Tom Cruse, top gun eat your heart out

[buddhafabio]

found this amazing feat of piloting on taken place on the 22 of November landing an airbus a300 with out Hydraulics

DHL/EAT Crew Lands A300 With No Hydraulics After Being Hit By Missile

By David Hughes and Michael A. Dornheim

December 7, 2003

No Flight Controls

In a situation reminiscent of the United Airlines DC-10 landing without hydraulics in Iowa in 1989, the crew of a DHL A300 hit by a missile relied solely on engine power without flight controls to land at Baghdad.

Pierre Ghyoot, secretary general of the Belgian Cockpit Assn. (BeCA), told Aviation Week & Space Technology that the pilots were able to guide the aircraft to a safe landing on Nov. 22 using only engine power settings. The aircraft lost all three hydraulic systems and all flight controls. Ghyoot said his organization is already planning to give the crew a safety award.

According to one aviation source familiar with the incident in Baghdad, the incredible feat of airmanship is explained partly by a safety seminar the DHL/European Air Transport (EAT) captain attended in Brussels earlier this year. In a stroke of luck, one of the speakers was retired Capt. Al Haynes. In 1989, Haynes commanded a United Airlines DC-10 in which all the hydraulics had been lost due to a center engine rotor burst in cruise. Using engine thrust alone, the United crew was able to crash-land the crippled aircraft at the Sioux City, Iowa, airport, and the majority of the passengers survived.

After the DC-10 accident, studies and flight tests by McDonnell Douglas and NASA Dryden Flight Research Center showed engine thrust can be a control in some cases and that practice before landing is extremely valuable (AW&ST June 24, 1991, p. 43). NASA research pilot C. Gordon Fullerton noted the primary job is to damp roller-coaster phugoid oscillations in pitch and find a stable attitude. Adding thrust with underslung engines like the A300 tends to pitch the nose up. "You have to devote maximum attention to the position of the nose and keep pitch rates low," Fullerton said. Turning the aircraft is done with differential thrust.

NASA experience with landing a simulated Boeing 720 using manual control of thrust was "very iffy," but the agency and McDonnell Douglas modified an MD-11 with software to control the engines, and flight test showed it could make airline-quality landings using thrust alone. But for manual control, Fullerton suggested finding as large a landing area as possible, such as the lakebed runways of Edwards AFB, Calif. However, that presumes aircraft condition is not deteriorating, and the DHL aircraft's wing was on fire.

The DHL/EAT crew headed the aircraft back to Baghdad International after it was hit at 8,000 ft. on climbout from the airport. Normal DHL procedure at Baghdad is to make a steep climb to avoid attack. Takeoff configuration is slats extended with zero flap, and that is maintained in a 160-170-kt. climb to 10,000 ft. Then the slats are retracted and the aircraft accelerates to a normal 300-kt. climb speed. The flight was still in this low-speed climb when it was hit.

When the missile exploded, the crew first thought an engine had suffered an uncontained failure, but all readings were normal, the aviation source said. Then the hydraulic pressures started dropping and a ground call told them the wing was trailing smoke. The captain could see that the wing was on fire.

Damage, presumably from the missile blast, is concentrated at the left trailing edge along the outboard flap, between the engine and the outboard aileron. The outer half of the outboard flap is missing, and the outboard flap track is dangling from the bottom of the wing. About 10 ft. of the rear spar is broken open or missing, and fire-damaged ribs are visible inside the outboard structural fuel tank.

All hydraulic pressure was lost about a minute after the hit, the source said. The low-speed aileron outboard of the damage is supplied by all three hydraulic systems, and there are five spoilers in front of the outboard flap, fed by the three systems.

Primary flight controls become inoperative on the A300B4 with total loss of hydraulic pressure, because there is no manual reversion. The stabilizer trim froze because it is powered only by a pair of hydraulic motors. The crew deployed the ram air turbine with hydraulic pump, but the leaks rendered it ineffective.

