glide ratio of a 767? Did this really happen?
|>
|> The story really happened - to an Air Canada 767.
|>
|> Jet airliners have, actually, guite GOOD glide ratios. Much better than
|> your average Cessna. Around 16:1 or so, if I remember correctly, while
|> you average 172 has a glide ratio of about 9:1. A glider is up
|> around 20:1.
|>
|> greg
Actually, the glider ratios of gliders vary rather
considerably. The Schweizer 2-33, a popular training
glider (aka 'The Drag Queen') averages at about
a 20:1 ratio. Such medium performance 2-seaters
as the Grob G-103, the Puchacz and the K-13 have
glider ratios at around 30 - 35:1. The high
end carbon fiber monster-span ships such as the
Schleicher ASH-20, and the Nimbus 4 have glider
ratios approaching 60:1.
----------------------
Chris Story
email : cst...@bnr.ca
Disclaimer : Just my opinions
IanMaclure
>What IS the glide ratio of a 767? Did this really happen?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, it happened, it was an Air Canada 767. What happened was that some
mechanics in Montreal measured the fuel with a metric dipstick and then
used a ( well I can't say Imperial cause its in US gallons, but you know
what I mean ) chart to calculate the fuel on board. My dad muttered dark
thoughts about the metric system and idiot mechanics at Dorval ( Montreal
Airport ). This fuel load was reported to the pilots and away they went.
Somewhere within gliding distance of Gimli, Manitoba the engines failed and
the 767 became the world's biggest glider. Fortunately, the first officer who
was an ex-Canadian Forces pilot had trained at Gimli when it was a military
flying school and remembered the strip which was then closed and used for
racing. The rest of the story you know. The incident became known as "The
Gimli Glider".
As an aside, a couple of years after, I was flying to California and
got a cockpit tour where surprise, surprise, the captain was the same
guy although it was only later that I made the connection.
IBM
--
################ No Times Like The Maritimes, Eh! ######################
# IBM aka # Ian_M...@QMGATE.arc.nasa.gov (desk) #
# Ian B MacLure # maclure@(remulak/eos).arc.nasa.gov (currently) #
########## Opinions expressed here are mine, mine, mine. ###############
M
tjl...@comark.com (Tim Lytle) writes:
>
>One of my none flying friends called me yesterday and asked me about
>this. In the past, we have talked about the glide path of my Cessna
and
>how much time a pilot might have to solve a power failure situation and
>make a successful forced landing. The other night one of the networks
>aired a movie that showed a 767 losing power (fuel prob?) at FL41.
>
>I didn't see the show... but apparently the pilot glided this thing for
a
>LONG time 30 - 40 minutes? and made a landing???
>
>So...
>
>What IS the glide ratio of a 767? Did this really happen?
>
>I thought passenger airliners had a lousy glide ratio and that
(generally)
>when the lights went off, your life followed shortly thereafter.
>
>Please answer here or Email... both OK.
>
>Tim
>
To answer the question as to the truth of the movie, it all
happened! Air Canada being forced by the government to change to
the metric system, failed to train its employees on proper conversions.
Toss in a fuel truck still calibrated in pounds, a faulty fuel totalizer
and a mistaken conversion, and voila, you have a near new B767 running
out of juice at FL410. The Captain was able to draw on his extensive
glider experience, and dead stick it into an abandonded air base. Truely
one of the greatest feats of airmanship I have ever heard of (no
fatalities or serious injuries). Incidently, I believe the Captain's
license was suspended for almost a year before the entire chain of
events was known.
I haven't flown a B767, but in the old DC-8 the proceedure for
descent from FL410 (if you ever are able to get the ol'bird that high),
is to begin a descent by slowly start closing the throttles about 135
miles from the airport (about twenty minutes out). The throttles are
closed fully around FL330 and the rest is a glide on in.
