CONF iture's quote;
Not too much info on the ECAM they got, if they had any … but it probably felt like an obvious deficit of thrust, which made the PF call for the
LOSS OF THRUST ON BOTH ENG procedure.
However both engines were still alive, one engine was very weak but the other one was still at 36% N1 and 2000pph FF up to the time both thrust levers were retarded, as per QRH.
That action may have reduced their options as Cpt Sullenberger was evaluating runway 01 in Teterboro … ?
But wait a minute ... Is it possible the QRH procedure has been renamed
ALL ENG FLAMEOUT since ?
As a Boeing pilot, I know I'm out of my element in certain aspects here, regarding operating Airbus Aircraft, specifically, commanded thrust versus thrust-lever position. IF No1 were still producing some thrust ( which it was according to the Powerplant Group Report) why the shutdown?. I was tought, if one fails, and the other is on
FIRE, let it burn ( as long as it is developing thrust ). Obviously, it
appeared the engine failed, and a re-light was in order. But, it didn't fail, did it?. Are there times that the commanded thrust won't match thrust-lever position on Airbuses?. As in, you push throttle up ( or the throttle is already up ), but logic commands idle or reduced thrust?. I also don't know the company noise abatement procedures, ie, could the altitude they attained coincide with any programmed thrust-reduction altitudes?. Althought the report mentions N1 and N2 speeds at three distinct times, it fails to mention
commanded thrust. ( report is weak on flight data information ). I only want to be educated on this topic by someone in the know (and hopefully not attacked for my ignorance).
BTW, I commend Sully for his judgement and flying skills. I hope he is enjoying being back on the line.
