Credit to the crew as they did it and so without simulator pre training – That the live engine cowling scraped the runway makes sense. There must be a video somewhere of the event … let’s wait and see.

Run On Landing
 

That's an emergency maneuver for loss of tail rotor. Those pedals on the floor do different things in helicopters. They control that little anti torque sideways rotor in the back.

If the helicopter has enough forward speed in cruise, and the power remains static, the pedals are neutral. Add or decrease power, those pedals become necessary.

A run on landing scrapes lots of metal off the skids. The point is to land fast enough to keep the helicopter level and facing forward. If it turns sideways and falls over , those big ol' whirling blades tend to do a lot of damage.


____________


Seriously, why couldn't the 70% N1 engine be shut down just before touchdown, or, perhaps, a little sooner? Was the other engine which was slightly below zero thrust not producing enough power for flaps, brakes, and other necessary or desirable items?

I heard that some RR engines have stall detection and that when a stall condition is sensed the FADEC runs the engine at idle until shutdown. The Airbus telex says that both engines displayed stall messages on ECAM.

Is there something to prevent both engines stuck at idle as a result of dual stall detection? Would shutting down and restarting an idling engine possibly restore its functionnality?

Can somebody convert this to fact or fiction, other than "I heard...."

From the FCOM :
Following a stall detection by the FADEC, fuel is adjusted.
Fuel/Air ratio is automatically decreased until the stall disappears.

Having read most of the associated posts on this subject in the HKG forum and here, I tend to agree with molokai that there certainly seems to be an " inconvenient truth " in this episode. Well the aircraft finished up in one piece and everyone is safe; the crew had done their job. However, some quarters had gone overboard and prematurely declared them " heroes " which really did the crew a disservice......amongst pilots, the long knives are drawn.

OK, that's pretty standard boilerplate for FADEC. But it's a long way off from explaining the rest of the rumor:)

Thread removed from HKG forum
 

I suspect the initiator wised up to the fact that it could harm the crew once the difficult questions start coming in. The crew did their job of bringing the plane down safely but the accolades heaped on them by certain quarters were way over the top. Have to agree with potteroo's view.

Yes, I'd agree with that. A nasty situation to be presented with near the end of a flight.

The initial statement says the aircraft stopped "within 1,000' of the threshold" on a 12,500' runway... A little more speed on touchdown and there'd have been a good chance of going off the end into the sea.

A330 drivers: what sort of power do you need, OEI, fully configured on a 3deg slope at an average landing weight?

Full wings......... A330 with 2 Engines Config Full:- 46% N1
1 Engine Config 3:- 56% N1

I posted this on Fragrant Harbour:

One wonders if they had to go to alternate or direct law...

Has this sort of thing happened in another type recently and how did that go?

Saw that one engine was stuck in a 'sub idle' stall. Years ago our company had at least one similar event. Unfortunately it happened to both engines. Shut down one engine, restarted, and it operated normally. Second engine was then shut down and restarted. Again, normal ops(with higher heart beats in the cockpit).

Flew with engine anti ice on during all descents(higher idle speed) until the engine FCU's could be reprogrammed.

Lomapaseo,
Earlier, I was quoting the FCOM here but I just came up on another piece of info from the same FCOM :
The perpetual FCOM challenge : If you read something one day, be prepared not to find it when looking for it ...

CONF iture

That one one does puzzle me:confused:

I could always understand the reduction in FF to clear most stalls, the easiest of which to clear is a fan stall, but why force the engine to be shutdown to clear the FCU and regain control.

Ah, I bet somebody has an explanation and I may learn something :)

Originally Posted by DJ77
“I heard that some RR engines have stall detection and that when a stall condition is sensed the FADEC runs the engine at idle until shutdown. The Airbus telex says that both engines displayed stall messages on ECAM.
Is there something to prevent both engines stuck at idle as a result of dual stall detection?(...)”

There should be. The F-86F, had it, called something like Emergency Fuel Control Unit, sort of an almost direct fuel tap. It worked fine, unless you jerked the throttle lever.

A FADEC emergency manual override might (ATT: might) have prevented a few events, like the B777 in London, the A320 in NY City, this one in HK, Eurofighter (?) in Spain, at least, according to their stories.

A Flight Law emergency manual override welcome in Airbuses as well. Humans could select direct law; or, the computers could select the law they liked, when allowed to do so by humans – I’ve read the B777 has push button for that.

How an engine can be stuck at 70% N1 ?

• Is it the FADEC having a go on its own and sending the wrong request ?
• Is it the Fuel Metering Valve being mechanically blocked ?
• ..................... ?

http://i65.servimg.com/u/f65/11/75/17/84/cx_02210.gif

Is there any known case of an engine to be stuck at such high thrust setting ?

Patiently waiting for the true facts to be out; how long is it gonna be?

Like someone had mentioned, some difficult questions will soon come with regards to the scarebus systems and the crew members' actions.

Kalistan,

The crew had to deal with erratic responses from both engines, probably not knowing what to expect next ... ?
Also, IF this event is a consequence of fuel contamination (?) any type of aircraft would have probably suffered the same way.

But as you say, let's wait for the complete version of the facts ...


Fuel contamination can be a very critical factor in the everyday operation.
In the following video they show what kind of precaution they take before refueling Air Force One (3:30 in the video)

I've got to admit that it sure does cross one's mind in many incidents with misbehaving engines, although I can't think of any confirmations in a couple of decades

Multiple engine events are almost always common-cause inspite of what most imagine flying ETOPs routes with only two engines. And indeed wear out modes or computer cock ups would be extremely rare in a single flight without having been exposed by numerous write ups in a fleets history.

Most everything now-a-days having to do with complex aircraft system interactions has been considered and "fail safed" to the point where the aircraft just won't fall out of the sky albeit the pilot workload may be increased. This seems to be the case here so I'm still open to some of the responses being secondary to a fail-safe design response kicking in from whatever was the common cause that started it.

I'm sure that they are going to look at the aircraft system interaction with the engines very closely seeing as how the engines didn't seem to pack it up with parts out the tailpipe.

I sure hope some more clues come into this thread eventually

Something I had not noticed before, but QRH and ECAM procedure for ENG STALL as mentioned here made the object of a TEMPORARY REVISION in JUL 2009 :

http://i65.servimg.com/u/f65/11/75/17/84/cx_02410.gif