Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lincs Robert on 28 July 2017, 17:52:33
-
I was on a flight from Dublin to Leeds yesterday. Sat with a clear view of one engine.
Prior to takeoff I noticed that it was rotating anti-clockwise fairly slowly - I was sat behind it at a window seat & "looking through" the prop if you see my meaning. I then saw it slow down, stop for about 10 seconds & then start rotating clockwise - fairly quickly going up to a fast speed before we began taxiing.
Can anyone explain this - there must be a reason for it.
-
Wind, before it was powered up? Ok, silly answer, but our aviation experts will soon shoot me down! :-[
Ron.
-
Is it not an optical illusion? It's just getting faster and faster in same direction in reality.
-
Is it not an optical illusion? It's just getting faster and faster in same direction in reality.
No!
As I said, it slowed to a stop & then started up in the opposite direction ......
-
It may have been a strobe effect in conjunction with the internal cabin lighting. Aircraft ac power is generated at 400hz as this makes transformers much smaller and lighter.
-
There's an awful lot of guesswork going on here guys - does anyone actually know about aircraft engines rather than assuming it's my eyesight? :-*
I know the effect you are referring to, it creates a blurring effect. The cabin lights were on, but it was daylight outside & the prop in question was about 3 metres away so would have virtually illumination from within the cabin.
I'm doing the same trip again next week so will observe again.
-
I was on a flight from Dublin to Leeds yesterday. Sat with a clear view of one engine.
Prior to takeoff I noticed that it was rotating anti-clockwise fairly slowly - I was sat behind it at a window seat & "looking through" the prop if you see my meaning. I then saw it slow down, stop for about 10 seconds & then start rotating clockwise - fairly quickly going up to a fast speed before we began taxiing.
Can anyone explain this - there must be a reason for it.
From what you describe, and as you were taxiing, I would say that the pilot was using one engine only, a not uncommon thing as far as my experience is concerned. The prop you were looking at was being feathered; in other words the engine was on idle and the prop was turning in the wind, hence going anti clockwise. Before take off the pilot would apply full power to that engine and thus then the prop would turn clockwise.
Used to see that a lot in the old days as a child, and especially when RAF Shackletons were flying on exercise across Malta, with one or even two props being feathered out of the four engines. ;)
In modern times I often saw RAF Hercules feathering a prop or two.
PS Shackletons had twin conter rotating props per engine, so the effect was very interesting.
-
I have spent hours being transported in C-130s (hercs)
I have seen the props spin backwards but only to manouver the plane or reverse in car talk
other than that the props spin one way to go forward and spin freely when powered off when the wind blows them
-
Thanks for the last two replies - sounds quite plausible & doesn't doubt what I saw.
Btw, I was chatting to the Leprechaun who was sat on the wing during the flight- he saw it too ;D
-
Engine off, the prop will windmill unless parked.
No different to the front fan of a modern jet engine... Both have freewheel hubs driven by the engine behind.
Commercially normal to taxi with one engine running, usually number 2 on twins.
-
How many blades did it have?
there are contra rotating blades on some commercial planes
-
It was obviously one of those new fangled hybrid planes. While the propellers are rotating backwards, the batteries are being charged.
-
I have spent hours being transported in C-130s (hercs)
I have seen the props spin backwards but only to manouver the plane or reverse in car talk
other than that the props spin one way to go forward and spin freely when powered off when the wind blows them
Nope, never, not in a million years .. :) and I spent 38 years flying the C130(K) Hercules.
The engine and propellor go at a constant speed in one direction at all times .. the thrust is changed by varying the "pitch" of the propeller to give more "bite" into the air, this gives increased forward thrust (as the "bite" increases the engine "tries" to slow down, more fuel is added to speed it back up so maintaining a constant speed engine for efficiency purposes). To "reverse" the aircraft (and to slow it down rapidly on the ground) the propellor is sent to a "negative" blade angle .. this sends the thrust forwards which will drive the aircraft backwards for reverse taxying.
You have NEVER seen the props spin backwards as the engine and propellor are actually incapable of working under such conditions as the airflow through the engine would also have to be reversed and no engine would work with the turbine coming before the fuel burners !!!! :)
-
Surly its the elastic band winding up ;D ;D
-
Then I was mistaken, learned something though. Thinking now lol its got curved blades.
