Forum

[prop-er]

Bron: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho....php?p=1221162

Hi All,

Yesterday Michael (T5) and myself took a trip up to Manchester. Left LHR on the 7.05 Bmi flight (G-RJXD) arriving in Manchester for around 8am. We bused it over to the AVP where we spent our day.

Sadly the weather was not on side, very overcast and the wind was too much!

Photos of the trip coming later. For now here's some shots of the AA 767 that ran into trouble yesterday.

N386AA originally headed out to the runway around 11am - and according to the locals that was about an hour behind in the first place. She didnt get very far as she returned to stand, where she stayed for a few hours.

At just after 1pm, she re-appeared and headed to the sky. An hour later the entire Manchester airport fire team were everywhere! Most of us in the AVP didn't know what was going on, until we saw AA return with an obvious problem.

Apparently she had lost use of Hydrollics, therefore (as you can see in the pics) No flaps etc. Upon landing you can clearly see the bay doors were hanging open and she suffered a rather hard landing... resulting in two blown tyre's. According to what we were hearing over the radio, she'd also had her brakes cease up due to the hard braking from the landing.

Hi all
I just want to clear up a few things about this incident.

1. The aircraft did return to stand earlier for a totally un related defect.
2. The aircraft did not crash.
3. The aircraft did not have a total hydraulic failure
It just lost all the fluid from the centre system. The centre system powers various systems most noticeably the u/c for retraction and the main gear doors for opening and closing. The gear would have been dropped by the alternate system. This is an electric motor that breaks the geometric up locks on the gear. Gravity then causes the gear to “Barge” the doors out of the way and locks it self down. The main gear doors would not retract.
4. The centre system also powers the flaps and slats. They would have been operated on alternate too. The alternate system is a lot slower in operation than the normal system. So the flaps would have not been lowered to the normal landing position because if they had to do a go around this would have created extra drag when you least wanted it! That is why the landing was faster than normal.
5. The centre system powers the steering. That is why the aircraft did not leave the runway under it’s own steam.
4. The aircraft could not have carried on to Chicago in this state
The centre system powers the hydraulic motor driven generator. This is essential for ETOPS operation.
6. The aircraft did not burst the wheels on landing. Two of the wheels deflated because the wheels and brakes were very hot because of the heavy and fast landing the aircraft did. The wheels are designed to do this to prevent a pressure release; this might hurt the ground crew outside the aircraft.
7. The fire service did not smother the brakes with foam or water or “Media” To do this would cause the hot bits to cool to fast and cause other problems. The standard procedure is just let the u/c cool naturally, if you do get a brake fire there are special extinguishers for that. It’s a dry powder that smothers the fire but does not cool it.
8. The Normal brakes on the 767 are powered by the right hydraulic system, so the brakes would have worked normally
9. The reversers are powered by the left and right systems
10. The APU would have been running to provide two sources of electrical power it they had lost an engine
11. Spoilers 3,4,5,8,9 &10 are powered by the centre system so they would not have operated.

All in this entire “incident” was a minor event although I don’t think the people on board woud say so! Perhaps it only made the news because it was a slow news day? The only thing of note for me is that in thirty years in the business I have never seen the fuse plugs go on an aircraft tyre!

Ik vind vooral de enorme hoeveelheid wingflex opvallend. Blijkbaar een zware landing. (geen tijd gehad om brandstof te lozen?)