So long a/c 604 -aka: The Gimli Glider

[Mitch Cronin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/20...mli-glider.html

Pilots, crew reboard 'Gimli Glider' for final flight

Last Updated: Thursday, January 24, 2008 | 2:09 PM CT

CBC News

The two pilots and several crew members who safely landed the legendary "Gimli Glider" are boarding the plane again Thursday as it makes what could be its final flight.

Pilot Robert Pearson and his first officer Maurice Quintal will board the Air Canada Boeing 767 in Montreal to oversee Thursday's flight, which will carry it to its new home at California's Mojave Airport.

An Air Canada Boeing 767, nicknamed the Gimli Glider, dwarfs race cars using the Gimli, Man. abandoned airstip as a race track in this July 24, 1983 file photo.

(The Canadian Press/Winnipeg Free Press/Wayne Glowacki) "Four groups … have shown some interest in acquiring the airplane, either for flying test beds for engines or for museum purposes, so it may not stay there too long," Pearson said.

"Hopefully somebody will find a use for it."

Three of the six flight attendants who were on Flight 143 will also be on board Thursday.

120-tonne, $40M glider

In July 1983, Flight 143 was on its way to Edmonton from Montreal when it ran out of fuel 12 kilometres above the Ontario-Manitoba border.

The 120-tonne plane, worth $40 million, became a glider, dropping over 600 metres per minute with no hope of reaching Winnipeg.

Pearson and Quintal managed to glide the plane, which had 61 passengers and eight crew members on board, 200 kilometres and then land it at an abandoned military airstrip in Gimli, Man., located north of the Manitoba capital on the shores of Lake Winnipeg.

The day of the accident, the Winnipeg Sports Car Club was holding a "Family Day" at the old Gimli base, so it was filled with families and campers and the runway was being used for go-cart races. Spectators and racers had to scatter as the giant plane touched down, then put out a fire in the nose with hand-held fire extinguishers.

None of the passengers was hurt during the landing, although some sustained minor injuries while using the plane's rear emergency slide.

After the landing, Pearson and Quintal were praised for their quick thinking. Pearson was an experienced glider pilot, while Quintal had once been stationed at the Royal Canadian Air Force base at Gimli and was familiar with the landing strips.

Later investigation revealed the plane was only carrying half the amount of fuel it required for the journey because of a metric conversion error that was made on the ground.

Months after the crash, Air Canada disciplined the two pilots for allowing the near-tragedy to happen. Pearson was demoted for six months, while Quintal was suspended for two weeks. Three ground workers were also suspended.

A 1985 Transport Canada report blamed the incident on errors and insufficient training and safety procedures.

Air Canada is organizing and paying for Thursday's reunion, but it won't comment on it.

Pearson said he doesn't think any airline likes publicity about accidents, even if they narrowly avert tragedy.

With files from The Canadian Press

I'm glad to see it retire (along with several of it's sister -200's), but I think it's a real shame that airplane doesn't wind up being kept in a Canadian museum.

[Kip Powick]

I'm glad to see it retire (along with several of it's sister -200's), but I think it's a real shame that airplane doesn't wind up being kept in a Canadian museum

Well it was going to go in a museum and then the QB premier got into the action..."after all we have a glider too...do you remember the Azores?"

Well it was a done deal and then along came BA and said they wanted theirs in a museum as well. Blew the whole deal...pretty soon every country will have a "glider" and no one will come to see the "first" one . The idea was sewered.

[Guest]

Well it was going to go in a museum and then the QB premier got into the action..."after all we have a glider too...do you remember the Azores?"

Well it was a done deal and then along came BA and said they wanted theirs in a museum as well. Blew the whole deal...pretty soon every country will have a "glider" and no one will come to see the "first" one . The idea was sewered.

All cheap imitations at best, 604 is the real McCoy.

[Super 80]

do you remember the Azores?"

It's landing gear is at the Smithsonian,

[J.O.]

It's landing gear is at the Smithsonian,

Interesting! In what context is it being displayed? Are they using it as an example of what they're built to endure?

[Kip Powick]

Interesting! In what context is it being displayed? Are they using it as an example of what they're built to endure?

Here ya go J.O.

Gear goes to Museum

[Guest woxof]

An example of what can happen if you don't follow the MEL. Everyone could have died.

[Moon The Loon]

It's landing gear is at the Smithsonian,

Are they on display with 3 feet of asphalt gummed up in between the bogies?

[Mitch Cronin]

An example of what can happen if you don't follow the MEL. Everyone could have died.

Have I missed something?... Who didn't follow what procedure in the MEL? Are you talking about the Gimli bird or the Azores 330?... did you mean the QRH?

[Guest woxof]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the 67 guys discover in YUL that both fuel guages were unserviceable and after referencing the MEL, it said....2 installed-1 required.