The heat in basrah must have got to me wanting my rnr
-
Nige, on leaving a plane after returning from Turkey, I asked the Flight Engineer how do they get the plane to reverse onto the stand; he said we simply run the engines backwards.
I believe your explanation implicitly, so either this man was a fool or he was lifting my leg.....as he was responsible for my safety in the air, I hope it was the latter! :o :o ::)
Ron.
-
Nige, on leaving a plane after returning from Turkey, I asked the Flight Engineer how do they get the plane to reverse onto the stand; he said we simply run the engines backwards.
I believe your explanation implicitly, so either this man was a fool or he was lifting my leg.....as he was responsible for my safety in the air, I hope it was the latter! :o :o ::)
Ron.
Reverse thrust is most definitely not backwards ;D
-
Nige, on leaving a plane after returning from Turkey, I asked the Flight Engineer how do they get the plane to reverse onto the stand; he said we simply run the engines backwards.
I believe your explanation implicitly, so either this man was a fool or he was lifting my leg.....as he was responsible for my safety in the air, I hope it was the latter! :o :o ::)
Ron.
At least you didn't ask the pilot, who would have pointed and said something like "I get him to pull that lever thingy" ;D
-
But from what I saw, there was more than one lever thingy - I hope he had been to night school to learn which one? :-\ :-\ :-\
Ron.
-
But from what I saw, there was more than one lever thingy - I hope he had been to night school to learn which one? :-\ :-\ :-\
Ron.
8 levers ... 4 called "throttles" , 4 called "condition levers", and along with all the other dials, gauges, switches, levers, knobs, etc etc it took 15 months basic training then 5 months specialist training before you were let loose on one (as a flight Engineer) , and a further 6 months before you were allowed to carry passengers .. those were the rules when I started in 1970 :)
(and he was definitely lifting your leg :) .. there were many other "untruths" that were stated to unknowing passengers .... audio controlled autopilot ... built in shower facilities ..... remote access storage facilities ... hidden weapons .... we used to laugh a lot when a "know it all" was easily put in his place .... :) )
-
I wasn't trying to show off or "know-it-all", I genuinely wanted to know - like you do when you don't have anything else to ponder on in a plane. Apart from WTF those screaming kids don't shut up, of course! >:( >:(
Ron.
-
A late friend and retired BA flight engineer on TriStars said it is a very straight forward overpaid job 99.999% of the time, but I was well under paid for the other 0.001%, like when they had a major fuel leak mid-Atlantic! :o :o :o
I said, how did that work out? I'm still here, so are the rest of the flight crew and passengers. 8) 8) 8)
-
I suppose the job has it`s ups & downs ;)
Hate being driven, I don`t make a good passenger & can feel travel sick in the back.
Last time I flew, I`m damn sure I could`ve done a better job ;D
Lady pilot was makin us feel queezy just driving around the airport :-X
That was a turboprop out of Southampton, on & off the fickin brakes she was.
My work mate had a death grip on my arm & eyes shut thinking we were in turbulance ;D
"Err mate we is still on the ground" ::)
-
I got chatting to a BA Pilot in a Frankfurt Hotel on a stop over a few years back, after a few beers he said "By the way, the safest place to sit on a plane is in the back row"
"Why is that" I asked
He replied "When was the last time you heard of a Plane reversing into a Mountain"
-
I was on a flight from Dublin to Leeds yesterday. Sat with a clear view of one engine.
Prior to takeoff I noticed that it was rotating anti-clockwise fairly slowly - I was sat behind it at a window seat & "looking through" the prop if you see my meaning. I then saw it slow down, stop for about 10 seconds & then start rotating clockwise - fairly quickly going up to a fast speed before we began taxiing.
Can anyone explain this - there must be a reason for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision ?
-
I recall the Herc pitch can be adjusted such that it can reverse, was that the case Nige? (I know the A400M can).
-
What, whilst in the AIR?!!!!!
A neat trick, if you can do it. 8) ;D
Ron.
-
What, whilst in the AIR?!!!!!
A neat trick, if you can do it. 8) ;D
Ron.
