Taken from the same article of Vanity fair

I found also this statement a bit overboard...it suggesting that Singapore Airlines FA are not up to the task? There has been reports of a crew member to loose her life trying to help passengers. Whether that is truth or not I found that such comment is really insulting the "Singapore Girls".

FSLF

Bubbers44,

For yr first sentence, probably yes.
For the second and third, I await the outcome of the investigations, but it is not clear to me that water contact was at 25 ft/s.
Your fourth sentence raises an interesting question.

SIN Girls
 

I have avoided all the usual attempts at humour.

In general my experience with SIN girls is that they like EK Girls are highly professional, and perhaps not had 35 years experience, are up to any task.

Currently operating with two X EK, and one X SIN, and would not swop them for any or their US carriers compatriots.

Now for the funnies.......................ok perhaps later.

1500' FPM sink? I doubt it's that high. Clean, 250KIAS idle descent is typically around 1300' FPM. Coming down the glide slope, at 180 KIAS (+/-), Flaps 5, is under 1000' FPM.

Granted, both examples are with idle power and no drag from damaged or windmilling engines, but IMO it's probably less than 1500' FPM.

Jesus Christ - I Captain this aircraft type and if I did as good a job as Sully I'd be pretty happy.

Quit second guessing. Quit the hindsight.

Good job. Good crew. Good airline.


WWW

Geese....what geese? It's clear that Sully staged the whole thing so he could write a bestseller. He wasn't worried because he knew the airplane could fly itself under all circumstances. I'm especially impressed at the way it was programmed to choose the river, miss that bridge and pick such a great location for rescue.

Well put WWW:ok:

Thats a great job the PF did out there, which not everyone can do.:ok:

Quote from Jacob Olaolu:

"Thats a great job the PF did out there, which not everyone can do."


Yes; but 'not everyone' Jacob, has 3 hijackers on the flight forcing the issue?

Question regarding Fuel Savings Initives etc...
 

I apologize first place in case someone else has covered this issue, as I have just come across this forum. I also would like to state for the record The Flight Crew performed an amazing feat in this scenario. All of that being said, here's my comment:
I'm curious as to why some of the Fuel Savings Initives have not been called into question. Specifically in this instance, if the APU was allowed to remain operating until reaching altitude would the outcome have been different? I know MEL procedures allow APU use in flight in cases where either a generator or pnuematic supply issue arise. My understanding of the events had the F/O attempting a restart of the APU when this incredibly heavy Glider simply ran out of time and altitude. I'm interested in any comments.

I don't see how the APU would have made any difference. They would still be in the river. Can you please explain?

edit: (I guess they would have a few more lights on in the cabin)

I have no idea what your understanding of the events are that cause you to question the APU. :confused:

Well, let's all trash Cosmo for a sensible question eh?

Yes, Cosmo (and welcome here, by the way), I'm not sure of the exact attempts made by the crew (if any) to try a relight, but at the speed they were at they would have needed an APU to do it, and it is a slow thing to start when you REALLY need it. I actually think it could make a lot of sense to keep the APU running a bit longer after departure. Who knows whether a shutdown and relight MIGHT just clear an engine that has choked and spluttered to an early grave with bird debris? We are only talking around 30-50kg of fuel I guess. It is certainly the correct procedure for flameout due to Volcanic Ash ingestion. Certainly something worth bearing in mind and, as they say - 'Captain's discretion' rules the day.

Now we can both be ridiculed :)

apparently you thought that you understood the suppositions in his question. :)

Actually I just know that I understood the question and the invitation for comments - you have no other?:)

Volcanic Ash
 

BOAC opines Very true re volcanic ash, and there's a unique reason:

The ash tends to melt and "Plate" the HPT nozzle vanes with a glass-like coating. A little buildup tends to close down the flow area of the nozzle, increasing the back pressure on the compressor(s). Compressor stall (surge) is the likely result.

Shutting down the engine for a few seconds causes shock cooling, which may fracture the unwanted glass into fine particles, possibly (partially) ridding the nozzle of the problem, and permitting an airstart.

Well, I'm not quite sure how much volcanic ash was emanating from the nuclear power station just up the Hudson river from Manhattan, but we always kept the APU running until about 7-8,000 ft after take-off and started it up again at the same height on the way down.

It was always a comfort to know that it was already running in the background if the !!!!! should hit the fan at low level.

Give a thought to what it really protects :confused:

Sure it's nice to have for a warm feeling, but how many actual engine flameouts occur at these low levels?

At high power including climbouts it's engine stall that spools down the engine. Stall recovery and continous ignition is the quick way to go. Shutting down an engine and then restarting it takes a long time.

I'm still patiently waiting for more data from the NTSB hearing defining exactly what happened (I can almost taste that beer bet right now :)

and barit1 I do agree with you about the volcanic ash scenario it's just that you can't always count on the flaking to work

BTW I have heard of the same phenomenon (a la volcanic ash) during extended running in the sandy Santa Ana winds of the So Cal bowl.

Apu theory further explained
 

Gentlemen, sorry for not being clear enough for all to understand. This aircraft had a history of single engine flame out on climb. It stands to reason that the crew reviewed the maintenance logs as part of their preflight procedures. I've worked Line Maintenance for 27 years. Part of my job was expanding those sometimes cryptic maintenance write ups and going through the mental exercise of playing out each one in various phases of flight to decide what critical systems are in use as well as and attitude of of the aircraft at that time.
My experience with Geese are they fly in a V formation ergo flaming out two engines by ingestion, though not impossible, is very very slim. Add to that the appearance of one engine obviously damaged by ingestion yet the other not showing the same damage in spite of high speed water landing. I won't even bring up the fact that it's kind of late in the migration window for a large concentration of "Canadian Geese" to be hanging out in NYC. (Shopping maybe?)
Once again, not taking anything from the performance of the flight crew, if the APU was left running and if the remaining engine simply flamed out, the F/O would be able to attempt a re-light of that engine. My point was simply, Were they setup for this Miracle Landing purely by a company directed Fuel Saving Program. Much can happen in aircraft attitude changes especially in first and second segment climb operations.
Just throwing it out there to satisfy my own curiosity. Nothing more.-- Cosmo.....................

Cosmo

Now I see what was on your mind.

The issue seems to be the presumption of "flame-out".

Let's be careful about this. A true flame-out implies the burner going unlit and the engines spooling down to windmill. It is extremely rare except in cases of fuel starvation. Yes if so it does require a time consuming restart procedure.

Birds are not likely to cause such a flame out. In most cases it is the pilots decision to turn off the flame to secure a misbehaving engine.

While I'm not a 100% sure yet in the Hudson accident it doesn't seem to me that they ever shut down the engines.