Contrary to smaller airplane manufacturers, Misters Boeing,
Douglas (and I suppose Airbus), don't like to think that all the motors
can quit at one time. I haven't seen an engine out proceedure for the
DC-8. Nor have I ever witnessed the procedure practiced in the sim. At
that point you have been promoted to test pilot.
Jim Somerville
> thing down and on the ground safely - no-one was injured.
Not to take anything at all away from the airline pilot's
performance, but have you ever considered that every true
sailplane (glider) landing is an engine out occurance?
Would it be a good idea for every pilot to have a few glider
rides? Think about it.
Oh, my normal Email signature line reads:
"Regards, Jim
ATP, CFII and most importantly CFIG... and if you don't know
what the G stands for, ask..... There's a whole other world
out there!"
By the way, if you do ask - I'll be at the SSA convention in
Reno (starts on Wednesday) - won't respond until next week.
Catching the Wave means something else !!!
Kerry Kurasaki
Gregory R. TRAVIS <gr...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In <tjlytle-2302...@nb-dyna59.interaccess.com> tjl...@comark.com (Tim Lytle) writes:
>
>>What IS the glide ratio of a 767? Did this really happen?
>
>your average Cessna. Around 16:1 or so, if I remember correctly, while
>you average 172 has a glide ratio of about 9:1. A glider is up
>around 20:1.
I don't have the actual numbers, but the ones cited above seem low. I
once read that a B-52 has a glide ratio of 23:1, the same book value
of the lead sled Schweitzer SGS 2-33. Makes some sense though. To
go Mach 0.80+ efficiently, you have to keep the drag low.
Of course the B-52 achieves 23:1 probably at 200 knots while the 2-33
does it at about 50 mph.
C. Emory Tate
>Not to take anything at all away from the airline pilot's
>performance, but have you ever considered that every true
>sailplane (glider) landing is an engine out occurance?
Well, he WAS a sailplane pilot, too...
As was the pilot of the UAL plane out of HNL who had to make it back
200mi with only the port 2 turning, the pilot of the Aloha 737 whose
roof ripped off at 24Kft, and, I believe, also Al Haynes.
>Would it be a good idea for every pilot to have a few glider
>rides? Think about it.
Well, I'm prejudiced. <g>
--
C. E. Tate snailmail: BDM Federal, Inc.
1501 BDM Way, McLean, VA 22102
_______________________________________________________________________
A loaf of bread, a jug of Gatorade, and a cloud street over the nose...
Mike Weller
I've got three glider flights in my logbook.
They were in a TG-3 glider with a glide ratio about the the
same (I'me joking of course) as the J-3 that I flew to
the gliderport to take lessons. A TG-3 is a legitamate glider.
But to me, the whole flight was one constant emergency landing with
two turns, a stall, and then the approach. Not in that order of
course. I would have soloed the next flight. I've got a good
friend who used to run a commercial glider operation in Tennessee.
But I used to take the J-3 up to 5000 feet with the really good
thermals going and I could actually climb with the prop stopped.
BTW, I also fly radio controlled gliders.
And, yes, if the Gimli pilot had not had glider experience, the
outcome might have been much different. The reason is that you
can look much farther ahead in the energy that the craft carries.
You get a reference point that you aim for that is setting you
up to land. It is not the runway. It is a point where you can
begin to fine tune the approach. You don't have to react as fast
because you are getting the big picture about what you're going to
face when you "have to" land. It keeps you way ahead of the airplane's
energy state. I have always like to aim for the normal altitude where
you begin a transition from downwind to base power off. After that,
it's a normal power off landing. Again, this was not a normal landing,
but I'll bet you he did about the same thing.
--
Mike Weller
Senior Specialist, Telemetry
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
Mike Weller
Christopher Story
In article <panacea.9...@iaccess.za>, pan...@iaccess.za (Ian Molesworth) writes:
[snip]
|> Ouch! chaps. If we were still flying 20:1 sailplanes the sport would be a lot
|> less active I think. The latest hardware is getting around 65:1!!!
|> One of our club members has just set a world record for a 1000km triangle at
|> an average speed of 168kph+ but ,yes, the 65:1 does come at around 60 knots.