The crew had problems controlling the aircraft and at times didn't think they would make it, the source said. But the captain recalled the Haynes presentation and started using engine thrust for control, and was surprised to find it worked rather well.

The aircraft circled twice while the crew manually extended the landing gear. Ghyoot said the pilots lined the aircraft up for a flat, straight-in approach from 20 naut. mi. out and that the approach and landing speeds were 225 kt., though the source said touchdown was around 180 kt. "Having the trim set right when they were hit saved them," the source said. Ghyoot said he believes the aircraft had flaps retracted, but the brakes worked as they were powered by an isolated hydraulic accumulator.

The crew aimed for runway 33 Right, but at short final were thrown off course and decided to try to land on runway 33 Left but were not properly lined up at touchdown. A photo shows the aircraft touching down on the runway on the right wheel, banked a few degrees to the right, and in a slightly nose-up attitude. The aircraft ran off the left side of the runway and went through barbed wires, fences, and dirt before coming to a stop near the fire station. Full reverse was applied, causing a large dust cloud. Both engines were damaged by debris.

A Paris Match magazine freelance photographer was with the attackers and shot pictures of the missile launch and strike, which are in the Nov. 27 issue.

Ghyoot said the U.S. Defense Dept. is investigating the missile attack, and then the Belgian Civil Aviation Authority's accident investigation service will conduct the final phase on the civil aspects. A Belgian criminal investigation is underway.

DHL was carrying U.S. mail to troops in Baghdad but shut down this operation for about a week after the missile attack. The 1979 vintage A300B4-203F was operated by DHL/EAT with two Belgian pilots and a British flight engineer. DHL offficials said the aircraft will eventually be repaired.

In the past 25 years there have been 35 shoulder-fired missile attacks on civil aircraft, 24 resulting in crashes with 500 fatalities, according to AOC, the electronic warfare and information operations association, in Alexandria, Va. The U.S. Homeland Security Dept. is about to pick contractors to develop prototype missile-self defense systems for use on commercial aircraft (AW&ST Dec. 1, p. 46).

[rdenham]

These pictures show how bad the damage was and just how lucky the pilots were to be able to get the plane back down in one piece.

Since last May there have been nine known missile attacks on aircraft in Iraq. Aircraft landing at Baghdad airport minimize their vulnerability to missile attacks by making sharp turns at 15,000 feet and "cork-screwing" down before they make their landing. This evasive maneuver, however, is not possible on take off.

The 22.7 pound Russian built SAM-14 (or Strela 3) is the successor to the SAM 7 (Strela). More accurate and reliable than the SAM 7, it has a larger warhead (6.5 pounds, twice that of the SAM 7). The SAM 14 has a maximum range of 4.5 kilometers and a max altitude of 9,900 feet. For best results against a jet aircraft, targets should be within two kilometers or less. The seeker of the SAM 14 was designed to go after the smaller engines on slower moving helicopters, which can be hit at four kilometers out.

When the A300 was hit, it was flying at about 8,000 feet. The warhead apparently exploded in the wing, setting fire to the fuel tanks inside the wing resulting in a complete failure of the planes hydraulic system.

Edited December 20, 2003 by rdenham

[myk]

That truly is amazing. However, Tom Cruise's role in Top Gun is to smile alot and play volleyball, so I wouldn't criticize him for his lack of piloting skills....

[Mechamaniac]

A Paris Match magazine freelance photographer was with the attackers and shot pictures of the missile launch and strike, which are in the Nov. 27 issue.

Good to see the French are staying on the right side of things....

Nothing like watching someone shoot down an unarmed, non-combatant, freight airliner. <_>

Here are some links....

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_articl...8&story_id=2613

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003...unmatched.shtml

http://www.enterstageright.com/cgi-bin/gm/...es/00002313.htm

And here are some pics.

PICS OF THE ATTACK

And here's a link to the video

VIDEO

Edited December 20, 2003 by Mechamaniac

[Solscud007]

Holy crap. I understood all of tha with my private pilot training. That is hard crap. specially since they wer in ascent from the airport. you dont have much altitude and your at low speed.

