Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost of repairs could be more than the cost of a used A320 right?
1) buy a used A320.
2) pay to have someone haul away the wreckage.
That wreck is a total loss.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Microburst2002
Was there ENG FAIL ecam warnings or there was just a loss of thrust?
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 ?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the QRH procedure is ENG DUAL FAILURE (fuel remaining).
ENG FAIL WARNING is triggered if affected engine core goes below idle, only.
My conclusion, therefore, is that pilots are still needed in an airplane, no matter how modern and computerized it is. Because not every case has been studied and laid down in FCOMs or QRHs. Airmanship is still required. Experience is still a very valuable tool in a flight deck.
Maybe if they did a video of how to handle such a failure (like those videos of TAP, the portuguese airline, where the pilots look like robots but that it took hundreds of takes for each failure) maybe, I say, there would be a couple of things that could have been done better. But it is the overall performance and decision making of the crew that counts, in a totally unexpected scenario. They adapted quickly to it, to the dreadful reality, and ditched nicely on the Hudson, with no victims. And of course they had a little bit of luck.
A less experienced, robotic, "CRM-SOP fanatic" crew could have flown the airplane to the ground and crashed after saying a lot of call outs and a lot of "I have controls I have radio you have controls you have radio, get the QRH..." and trying to find what the hell to do because no ECAM nor QRH says what to do in that case, instead of quickly assessing the situation and coordinating with each other naturally, like Sully and Skyles, instead, did.
They acted like excellent human pilots and succeeded.
ENG FAIL WARNING is triggered if affected engine core goes below idle, only.
My conclusion, therefore, is that pilots are still needed in an airplane, no matter how modern and computerized it is. Because not every case has been studied and laid down in FCOMs or QRHs. Airmanship is still required. Experience is still a very valuable tool in a flight deck.
Maybe if they did a video of how to handle such a failure (like those videos of TAP, the portuguese airline, where the pilots look like robots but that it took hundreds of takes for each failure) maybe, I say, there would be a couple of things that could have been done better. But it is the overall performance and decision making of the crew that counts, in a totally unexpected scenario. They adapted quickly to it, to the dreadful reality, and ditched nicely on the Hudson, with no victims. And of course they had a little bit of luck.
A less experienced, robotic, "CRM-SOP fanatic" crew could have flown the airplane to the ground and crashed after saying a lot of call outs and a lot of "I have controls I have radio you have controls you have radio, get the QRH..." and trying to find what the hell to do because no ECAM nor QRH says what to do in that case, instead of quickly assessing the situation and coordinating with each other naturally, like Sully and Skyles, instead, did.
They acted like excellent human pilots and succeeded.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Microburst, thank you for saying that! having flown the Bus and Boeing products and seen graduates of MPL couses and other "puppy farms" totally miss the point that gravity has taken over and all the "babblespeak" in the world wont change the situation, so just fly the bloody aircraft untill the crashing noise stops!
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?.
I would expect that the only rule based intuition here was not to take action on both engines simultaneously, but that some action would be part of the intuition (happy to be corrected on this by what the procedures actually state)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to you
In Airbus, because of its "special features", they put the stress on things that are not so difficult to understand for young low houred pilots. They assume that the pilots are real pilots already, who have to get used to a totally new technology with new interfaces with the airplane.
However, what the young low houred pilots need to learn is more airmanship, they need to learn to fly a jet, first, and then deal with the complex integrated automation systems of a modern airliner with FBW which is not the difficulty. Young people have been born in a computerized world already! What they need is to learn how to fly a jet. Pushing buttons and dealing with a computer... they do that better than anybody. I am in my mid thirties and I started playing with the Sinclair Spectrum (48k) when I was 10 years old.
Airbus treat old pilots like a child explaining his grandpa how to use the DVD player. And they forget that the Airbus is being flown by many young unexperienced pilots as the first airplane. They don't need to know the difference between airbus and conventional airplanes. For them, the airbus is already the conventional airplane. What they lack is flight instruction.
To sum up:
Learn the proffession first
then follow with automation, CRM, SOPs, etc.
Pilots are needed, not flight deck operators
In Airbus, because of its "special features", they put the stress on things that are not so difficult to understand for young low houred pilots. They assume that the pilots are real pilots already, who have to get used to a totally new technology with new interfaces with the airplane.
However, what the young low houred pilots need to learn is more airmanship, they need to learn to fly a jet, first, and then deal with the complex integrated automation systems of a modern airliner with FBW which is not the difficulty. Young people have been born in a computerized world already! What they need is to learn how to fly a jet. Pushing buttons and dealing with a computer... they do that better than anybody. I am in my mid thirties and I started playing with the Sinclair Spectrum (48k) when I was 10 years old.
