Comments on: The Gimli Glider http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider A collection of Damn Interesting things Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:57:58 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: 1NiceGuy http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider#comment-25848 1NiceGuy Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:40:01 +0000 #comment-25848 The most amazing thing about what Capt. Pearson accomplished is that no one has been able to duplicate his feat in the flight simulators. They had many experienced pilots attempt it and everyone of them crashed. It shows what an amazing accomplishment it truly was. Sometimes it seems that the right person is put in the right place at the right time. Thanks for posting this, its been a long time since I read about this story. It's one of the numerous stories of flight crews accomplishing the near impossible. The Hawaii Air flight, the Hudson River landing, the list goes on and on. Miracles do happen. The most amazing thing about what Capt. Pearson accomplished is that no one has been able to duplicate his feat in the flight simulators. They had many experienced pilots attempt it and everyone of them crashed.
It shows what an amazing accomplishment it truly was. Sometimes it seems that the right person is put in the right place at the right time. Thanks for posting this, its been a long time since I read about this story. It’s one of the numerous stories of flight crews accomplishing the near impossible. The Hawaii Air flight, the Hudson River landing, the list goes on and on. Miracles do happen.

]]> By: chfnelson http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider#comment-25750 chfnelson Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:01:05 +0000 #comment-25750 According to Uncle John's Bathroom Reader, the rest of the story. 1. There was no Flight Engineer. The 767 had a crew of two. 2. The Minimum Equipment List did not permit the place to fly without fuel gauges. 3. The aircrew tried to ground the flight but were told the flight had been cleared by Air Canada's Maintenance Control division. 4. The problem was traced to a bad solder joint in the fuel sending unit, which gave off a very weal signal. Had the module completely failed, a backup unit would have come on line and everything would have been fine. 5. The Pilot and Co-Pilot were demoted until the further investigation place the blame on Air Canada's poor training and poor procedures, and questioned the wisdom of introducing a metric aircraft in and imperial air fleet. The report not only exonerated Pearson and Quintal, but also credited them with saving the passengers against very long odds. I loved the story. It is a true comment on the ability of Man to think and react under pressure. Pilots are some of the best at that, and Capt. Person's ability to put his glider experience to use in getting the plane on the ground is amazing. Sorta like the DC-10 that lost it's third engine and all hydraulics, and almost made a perfect landing thank to the exeperince and skill of the pilots and the check-pilot who happened to be on board. Or like Capt. Sulenberger setting the plane down in the Hudson River. According to Uncle John’s Bathroom Reader, the rest of the story.
1. There was no Flight Engineer. The 767 had a crew of two.
2. The Minimum Equipment List did not permit the place to fly without fuel gauges.
3. The aircrew tried to ground the flight but were told the flight had been cleared by Air Canada’s Maintenance Control division.
4. The problem was traced to a bad solder joint in the fuel sending unit, which gave off a very weal signal. Had the module completely failed, a backup unit would have come on line and everything would have been fine.
5. The Pilot and Co-Pilot were demoted until the further investigation place the blame on Air Canada’s poor training and poor procedures, and questioned the wisdom of introducing a metric aircraft in and imperial air fleet. The report not only exonerated Pearson and Quintal, but also credited them with saving the passengers against very long odds.

I loved the story. It is a true comment on the ability of Man to think and react under pressure. Pilots are some of the best at that, and Capt. Person’s ability to put his glider experience to use in getting the plane on the ground is amazing. Sorta like the DC-10 that lost it’s third engine and all hydraulics, and almost made a perfect landing thank to the exeperince and skill of the pilots and the check-pilot who happened to be on board.
Or like Capt. Sulenberger setting the plane down in the Hudson River.

]]> By: magend http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider#comment-25248 magend Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:02:05 +0000 #comment-25248 SUBJECT: DIETY OF CHOICE?!!! = ALMIGHY G-D!!! NO DOUBT MY (AND EACH AND EVEY ONE OF YOURS) ----- [DIETY OF CHOICE???!!!], "had you been on this particular Airplane" ---- would have been the Holy SOVEREIGN of Israel!!!! There's no such thing as an ATHEIST in a foxhole, or on an INOPERABLE AIRPLANE at 40,000 ft!!! That's where ALL religions truly become one and everyones G-D becomes the SAME one!!!! Awesome Story, Outstanding writting DI!!! And - I see MANY stating that they would want none-other than this Captain Piloting their Plane..... I'm not so sure!!! He didn't put enough GAS in his plane!!! Though, he no doubt does have Cast Iron Nads and Extreme Skill ----- Thank "G-D" for that!!! SUBJECT: DIETY OF CHOICE?!!! = ALMIGHY G-D!!!
NO DOUBT MY (AND EACH AND EVEY ONE OF YOURS) —– [DIETY OF CHOICE???!!!], “had you been on this particular Airplane” —- would have been the Holy SOVEREIGN of Israel!!!!
There’s no such thing as an ATHEIST in a foxhole, or on an INOPERABLE AIRPLANE at 40,000 ft!!! That’s where ALL religions truly become one and everyones G-D becomes the SAME one!!!!