Negative pitch control is almost certainly governed by WOW systems ::)
-
???
-
Weight On Wheels...
Prevents stupidity/inattention from doing something fatal...like reversing the prop thrust at cruise or raising the undercarriage on the ground... Also provides a trigger for the wheel braking... Brakes won't apply until the main gear is loaded ;)
Only one type of aircraft can deliberately fly backwards, a helicopter. Anything else is falling out of the sky ;)
-
Thanks for that, DG. I'm glad that they have systems in place to cope with idiots!
Ron.
-
The training helps... But everyone has off days ;D
-
Now that would be an amusing Facebook vid of a pilot accidentally raising the under carriage on the ground! ;D
-
Now that would be an amusing Facebook vid of a pilot accidentally raising the under carriage on the ground! ;D
It happens.
Sometimes they forget to lower the under carriage before landing too ::)
-
Weight On Wheels...
Prevents stupidity/inattention from doing something fatal...like reversing the prop thrust at cruise or raising the undercarriage on the ground... Also provides a trigger for the wheel braking... Brakes won't apply until the main gear is loaded ;)
Only one type of aircraft can deliberately fly backwards, a helicopter. Anything else is falling out of the sky ;)
.............................and a Harrier? ::) :-\
-
and a f-35
and an osprey
-
The Osprey is technically a helicopter when configured to hover...
Harrier can only make meaningful progress backwards when head to wind.
F35 is as aerodynamic as a brick... Your Omega will probably glide further.
-
The Osprey is technically a helicopter when configured to hover...
Harrier can only make meaningful progress backwards when head to wind.
F35 is as aerodynamic as a brick... Your Omega will probably glide further.
f35 can fly backwards at 30 knots ::)
osprey is a technically a tilt rotor definitely not a helicopter ::) ::)
(https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2011/10/032509_osprey_800-660x439.jpg)
harrier has no problem flying backwards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKQlxCbaRQ4 etc... ::) ::) ::)
-
The F35 is a computer controlled three dimensionally vector thrusted ordnance delivery system rather than an aircraft in traditional terms. It only has 'wings' as it provides some where to put the fuel. Turn the thrust off and it will literally fall out of the sky.
Can conventional turboprop powered aircraft fly backwards? No. (Although to keep the pedants quiet, speed over ground might be negative given a slow enough aircraft with a strong enough headwind...)
The Harrier is a primitive thrust vectoring aircraft and when hovering or 'reversing' it has more in common with a hovercraft than a plane...
I would argue that if it cannot glide then it cannot technically fly.
-
Wind, before it was powered up? Ok, silly answer, but our aviation experts will soon shoot me down! :-[
Ron.
Not silly at all if it was a "free-turbine" turboprop.
What plane did the OP fly on?
-
Thanks Andy - I don't feel such a total prat now, after all the learned answers we have had on here; in my ignorance, I couldn't think of any other explanation. :-[
Ron.
-
Thanks Andy - I don't feel such a total prat now, after all the learned answers we have had on here; in my ignorance, I couldn't think of any other explanation. :-[
Ron.
Reply #9 :D
-
Oh, I missed that, DG - belated thanks. :-*
Ron.
-
Wind, before it was powered up? Ok, silly answer, but our aviation experts will soon shoot me down! :-[
Ron.
Not silly at all if it was a "free-turbine" turboprop.
What plane did the OP fly on?
ATR72
-
Wind, before it was powered up? Ok, silly answer, but our aviation experts will soon shoot me down! :-[
Ron.
Not silly at all if it was a "free-turbine" turboprop.
What plane did the OP fly on?
ATR72
Which uses the free turbine Prattle & Whitney PW100 :y
-
I would argue that if it cannot glide then it cannot technically fly.
Everything glides. It's just a matter of mind over gravity. One of Kevins Basla Wood and plastic deathtraps might be > 70:1, a 767 is supposedly 12:1, and the Space Shuttle was 4.5:1. F-16's - the original electric jet - can glide here's a vid of one doing a forced landing after an engine failure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8
I'll concede that the better your glide ratio, the more choice of accident sites you will have, but everything glides.
-
I would argue that if it cannot glide then it cannot technically fly.