True enough. But not everyone can afford such spiffy equipment.
Most club-level gliders (Grobs, Pucacz and Blaniks) turn in
performances at around 35:1, which seems rather impressive compared
to the venerable 2-33s in which I learned to fly gliders. But
the 60:1 superspan ships, like the ASH-20 are gorgeous. If only
I had a spare $250,000 kicking around ......
Hmmm better go check those lotto numbers again.
------------------------
Sean Cooke
> In article <3ithko$s...@fido.asd.sgi.com> kerryk@golden_eagle.engr.sgi.com (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
>>From: kerryk@golden_eagle.engr.sgi.com (Kerry Kurasaki)
>>Subject: Re: 767 Glide Ratio - TV
>>Date: 27 Feb 1995 21:53:28 GMT
> less active I think. The latest hardware is getting around 65:1!!!
> One of our club members has just set a world record for a 1000km triangle at
> an average speed of 168kph+ but ,yes, the 65:1 does come at around 60 knots.
>
>
> pan...@iaccess.za
>
> ZS-GKL LS1-d ZS-GPN KA-7
>
> Magalies gliding club
> South Africa
Yes, but some of us enjoy the challenge of staying aloft in the "low"
performance aircraft (ie 2-33's)
The DC-10, according to one pilot has a glide ratio of 28:1 or so.
Later
Sean Cooke
Peter Kerr
out a few years ago in an Indonesian volcano gas cloud at about FL390. The
case is well documented. It was several minutes apparently, but not
strictly glide: the pilot had to keep the nose down to maintain turbine
speed for a relight.
--
Peter Kerr bodger
School of Music chandler
University of Auckland neo-Luddite
Keith Barr
Crone <vcr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>I think it's a great idea. In fact, I would include aerobatics in your
>new airline training program also.
United Airlines agrees with you...they have just started unusual attitude
recovery training in the sims (according to a friend of mine who flies
right seat on a 737-300).
_____________________________ _____
| Keith Barr \ \ \__ _____
| ba...@netcom.com \___________\ \/_______\___\_____________
| COMM/AS&MEL/IA/A&IGI / { /_/ ....................... `-.
|_____________________________/ `-----------,----,--------------'
home page URL: http://chinook.atd.ucar.edu/~barr/ _/____/O
Ian Molesworth
>From: kerryk@golden_eagle.engr.sgi.com (Kerry Kurasaki)
>Subject: Re: 767 Glide Ratio - TV
>Date: 27 Feb 1995 21:53:28 GMT
>In article <3ij8g6$m...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Ouch! chaps. If we were still flying 20:1 sailplanes the sport would be a lot
Crone
> Not to take anything at all away from the airline pilot's
> performance, but have you ever considered that every true
> sailplane (glider) landing is an engine out occurance?
>
> Would it be a good idea for every pilot to have a few glider
> rides? Think about it.
I think it's a great idea. In fact, I would include aerobatics in your
new airline training program also. Although, not considered reportable
incidents, aircraft upsets (or rollovers) are not uncommon and too many
pilots find themselves in a situation for which they are totally
unprepared and untrained.
Brad Gillies
>I don't have actual numbers, but a British Airways 747 had 4 engines flame
>out a few years ago in an Indonesian volcano gas cloud at about FL390. The
>case is well documented. It was several minutes apparently, but not
>strictly glide: the pilot had to keep the nose down to maintain turbine
>speed for a relight.
>
go clogged with ash. only got one to develop thrust before landing.
He still had electrics and hydraulics through out the incident.
The engine blades were scrap and the windows were opaque
upon inspection after landing. a hell of a job by all involved.
-----------------------------------------
Brad Gillies Br...@io.org
http://www.io.org/~bradg/
Compuserve: 74163,2040
Leading Edge Aviation Services
My opinions are mine all mine.I won't let
anyone else take credit or blame.
