Polish pilot saves 230 lives - lands without landing gear

[Tolya]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heels.html

Passengers have revealed their terror after an aeroplane carrying 230 people was forced into an emergency landing at an airport following a catastrophic equipment failure.

The pilot was forced to bring the Boeing 767 in to land at Warsaw airport with no wheels after all its landing gear failed. The aircraft skidded along the tarmac on its belly, sparks flying, and a fire broke out in the starboard engine before it came to a halt.

Incredibly nobody on the flight, which came from Newark, New Jersey, was injured but after disembarking passengers spoke of their alarm.

'I was praying for the pilot not to lose control because we started to make circles over the airport. It was terrible,' said passenger Teresa Kowalik.

'We owe everything to the pilot. He really did a great job.'

The pilot told passengers four hours into the flight that the plane faced technical problems said a passenger who only gave her first name, Malgorzata.

'The pilot addressed us a number of times and said we should follow instructions. Later, a flight attendant said there might be a fire, and at that point people began to get nervous and uncertain,' she said.

The landing was not especially hard but the situation became alarming when sparks and black smoke rose from the plane, said Krzysztof Rozycki, a 17-year-old passenger.

A relative of a passenger said some on board panicked, crying and bidding final farewells to each other.

Relatives of passengers waiting at the airport sought information as the emergency unfolded.

Joanna Dabrowska, 29, managed to speak to her mother-in-law, a passenger, via mobile phone after she evacuated the flight. Dabrowska said some of the passengers apparently feared the worst.

'People were saying their final farewells to each other and some were sobbing,' she said.

Dabrowska was among a group of relatives waiting at the airport in a special room. Her mother-in-law was returning home after a month-long visit to Clinton, New Jersey.

According to the mother-in-law, passengers removed their shoes and evacuated the plane using the emergency slide.

'She was in shock, but she was fine,' said Dabrowska. She declined to give her mother-in-law's name because she didn't have her permission.

Other relatives at the airport would not talk to reporters. One woman whose husband and two sons were on board said she was relieved, but was shaking and declined to give her name or say more.

Passengers were taken to a medical center and were examined by doctors, said Przemyslaw Przybylski, a spokesman for the Warsaw airport.

That is one of the best news I heard once in a while. Congratulations to the pilot (capt. Wrona), it's no small feat to land a 767 with no gear and with a hydraulic system failure.

[Thanas]

Yeah, great job by him.

[FSTargetDrone]

[Korvan]

Glad I wasn't on that flight. I get white knuckles in just heavy turbulence. Part of my brain just doesn't believe the wings can stay attached when they're bouncing up and down like that. The other part of my brain wonders why I keep asking for a window seat. Nice to hear there were no major injuries.

[The_Saint]

For a gear up landing without hydraulics it was very 'clean' (or at least the final skid was)

A truly superb piece of airmanship from the pilot and a testament to the airframe to land without hydraulics and landing gear in such a manner that the aircraft does what would appear to be a relatively gentle slide down the runway.

[El Moose Monstero]

There is a further video of the actual touchdown itself, which is basically what you would expect in a regular touchdown, but without the wheels. From the outside, it appeared incredibly smooth. I had the same thought about the airframe - presumably they design it with this possibility in mind, but even so...

[VarrusTheEthical]

I'm happy no one was hurt, though I am curious what caused the failure in the hydraulic system. Don't 767s have a triple-redundant hydraulic system?

[Ellindsey]

I'm happy no one was hurt, though I am curious what caused the failure in the hydraulic system. Don't 767s have a triple-redundant hydraulic system?

Yes, although only one of the three hydraulic (the C system) systems is connected to the landing gear extension. A complete fluid loss on the C system would leave them unable to run the landing gear hydraulics. They'd still have full flight control in that situation. They should also still be able to extend the landing gear without hydraulics - there's an alternate non-hydraulic mechanism to release the landing gear uplocks, at which point gravity should cause the gear to extend and lock in position normally. It's puzzling why that didn't happen, it seems you'd need two unrelated hardware failures to make it impossible to extend the landing gear.