Everything glides. It's just a matter of mind over gravity. One of Kevins Basla Wood and plastic deathtraps might be > 70:1, a 767 is supposedly 12:1, and the Space Shuttle was 4.5:1. F-16's - the original electric jet - can glide here's a vid of one doing a forced landing after an engine failure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puia_yQxir8
I'll concede that the better your glide ratio, the more choice of accident sites you will have, but everything glides.
Engine failure at 9,000", 7 miles out? I'd be up all afternoon from that height. ;D
-
Aeroplanes are to be avoided when possible. it just aint natural. My old Mum used to say "if the good lord intended us to fly he would have given us wings instead of arms".
She also said, if the good lord wanted us to smoke he would have put a chimney on top of our heads.
And as a convinced creationist, her answer to Darwinists theory that we came from apes was "If your father is up a tree, mines up in heaven". Theres no arguing with that. ;D ;D
-
How well it will glide is a function of wing area, wing chord, speed and stall speed, altitude, angle-of-attack, drag and weight.
-
I get it, so if the air your flying in is rising faster then you are gliding downwards; up you go :y
I watched a bloke dressed up like Batman hurl himself off the west slope of Butser the other year.
OK he didn`t just rely on the Bat cape he also had a para -vain parachute thingy 8)
I was surprised that he didn`t get blown immediately backwards in the stiff south-westerly breeze.
All the model glider pilots present agreed, it was only a matter of time; he sort of went out of view.
Then the screaming started, the Batman was firmly stuck in the Hawthorne & his chute was shredded.
No one could reach him, every time he moved more thorns inched into him. :o
As the rain started beating down we headed off to the pub.
-
;D ;D ;D
-
As I understand it the latest jet fighters cannot actually stay in the air without their computer systems operating. They are impossible to fly without this electronic input that adjusts the aircraft's trim.
-
I saw that programme too, Lizzie. I hope the software isn't by Microsoft - doesn't that thought send you running to Marks and Spencers? :o ::)
Ron.
-
As I understand it the latest jet fighters cannot actually stay in the air without their computer systems operating. They are impossible to fly without this electronic input that adjusts the aircraft's trim.
Hence my point about gliding ;) most fighters have a glide ratio of 1:1 following stores dumping... The F35 doesn't have an official glide ratio due to its non existent unpowered flight performance. To give you an idea of what a 1:1 descent and subsequent landing feels like, the Osprey has been designed to fragment in order to absorb the impact... basically the props splinter and the wings snap off at the roots whilst the undercarriage/seats/and fuselage all deform to absorb the worst of the impact... the safety cell is tested to deform to 85% of its original volume :o with one engine its glide ratio improves to 4:1, so the passengers and crew might walk out of it :-\
By comparison, commercial aircraft seem to fare better, the obvious case being: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
Although it is not an unique situation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding
Most of the fatal flights in the list are either ones that encounter engine failure either just after take off or during final approach. The notable absence from the list is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38
Wing/aircraft design, altitude and training are the three equal factors that determine how successfully a powered aircraft might land with no thrust.
-
I saw that programme too, Lizzie. I hope the software isn't by Microsoft - doesn't that thought send you running to Marks and Spencers? :o ::)
Ron.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It is a shame Ron that I will never have to worry about that as no one will let me near a jet fighter, let alone the latest models! ::) ::) :D
As I understand it, aircraft technology in the military field has reached the point where the next generation of jet fighters cannot be manned; no human will be able to withstand the extreme G's when these new beasts are in fight mode. :)
-
As I understand it the latest jet fighters cannot actually stay in the air without their computer systems operating. They are impossible to fly without this electronic input that adjusts the aircraft's trim.
True.
Partly due to deliberate design parameters.
If an aircraft can fly "hands off" the controls it is by nature an inherently stable design, Kev's gliders are all VERY stable machines, also by design. It takes a deliberate force, and a certain amount of energy to overcome the stability and actually get the aircraft to change direction. This causes problems for an aircraft like a fighter, which actually needs extreme agility in order to perform/survive.
By designing an inherently unstable aircraft it is able to change direction extremely quickly, the more unstable the faster it can change direction, and so becomes "agile" in a way, unfortunately, a human pilot would be unable to control an extremely unstable aircraft as the reaction time/concentration levels would be too extreme.
