flyingchicken

Really? No one would fly in the North Pacific in the winter then.

Who said its hypothetical? Everything minus the flaming dogdoo is personal experience, and is not a rare occurrence over the Aleutians. Now would you mind canning the condescending tone?

Did you actually read what I had written? It tells you the exact routing and diversion airports I had in mind.

Mountains or the frozen Pacific with 50 foot swells. Take your pick.

It has actually happened twice. A United DC-10 over Sioux City, and a DHL A-300 over Baghdad.

Kasserine06

The accidents you refer to are United Airlines Flight 232, ValuJet Flight 592, American Airlines Flight 191. I actually attended at a presentation the crew of UA Flight 232 held. I am very familiar with important accidents in aviation and I even carry a set of NTSB report summaries with me in my flight bag in case I have to remind crew members or students. I also know and agree that we should not limit our understanding of emergency procedures to what is written in the POH.

However, I also know when my idea has been beaten beyond recognition. This thread started out as a query to find out if asymmetrical thrust was a common or recognized procedure. The verdict is out and it is not a normal procedure. Sure, you can use power to duplicate the effect of a rudder, but it cannot be used to supplement it because once you touchdown, you must reduce the thrust you are using to track the centerline.

Now the argument has been changed from adopting this as normal procedure to using it as an emergency procedure. That is fine. If you ever get in a situation where the only way out is to use asymmetrical thrust, then I still believe you made a mistake. More likely than not you got yourself in that situation because of poor planning. Even if you planned the flight perfectly, but an unforeseen change in weather took place, I still believe depending on the aircraft and environment, it would be better to land off the runway into the wind than land on the runway and drift off it sideways. If you find yourself in this situation do whatever you wish and as long as no one gets hurt, then nice job.

As far as me or others being narrow minded, I am in the process of revising the takeoff procedures my company uses. My experience using this procedure is limited to twins less than 6000 pounds, but I believe it can be applied to larger aircraft. I did not go up to the chief pilot and tell him that this procedure will better because I used to use it in Barons and the aerodynamics proves it works. Instead, I asked him why the takeoff procedure is written the way it is and what would be the possible problems with revising it. He is currently reviewing it and if he determines that it is no good, than I will accept it because it is a different plane and he has more experience in it than me.

Asymmetrical thrust will yaw the airplane beyond the limit of the rudder, but it will not help you once you are on the ground. And as stated many times, if you find yourself needing to do this, then you probably made a mistake early in your planning.

Kasserine06

If you really have landed with a 60 knot crosswind, then my hat is off to you. If you also did it without sliding off the runway, then I am really impressed. From my personal experience, I could feel Piper Navajo slide sideways at 22 knots so I wouldn’t even dream of trying it at 60 knots.

shdw

Ahh I have not heard about the DHL A-300, guess I have some research to do, thanks.



How are you going to say that and then continue to beat in your point which has been repeated?

Anyways, as for the second two paragraphs of what I said there, that wasn't so much aimed at you but at the general attitude. What I am referring to is the dismissive nature of replies with regards to scenarios given. Instead of considering the possibility that this technique may be useful, you, and others, would rather try and poke holes in given scenarios with mentioned condescending tons.

I figured chickens scenario was real, I would also assume there are other areas in the world other than that which may be susceptible to such conditions. I believe someone spoke of them early on in this thread with regards to using this technique in alaska. However, that was of course dismissed because it has props... Do you see where I am going with this? How many ways can one find to dismiss a situation, reason being in that case was spool down time...:scratches head:



Quick timeline: Idea mentioned - idea argued - idea claimed useful - condescending ton/dismissive attitude towards idea working - realize idea could work - procedure idea argued - procedures claimed to be law - procedures admitted to not be law but still be law - scenarios given - scenarios dismissed with condescending ton and dismissive attitude - scenario given that is real. Why do you think I claimed a lack of receptive behavior to new ideas early on in this thread, I think it is pretty obvious.

Had that dismissive attitude been replaced with a curiosity to understand the timeline might have gone something like this: idea presented - idea discussed - idea questioned - idea figured out - scenarios posed - scenarios debated - conclusion of said idea with given scenarios where it might be useful.

flyingchicken

To clarify, what was meant by

is that I have flown that route many times with the stated conditions abeam the emergency divert fields, but fortunately have NOT caught on fire and had to use the said fields in anger

...yet.