Re: Emergency landing on water ?

Date:         13 Dec 96 04:26:04 
From:         cat@clinet.fi (Patrik Andersin)
Organization: IKI ry.
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.2662@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes:

>  The 767, like all ETOPS aircraft, have Ram Air Turbines (RATs) that extend
>  automatically from the belly of the plane into the slipstream if all
>  normal sources of hydraulic and/or electrical power are lost (the pilots
>  can deploy them, too.)  These "propeller-on-a-stick" devices provide
>  sufficient power to  operate the necessary flight controls to safely
>  maneuver the plane in the event of a hydraulic and/or electical loss,
>  which you would certainly have if the plane ran out of fuel and all the
>  engines (and APU) have shut down.  This is what allowed the flight crew of
>  the Air Canada 767 that ran dry to make a "normal" descent, approach, and
>  touchdown at Gimli back in the early 1980s.  They had full control all the
>  way down, extended the gear, and had wheelbrakes, although without reverse
>  thrust the landing roll was extremely long.

Well, not quite right... An article in comp.risks 10.13 by Robert
Dorsett says that ram air turbine serviced only the basic flight
controls, but did not provide power for other surfaces, such as flaps.
Radios and backup instrumentation was supplied initially by APU, later
by battery power. The nose gear collapsed and the nose acted as very
efficient speed brake.

For full article see <http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/10.13.html>

Do modern ram air turbines provide more power expample for the flaps?

--
Patrik Andersin  cat@iki.fi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cat@clinet.FI		Patrik Andersin	            Let's just say...
			Pihlajatie 30 a 1             I was testing
tel: +358 0 477 2876	00270 Helsinki, Finland  	the bounds of reality.