How close was I to dying? (serious question)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some real technical replies in here really helped, thanks very much. You indeed made a scared passanger feel better.. Tomorrow is my flight back and I will be flying in another A320 from the same airline and I have to say, even though I know the odds of me being in another incident would be astronomicaly low, I am still a bit nervous for obvious reasons but you guys really helped me enjoy my vacation, thank you very much, i'll let you know when I get back 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sometimes wish I was a CPL just so I could switch on the intercom and say to the passengers, "Ladies and gentlemen, I just wish to say that there is absolutely no cause for alarm."
And then I would switch the intercom off.
And then I would switch the intercom off.
Monty Python
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unsafe Gear
I'm not sure if this is your flight but it sounds similar.
An Interjet Airbus A320-200, registration XA-INJ performing flight 4O-2544 from Mexico City to Chetumal (Mexico) with 120 passengers, aborted the approach to Chetumal due to an unsafe indication for the nose gear. The aircraft entered a holding to trouble shoot, one low approach to Chetumal were conducted which showed the nose gear down, the unlocked indication continued however. The crew used the alternate gear extension and still got an unsafe indication. Another low approach was performed showing all gear down. After about 45 minutes the aircraft landed safely in Chetumal, however could not vacate the runway and needed to be towed to the apron.
An Interjet Airbus A320-200, registration XA-INJ performing flight 4O-2544 from Mexico City to Chetumal (Mexico) with 120 passengers, aborted the approach to Chetumal due to an unsafe indication for the nose gear. The aircraft entered a holding to trouble shoot, one low approach to Chetumal were conducted which showed the nose gear down, the unlocked indication continued however. The crew used the alternate gear extension and still got an unsafe indication. Another low approach was performed showing all gear down. After about 45 minutes the aircraft landed safely in Chetumal, however could not vacate the runway and needed to be towed to the apron.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, no that wasnt us, that sounds way scarier than what happened to us. we weren't in chetumal at all, we went to cancun.
We arrived today, back home, again in a 320. That noise is just annoying. Again there was a strange situation right after the plane landed (so we dont worry that much anymore) where you can heard the "wwwooof, wooof, wooof, wooof" of the PTU (as i learned here) but easily 1 minute after the plane touched the ground all the way to when the pilot shut the engines off there was a screeching "weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeee" and it never stoped until we were in the gate and the barking sound started to come on and the screeching sound stoped
We arrived today, back home, again in a 320. That noise is just annoying. Again there was a strange situation right after the plane landed (so we dont worry that much anymore) where you can heard the "wwwooof, wooof, wooof, wooof" of the PTU (as i learned here) but easily 1 minute after the plane touched the ground all the way to when the pilot shut the engines off there was a screeching "weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeee" and it never stoped until we were in the gate and the barking sound started to come on and the screeching sound stoped
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feel like I am feeding a TROLL! First off the record of events is weak, even if solid the bottom line is that the crew and aircraft operated within procedural limits and the op's ass is alive as well as all onboard. It can get much worse than the experience above in the rare examples that have shaped aviation safety to what it is today!
Bottom line is the OP experienced a safe flight and is at a higher risk of suffering from natural causes (probably stress related) than death in an aluminum tube!
Bottom line is the OP experienced a safe flight and is at a higher risk of suffering from natural causes (probably stress related) than death in an aluminum tube!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, it's brave to come to the forum and be all "I am feeding the troll" .. I dare you to be in an airplane right beside the engine when 10 minutes after takeoff it starts making a sound that a car from the 1940's used to make when they were in need of some fine tuning. I am not talking about the PTU or the flaps, slats, etc. The engine made a bubbling sound, imagine an old car starting up, thats how it sounded. the whole flight went silent and the piliot took a good 15 minutes after that to tell us something was wrong, so dont give me this "Feeding the troll" BS. As I am very brave right now as well, sitting behind my keyboard, at sea level, not 38,000 feet above it.
This type of reply is exactly why I came here, I expected to avoid people like this but I guess this is the internet... impossible to avoid people like this who get insulted for weird reasons.
And here I am trying to figure out why people reply with such anger? Is it because they like Airbus and feel I insulted their favorite company? I don't get it. Or is it because they feel I am here with an ulterior motive? Someone here was talking about a journo.. just wtf does that even mean?
Anyway, thankfully most of you had a lot of valuable information that helped me big time. now I know whenever the 320 makes a barking noise its just the power transfer unit trying to level pressure between both hydraulic systems. Now I know it's perfectly normal and that is thanks to you.
This type of reply is exactly why I came here, I expected to avoid people like this but I guess this is the internet... impossible to avoid people like this who get insulted for weird reasons.
And here I am trying to figure out why people reply with such anger? Is it because they like Airbus and feel I insulted their favorite company? I don't get it. Or is it because they feel I am here with an ulterior motive? Someone here was talking about a journo.. just wtf does that even mean?
