F4dar

My Feedback: (55)

With all the bad news coming out of Iran these days, here is an Iran Air pilot executing a difficult landing (in an outdated 60s jet), perfectly and saving lives of the passengers. Now his landing may not be considered a FULL "SULLY", possibly ALMOST "SULLY" Iranian version..lol


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0m0u...layer_embedded



REVISED sorry for the misstype...

basimpsn

My Feedback: (5)

Where is the pickup truck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoSGzLii0KM

GSR

My Feedback: (145)

Big deal- A320s do that bi-weekly. S

SinCityJets

Great landing!

InboundLZ

My Feedback: (10)

Outdated 60's jet.....that looked to be a B727, one of the finest airliners ever built IMO...

bevar

My Feedback: (27)

Uh...it's "Sully"...not "Scully".

Sully was the USAir Captain who but the A-320 in the drink...Scully was the chick from the X Files.

Beave

PS. Every time the gear handle was moved to the down position on the 727 when I was on it I would look for the alternate gear extension handle just in case I needed it real quick...LOL!

Wayne22

My Feedback: (2)

He sure kept the nose off the ground a long, long time. that was a GREAT landing! I noticed he had full up trim on the stab by time stopped. The 200's liked to fly with the cg at the aft end of the envelope, so there was probably some stuff he did before landing to achieve this...perhaps....jes' thinking out loud...

Stobe777

My Feedback: (1)

So he moved people into the back...? Superb landing. Now do that with an Airbus with all the computers probably
disagreeing with you...
The "Iran Air Security" car looked a bit newer than the 727.
Thanks for posting!
TP.

jzuniga

My Feedback: (7)

[/quote]
PS. Every time the gear handle was moved to the down position on the 727 when I was on it I would look for the alternate gear extension handle just in case I needed it real quick...LOL!
[/quote]

I hated that alternate gear extension in the 27! What a goat rope!... That and the fuel balancing on an engine out... but she was a fast, sweet flying, plane...

Z

bevar

My Feedback: (27)

She sure was a rocket ship...the fastest thing out there other than a Convair 990. At .88...she was making fuel!

Ahhh...the good old days...

Beave

David Gladwin

[quote]ORIGINAL: bevar

She sure was a rocket ship...the fastest thing out there other than a Convair 990.



Beave


Not Quite, Beave, not quite, try Mach 2 plus !

But surely no-one could remotely put this landing in the same league as the extraordinary achievement of Capt Sullenberger and F/O Skiles when faced with a double flameout at low level and a water "landing". Theirs was a most brilliant combination of handling skills, decision making under extreme pressure, airmanship and CRM all working together to produce a superb result.

In comparison the 727 landing was no big deal, (normal landing, keep it straight on rudder and diff. brake and GENTLY lower the nose before running out of elevator authority) any captain worth his crew meal should/ would be able to do just the same !

Regards,

David.

AngusMc

My Feedback: (1)

That happens everyday with FEJ gear

But really, great job done by the pilot, executed perfectly.

AM

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

Mmmm 72's forever! Sure miss that girl. I still think my FE ride was the toughest ticket I ever earned. Plumbed for a year then pulled gear and ate too many crew meals. HA Recieved my first furlough letter 09/10/2001
Still luckier than some.

I never will forget being 30 miles out, M.82 at FL360 on a streight in approach....and we were adding power about two miles out.

David Gladwin

Wow, .82 at 360 and straight-in from 30 miles, sounds like an extreme emergency descent profile to me (a normal descent would require about 120 nm in still air) so what did you do, (MMO/VMO with full speedbrake, possibly reversers in idle in the -27 like the Trident and Concorde, possibly gear down ? ) Passengers must have LOVED that all that noise and buffeting !

Power at about 2 miles ? Doesn't Boeing say something about being configured and in the slot, on GS, flap set, speed stable, spooled up at 500 feet at latest (or its a mandatory ago-around) which is just a shade less than 2 miles !!!!!

Regards,

David.

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

David, nice reply. The 72 has a very high gear speed. We already had clearance for lower. The three of us were rather engaged in conversation. I was in the FE seat and scaned the FE panel as you normally would. Noticed we were nearing our planned landing fuel. Looked out the window and over the nose a bit (I had my chair elevated) and thought what I saw was the airport. In shock I leaned forward to see the GPS, old apollo units, and it showed something like 33 miles to the runway. The Cap and Fo were turned facing each other. I asked the Cap how far out we were. That's when the fun started. He spun around in his seat, took one look at the GPS, then out the window. As he was pulling the power off he told the FO to tell ATC we were leaving our altitude. Full boards, AP off, dropped the gear as we pushed over at .82 It was actually fairly smooth. I figure we were in excess of 12,000 fpm. No thrust reversers....we were going down plenty fast. Couldn't do that anyway in the 72. The DC-8 could but I'm told she would buck a bit. We were a freight hauler so we didn't have to worry with pax or FA's. Your correct, stabilized approach criteria basically state IMC, engines spooled at 1000'AFE and 500'AFE if VMC. We always shot for that as it saved alot of fuel and it was hard to do. Standard is 3 to 1 for turbojets....thats 300'AFE per 1 mile of distance from the runway. SO at 2 miles we were 600' AFE and stabilized, boards stowed, flaps fully configured, on profile, ect...

That was what was so great about the 727, it was a pleasure to fly and would do just about whatever the pilot wanted without much effort. That said it was always challenging to grease the landing but thats one of the things I found so enjoyable.

David Gladwin

Glad to hear you were hauling freight.

I once struggled to get a 757 into Lisbon with a severe medical emergency (he survived) from 50 miles out we made it, just, but the pressurisation struggled to keep up ! B
The 757 with its trailing bogies made greasers easy, the 767 with reverse trailing trucks was anyone's guess ! ! Two brilliant boeing products though !

Regards,

David.

bevar

My Feedback: (27)

I remember talking to some of the old Eastern guys who said they used to pull the boards and go to flaps 40 coming into Miami when they could with the -100s.. Something like 9 miles from cruise ALT to touch down was the order of the day.

David, remember...we are talking about 1970's...where there was no real push for stabilized approach criteria like there has been in the past 10 to 15 years.

Beave

David Gladwin

Interesting comment Beave. 9 miles from, say, 350 to touchdown NO way, that is complete BS, its almost a 40 degree descent angle. I simply don't believe them and I've done LOTS of emergency descents in the sim. (one for real in the 757) in several different types of 4 and twin jets. (using flap 40 AND full speedbrake, just think of the hammering the flaps would get, YUK !!) ...........and you cant GO down and SLOW down, to the extent that this descent would require besides, Boeing flight manuals say use of flaps above 20,000 is prohibited. on all the Boeing types I have flown. These guys were pulling your leg ! Sorry, I just don't believe them !!

Stabilized approaches in British and US flying have been around a LOT longer than last 10 -15 years. I did a B737-200 course at Seattle in 1980 and Boeing were stressing it then. (Chet Ekstrand was my instructor, great chap who instructed the -27,-37 and -47) BOAC were stressing it in the '70s on the VC10 , 707 and 747 (absolutely essential on Concorde when it arrived, ) and the RAF were emphatic about it on the V bombers (Valiant and Victor in my case) in the '60s and on my basic jet course in 1962, stable at 300 feet was required even in the little Jet Provost.

Perhaps we should take this thread to PRUNE !!!

Regards,

David.