[K. A. Pital]

I guess I'm glad, but it raises a question - how old the is the plane park of the carriers that operate out of Poland? Is it crap like in Russia, an average of more than 20 years per plane (IIRC), or is it like 10 years or less?

[VarrusTheEthical]

Yes, although only one of the three hydraulic (the C system) systems is connected to the landing gear extension. A complete fluid loss on the C system would leave them unable to run the landing gear hydraulics. They'd still have full flight control in that situation. They should also still be able to extend the landing gear without hydraulics - there's an alternate non-hydraulic mechanism to release the landing gear uplocks, at which point gravity should cause the gear to extend and lock in position normally. It's puzzling why that didn't happen, it seems you'd need two unrelated hardware failures to make it impossible to extend the landing gear.

This is only speculation on my part, but one guess is that the pilot was not confident in the integrity of the undercarriage without the use of hydraulics. It's probably safer to do a level belly landing with a dry plane than risk having one or more landing gears collapse while you're still rolling.

Also, I can't attest to the age of that particular aircraft, but I've read that the plane is a 767-300ER, which is a pretty recent design. So I don't know if age is a factor in the incident or not.

[PeZook]

I guess I'm glad, but it raises a question - how old the is the plane park of the carriers that operate out of Poland? Is it crap like in Russia, an average of more than 20 years per plane (IIRC), or is it like 10 years or less?

LOT has a pretty old fleet, but that particular plane was 14 years old, which isn't that bad. LOT actually has an excellent safety record, since with airplanes, age isn't that important: it's the flight-hours of individual components,airframe wear and maintenance practices that really matter.

EDIT: Also, the guy running the excellent Ask The Pilot blog wrote a short analysis of the landing, based on what we know so far:

On Tuesday afternoon, a LOT Polish Airlines Boeing 767 made a graceful touchdown at the airport in Warsaw. The problem was, the plane had no landing gear. All three of the widebody jet’s gear units — twin main gear sets and a smaller set near the nose — had failed to deploy, forcing a rarely seen belly landing.

Naturally the event was captured on video and became an Internet sensation even before the fire trucks had finished with their foam. How quaint seem the days, not all that long ago, when people would wait around excitedly for the nightly news in order to catch some grainy footage.

I’m somewhat loath to give this incident more attention than it has already gotten. Landing gear malfunctions tend to be splendidly telegenic, but rarely if ever are they going to end in catastrophe.

Back in 2005 we had the grotesquely overhyped saga of JetBlue Flight 292, an Airbus A320 that touched down in California with its nose gear retracted. This non-event, covered here and here, became a days-long media spectacle. In 2010 an ASA regional jet made an emergency landing in New York after a main gear malfunction, and just last week an Iran Air Boeing 727 touched down sans its nose gear in Tehran.

What made Tuesday’s LOT mishap different, and potentially more hazardous, was that none of the jet’s gear had come down. The pilots would not have the opportunity to bleed off speed while balancing on one or more sets of tires. This increased the likelihood of a fire or serious structural damage, as both of the plane’s massive engines would be sliding along the pavement at high speed. Directional control would also be more difficult — probably the most challenging aspect of the landing.

Nevertheless, what we saw unfold is about what I, for one, would have expected to unfold. There were no casualties and I’m not the least bit surprised by that. There was lots of smoke, some sparking and grinding and maybe a quick shot of flame. But emergency crews had been standing by, and even if a fire had erupted it would have been doused within seconds.

The landing itself would have been perfectly routine up to the last second. From a pilot’s perspective there’s no real trick other than to touch down as slowly and smoothly and with the wings as level as possible — not a whole lot different from a normal landing. Approach and landing speeds are determined by weight, not technique: The jet would have been comparatively light, having burned away most of its fuel during the long flight from America. Further dumping of fuel would have been impossible, as only the main (center) tank of the 767 has jettison capability and it would have been empty by this point.