Airbus treat old pilots like a child explaining his grandpa how to use the DVD player. And they forget that the Airbus is being flown by many young unexperienced pilots as the first airplane. They don't need to know the difference between airbus and conventional airplanes. For them, the airbus is already the conventional airplane. What they lack is flight instruction.
To sum up:
Learn the proffession first
then follow with automation, CRM, SOPs, etc.
Pilots are needed, not flight deck operators
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FirstStep
Are there times that the commanded thrust won't match thrust-lever position on Airbuses?
I believe the situation brought some precipitation in the urgency to do something, 3000 feet is really nothing, A checklist was called and the FO had a lot of reading to do in that checklist, there was not much time to calmly analyse the engine parameters, so, as incongruous it may appear, they end up applying a procedure to restart engines that were actually running.
The Captain had already so much to do with the aviate navigate communicate, which he did fantastically under tremendous pressure. The decision to go for the ditching was anything but simple to take especially for the period of the year.
It is possible that exploiting the maximum of what was still available in those engines, the rate of descent would have been somehow reduced and Captain Sullenberger could have been tempted to have a go to Teterboro But then it is a very risky situation as well, he succeeds and every body leaves by the stairs, he fails and it is catastrophic.
Overall, I think they did so well the way they did.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson Hero Sullenberger Hangs Up Wings - News Story - KTVU San Francisco
Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, the Danville native who piloted Flight 1549 during its emergency water landing on the Hudson River in January 2009, announced his retirement from U.S. Airways on Wednesday, according to an airline spokesman.
Fittingly, Flight Attendant Doreen Welsh, who helped guide 150 passengers to safety on the same flight, also announced her retirement on the same day.
Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, the Danville native who piloted Flight 1549 during its emergency water landing on the Hudson River in January 2009, announced his retirement from U.S. Airways on Wednesday, according to an airline spokesman.
Fittingly, Flight Attendant Doreen Welsh, who helped guide 150 passengers to safety on the same flight, also announced her retirement on the same day.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Isle Dordt
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what will Capt. Sullenberger's legacy be in the front office of his younger colleagues?
I hope it will be first-class airmanship, situational awareness, and choosing a reasonable plan and sticking with it. (At least, stick with it until a CLEARLY superior option shows up!)
I hope it will be first-class airmanship, situational awareness, and choosing a reasonable plan and sticking with it. (At least, stick with it until a CLEARLY superior option shows up!)
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBW /APU starting and controllability?
When the A320 went into the Hudson River, the Captain deviated from the checklist cadence and quite appropriately fired up the APU, more or less immediately after the birds hit.
This action kept electricals (and hydraulics?) and retained(?) the FBW mode as NORMAL Law (????).
What if he hadn't started the APU? Would sufficient busses have been powered and would battery power for the 5 min flight have been enough? Would the crew have had their full FBW or have been reverted to a lesser law?
The inference, albeit a weak allusion, from the NTSB's Report was that it may well have been a completely different outcome if Capt Sully hadn't promptly kick-started the APU. As it was, he had significant problems maintaining the desired/appropriate glide speed and the flaring attitude was non-optimal. Why was that?
If the APU hadn't been started, the degree of controllability that led to a "sufficient" flare (although not optimal - NTSB Report) and subsequent benign ditching might well have been characterised as a crash.... with a significant loss of life due to a greater loss of airframe integrity.
Your thoughts?
This action kept electricals (and hydraulics?) and retained(?) the FBW mode as NORMAL Law (????).
What if he hadn't started the APU? Would sufficient busses have been powered and would battery power for the 5 min flight have been enough? Would the crew have had their full FBW or have been reverted to a lesser law?
The inference, albeit a weak allusion, from the NTSB's Report was that it may well have been a completely different outcome if Capt Sully hadn't promptly kick-started the APU. As it was, he had significant problems maintaining the desired/appropriate glide speed and the flaring attitude was non-optimal. Why was that?
If the APU hadn't been started, the degree of controllability that led to a "sufficient" flare (although not optimal - NTSB Report) and subsequent benign ditching might well have been characterised as a crash.... with a significant loss of life due to a greater loss of airframe integrity.
Your thoughts?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NTSB report said they touched down in the Hudson at over 700 FPM. Looking at the video it looked like picture perfect normal flare onto a runway at less than 50 FPM. They must have been measuring the descent before flare.