Yep. The A330 that lost both fans and glided into the Azores is 100% fly by wire. Devices like auxiliary power units, ram air turbines (also used to power the hydraulics in the Gimli Glider), and backup batteries keep all essential systems functioning.
Would you fly a 737 Max 8 tomorrow?
- Thread starter clu
- Start date
Yes, all aircraft will glide. Some better than others and each type is different and the pilot's skill is the biggest factor. Even a helicopter will, called an auto rotation, which is more similar to a rock gliding. When I was taking my night endorsement, the procedure for engine failure was establish best glide speed and turn on the landing light. If you didn't like what you see, turn it out.
A
Andrew69913
There are actually FAA, Transport Canada, and EASA regulations stipulating exactly how far and long an aircraft MUST be able to glide before it is issued a Type Certificate, allowing it to be sold for use.
Any educated guesses how long they'll stay grounded and/or what it'll take to get them in service again? I can't decide if they'll rush them back in service to minimise the financial fallout or take their time and be thorough to avoid it getting any worse for them since the major damage to reputation is done already. They got so much pressure and revolt (even from cabin crews) for failing to act. They have to know that all the protest would come back if they rushed it, right?
I don't believe this is accurate. Do you have a reference?
Part of the type certification process for single engine airplanes includes a test of engine out gliding performance for inclusion in the pilot operating handbook, however to the best of my knowledge no actual requirement for glide performance exists. This test is not required of multi-engine aircraft (the primary reason for having more than one engine is to reduce the already minescule chance of having to glide anywhere).
By virtue of extremely clean aerodynamic design (and being optimized for fuel efficiency rather than outright speed), airliners actually make remarkably efficient gliders. A Boeing 787 experiencing a double engine failure at cruising altitude will glide approximately 120 miles. A double engine failure would be a truly extraordinary event, but should it happen the crew would have a significant amount of time and distance to consider their options.
I would guess not very long. Boeing will be throwing their considerable engineering might at the problem, and the FAA (among other regulatory bodies) will be under significant political pressure to get those airplanes back into the sky.
As a side note, Boeing stock is probably a good buy at the moment. This is a hiccup, and the market is doing what it does and is having a knee-jerk reaction.
A
Andrew69913
No I can't recite exactly which Canadian Aviation Regulation I am thinking about....but I'm almost certain I remember reading about it on one of the many tests somewhere that I have taken. As for time lines, best educated guesses being reported are about a one month grounding to implement the new software. I don't know if they meant they will be releasing individual aircraft as they get fixed, or if the entire fleet is grounded until they are ALL fixed which is what should have happened the moment this problem was realized. Somebody did a risk analysis along the way and decided the risk low enough to keep flying. Like was mentioned before....there are double and triple redundancies to almost every system in these aircraft, and the MCAS would not be an exception. The pilots simply did not know how to circumvent the system and there were tragic consequences in this instance. Lack of training...lack of awareness...lack of resources...and I think EVERYONE screwed the pooch a little on this one. Everybody knew there was a problem....everyone knew there were temporary work arounds with a permanent software fix on the way....nobody felt it was urgent and it cost many lives.
Regardless, Best Glide Speed (VG) is in the Pilot's Operating Handbook and you should know it. Unless you are proficient in single engine operation in a twin, that one prop pulling can still get you into a world of grief. The story of Piper Aztecs was if one engine failed, the other took you to the scene of the crash.
Whoever told you that story is either a liar or has never flown one (probably both).
The Aztec (especially the turbo version) is one of the best performers on one engine out of all the light twins. If fact, off the top of my head I can't think of a light twin that performs as well or flies as nicely with one engine failed (the Cessna 337 flies nicer with one engine, but the performance is decidedly lacking). The Aztec isn't the fastest or sexiest airplane out there but it will haul a great load, handles ice really well, will operate off of a remarkably short strip, is robust as hell, and is just an all around honest airplane with no real vices. I like the Aztec quite a lot.
I recall reading in an aviation magazine about a U2 having a flame out over Tennessee and it managed to glide to New Mexico. It is of course a specialized aircraft, might be wrong in where it flamed out and where it landed but it was a ridiculously long ways. Also captain Sullenberger did a good job of gliding his 320 airbus into the Hudson River when the engines were lost.
The 767 required 22,300 kg of fuel for its intended flight, a mistake in converting the volume of fuel loaded into the plane into weight resulted in it leaving the ground with 22,300 lbs of fuel about half what it needed. The digital fuel gauge processor had also malfunctioned which compounded the problem.
You know aircraft.
There was an Aztec in our hangar flying pipeline patrol. The story about the Atzec was some what tongue-in-cheek from training days, mainly because it is such an ugly plane (beauty is in the eyes of the beholder). Having said that, I had a friend auger one in, under marginal conditions and incorrect altimeter setting. Pilot error. Always exceptions.
I have some time in a 337. The 337 (Cessna Skymaster, "Mix Master", "Bird Dog") is a different twin. It is a centre-line twin, engine in front and rear. Engine failure in the 337 does not result in the same issues of differential thrust and therefore much safer and easier to handle with one or both engines failed. It was favoured in Vietnam as an observation platform because of it's visibility, single engine performance and because it had the extra metal in front and behind you when getting shot at.
This is a rather interesting development in the 737MAX8 saga:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Boeing-s-software-update-to-the-737-Max-8-was-13685735.php
A few years ago, in China, I met an American pilot who was training Chinese pilots. He said their biggest problem on the simulators was getting co-pilots to even say the pilot was doing something wrong, or there was an issue with the plane, if the pilot hadn't noticed it.
He said he would watch over and over as the plane flew into the ground, rather than challenge to pilot in charge.