The key to minimizing damage and injury in a situation like this is preparation. The aircraft circled Warsaw for several minutes, providing ample time for the pilots (there would have been at least three pilots in the cockpit) to troubleshoot (albeit not successfully), run their checklists, and brief the rest of the crew and passengers on what to expect. The flight attendants would have reviewed their evacuation procedures, stowed away loose items and made sure everyone was ready. On the ground below, fire and rescue crews got into position (as did the gawkers with their cellphones and cameras). Really this wasn’t about pilot technique or seat-of-the-pants skills so much as preparation, coordination and good management of a crisis.

I am sure that many of the LOT passengers were saying prayers and scribbling out goodbye messages to loved ones, but the possibility of anybody being killed was minimal.

The million-dollar question, obviously, is how in the world did all three landing gear units of a modern commercial airliner fail to come down?

I wish I could tell you. I fly 767s for a living and I’m as mystified as anybody else. The plane has both a normal and alternate gear extension system. The normal system uses hydraulics, the alternate relies mostly on gravity, allowing the huge assemblies to more or less free-fall into place if need be. Neither of these, for reasons we’ll learn soon enough, did the trick. Whatever the problem was, it seems to have been something pretty far up the chain of the systems’ architecture, such that neither of two independent systems was sufficient.

The 767 has been in service for nearly 30 years, together with its little brother, the 757. The 767 is the much larger of the two, but otherwise these aircraft are extremely similar, sharing a so-called common type certification that allows pilots like me to be simultaneously qualified on both. In all the millions of landings these planes have made over the past three decades, nothing like this has happened before.

LOT, for its part, is a small but well-respected carrier with an excellent safety record. A freak malfunction? A maintenance mistake of some kind? We’ll find out eventually. Until then, congratulations appear to be in order to the LOT crew, whose training and composure helped ensure a safe outcome.

[folti78]

This is only speculation on my part, but one guess is that the pilot was not confident in the integrity of the undercarriage without the use of hydraulics. It's probably safer to do a level belly landing with a dry plane than risk having one or more landing gears collapse while you're still rolling.

In the original article it was mentioned that they tried to lower the gears using the mechanical lowering system but it didn't work. Which were confirmed by the escorting fighters.

Also IIRC it's standard procedure to burn up/dump(if possible) as much fuel before landing as possible, to both lighten the plane and to reduce the chance of fuel fire.

[VarrusTheEthical]

In the original article it was mentioned that they tried to lower the gears using the mechanical lowering system but it didn't work. Which were confirmed by the escorting fighters.

Also IIRC it's standard procedure to burn up/dump(if possible) as much fuel before landing as possible, to both lighten the plane and to reduce the chance of fuel fire.

Well, I stand corrected. It it is interesting that this is incident appears to be the first time that a 767 has ever been forced to do a full belly landing.

[Broomstick]

Absolutely textbook perfect gear-up landing. That is how that situation is supposed to be handled. I'm not at all surprised there were no injuries. Done properly, no one should be hurt by that although it fucks the hell out of the bottom of the airplane.

It also brings to mind the old aviation joke “You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.”

The "Ask the Pilot" blogwriter has it spot on. I really can't say it better than he doesn.

I'm happy no one was hurt, though I am curious what caused the failure in the hydraulic system. Don't 767s have a triple-redundant hydraulic system?

Yes, although only one of the three hydraulic (the C system) systems is connected to the landing gear extension. A complete fluid loss on the C system would leave them unable to run the landing gear hydraulics. They'd still have full flight control in that situation. They should also still be able to extend the landing gear without hydraulics - there's an alternate non-hydraulic mechanism to release the landing gear uplocks, at which point gravity should cause the gear to extend and lock in position normally. It's puzzling why that didn't happen, it seems you'd need two unrelated hardware failures to make it impossible to extend the landing gear.

Although very rare, triple-failures and multiple failures have occurred in aviation. Given the many millions of flights that have been made up to the point, having a freak occurrence isn't impossible. I'm assuming a reasonable investigation of the matter will be made.

I guess I'm glad, but it raises a question - how old the is the plane park of the carriers that operate out of Poland? Is it crap like in Russia, an average of more than 20 years per plane (IIRC), or is it like 10 years or less?