Ian Judge
: p.k...@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) wrote:
: >I don't have actual numbers, but a British Airways 747 had 4 engines flame
: >out a few years ago in an Indonesian volcano gas cloud at about FL390. The
: >case is well documented. It was several minutes apparently, but not
: >strictly glide: the pilot had to keep the nose down to maintain turbine
: >speed for a relight.
: >
: 23 minutes to be exact. and the engines never really quit they just
: go clogged with ash. only got one to develop thrust before landing.
: He still had electrics and hydraulics through out the incident.
: The engine blades were scrap and the windows were opaque
: upon inspection after landing. a hell of a job by all involved.
There is a whole book devoted to this incident although I can't
remember the title. I lent it out and never had it returned. It
included photographs in the centre of the effects and of pax
wearing oxygen masks. If anyone has a copy please post the ISBN
as I would like to order it.
--
Ian Judge _|_
i...@judgei.demon.co.uk _____(_)_____
! ! !
William Lorimer
> p.k...@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) wrote:
> >I don't have actual numbers, but a British Airways 747 had 4 engines flame
> >out a few years ago in an Indonesian volcano gas cloud at about FL390. The
> >case is well documented. It was several minutes apparently, but not
> >strictly glide: the pilot had to keep the nose down to maintain turbine
> >speed for a relight.
> >
> 23 minutes to be exact. and the engines never really quit they just
> go clogged with ash. only got one to develop thrust before landing.
> He still had electrics and hydraulics through out the incident.
> The engine blades were scrap and the windows were opaque
> upon inspection after landing. a hell of a job by all involved.
>
One book about this was called "All Four Engines Have Failed" (a
singularly uninspired title for an equally u/insp'd book, IMO) by Betty
Tootell (Toottel?). She was a passenger on board the flight and a
freelance writer to boot. Unfortunately, the book tends to concentrate
more on the religious and spiritual experiences of some of the passengers
than on the actual flying. (one woman claimed to have looked out the
window and seen three "mechanics" with angelic looking faces working on
one of the engines - this at an altitude in excess of 13000 feet.)
To correct your points, the engines *did* fail - dead, muerte, todo - all
4 of them. And they stayed dead until below 13,000 ft, when the #4 engine
spontaneously relit. The pilots were able to slow the rate of descent and
try a restart on the other three, still having not a clue as to why any of
them had failed in the first place. The other three suddenly came back on
line one after the other, and the captain (fully aware of altimeter errors
while crossing mtn ranges, and knowing that there were 10,500 ft mtns btwn
him and Jakarta) made what seemed a commonsense request to climb back to a
"safe" altitude. At 14K, they began experiencing the same "St. Elmo's
Fire" that had preceded the eng. f. in the 1st place, and immediately
began a descent back to 12K, not in time to save the #2 engine.
It wasn't strictly best glide ratio for 2 reasons. One, the ash had
clogged one of the pitot tubes (I don't think they ever found out which
one) so the 2 airspeed indicators were giving wildly different readings.
The captain made a decision to vary the airspeed as much as possible,
hoping to hit the best speed for engine relight by chance, if nothing
else. Second, the pressurisation failed at about 18K ft, and the second
officer's O_2 mask wasn't working, so the captain elected to dive at max
speed to get down to breathing level ASAP. (The 2nd O. managed to repair
his mask before they got too far down.)
On approach to Jakarta they were informed the glideslope was OOS, and they
had to make a visual approach (at night) using the VASI. Jakarta had to
crank the runway lights up to full power before they could even see them
through a windscreen that had been, for all intents and purposes,
sandblasted. They could only see the VASI lights through a narrow strip
down the outside of each windshield, and they still made a perfect landing
on 3 (damaged) engines.
BA's official name for the 747 in q. was "The City of Edinburgh", but it's
unofficial name is now "The Flying Ashtray" (aka "The Galunggung Glider").
--
WR Lorimer
"We journey not for trafficking alone; By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned; For lust of knowing what should not be known, We take the Golden Road to Samarkand." (James Elroy Flecker)