[UN Spacy]

That truly is amazing. However, Tom Cruise's role in Top Gun is to smile alot and play volleyball, so I wouldn't criticize him for his lack of piloting skills....

Exactly. This is like comparing Steak and Chicken.

[David Hingtgen]

Kind of surprised this showed up here, and got such a good response. I love airliners far more than military planes, and have been following this since just hours after it happened. It wasn't known that it lost hydraulics until days later, then it became apparent just how awesome the pilots were.

Article nit-picks: nobody calls the main fan of a jet the "rotor". Rotor is what helicopters have...

Also, it does mention how underslung engines make you pitch-up, and that the 720 was hard to fly. However, it does not mention that the MD-11 has the ideal configuration for controlling via engine thrust alone. (It's still impressive that it could do it, I have pics in some MD-11 books of it---but only the MD-11 could do it, or a modified DC-10, and maybe, maybe an L-1011)

Finally---the UAL DC-10 was in even worse shape than sheer loss of hydraulics. With the #2 engine out, they were even worse off, since the the plane's thrust centerline was now out of whack. (too low) While a plane like a DC-10/MD-11 is the best for controlling via thrust alone, that's only with all 3 engines running. If the #2 is out, then it's worse than most. (1 and 3 are less important). An L-1011 is inherently worse at engine-only control for pitch, but inherently better for holding pitch in the case of engine failure. (But better at yaw than any other plane except a quad-engine) (There is no perfect plane---it just depends on what the situation is)

And also, the UAL DC-10 had its rudder stuck to the right, and both inboard ailerons stuck up. Hard enough to fly a plane with no control, but even worse if said controls are stuck in extreme, contradicting positions.

Edited December 20, 2003 by David Hingtgen

[yellowlightman]

What exactly do "hydraulics" do on a plane?

Either way, that seems damn impressive. Why the hell was a French journalist hanging out with a bunch of killers, shouldn't he be uh... reporting those guys? What some people do for a story...

[VF-19]

What exactly do "hydraulics" do on a plane?

Either way, that seems damn impressive. Why the hell was a French journalist hanging out with a bunch of killers, shouldn't he be uh... reporting those guys? What some people do for a story...

The hydraulics are responsible for moving the control surfaces on a plane. They used to be directly connected to the flight stick via wires and pulleys, but with the advent of jet fighters, it was increasingly difficult to control a plane in that fashion. Basically, when you loose your hydraulics, you can't steer the plane any more (unless, that is, one of your backups is still working).

[David Hingtgen]

Hydraulics are a system of fluid-filled tubes/pipes to move things in a plane. They are literally the muscles of the plane. Identical to how the brakes in your car work. (Same fluid, too---red) The other main component of the system is the pumps that move the fluid. Pumps are powered by the engines, both electrically and pneumatically. (Usually one system has all electric pumps, one all pneumatic, and one with a little of both---redundancy) That A300 was exactly as if someone cut your brake line, and removed the steering wheel from your car. You've only got the throttle, nothing more.

More specifically, hydraulics, on the A300 (or any widebody) control the following:

Flaps, slats, ailerons, landing gear, nose-gear steering, brakes, thrust reversers, elevators, rudder, h.stabilizer, and spoilers.

All primary controls draw from 2, and usually 3 hydraulic sources. Disabling any single pump has no effect, and disabling any single system (either all pumps or loss of all fluid) has little effect---primary controls will lose some sheer power (respond slower) and you'll lose a few secondaries--like individual spoiler panels. Most any aircraft will still be flyable (but slow) even when down to one system. It's technically not a "backup" so much as "redundant". If you normally run off of 2 or 3 simultaneously and equally, there's no "primary" system. "Backup" is generally one of two things:

