I thought it was (but then I don't fly), couple of links here and here with basic descriptions of RAT can anyone clarify better for a humble ATCO?

Can we all agree that loss of life is tragic in any circumstance?

Can’t tragedies be avoided or mitigated with the adherence to proper briefing, preparation, and most of all consideration for those who are in the captains’ charges before taking any unwarranted chances?

We can’t nor should we judge our peers for fortuitous events that take place resulting from poor design or maintenance practices.

The RAT can drive a hyd pump, or an electrical generator or both. The VC10 even had two RATs, one elec and one hyd.
The problem is that the same word RAT is used for all types so if you have met an el-RAT in your past life, you might think that the hyd-RAT on your present aircraft can produce electricity.
On the B757 the issue is further clouded by the little hydraulically driven electrical generator fitted to some aircraft.

I had heard that the overwater 757's and 767''s could make electricity by the RAT driving the hydraulic system and a hydraulic electrical generator.

Does anyone know if this plane was so equipped?

not that it matters.

American Airlines
 

I'm not a big fan of American Airlines. They turned me down. I still remember sitting for the written exam and the proctor said, and I am NOT KIDDING< the purpose of this exam is to make sure you are NOT ONE OF THOSE GUYS FROM SAN FRANCISCO...if you are, go up to denver and try to get a job there.

(I was born and raised in San Francisco, but am not gay)

It is sort of funny that American didn't have on the checklist : land asap.

BUT:

I want to say something about american's accidents. American is and was a pioneering airline. Someone had to learn the hard way and other, johnny come lately airlines, had the benefit of the pioneering that American, and many of the other legacy carriers accomplished.


I for one believe that the Airbus 300 crash was not a case of pilot over controlling the rudder. Any plane that would come apart with use of rudder should have a rudder limiter or at least a placcard saying: don't touch the rudder above 200 knots.


The ''grounding'' of the md80 fleet for that wire bundle stuff was a great example of the FAA being screwed up. If anyone knows MD80's it should be American.

The little rock crash...well, it just proves that chief pilots are good at paperwork and should only fly on nice days. Anyone who has flown this series of planes knows that landing on a wet runway smoothly can cause the spoilers to not deploy automatically...you just have to be ready. AND you should never be so damn mission oriented to get into an airport...wait 15 minutes and you will always be shown to be wise.

The cali crash has just shown that computers and pilots don't mix well...we could and did learn from this crash.

American has its problems, just like every other airline. But it shouldn't come in for such flack as it has on this thread.

SSR,

I agree completely with your statements about AA.

They seemed to have normal AC power from both engine generators so starting the APU would have been no help. For some reason they had problems with their standby busses, probably standby ac. Switching to bat position uses the battery to use an inverter to power the standby ac. That must have corrected the problem but now they were not charging the battery. I don't think that side panel to check battery voltage works in flight. It would be nice if it did in a case like this.

FWIW (due to the over-generalizations here), they were both exTWA.

Just came in:

NTSB reviews jet's skid landing at O'Hare



The pilots of an American Airlines flight carrying 185 passengers were forced to make an unusual emergency landing last month in Chicago with limited ability to control the jet after they lost electrical power, according to newly released information from a federal investigation.

The Boeing 757 skidded off a runway at O'Hare International Airport on Sept. 22, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said. Although none of the 192 people aboard was injured, the pilots flew on backup battery power for long beyond the 30 minutes that their emergency handbook said the batteries would last, the NTSB said.


The pilots of the Seattle-to-New York flight drained the jet's battery backup system, leaving inoperable vital systems that help stop a jet, according to a preliminary report released this week.


The pilots told investigators they had difficulty raising and lowering the jet's nose and felt they had only one chance to land, the NTSB said.


"They should have landed as soon as practical," said Michael Barr, an instructor at the University of Southern California's Aviation Safety and Security Program. "That would have been the conservative approach. I don't see why they thought they could fly all the way across country on their backup electrical system."




The pilots had switched to battery power shortly after leaving Seattle when electrical problems developed. The batteries last for about 30 minutes, but the pilots continued toward their destination until the jet's electrical systems began failing about an hour and 40 minutes later.


The need to land as soon as possible when aircraft systems begin to fail has been reinforced by several accidents, such as Swiss Air Flight 111 in 1998, Barr said. The Swiss Air pilots attempted to diagnose where smoke was coming from before deciding to divert, Canadian investigators concluded. The jet became engulfed in fire and crashed off Nova Scotia, killing all 229 people aboard.


Last month, the American Airlines pilots had to stop the jet without thrust reversers and other devices that help a jet stop, the NTSB said. The electrical system failure was so complete that the pilots were unable to shut off the engines after they came to a stop, the report said.


Barr said investigators will want to know what the airline's manuals and emergency documentation instructed pilots to do, what the airline's maintenance department advised the pilots to do and how pilots were trained to handle electrical malfunctions.


American and its pilots union, the Allied Pilots Association, declined to comment while the case is under investigation.

************************

FULL REPORT


NTSB Identification: CHI08IA292
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of American Airlines, Inc. (D.B.A. American Airlines)
Incident occurred Monday, September 22, 2008 in Chicago, IL
Aircraft: BOEING 757, registration: N197AN
Injuries: 192 Uninjured.