Anyway, thankfully most of you had a lot of valuable information that helped me big time. now I know whenever the 320 makes a barking noise its just the power transfer unit trying to level pressure between both hydraulic systems. Now I know it's perfectly normal and that is thanks to you.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did not mean to dampen your drama, thus is my point! A contradiction in terms, the op was something to provoke emotion. Please excuse my sarcasm , although I felt it was due given the provoking title. I am happy if you and your wife can sleep better after reading the threads above.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Liverpool
Age: 32
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC from reading my notes on engine hydraulic systems, the hydraulics mentioned are what is called a triplex system, as mentioned there are 3 entirely separate systems (or "lanes"), routed in different directions and often using dissimilar hardware to minimise the chances of all 3 failing or being incapacitated at once. as has been said, the aircraft is perfectly capable of operating on just one of the 3 lanes
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Around the world.
Age: 42
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<We arrived today, back home, again in a 320. That noise is just annoying. Again there was a strange situation right after the plane landed (so we dont worry that much anymore) where you can heard the "wwwooof, wooof, wooof, wooof" of the PTU (as i learned here) but easily 1 minute after the plane touched the ground all the way to when the pilot shut the engines off there was a screeching "weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeee eeeeee" and it never stoped until we were in the gate and the barking sound started to come on and the screeching sound stoped >>
Probably the yellow hydraulic electric pump being turned on prior to switching off engine 2 for single engine taxi. The yellow electric pump makes that noise. The PTU can operate when you pull in the flaps/slats at the end of the landing roll and can also be triggered during single engine taxi fairly randomly if ECAM can be believed.
Probably the yellow hydraulic electric pump being turned on prior to switching off engine 2 for single engine taxi. The yellow electric pump makes that noise. The PTU can operate when you pull in the flaps/slats at the end of the landing roll and can also be triggered during single engine taxi fairly randomly if ECAM can be believed.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,373
Received 118 Likes
on
85 Posts
"The engine made a bubbling sound, imagine an old car starting up, thats how it sounded "
Look at it this way....thankfully, for yourself that is, you have never sat in a Jaguar as the mighty Adour does a credible impression of the above....when it doesn't feel like surging that is.....or an ATP...when the engine shuts down,usually in flight, and the airframe vibrations produce little waves in your coffee,,,,then there was the Dan-air 748 out of Cardiff....no less than 5 attempts to start the right hand Dart ( one watched this on board "with interest " ) ...so no, your chances of making next days headlines were not quite as imminent as you may have thought....
Look at it this way....thankfully, for yourself that is, you have never sat in a Jaguar as the mighty Adour does a credible impression of the above....when it doesn't feel like surging that is.....or an ATP...when the engine shuts down,usually in flight, and the airframe vibrations produce little waves in your coffee,,,,then there was the Dan-air 748 out of Cardiff....no less than 5 attempts to start the right hand Dart ( one watched this on board "with interest " ) ...so no, your chances of making next days headlines were not quite as imminent as you may have thought....
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Age: 63
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shannon
Age: 38
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's my "metaphysics" take on OP's questions, without turning this into a pissing contest and who has bigger (...khm... knowledge):
Questions 1. 2. and 3. : "How common is this type of problem"; "...so if two fail like that..... why not 3?" "I am thinking if the lady doesnt feel sick we would have been in the middle of the sea on our way to cancun when the problem would have surfaced..."
These questions are pretty much of the same type. Like: "what are the odds of something happening"?
One can't give a definite answer to a question like that, as clairvoyance is still an object of human desire. Future actions may and may not happen ONLY, thus answer to question of future action can only be either positive or negative. Only time you can discuss quantitative odds is for past actions, for which you have all sorts of information available.
So answer to your question kuhne is:
If you die in an aviation related accident, your odds for dying are 100%. If you survive an aviation related incident/accident your odds for dying are 0%. You can't say you almost died. You either did or didn't. It's only your own personal perception of the event that give rise to any emotions. To give you an example for this: You felt unease during the entire flight (to say the least), your stress level was sky high (as were you, considering you were cruising at 30000 ft
) and you might even had reconnected with God during that flight and made some promises to Him if you survived.
Flight crew, on the other hand, was cool (conditionaly speaking), went through a checklist and maintained professional attitude throughout the flight (also conditionally speaking). They didn't think they almost died. They understood the severity of the situation, but continued in moderate level of stress. They also had a far better overview and control of the situation which helped in keeping them calm and professional.
So even though all of you were in the same situation (and had same "odds") you thought you almost died, they didn't.
My advice (without being condescending and snotty), remember what you promised to Almighty and keep your promise.
Question 4. On the technical side, A320 family aircraft don't have fuel jettison system installed (as far as I know, I'm a Boeing man
), so my guess is, after refueling and taking off for the second time and encountering the problem, pilot had to circle around the airport to burn excess fuel otherwise you would have been too heavy for landing. There are different maximum weights for any given aircraft type. Two of them are MTOW (maximum take-off weight) and MLW (maximum landing weight). Latter being lower that former. The reason for that is, when taking off landing gear and structure are under continuous strain and can take it. When landing, aircraft has to dissipate the inertia and if an aircraft too heavy hits the deck serious structural damage (not to mention injuries) can occur.
The PTU story you know already... Next time fly Boeing (let the ripping begin
).