A normal system operating in an unusual matter. (if you lose multiple systems, whatever systems DO work will start opening and closing valves, to stop powering minor systems that it normally would, and start powering important things it usually has the others do---since those important systems have had their hydraulics damaged). The main valve that does this is usually the "priority" valve. It generally shuts off all systems (even important ones) from a hydraulic system, and pumps fluid to the MOST important systems, in order, but only one system of each type. Thus, even if it was system #1, and it normally controlled 2 elevators and 2 ailerons and the 4 most powerful spoilers, it would stop powering those, in favor of a single inboard aileron, a single inboard elevator, the lower half of the rudder, and if it could, the h.stab trim. That way, you would have minimal control of every system at least. Which is way better than full roll control but no pitch control. Every hydraulic system also has its own priority valve, and powers different sets. They'll usually have similar, but different priorities. Generally, which 1 of the 4 (for a 747 for example) of the ailerons and elevators to do, and which 2 or 4 spoilers to do, and which braking system. But they'll almost all go for the lower rudder.

A true "backup" system is rare. You'll pretty much only find this on a 727 or L-1011. This is a system which only operates when there is serious damage (usually if EVERYTHING else is gone). They generally siphon fluid from other systems which can no longer use it, and use their own pumps. They do not have a priority valve, as since they only operate in emergencies, they will only ever power the most important systems. But that list of systems they do power is identical to what a normal systems operates when the priority valve is activated.

Best example: Pan Am's near-fatal 747 incident at SFO. Long story short, the runway wasn't long enough, and they BARELY got off the ground. So low, the gear and tail clipped the approach lights as it climbed out. Many people severely injured due to the steel beams puncturing the cabin in the rear--people were literally impaled. 3 of 4 hydraulic systems lost, tail and gear physically damaged. 1 inch away from losing all 4 systems (at which point, the plane would have been lost with all aboard). As it was, it was down to 1 of the 4 ailerons, 1 of the 4 elevators, half of the rudder at 1/2 power, low-speed trim control only, 2 spoilers (of 10), LE flaps only, half trailing flaps, half gear via alternate extension, half of main braking, no anti-skid braking, no reverse thrust. Took over one hour to dump fuel and turn around to land back at SFO. Luckily, no fire, or it wouldn't have had time to dump fuel and turn around, and there was no way it could have survived an overweight landing, as the rear fuselage and tail were already structurally damaged, and half the gear wasn't available. After it landed, Boeing and the world learned that a 747 without its inboard gear extended, will tip back on its tail. The basic idea is to have every control surface powered by a different system, and multiple systems. That way, at least one of everything will work, no matter what combination of hydraulics are damaged. And if just one system is damaged, most everything still works--it takes nearly everything to be gone before you start totally losing controls, rather than just having them slow down. But if EVERYTHING's gone, you're pretty screwed. Few large aircraft have survived losing everything.

Flaps and slats generally have alternate electrical extension motors for emergencies, so that even if ALL hydraulics are lost with no backups working they can still be used, but it can literally take 15 minutes to get the flaps down via the backup system--time they didn't have with the wing on fire. Could probably get the slats out though--faster and simpler. (Even if a plane loses its flaps, it probably has slats--slats are the highest-priority non-primary system on most airliners---even above gear and brakes)

Gear is unique--basically use electrical motors to open to gear doors and locks, and gravity will pull it down. If that doesn't work, there are various manuevers to literally shake the gear out of the wells...

Edited December 21, 2003 by David Hingtgen

[ChristopherB]

Pretty amazing story.

I find it really disturbing that a French reporter would not interfere with a missile launch. Notice that I did not say I was surprised though.

Whatever it takes to get the story, and trust me, the reporter was not there by chance at just the right moment. You have to get clearance with the bad guys to be with them.

[robokochan]

Cool!