This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

B1 and B2 contacts of K106 caused the failure of the standby busses. That relay supplies power to standby busses during normal operation. The R2-5 relay caused the TOWS to fail on the Madrid crash. I guess anything mechanical can fail but has quality control on relays changed recently?

bubbers

awhile ago counterfit airplane parts was a huge subject...who knows?

the one thing I am very concerned about is this: for years we have heard in all jets that you have 30 minutes to get on the ground with emergency electricity...whatever it is called in that particular plane.

I've said it before, I'll say it again...the DC9/MD80 was/is the last good airliner.

IF EVERY electrical thing failed on a dc9, you can still control pressurization, raise and lower the gear, slats and flaps, you can deploy the thrust reversers and retract them...normal, non anti skid braking would still work.


and , if in addition to losing the electrics, you lost the hyrdaulic pumps, you could still drop the gear and with accumulators use the brakes and thrust reversers...YOU WOULD ALSO have the rudder, ailerons and elevator.


more modern planes have become so dependent upon gadgets that when the gadgets fail you can be in real trouble.

can't you shut down the engines with the fire handles? Or are they electrical too and not cable?


and let's not get into TWA vs. American. TWA, with all of its problems, had a decent training department and was pioneering in the use of 767 transatlantic. if anyone should have known about the electrical system, it should have been a twa pilot...unless the twa fleet ( I know, 767's only) was very different...remember the 76 and 75 are one type rating.


tragic errors in flying by the govt.

deregulation
firing the air traffic controllers
allowing boeing to buy douglas

one more thing
 

why do good pilots call mx on the radio for advice on how to fly the plane?

alaska airlines did that and ended up off the coast of oxnard.

this aa pilot ended up in trouble.

I know one guy who couldn't get one gear down on the 737 (main)...he called mx control and they declared: take the crash axe, cut a hole in the floor and cut the hydraulic line so that the hydraulic pressure will release the gear!
IT TURNED OUT THAT MX had left a wheel chock in the wheel well and the gear got hung up on that.

rule one, if you think you should radio mx for advice while inflight...LAND at a good airport NOW...and then telephone them...talk to anyone you like then.

BUT DON'T FORGET, YOU ARE THE PILOT NOT SOME GUY IN MX CONTROL or whatever your airline calls it.


I remember using the acars data link to ask about conditions at syr (syracuse new york)...winter, you can guess.


Didn't get anything, shot the approach, everything looked ok, checked braking action with tower, ****ty but ok, and we landed. stopped, and as we were taxiing to the gate an urgent acars message:

DON'T LAND SYRACUSE conditions too bad!


needless to say, my acars message to THEM was...do you want us to takeoff again?


YOU ARE THE PILOT!!!!!!!!

Was that in CLT years ago? I think I remember that one...

Yep, every large plane I've ever flown has some version of 'Land ASAP' in the checklist when you are on battery power. I'm really surprised a Boeing company checklist didn't have this.

twa vs. aa....no, wasn't interested in that....just that there's been some fairly BS comments against aa, in general....that's all.

SSR,

Regarding the A300 accident- it has been proven that no transport category aircraft in the Western Hemisphere has been designed to withstand the forces induces by the cyclical opposing inputs that were used in this case.

There is no excuse for the lack of knowledge in that cockpit that led to this situation. Asking Maintenance how to proceed is an abrogation of position. It beholds every professional pilot to learn and know the threats to his/her aircraft.

Far too often these days I see copilots failing their command checks for lack of situational awareness - there is almost a culture of having answers handed on a plate to them. Sharp reasoning seems to be a thing of the past -if it doesn't appear on the EICAS or ECAM, then there is no problem.

Being a professional has certain obligations as well as benefits. One of those obligations is to know your aircraft and know your limitations. In this case there appears to be serious lack of one if not both.

Very well said, sir, and I would agree 100%.

Gotta know your specific aircrafts systems, otherwise expect rather large difficulties when abnormals occur.

Well, if real-dollar salaries are reduced by (effectively) 50% over a 15-year period, one would expect a little loss of intellectual agility.

Wait 'til you see the next generation. The best they can hope for is a strenuous job until 65, no pension, and pay equal to a decent pharma rep or car salesman. You WILL get people to take the job, but not Rhodes scholars.....

Ok riddle me this, how are you going to land at the nearest suitable airport in 30 minutes when you are ETOPS with a mere 180 to 205 minutes from the “nearest suitable airport?”

Commercial versus technical
 

This is getting off-topic; but since you guys have raised it, I'll comment in general terms. The very reliability and system redundancy of airplanes these days, together with their ability to operate in most types of weather, may be ironically creating a problem for commanders. Diversions or delays/cancellations are no longer regarded as routine events. When it happens, it's a big deal, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth all round.

Perhaps captains are becoming blasé; but more likely they are worried about criticism in the event that the costly alternative to pressing on may later be judged to have been unnecessary. Have any of you practising senior line captains found an increasing tendency over the last 20 years for pilot management to be (a) in awe of the accountants; (b) less line-experienced even than junior captains; and (c) less inclined to back up their boys and girls against ill-informed and hind-sighted criticism from other departments?

The fact that the buck stops with the skipper is generally lauded until he or she appears to be costing the company money. Strength of character is essential, but not necessarily perceived as an advantage in selection.

Chris (retired)

nocti

it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction.

I've moved the rudder on the 9...it has a limiter and I couldn't shake it apart.

put a limiter on the a300 and you might have something

there was a dissenting view from one member of the NTSB

halfnut...and you've just thought of that?

YIKES