So, lets make an unstable aircraft that is "controlled" every millisecond by a computor putting in numerous inputs to maintain straight and level flight, and that then "interprets" the pilots inputs to change direction and does one of two things 1) resolves the mathematics for "known" manoeuvres and applies them to the controls to achieve the requirement 2) for "extreme/unknown" manoeuvres simply allows the inherent instability to express itself then, once the manoeuvre is going in the "right" direction, maintains it, then reasserts stability once the manoeuvre is complete.
This makes an extremely agile, highly sophisticated aircraft that can appear to disobey the laws of nature (watch a high performance jet do a "tail slide" .. where it appears to be flying backwards !! - and actually is not "flying" at all in the accepted sense of the word!!) but has three serious problems / consideration ... 1) it must be built extremely strongly as the "G" forces involved get very high, 2) without the computor it is, literally, unflyable, 3) the computor, and backups, are not cheap, so the whole aircraft becomes VERY expensive.
-
As I understand it the latest jet fighters cannot actually stay in the air without their computer systems operating. They are impossible to fly without this electronic input that adjusts the aircraft's trim.
Hence my point about gliding ;) most fighters have a glide ratio of 1:1 following stores dumping... The F35 doesn't have an official glide ratio due to its non existent unpowered flight performance. To give you an idea of what a 1:1 descent and subsequent landing feels like, the Osprey has been designed to fragment in order to absorb the impact... basically the props splinter and the wings snap off at the roots whilst the undercarriage/seats/and fuselage all deform to absorb the worst of the impact... the safety cell is tested to deform to 85% of its original volume :o with one engine its glide ratio improves to 4:1, so the passengers and crew might walk out of it :-\
By comparison, commercial aircraft seem to fare better, the obvious case being: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
Although it is not an unique situation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding
Most of the fatal flights in the list are either ones that encounter engine failure either just after take off or during final approach. The notable absence from the list is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38
Wing/aircraft design, altitude and training are the three equal factors that determine how successfully a powered aircraft might land with no thrust.
Osprey has two engines and can fly on one. There is a gearbox connecting both sides that allows one engine to power both rotors/propellers. It won't hover though so the landing will be relatively fast and likely quite bumpy. Engine fail in the hover is game over though - and has already lead to several dozen of deaths.
Almost every fighter designed since the mid 70's has been aerodynamically unstable, meaning they needs computers to keep them pointing where the pilot want's them to go. The F-16 I mentioned first flew in 1974 and it has no mechanical connection between the joystick and control surfaces - it's totally fly by wire. Loss of an engine in a multiengine type is serious, but not as bad as loss of an engine in a single engine type - such as F-16 and F-35. However it's not true that they can't glide. As long as there is power for the computers and hydraulics the pilot can control where it goes. The dead stick landing vid shows an F-16 managing a 7 mile approach (37000 feet) from 9000ft altitude - that's a 4:1 glide ratio. Even F-104's have managed dead stick landings - now there's a plane with wing deficiency. Whilst it's true the F-35 doesn't have a published glide rate, it's not going to be much worse than F-16. At present F-35 can't carry external stores so is always going to be 'clean' whereas F-16's almost always have pylons fitted (which can't be jettisoned) and tanks/munitions (which can).
If you sit at the end of a military runway listening to the radio you'll sooner or later get fed up with pilots practicing PFO (Practice Flame Out) or PFL (Practice forced Landing) from Hi and Lo Key.
-
An Osprey has just crashed off Australia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-40837862 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-40837862)
-
As I understand it the latest jet fighters cannot actually stay in the air without their computer systems operating. They are impossible to fly without this electronic input that adjusts the aircraft's trim.
Hence my point about gliding ;) most fighters have a glide ratio of 1:1 following stores dumping... The F35 doesn't have an official glide ratio due to its non existent unpowered flight performance. To give you an idea of what a 1:1 descent and subsequent landing feels like, the Osprey has been designed to fragment in order to absorb the impact... basically the props splinter and the wings snap off at the roots whilst the undercarriage/seats/and fuselage all deform to absorb the worst of the impact... the safety cell is tested to deform to 85% of its original volume :o with one engine its glide ratio improves to 4:1, so the passengers and crew might walk out of it :-\
By comparison, commercial aircraft seem to fare better, the obvious case being: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
Although it is not an unique situation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding
Most of the fatal flights in the list are either ones that encounter engine failure either just after take off or during final approach. The notable absence from the list is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38
Wing/aircraft design, altitude and training are the three equal factors that determine how successfully a powered aircraft might land with no thrust.