[Mitch Cronin]

Wow! I didn't recall that part of the story. So it was error then eh? ..and another repeated error as well I suppose, since someone at MOC and the flight crew would/should have reviewed the MEL as well, no? (Do you guys see for yourselves what the book says for each of your MEL items?)

[Kip Powick]

Here is a bit of the story Mitch

The Glider

[Critter]

Got to hear "Gimli Glider 400" while en route YYZ-LAX yesterday, a moment I won't forget.

Too bad the farewell ceremony was only open to AC employees. I'm sure many aviation enthusiasts would love to have been there for the last hurrah.

[inchman]

I have uploaded a video of the flypast in YUL from 604's last flight.

Go to www.aloft.ca/dl/ByeBye604.AVI

It appears to run better in Quicktime than MS Media Viewer.

[Guest woxof]

So there you have it. Like the Transat guys, they did a wonderful job of getting themselves out of the situation they helped get themselves into. With a lot of assistance from pure luck in both cases. What if the weather had been poor or it had been nighttime over Manitoba? Perhaps it could of happened to many of us but I wouldn't call their overall performance heroic. On a line check they might have failed before they even got to the engine start procedure.

[Don Hudson]

woxof;

Perhaps it could of happened to many of us

Pure armchair work. Take out the word "perhaps" and you would likely be closer to the truth and if you believe otherwise, let me ask you or any one of us who fly, how we would have fared in, say, the AF358 landing? Were the AF guys "substandard" in your view as well or would you be prepared to entertain the notion that it could happen to you or any one of us in the same circumstances?

The AT crew didn't follow the ECAM drill and instead explained away the loss of several thousand kilograms of fuel without ever arriving at the correct answer. The Gimli incident was an organizational accident with all the holes lined up and the "correct" processes followed except for the MEL fuel-guage issue. You have to keep in mind that in 1983 the 767 was brand new to the fleet, had just gone from a 3-pilot cockpit to a two-pilot (loss of the Flight Engineer or Second Officer), the MEL was still in development, (it had already gone through 55 changes at the time of the accident), and the country was just going metric. As well, there was no training in metric conversions and no manuals available to the crew or to maintenance to ensure that the correct conversions were performed. One of the strongest human factors in this accident was, there is nothing more "convincing" to aircrews than a drip-stick reading telling them how much fuel is physically on board, vice reading it from guages which were unreliable.

The results may look like the same thing, (an out-of-gas airliner gliding to a successful landing) but the causal pathways are anything but similar.

As for granting this or any crew "hero or heel" status, I think that is very shakey ground upon which to wander...

[Guest woxof]

let me ask you or any one of us who fly, how we would have fared in, say, the AF358 landing? Were the AF guys "substandard" in your view as well or would you be prepared to entertain the notion that it could happen to you or any one of us in the same circumstances?

I doubt I could land an airplane properly in a heavy thunderstorm. As a witness to the Air France approach in YYZ, I posted this report...

http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?showtopic=231386&hl=

As for the 55 changes to the MEL, I have seen many, many changes to the MEL on the last two planes I have been on. Does this make them any less of a legal document. There must have been a good reason that Boeing, FAA or TC decided that properly operating fuel guages were required. From knowing your fuel quantity to detecting fuel leaks to preventing dripstick errors causing fuel starvation. What airliner in Canada can legally depart without any serviceable fuel guages?

Could it be that there was a widespread ignoring the restrictions of the MEL on the 767 at AC back then because it was being updated frequently. I don't know but you might. It seems to be used frequently as one of the excuses used for ignoring the MEL on this flight as I have read this sort of statement several times. If a lot of the changes made to an MEL makes it no longer authoritative, then should it not be on board or be labelled "for reference only".

Even if training in metric conversions and manuals were available to the crew or to maintenance to ensure that the correct conversions were performed, it was not legal to depart. If you decide to go even though it is not legal, and something happens because of it, you may be held responsible....or get an award.

[Don Hudson]

woxof;

I will grant you that this incident has achieved "legend" status which has affected attitudes and responses towards the original errors made. "Departing with insufficient fuel" is what happened and that's illegal.

How it happened is qualitatively different than say, the AT accident, the United DC8 accident at Portland and the Avianca B707 accident at New York, (18th anniversary today?), to cite three, and that is the point of view I was taking. Much has been learnt from these four accidents which hopefully will prevent at least these pathways, (CRM, manuals, respecting the authority of the MEL, MEL accuracy/clarity) from re-occuring, and to guard against new pathways which human factors has yet to "create".

My other point of view is, I don't think it's either worthwhile or helpful to celebrate heroes or castigate heels because of their actions or the outcomes. That's only done in the media and other non-aviation places or venues because as professionals, we know that there are far more factors at work than are realized by non-aviation people.

For the same reason, if they are undeserving of "awards" and other kudos, (offered as such things are, by non-experts), they are equally undeserving of being labelled "non-heroic", so the reason for even bringing it up here (or anywhere) is a bit of a mystery for me and that's the reason I chose to respond.