Remember: If it ain't Boeing, i'm not going!
Questions 1. 2. and 3. : "How common is this type of problem"; "...so if two fail like that..... why not 3?" "I am thinking if the lady doesnt feel sick we would have been in the middle of the sea on our way to cancun when the problem would have surfaced..."
These questions are pretty much of the same type. Like: "what are the odds of something happening"?
One can't give a definite answer to a question like that, as clairvoyance is still an object of human desire. Future actions may and may not happen ONLY, thus answer to question of future action can only be either positive or negative. Only time you can discuss quantitative odds is for past actions, for which you have all sorts of information available.
So answer to your question kuhne is:
If you die in an aviation related accident, your odds for dying are 100%. If you survive an aviation related incident/accident your odds for dying are 0%. You can't say you almost died. You either did or didn't. It's only your own personal perception of the event that give rise to any emotions. To give you an example for this: You felt unease during the entire flight (to say the least), your stress level was sky high (as were you, considering you were cruising at 30000 ft
) and you might even had reconnected with God during that flight and made some promises to Him if you survived.Flight crew, on the other hand, was cool (conditionaly speaking), went through a checklist and maintained professional attitude throughout the flight (also conditionally speaking). They didn't think they almost died. They understood the severity of the situation, but continued in moderate level of stress. They also had a far better overview and control of the situation which helped in keeping them calm and professional.
So even though all of you were in the same situation (and had same "odds") you thought you almost died, they didn't.
My advice (without being condescending and snotty), remember what you promised to Almighty and keep your promise.
Question 4. On the technical side, A320 family aircraft don't have fuel jettison system installed (as far as I know, I'm a Boeing man
), so my guess is, after refueling and taking off for the second time and encountering the problem, pilot had to circle around the airport to burn excess fuel otherwise you would have been too heavy for landing. There are different maximum weights for any given aircraft type. Two of them are MTOW (maximum take-off weight) and MLW (maximum landing weight). Latter being lower that former. The reason for that is, when taking off landing gear and structure are under continuous strain and can take it. When landing, aircraft has to dissipate the inertia and if an aircraft too heavy hits the deck serious structural damage (not to mention injuries) can occur. The PTU story you know already... Next time fly Boeing (let the ripping begin
). Remember: If it ain't Boeing, i'm not going!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilot had to circle around the airport to burn excess fuel otherwise you would have been too heavy for landing. There are different maximum weights for any given aircraft type. Two of them are MTOW (maximum take-off weight) and MLW (maximum landing weight).
Overweight landing is not a safety issue, rather an economic and scheduling issue.
The one time I was on a plane that had a quick return there was no announcement at all until after landing.
I was aware we were returning but was not at all concerned since both engines were running and I could see the control surfaces moving etc. We were back on the ground within 10 minutes of take off, possibly a bit less, the cabin crew never left their seats.
Since it was a full transcontinental flight it had to be an overweight landing. After landing we had a normall taxi to gate etc.
What I was -very- worried about was the totally predictable chaos as a single AA gate agent tried to deal with a plane full of passengers.
BTW: The return cause was (transitory) smoke in first class section, I was near the back so did not see/smell it.
Psychophysiological entity
How close was I to dying? (serious question)
You go on holiday to Mexico, and worry about crashing in an aircraft??!!
Oh, that's right, over on the east side. Mmmm...if no one kidnaps or shoots you, there's a chance your hotel might blow up - and I mean really blow up - because of foundations with natural gas collected under the slab. Hotel my grandson used to go to, had the (vast) concrete floor blown through the roof.
My family have abandoned their time-share in that neck of the woods. Good friend, having escaped his gun-toting kidnappers, came home traumatized and quit his job of many years. And he's as at home there - or was - as in the US.
Now well in excess of 50,000 people murdered since 06, (I think) about that, anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Auckland
Age: 67
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, in fact, they lost the GREEN HYD system AND BLUE or YELLOW, they had a red LAND ASAP, which means landing at MAX TOW is allowed (of course the runway length has to be checked). The procedures are simple but a little bit more demanding in handling than for a normal landing but this kind of failure is trained for.
The biggest threat in my opinion is the fact that loosing the remaining BLUE or YELLOW system would most probably be fatal. Before the Boeing guys cry "Mechanical Backup!" please note that there is nothing "mechanical" about operating the flight-controls on the A320. Mech Backup is only meant to allow the aircraft to keep flying until any flight control computer (out of 5 different ones) is restored and the sidestick works again. You always need hydraulics to actually move any control surface.
So in answer to the question: Closer than on a "normal" flight but still a lot less than driving your car to the airport...
The biggest threat in my opinion is the fact that loosing the remaining BLUE or YELLOW system would most probably be fatal. Before the Boeing guys cry "Mechanical Backup!" please note that there is nothing "mechanical" about operating the flight-controls on the A320. Mech Backup is only meant to allow the aircraft to keep flying until any flight control computer (out of 5 different ones) is restored and the sidestick works again. You always need hydraulics to actually move any control surface.
So in answer to the question: Closer than on a "normal" flight but still a lot less than driving your car to the airport...