20 years isn't that old for an airliner – hell, even first-rate top-shelf airlines have planes that old. There are 40 year old 747's still flying, and even 50+ DC-3's still in routine service. What counts most is maintenance. Sure, new planes have some advantages, and old planes often have to have retrofitted upgrades, but I'd be more concerned with how an airplane has been used/maintained over its lifetime rather than its absolute age.

This is only speculation on my part, but one guess is that the pilot was not confident in the integrity of the undercarriage without the use of hydraulics. It's probably safer to do a level belly landing with a dry plane than risk having one or more landing gears collapse while you're still rolling.

No, if they landed with all gear up then all gear failed to come down. Even having one wheel down would allow the airplane to bleed off speed, so any contact between airplane other than landing gear and the ground would occur at a lower speed. In general, you want any such contact to be at the slowest controllable/practical speed.

A belly-landing like that will most likely occur at a higher-than-normal landing speed simply because you don't have the drag of the gear to help slow the airplane down although, given they did spend time circling the airport, and the pilots involved know a hell of a lot more about 767's than I do, they might have been able to bring it down relatively slowly (which would still be pretty damn fast by land vehicle standards).

Also, I can't attest to the age of that particular aircraft, but I've read that the plane is a 767-300ER, which is a pretty recent design. So I don't know if age is a factor in the incident or not.

Again, I'd look more at maintenance than age at this point. As usual, subject to change with more information.

[LadyTevar]

There's already a joke starting to circle the 'net: Fly like an Eagle, Land like a Crow.
The Captain's name, Wrona, means Crow.

[PeZook]

Just learned that the landing didn't damage the runway ; The airport in question is already open.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Just learned that the landing didn't damage the runway ; The airport in question is already open.

It wouldn't. They cover the runway in a thick layer of foam in circumstances like this. Once it stops, they put it on a trailer and tow it off to get fixed and then hose everything down.

[PeZook]

Just learned that the landing didn't damage the runway ; The airport in question is already open.

It wouldn't. They cover the runway in a thick layer of foam in circumstances like this. Once it stops, they put it on a trailer and tow it off to get fixed and then hose everything down.

They were still concerned there might've been damage that would have to be repaired before safe operations could be resumed ; Turned out it wasn't the case.

It was of double concern since the airport only has two intersecting runways, and the plane skidded to a stop right on the intersection, so any damage would've shut down the entire airport.

[Tolya]

There's already a joke starting to circle the 'net: Fly like an Eagle, Land like a Crow.
The Captain's name, Wrona, means Crow.

I absolutely love that line. I'll put it in my sig immediately.

[Surlethe]

A little comment about appearances: I bet being on the plane was a hell of a lot scarier than you'd think just by watching that video. Those things are goddamned BIG; our little monkey brains can't handle stuff that big or fast, so we go, "Oh, that looks slow and smooth." The pilots say it was indeed slow and smooth, but I'd guess what a pilot means by "slow and smooth" isn't the same as the intuitive reaction we all have when we see that jet slowly skidding down the runway.

[Tolya]

A little comment about appearances: I bet being on the plane was a hell of a lot scarier than you'd think just by watching that video. Those things are goddamned BIG; our little monkey brains can't handle stuff that big or fast, so we go, "Oh, that looks slow and smooth." The pilots say it was indeed slow and smooth, but I'd guess what a pilot means by "slow and smooth" isn't the same as the intuitive reaction we all have when we see that jet slowly skidding down the runway.

Well, according to our Polish media, passengers felt the landing itself as being as smooth as with gear down. Of course that doesn't account for the fact that they knew there was no gear and everyone was told to assume the emergency position. Although one of the cabin crew was interviewed by journalists and said that there was no panic and everyone followed instructions to the letter.

But that's the landing itself. I can't imagine being on a plane where the pilot says "sorry folks, no landing gear, we'll do our best to save everyone". Landing was probably the least scary, it's the anticipation that is the most frightening.