Russia - Plane crash lands in field after bird strike
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: South of there, north of here
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you checked the name on the door as you walked in? 
Yes, the positive outcome and everyone being alive is the ultimate result. But every crash give us something even more important - a lesson to learn. And since at least some people here are pilots, of course they can't help thinking, "what if it was me". And "what would I do"? This discussion is the way to answer that question.
Or maybe people just like to talk.
Yes, the positive outcome and everyone being alive is the ultimate result. But every crash give us something even more important - a lesson to learn. And since at least some people here are pilots, of course they can't help thinking, "what if it was me". And "what would I do"? This discussion is the way to answer that question.
Or maybe people just like to talk.
And YES, I very definitely DID check the name on the door on the way in. My point was that those people advocating the use of those checklists also seem to have lost sight of the fact that there was not time to use them as the aircraft didn't ever get high enough for those checklists to be useful.
[...] Previously the chances of dual oversize birdstrike were calculated to be acceptably low, the present-day massive traffic rate already started creating recurring events. How long before this will no longer be tolerable? No matter the ratio to departures / ASK would remain the same, at some moment there will be a fatality. And if nothing is done, the intensity will increase which cannot be allowed to happen - for a known problem.
Indeed, keeping the birds away from the intake is the first line of approach.
Indeed, keeping the birds away from the intake is the first line of approach.
Rosaviatsia points out that 50 notable incidents have occurred so far this year relating to bird-strikes – on top of a further 823 in which no damage occurred.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Is it time the Book was re-written to reflect this ?
Only half a speed-brake
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not needed. It's already written in the Boeing QRH that in certain circumstances deviations from SOP's and procedures may be needed. I am sure there's something similar in Airbus documentation.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 48
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a privilege I hope to never use.
Unclear what the question means.
Did you ever accidentally put your hand on something hot and immediately withdraw it?
Which book taught you to do that?
What this flight crew did was surely instinctive.
They just flew the damn aircraft because they had no time or reason to do anything else.
If you can figure out which book we should put that in, then yes it should be put there.
Did you ever accidentally put your hand on something hot and immediately withdraw it?
Which book taught you to do that?
What this flight crew did was surely instinctive.
They just flew the damn aircraft because they had no time or reason to do anything else.
If you can figure out which book we should put that in, then yes it should be put there.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Earth
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew seemed pretty cool and collected in the transcripts of comms with ATC. Anyway, lomapaseo asked about the data recorder, not the CVR.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparison with Hudson
Attempts to compare the actions of the crew in this accident with those of the crew in the Hudson ditching are, in my opinion, invidious. The certain conclusion that can be drawn about both incidents, it seems to me, is that, given their respective (and different) circumstances, it is hard (or impossible) to see how either crew could have made a better job than they actually did of salvaging the best possible outcome from the extremely adverse situation that presented.
In short, they both performed with the maximum competence and presence of mind that was required by the circumstances. Equal congratulations are due and no more can be said, imho.
In short, they both performed with the maximum competence and presence of mind that was required by the circumstances. Equal congratulations are due and no more can be said, imho.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a feeling that in both cases the pilots did not necessarily make the best choices but they avoided the bad ones and that is often enough. In any profession experience is for weeding those out, training helps but it is no substitute for experience.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Russian case there was simply no choice but land ahead may be little left or right. It may be interesting to know why he chose to land with gear up. Sully's case he had to make the decision not to return. There was nothing wrong in every thing he did except dropping speed and getting into alpha prot that prevented a proper flare and resulted in heavy impact. However considering the work load and the time frame it's ok.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FCTM mentions if forced Landing is anticipated the gear must lowered to absorb some energy. But the forced Landing check list does mention gear to be lowered above 3000ft. Although it doesn't mention the reason. It could be that initially the drag of lowering the gear will increase the rate of descent and below 3000ft not enough height to settle down again. In this case it was only 750ft. So perhaps correct thinking.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Earth
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhere further up thread there's a quote from the Captain where he suggests that his decision was based on the fact that as they had full tanks, there was less chance of causing a rupture and fire if he left the gear up.
In Russian case there was simply no choice but land ahead may be little left or right. It may be interesting to know why he chose to land with gear up. Sully's case he had to make the decision not to return. There was nothing wrong in every thing he did except dropping speed and getting into alpha prot that prevented a proper flare and resulted in heavy impact. However considering the work load and the time frame it's ok.
They were only reaching 750' MAX ALT and were starting to go down, with that thought the Skipper had already decided that a return to the airport was impossible and that an immediate forced landing was inevitable.
The crew had raised the gear after the normal rotation/lift off at take off, and the Capt knew how long the time would take to lower it again either by the manual drop/lock or via the HYD systems (if he still had any?) and it was obvious to him they had not the time to get 3 greens.
I do not know if the RAT deployed and was functioning, but that needs 140 or is it 150 kts airspeed to work the turbine and pump for some electrics and HYD's.
Regards R.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking about some accusations here that the captain didn't call "Brace!" for the passengers, and here is the result of my mental effort.
I don't think a call to brace would help anyone. Even in the most airborne country like the US, most passengers would simply not understand it. Other than a few aviation enthusiasts, very few people actually know what this word stands for. They've just boarded the plane, they are tired from all the lines they had to stand in, they are utterly irritated by their encounter with the security, they are finally trying to relax. The plane accelerates down the runway, the shaking stops, and we fly, and the suddenly "BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!"... What do you do? Hug a person in the adjacent seat? Grab the armrests? I don't think it'd work, especially with panic factored in. Even people who know the meaning would need time to process the command, and those who don't know would simply wonder what the heck the PA is screaming about.
And now imagine there is a plane full of people who don't speak a word in English, and there is no set phrase in their language for "assume the brace position". Heck, I just realized I don't know that phrase in my native language, and those that I can come up with would require quite a few seconds to say.
So, in my conclusion, "brace" command, unless called well in advance, gives absolutely NO meaningful result and doesn't improve the outcome by one iota.
I don't think a call to brace would help anyone. Even in the most airborne country like the US, most passengers would simply not understand it. Other than a few aviation enthusiasts, very few people actually know what this word stands for. They've just boarded the plane, they are tired from all the lines they had to stand in, they are utterly irritated by their encounter with the security, they are finally trying to relax. The plane accelerates down the runway, the shaking stops, and we fly, and the suddenly "BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!"... What do you do? Hug a person in the adjacent seat? Grab the armrests? I don't think it'd work, especially with panic factored in. Even people who know the meaning would need time to process the command, and those who don't know would simply wonder what the heck the PA is screaming about.
And now imagine there is a plane full of people who don't speak a word in English, and there is no set phrase in their language for "assume the brace position". Heck, I just realized I don't know that phrase in my native language, and those that I can come up with would require quite a few seconds to say.
So, in my conclusion, "brace" command, unless called well in advance, gives absolutely NO meaningful result and doesn't improve the outcome by one iota.