Awesome Story, Outstanding writting DI!!!
And – I see MANY stating that they would want none-other than this Captain Piloting their Plane…..
I’m not so sure!!! He didn’t put enough GAS in his plane!!! Though, he no doubt does have Cast Iron Nads and Extreme Skill —– Thank “G-D” for that!!!

]]> By: Mirage_GSM http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider#comment-24611 Mirage_GSM Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:28:05 +0000 #comment-24611 [quote]Oh, and 0.8 is the conversion factor for US Gallons to Imperial Gallons. Not US Gallons to Liters which is 3.78 (liters to US gallons is .26) or Imperial Gallons to Liters which is 4.5 ( inverse .22) It sounds to me like they got the number of gallons right, but thought they were the larger imperial gallons, rather than the smaller US gallons. [/quote] If you reread the text, you'll find that the 0,8 referenced in the text is the conversion factor from litres to kg. It is what they should have used. Instead they used the factor 1,77 which would have been required to convert from litres to pounds. [quote]also, your time in the industry explains your overzealous and misplaced "correction" regarding the term "jumbo jet". if you and your airplane buddies want to use a narrower definition of a particular aviation word amongst yourselves, that's fine. but don't expect everyone in the real world to honor your strict, self-imposed jargon. language is defined by common usage….. not by outdated, unnecessary rules.[/quote] I've been working at an airport for fifteen years now, and while that might make me one of those airplane buddies, neither my co-workers nor any of my other friends would associate the term Jumbo with anything other than a B747 or in the case of "Superjumbo" with the A380. Besides, the very term "Jumbo-Jet" is neither self-imposed jargon nor is it a rule. It is the very example of common usage adopted by the airline industry. Thus if the term actually were used for all wide body aircraft, I don't see any reason, why the airplane buddies wouldn't use it in exactly the same way. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't people who use the term indiscriminately, especially if they can't tell the difference between various wide-body aircraft. However the term "Jumbo Jet" was coined specifically for the B747 when the aircraft was first introduced in 1970. Trivia: The German wikipedia site for "Jumbo Jet" redirects to "Boeing 747" [quote]And thank (diety of your choice) that all ended well in this instance.[/quote] I choose the Weight Watchers ;-) [quote]Oh, and 0.8 is the conversion factor for US Gallons to Imperial Gallons. Not US Gallons to Liters which is 3.78 (liters to US gallons is .26) or Imperial Gallons to Liters which is 4.5 ( inverse .22)
It sounds to me like they got the number of gallons right, but thought they were the larger imperial gallons, rather than the smaller US gallons. [/quote]
If you reread the text, you’ll find that the 0,8 referenced in the text is the conversion factor from litres to kg. It is what they should have used.
Instead they used the factor 1,77 which would have been required to convert from litres to pounds.
[quote]also, your time in the industry explains your overzealous and misplaced “correction” regarding the term “jumbo jet”. if you and your airplane buddies want to use a narrower definition of a particular aviation word amongst yourselves, that’s fine. but don’t expect everyone in the real world to honor your strict, self-imposed jargon. language is defined by common usage….. not by outdated, unnecessary rules.[/quote]
I’ve been working at an airport for fifteen years now, and while that might make me one of those airplane buddies, neither my co-workers nor any of my other friends would associate the term Jumbo with anything other than a B747 or in the case of “Superjumbo” with the A380.
Besides, the very term “Jumbo-Jet” is neither self-imposed jargon nor is it a rule. It is the very example of common usage adopted by the airline industry. Thus if the term actually were used for all wide body aircraft, I don’t see any reason, why the airplane buddies wouldn’t use it in exactly the same way.
Now, I’m not saying that there aren’t people who use the term indiscriminately, especially if they can’t tell the difference between various wide-body aircraft. However the term “Jumbo Jet” was coined specifically for the B747 when the aircraft was first introduced in 1970.
Trivia: The German wikipedia site for “Jumbo Jet” redirects to “Boeing 747″
[quote]And thank (diety of your choice) that all ended well in this instance.[/quote]
I choose the Weight Watchers ;-)

