Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun


Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web


Well-known member
Jan 28, 2002
About the Gimli Glider. Please pardon my naivety and inexperience, but if the engineers at Boeing created the RAT to drop down and provide hydraulic pressure in the event of both engines failing, then why were there no procedules for a dual engine out? Seems like a lot of money for no instuction booklet...:D
My guess is that the simulation computers identified the chance of a dual engine failure as being astronomically small. In the case of the Gimli Glider, the retention of the flight contol surface hydaulics and the main gear were more than sufficient to turn a disaster into an heroic success.

The better question is how this one particular aircraft was misfueled, when others are properly fueled every day.
There are procedures in my B757 manual for Dual Engine Failure. I would assume it's the same for a B767. I'm a bit confused by your question. The RAT provides hydraulic pressure to the center system for operation of the flight controls, at least at speeds above 130 kts.

So help me with my confusion. What leads you to conclude that there were no procedures for a dual enginge out? As you know, the RAT only provides hydraulic pressure. It can't help the fact that they ran out of fuel. The procedure is designed to attempt to re-start one or both of the engines, while ensuring the RAT is deployed to provide hydraulic pressure to the flight controls. With no fuel, the engines obviously won't re-start, so you glide.

However, this incident occurred in 1983, in the very early years of the B767. Perhaps at that time, there were no procedures for a Dual Engine Failure. It wouldn't be the first time that the manufacturer has had to develop procedures for scenarios that were thought to be virtually impossible.
Last edited:
My question was regarding the following quote from the above link:

"As Pearson began gliding the big bird, Quintal "got busy" in the manuals looking for procedures for dealing with the loss of both engines. There were none.. Neither he nor Pearson nor any other 767 pilot had ever been trained on this contingency."

Basically, I was just wondering why the plane was equipped with the equipment, but no procedures or training.
eriknorth said:
Basically, I was just wondering why the plane was equipped with the equipment, but no procedures or training.

There is more than one reason to have a ram air turbine providing back up power and hydraulic pressure. Having the equipment may seem to allude to its use following a dual engine failure, but that event is unlikely to be the reason the plane was equipped with a RAT.

How's that heat in Atlanta?
The heat in Atlanta is getting up there. I went to PDK today for lunch, as always, and there was a B-17 on their "Aluminum Overcast" tour giving tours and rides. I got some good pictures, but no rides. Let me know when you'll be flying around my area.

Latest resources