When an aircraft has total engine failure on the final approach the automatic reaction is to pull up the nose, which increases the angle-of-attack and drag, which decreases speed until you stall. Commercial pilots practice dead stick landings as part of their annual flight simulation testing along with other failure stress testing. The pilots of the 747 at Heathrow that lost all engine power due to frozen fuel did very well where their training kicked in and they got it over the parameter fence. :y :y :y
-
As I understand it the latest jet fighters cannot actually stay in the air without their computer systems operating. They are impossible to fly without this electronic input that adjusts the aircraft's trim.
Hence my point about gliding ;) most fighters have a glide ratio of 1:1 following stores dumping... The F35 doesn't have an official glide ratio due to its non existent unpowered flight performance. To give you an idea of what a 1:1 descent and subsequent landing feels like, the Osprey has been designed to fragment in order to absorb the impact... basically the props splinter and the wings snap off at the roots whilst the undercarriage/seats/and fuselage all deform to absorb the worst of the impact... the safety cell is tested to deform to 85% of its original volume :o with one engine its glide ratio improves to 4:1, so the passengers and crew might walk out of it :-\
By comparison, commercial aircraft seem to fare better, the obvious case being: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
Although it is not an unique situation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding
Most of the fatal flights in the list are either ones that encounter engine failure either just after take off or during final approach. The notable absence from the list is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38
Wing/aircraft design, altitude and training are the three equal factors that determine how successfully a powered aircraft might land with no thrust.
When an aircraft has total engine failure on the final approach the automatic reaction is to pull up the nose, which increases the angle-of-attack and drag, which decreases speed until you stall. Commercial pilots practice dead stick landings as part of their annual flight simulation testing along with other failure stress testing. The pilots of the 777 at Heathrow that lost all engine power due to frozen fuel did very well where their training kicked in and they got it over the parameter fence. :y :y :y
Fixed ;)
-
When an aircraft has total engine failure on the final approach the automatic reaction is to pull up the nose....
Not for a pilot who's had more than a couple of lessons, and certainly not for anyone with a licence, I'd hope. :o
-
As I understand it the latest jet fighters cannot actually stay in the air without their computer systems operating. They are impossible to fly without this electronic input that adjusts the aircraft's trim.
Hence my point about gliding ;) most fighters have a glide ratio of 1:1 following stores dumping... The F35 doesn't have an official glide ratio due to its non existent unpowered flight performance. To give you an idea of what a 1:1 descent and subsequent landing feels like, the Osprey has been designed to fragment in order to absorb the impact... basically the props splinter and the wings snap off at the roots whilst the undercarriage/seats/and fuselage all deform to absorb the worst of the impact... the safety cell is tested to deform to 85% of its original volume :o with one engine its glide ratio improves to 4:1, so the passengers and crew might walk out of it :-\
By comparison, commercial aircraft seem to fare better, the obvious case being: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
Although it is not an unique situation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding
Most of the fatal flights in the list are either ones that encounter engine failure either just after take off or during final approach. The notable absence from the list is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38
Wing/aircraft design, altitude and training are the three equal factors that determine how successfully a powered aircraft might land with no thrust.
When an aircraft has total engine failure on the final approach the automatic reaction is to pull up the nose, which increases the angle-of-attack and drag, which decreases speed until you stall. Commercial pilots practice dead stick landings as part of their annual flight simulation testing along with other failure stress testing. The pilots of the 747 at Heathrow that lost all engine power due to frozen fuel did very well where their training kicked in and they got it over the parameter fence. :y :y :y
Not when I was an instructor with BA! :y
By the way it was a triple 7, and what they did in reducing flaps from 30 to 25 was not any part of training. This link shows how badly the Captain was treated. http://www.pilotweb.aero/gear/heathrow-b777-crash-the-aftermath-1-4170197