[buddhafabio]

That truly is amazing.  However, Tom Cruise's role in Top Gun is to smile alot and play volleyball, so I wouldn't criticize him for his lack of piloting skills....

i was just pointing out the his role in the fim was a pilot and that and that was just a line i used for a joke and i figured forums here are intrested in avation as they are in macross, as the anamie is based off of avation.

and if people were to watch out for the military avation accident reports. in situations like that where the pilot loses his flight controls. more times than not he choses to punch out. rarely do you here a pilot use thrust to manuver the plane back to base.

now granted the facts that civ. planes do not have ejection seats.

and the fact that military fighters are built for performance. and that most military planes are hard to control with out assistance of a computer.

Edited December 21, 2003 by buddhafabio

[Lynx7725]

Best example: Pan Am's near-fatal 747 incident at SFO. Long story short, the runway wasn't long enough, and they BARELY got off the ground. So low, the gear and tail clipped the approach lights as it climbed out. Many people severely injured due to the steel beams puncturing the cabin in the rear--people were literally impaled. 3 of 4 hydraulic systems lost, tail and gear physically damaged. 1 inch away from losing all 4 systems (at which point, the plane would have been lost with all aboard). As it was, it was down to 1 of the 4 ailerons, 1 of the 4 elevators, half of the rudder at 1/2 power, low-speed trim control only, 2 spoilers (of 10), LE flaps only, half trailing flaps, half gear via alternate extension, half of main braking, no anti-skid braking, no reverse thrust.

*Jaw drops*

ERm.. You still call that thing an aircraft?

I guess sometimes miracles do happen..

[rdenham]

For those of you who were not able to see the video of the DHL cargo jet SAM attack here are some amazing vid caps of the event.

[rdenham]

Capt. I think we have a problem.

[buddhafabio]

have a link for the video

[Myersjessee]

My dad flys an airbus....what they pulled off....well..just amazing!

[Uxi]

Great piloting. Hopefully those guys got promotions/bonuses and/or raises to go with the "Safety Award."

Someone needs to fire that snail-eating reporter out of a tube.

[Caufield]

I don't get why some people are upset at the reporter? In any war, reporters have done what they're meant to do, report.

[Skull Leader]

I think it has more to do with the fact that any "decent" human being would've done what they could to foil the missile launch.... that reporter KNEW people might die and he did nothing anyway ("hmm.... if I get really good footage of those people dying and the people that did it to them, maybe I'll get a lot of money!"), true journalism or no, I find those to be the worst cases of human beings alive. I hope somebody kicks his ass.

I'll raise a beer to the skill of that pilot. I'd say his talents are wasted in Civillian service, but then again, I guess they're not You kick ass man..... and I'm sure everyone that was on board agrees.

Edited January 6, 2004 by Skull Leader

[Caufield]

I think it has more to do with the fact that any "decent" human being would've done what they could to foil the missile launch.... that reporter KNEW people might die and he did nothing anyway ("hmm.... if I get really good footage of those people dying and the people that did it to them, maybe I'll get a lot of money!"), true journalism or no, I find those to be the worst cases of human beings alive. I hope somebody kicks his ass.

I'll raise a beer to the skill of that pilot. I'd say his talents are wasted in Civillian service, but then again, I guess they're not You kick ass man..... and I'm sure everyone that was on board agrees.

Well i know no political discussions are allowed on this board, hopefully this will not cross the line. Though i believe it already has.

I guess it all stems from the point of view you hold regarding the U.S invasion of Iraq. Let's just say the Iraqis are not the only ones who have hit civilian targets. As for the reporter, these days "news outlets" such as CNN, FOX, etc should be pegged more as mouthpieces of the government than journalists. After all, if it weren't for this reporter we would not have such footage. I don't think the fact that he was there would have changed the outcome of this particular event.

[Skull Leader]

This has nothing to do with politics. I mentioned no nation and pointed the blame on the individual, not his beliefs or nationality.

I could care less who shot the footage, nationality does not matter.... even if it were my neighbor, I'd still put my size 14 (shoe) in his butt.

[muswp1]

That was a really impressive landing. Now if that was a airliner full of civilians instead of mail. I bet that reporter would disappeared. That reporter should have done something, even if it was just telling the shooter that hitting a cilvil airliner isn't really a good idea.