Most impossible real passenger flight

[chornedsnorkack]

Which real passenger flight is thought to be the most impossible to repeat on FS?

I have heard that there was a DC-10 which lost all hydraulic power and all controls because one engine exploded. It was flown solely by throttles of the two remaining engines almost to landing.

Allegedly, no one has ever got that far on FS - everyone falls off the sky mid-air.

For comparison, it has been said that the Concorde crash flight lands safely about once in ten tries in FS.

Is it really a valid comparison?

And is there some other flight that really occurred with passengers and which is even less possible to repeat?

[speedbird1]

Maybe get a qualified pilot to have a go. They are usually better than us normal humans...!!

Emirates

[Flightboy2004]

Well I've heared that flightsim isn't that realistic anymore when having an emergency, an engine failure for instance. A real pilot told me that he always crashed when there is an engine failure and that the plane doens't react as realistic anymore, compared with an full flight sim and an real aircraft.

[Ovostar]

For comparison, it has been said that the Concorde crash flight lands safely about once in ten tries in FS.

So it's not realistic, everybody knows, that there was not a single chance for the concorde to land... When you see the image, after the take off, the concorde was almost completely in fire...

[chornedsnorkack]

Well I've heared that flightsim isn't that realistic anymore when having an emergency, an engine failure for instance. A real pilot told me that he always crashed when there is an engine failure and that the plane doens't react as realistic anymore, compared with an full flight sim and an real aircraft.

Yes, so how to judge the seriousness of problems?

For example, take complete loss of tail controls. Has happened both on DC-10 and Boeing 747.

On DC-10, uncontained engine failure severed all redundant hydraulics. All hydraulics lost, plane flown by throttles of 2 remaining engines. Nearly to landing - crashed just over runway. Somewhat over 100 killed, near 200 saved, including the whole crew.

On Boeing 747, a rear pressure bulkhead blew, also severing the redundant tail hydraulic lines. Plane flown by throttles of 4 engines - lost control and crashed to mountains. 520 dead, 4 survivors, all passengers sitting in the rear. Would have been more survivors if someone had turned up sooner.

So... could either of those flights have been handled worse? And could either of the flights have been handled better?

[SierraGolfDelta]

About the DC-10 incident: lots of highly qualified captains, instructors and chief pilots tried to refly the stricken flight of the DC-10 in simulators afterwards. Not one of them got as far as the real crew did. They did have a flight engineer on board though....

Then there is one factor that no simulator can simulate: luck!

[Avro]

About the DC-10 incident: lots of highly qualified captains, instructors and chief pilots tried to refly the stricken flight of the DC-10 in simulators afterwards. Not one of them got as far as the real crew did. They did have a flight engineer on board though....

Then there is one factor that no simulator can simulate: luck!

Indeed.

But the pilots of the DHL A300 OO-DLL which crash landed in Baghdad, were able to land the plane by steering it with the help of the throttles if I remember correctly. So it isn't impossible

Chris

[chornedsnorkack]

Sounds that the DHL A300 suffered a hit on one wing setting the wing on fire!

And the Concorde also suffered from a (tire) blast that set one wing on fire.

Why was A300 able to fly around and make a successful landing on the second try, but Concorde crashed before Le Bourget?

[yagoceron]

What about the Transat A330 which had to glide with no engines and had to land in Madeira (if I remember correctly)?

[Avro]

Why was A300 able to fly around and make a successful landing on the second try, but Concorde crashed before Le Bourget?

Because those were too completely different accidents and planes.

If I remember well due to the tire blow Concorde lost its two engines on one wing resulting in a fire on the wing as well.
The A300 still had both engines operational while the outboard part of the wing was hit. Resulting that some parts of control surfaces were ineffective...
however I'm not totally sure anymore abou the exact defects in each crash (I tend to forget very quickly )

So this might not be totally true..

Chris

[teddybAIR]

Why was A300 able to fly around and make a successful landing on the second try, but Concorde crashed before Le Bourget?

The concord is designed to fly at high speeds. It's flight characteristics are worse at lower speeds + 2 engines blown away I guess that's a totally different situation then flying an A300 which still has its two engines operable.

greetz

bAIR

[vc-10]

Yes. didn't the concorde's outer wing start to melt aswell? And why did the fire fighters see the plane on fire before it hit the metal strip? and why did it veer off to the left?

[teddybAIR]

and why did it veer off to the left?

...euhm, two engines lost on that side + low airspeed + delta wing with poor performance at this speed lot's of reasons for stall or near stall!

[vc-10]

I belive that the DC-10 is the only plane that can be controlled 100% by the engines. That A300 had some controll I belive. What would happen with an A320, with 100% computer control?