Posted on 09/01/2006 10:08:19 AM PDT by WmShirerAdmirer
WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 (UPI) -- In light of the increased threat of terrorist missile attack NASA, United Airlines and the Department of Homeland Security are reviving throttles-only airliner pilot training.
NASA first studied the issue in the 1990s in an attempt to develop training for airliner flight crews to cope with catastrophic aerial flight-control system failures.
The projected training will encompass developing guidelines for flight crews to operate damaged aircraft using "throttles-only control." The homeland security-led propulsion-controlled aircraft recovery project is using data from the 1990s NASA study.
A significant difference between the decade-old guidelines and the new research is that the new program requires no hardware or software modifications.
Flightglobal.com reported on Aug. 29 that NASA developed the original propulsion-controlled aircraft concept after a 1989 Sioux City crash in which a United McDonnell Douglas DC-10 lost all hydraulic power. The disaster resulted in the development of a computer-based control system to fly aircraft solely using engine thrust.
Homeland security's renewed interest in training pilots to use throttles-only control of damaged or disabled aircraft stems from their concerns about attacks on civilian airliners from shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles.
In pursuing its global war on terror the U.S. Department of Defense is prioritizing many areas that were previously of little interest.
Stars and Stripes reported Thursday that Defense Department spokesman Eric Ruff said Pentagon officials are giving "increased consideration" to creating a specific Africa Command.
Ruff added that while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering creating the African Command he has yet to make a formal recommendation to President George W. Bush.
Ruff commented that specific details of the projected African Command have yet to be worked out, including where the command would be headquartered or whether troops would be stationed permanently in Africa. Pentagon officials are considering drawing the majority of troops for the African from United States' European Command.
According to the Pentagon's current Unified Command Plan, most of sub-Saharan Africa is covered by European Command. The United States' Central Command is responsible for Horn of Africa nations, while Pacific Command is responsible for Madagascar and other East African islands in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean.
Defense Department spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter said that thus far the Unified Command Plan has not been altered, adding that the Unified Command Plan is reviewed every two years.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks U.S. officials have begun to recognize the increasing strategic importance Africa plays. The continent is rich in natural resources and is an increasing source of U.S. oil imports. Officials also worry that Africa's impoverished Muslim populations might be influenced by terrorist extremists.
On Aug. 7, 1998, truck bombs planted by al-Qaida terrorists exploded simultaneously outside the U. S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than 220 people, including 12 Americans, and wounding 4,000 more.
There are currently few American troops stationed in Africa but joint anti-terrorist operations have been held, most recently last month's Natural Fire 2006, a 10-day multilateral exercise that involved U.S. troops alongside approximately 1,000 military personnel from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
Natural Fire 2006 was the first joint exercise between the United States and East Africa Community member states since 2000.
Kenyan army Brig. Gen. Leonard Ngondi commanded Natural Fire 2006 forces along with a joint military staff of Kenyan, Tanzanian, Ugandan and U.S. officers.
The largest U.S. military base in Africa is currently Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, headquarters of the Combined Joint Task Force -- Horn of Africa. Two months ago the Pentagon reached agreement with the government of Djibouti to expand Camp Lemonier to 500 acres after signing a five-year lease.
The Kenya Ports Authority is increasing Mombassa port security measures to comply with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code.
In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks the United States was instrumental in pressing the International Maritime Organization to ratify the International Ship and Port Security Code, or ISPFSC.
The East African Standard reported Thursday that the Kenya Ports Authority is bringing Mombassa up to ISPFSC standards due to concerns over port security in light of terrorist threats and to ensure that Kenyan shipping complies with the code so its ships can visit U.S. ports.
The Kenya Ports Authority has already embarked on implementing maritime security measures based on the recommendations of its 2005 "Port Facility Assessment."
Kenya Ports Authority managing director Abdalla Mwaruwa said that the new measures are designed not only to thwart terrorist activities in and around the port but reduce theft and crime.
Terrorism experts commented that in light of increased international efforts to improve aviation security, terrorists are expected to shift their attention to maritime targets, particularly commercial shipping.