[Guest rattler]

Re the Gimli Glider. It never ceases to amaze me how we in North America can award status to something that was a very bad mistake that worked out in the end. The aircraft itself has no more worth than any other piece of equipment that has outlived its useful life. The operating crew on the other hand are a fine example of professionals performing to the level expected of "professionals".

[IFG]

.... My other point of view is, I don't think it's either worthwhile or helpful to celebrate heroes or castigate heels because of their actions or the outcomes. That's only done in the media and other non-aviation places or venues because as professionals, we know that there are far more factors at work than are realized by non-aviation people.

For the same reason, if they are undeserving of "awards" and other kudos, (offered as such things are, by non-experts), they are equally undeserving of being labelled "non-heroic", so the reason for even bringing it up here (or anywhere) is a bit of a mystery for me and that's the reason I chose to respond.

Don, woxof's initial observation could also read as a caution against hero/heel judgements, just from the opposite perspective from which you responded (as in don't make the flightcrew heroes instead of don't make them heels). Being somewhat of a brotherhood, we may have a weakness for hero-making. After every accident/incident with any survivors, there is no shortage of "kudos" for the crew, earning their year's pay on one flight etc etc, long before the full story is known. And we certainly react quickly at the first suggestion of heelishness (e.g. your response here ).

Your systemic observations are spot-on, but surely we can aso face the fact that part of the aim of those systems (SMS, Human Factors, CRM, SOP. whatever) is to anticipate that crews will make errors, and to backstop those errors and try to prevent reoccurence. That is not synonymous with denial of any individual error, indeed confronting them in a non-judgenental manner is crucial. I know you know all this, Don, likely better and for longer than I. It's just to observe that we are quick and passionate in squelching 'heel'-making, less so the 'hero'-making. Both are actually an un-necessary personalization of the natural and productive process of understanding any safety breach in some depth.

The operating crew on the other hand are a fine example of professionals performing to the level expected of "professionals".

Certainly from the flame-out onwards, rattler, but overall that day? ... There's an old saying that the superior pilots use their superior knowledge to avoid situations requiring their superior skill ... All that said, I'd sure hope never to face what those guys faced (or the AT guys), for ANY reason.

Cheers, IFG

[Guest rattler]

Perhaps I should have said: When faced with an unexpected failure, the professional takes charge and adverts disaster despite or regardless of the metal involved.

[boestar]

the Failure of the system was not just the pilots who messed up at the beginning. 3 people in 3 different professions made the same mistake. The fueller screwed up the calculations. the Mechanic screwed up the calculations AND the pilot screwed up the calculations. There were more people involved in the dispatch of that aircraft than just the pilot. The report explains the whole story.

The pilots Pearson and Quintal were pivotal in the successful landing of that airplane. Given the same conditions and circumstances programed into the flight simulator no one else came to a successful conclusion. Luck was with them indeed and experience and skill.

While they can not take the full blame for the initial cause they can take full credit for the successful outcome.

[Guest rattler]

the Failure of the system was not just the pilots who messed up at the beginning. 3 people in 3 different professions made the same mistake. The fueller screwed up the calculations. the Mechanic screwed up the calculations AND the pilot screwed up the calculations. There were more people involved in the dispatch of that aircraft than just the pilot. The report explains the whole story.

The pilots Pearson and Quintal were pivotal in the successful landing of that airplane. Given the same conditions and circumstances programed into the flight simulator no one else came to a successful conclusion. Luck was with them indeed and experience and skill.

While they can not take the full blame for the initial cause they can take full credit for the successful outcome.

[Mitch Cronin]

As far as the aircraft goes Rattler.... sure, it's just a piece of equipment, so why shouldn't it be discarded, eh? ...like so much of the rest of our aviation history.

For some of us, at least a part of the reason we're in this business is because we like the machinery... Even a tired old slug of a 200 series '67 with it's dirty, sloppy old JT9D-7R4's... It carries a story of Canadian aviation that's quite unique... That machine hung in there, as needed (and as directed), when several souls had run out of reason to hope. I feel warmth anytime I see that bird... She saved lives Rattler... As has been pointed out above, several people dropped the ball that day... more than once for some of them. Yet the aircraft continued on with the mission to get all aboard back to terra firma in one piece.

And it's not just a Canadian story, is it?... Wasn't this the first story anywhere of an "airliner" running out of gas and gliding to a safe landing?

I don't know if anything of the magic of aviation is ever experienced by a man in the business end of the cargo operations of an airline, but for a lot of us there is some "magic" there, and the machines are a big part of it. Tossing the memorable ones to the scrap heap (or exporting them to US museums) is a bloody sad Canadian habit that I personally wish would stop!

[Mitch Cronin]

...and I meant to say... Thanks for posting that video clip Inchman! ...nice.

...here's a still photo of the flypast:

http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/2/0/6/1/2..._1201191160.jpg