]]> By: Hibob418 http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider#comment-24133 Hibob418 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:59:06 +0000 #comment-24133 Love this story, especially the "fuel hosers" reference. I do remember seeing an article recently that the Air Canada 767-200 airframe, known as the Gimli Glider, was taken out of service sometime in January 2008, and flown to the Mojave storage facility in the California desert. I don't know if that's a permanent retirement or if the plane might go on to serve with a second line carrier or freight operation, but it is no longer in service with Air Canada. Thanks very much for the great stories!! Love this story, especially the “fuel hosers” reference. I do remember seeing an article recently that the Air Canada 767-200 airframe, known as the Gimli Glider, was taken out of service sometime in January 2008, and flown to the Mojave storage facility in the California desert. I don’t know if that’s a permanent retirement or if the plane might go on to serve with a second line carrier or freight operation, but it is no longer in service with Air Canada. Thanks very much for the great stories!!

]]> By: OutOfVegemite http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider#comment-23302 OutOfVegemite Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:18:40 +0000 #comment-23302 Ironcross, Just about every aircraft (and certainly every large commercial aircraft) has a flight manual on board, for that specific aircraft. There are far too many systems on an airliner for the crew to memorize the exact corrective actions for every potential problem. The serious emergencies have procedures which are done by memory (called boldface) but after these actions are completed, the flight manual is consulted as a backup. Ironcross,

Just about every aircraft (and certainly every large commercial aircraft) has a flight manual on board, for that specific aircraft. There are far too many systems on an airliner for the crew to memorize the exact corrective actions for every potential problem. The serious emergencies have procedures which are done by memory (called boldface) but after these actions are completed, the flight manual is consulted as a backup.

]]> By: nighthawk808 http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider#comment-23206 nighthawk808 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:14:38 +0000 #comment-23206 Intelligoth, a forward slip, not a sideslip, is what you are talking about. They're not the same thing. A forward slip is what you use when you need to correct for being too high and/or too fast. A sideslip is used in a crosswind landing. In a sideslip, the nose stays pointed at the runway and the wing is lowered into the wind. The rudder keeps the nose pointed straight ahead throughout. Personally, I use a sideslip all the way down if I'm flying alone, but if I have passengers, I use the crab technique with a transition to sideslip at the very end, since it's a little more comfortable for the ground-bounders. Intelligoth, a forward slip, not a sideslip, is what you are talking about. They’re not the same thing. A forward slip is what you use when you need to correct for being too high and/or too fast. A sideslip is used in a crosswind landing. In a sideslip, the nose stays pointed at the runway and the wing is lowered into the wind. The rudder keeps the nose pointed straight ahead throughout. Personally, I use a sideslip all the way down if I’m flying alone, but if I have passengers, I use the crab technique with a transition to sideslip at the very end, since it’s a little more comfortable for the ground-bounders.

]]> By: Intelligoth http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider#comment-23175 Intelligoth Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:46:53 +0000 #comment-23175 Long time lurker, first time poster. Silverhill's rebuttal quoting Salvor Hardin was absolutely brilliant and prompted me to register. For those of us not engaged in Psychohistory or the advancement of certain Asimovian enyclopedias, I suggest a good round of Unreal Tournament to achieve satisfaction. =) Concerning the sideslip maneouvre, this is a common lesson when learning to fly. When I was learning on Cessna 150s and 172s, it's a great way to shed speed and altitude in a hurry whilst maintaining control of the aircraft (just watch your stall speed!) It seems counter-intuitve, but the aircraft maintains a steady heading toward your desired runway even though the nose may not necessarily be lined up with said runway. Practised enough times, it's a simple matter to execute a sideslip with a Cessna. However, you have to have some set of balls to try it with a wide-body Boeing. Thanks to DI for a brilliant article and for representing some Canadian content. Cheers, eh! Long time lurker, first time poster. Silverhill’s rebuttal quoting Salvor Hardin was absolutely brilliant and prompted me to register.

For those of us not engaged in Psychohistory or the advancement of certain Asimovian enyclopedias, I suggest a good round of Unreal Tournament to achieve satisfaction. =)

Concerning the sideslip maneouvre, this is a common lesson when learning to fly. When I was learning on Cessna 150s and 172s, it’s a great way to shed speed and altitude in a hurry whilst maintaining control of the aircraft (just watch your stall speed!) It seems counter-intuitve, but the aircraft maintains a steady heading toward your desired runway even though the nose may not necessarily be lined up with said runway.

Practised enough times, it’s a simple matter to execute a sideslip with a Cessna. However, you have to have some set of balls to try it with a wide-body Boeing. Thanks to DI for a brilliant article and for representing some Canadian content. Cheers, eh!

]]>