Mwaruwa said, "We can confirm that since the beginning of this year we have not lost any container and have had only two attempted cases of pilferage at the Mombassa port."
The authority has also assigned two swift pilot boats to patrol Mombassa, which has reported a 2.6 percent growth in traffic in the first half of the of the year to 6.9 million tons of cargo.
Interesting, but as most shoulder-fired AA missiles are heat-seekers and would take out an engine, how relevant is throttles-only control for anti-terrorist defense?
Sure on a 4-engine plane (like a 747) it would still be
useful--if practiced with pairs of engines, but on a two engine plane wouldn't it be infeasible once one engine is out?
This should have been written as two separate articles.
Nevermind a McDonnell-Douglass which some aircraft have a third engine at the tail assembly. The horror...
for example ...
Of the 285 passengers and 11 crew members aboard, 174 passengers and 10 crew members survived. 111 perished.
Just Google Sioux City DC-10 and you'll get plenty of good hits.
That flight was a remarkable demo of flying skill. Without it no ones gets out alive. Responsibility (good or bad)for a flight rests on the pilot in command. No other agency.
Yep, and the vast majority of the aircraft in airline service are twins. 757,767, various Airbus, ERJs and CRJs, as well as twin turbo props.
747 of course has 4 engines and there are still more than a few MD-11/DC-10s out their with 3. However in the latter case, the center engine isn't much use in steering, so if you lose one of the wing mounted engines, you're in the same boat as a twin.
FWIW, the DC-10 has one engine in the tail section, and one on each wing. The tail section engine failed on the Sioux City United plane and flying pieces severed the THREE redundant hydraulic systems.
Could you fix the title of the article to read:
UPI Intelligence Watch:"Throttles-only airliner pilot training" instead of "Tthrottles-only". Thanks.
IIRC, tests on civilian jetliners show that a typical shoulder-launched SAM will NOT (immediately) bring down a passenger jet due to loss of structural integrity. The crew MUST be able to fly the plane with one engine, but all US jets are single engine certified.
A SAM strike brings a great risk of fire that the on-board systems MIGHT not be able to contain, particularly if the frag cone penetrated wing and fuselage fuel tanks.
Secondarily the SAM strike would likely also damage control systems.
There's nothing good about SAMs and civilian jets in the same sentence. But a SAM strike is NOT necessarily a death sentence.
Good catch on important details and your investigative blogging, will note to look for your research and link. Thanks.
again, IIRC, no one has since been able to duplicate the feat in a cockpit sim.
176 souls alive because of their luck, intellect and skill.
'But a SAM strike is NOT necessarily a death sentence.'
Clarify with MANPAD and I agree.
I meant to type in the case of a warhead striking that particular engine. The tail assembly would blow up sending the plane down... I don't even want to think about that. I like aviation and myself safety and sanity too much to mull over that.
I remember there being a movie about a pilot flying a plane that ran out of fuel, something about him having the nose up about 2 degrees or something.
I recall NASA doing some testing after the Souix City accident, and successfully landed a DC-10 at Edwards.
With modern digital control systems, using engine thrust for emergency flight control to supplement or replace failed aircraft normal flight controls has become a practical consideration. The NASA Dryden Flight Research Center has developed a propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) system in which computer-controlled engine thrust provides emergency flight control. An F-15 and an MD-11 airplane have been landed without using any flight control surfaces. Preliminary studies have also been conducted that show that engines on only one wing can provide some flight control capability if the lateral center of gravity can be shifted toward the side of the airplane that has the operating engine(s). Simulator tests of several airplanes with no flight control surfaces operating and all engines out on the left wing have all shown positive control capability within the available range of lateral center-of-gravity offset. Propulsion-controlled aircraft systems that can operate without modifications to engine control systems, thus allowing PCA technology to be installed on less capable airplanes or at low cost, are also desirable. Further studies have examined simplified “PCA Lite” and “PCA Ultralite” concepts in which thrust control is provided by existing systems such as autothrottles or a combination of existing systems and manual pilot control.
But wasn't that WITH the assistance of 'new' NASA software? I thought no one had flown a 'vanilla' DC-10 to a safe landing sans hydraulics.
Even so, a great feat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.