Kip Powick Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Feds confirm bird remains in both engines: USA TODAY's Alan Levin reports that federal investigators have identified bird remains in both engines of the US Airways jet that made the dramatic landing last month in the Hudson River. A320 Airbus had struck a flock of Canada geese flying in formation. Well we have been briefing the CGS, (Canada Geese Squadrons), for years that they are NOT ALLOWED to fly in formation within 25 miles of a Control Zone. I mean, really, the Americans would not even allow us to approach and land in formation with"whiz-bang" airplanes in the Military.. I'm sure the leader of that formation will have a lot to answer for and I would not be surprised if he was demoted to just a wing-goose, maybe position 5 or 6 but I am certain he will never lead a formation again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Kip "Question # 3....RAT/APU?? in this case, what difference would it have made ?? This was a once in a million, or more, occurence..yes??" With respect, "once in a million" is much like any of many flight safety considerations...no? I know little of the technical aspects of the bus. I’m wondering, isn’t there some degree of degradation in "law", electronics and hydraulics when operating with a RAT as opposed to an APU? Is an engine relight possible with a RAT from low altitude or would you spend your last seconds trying to get a perfectly good APU lit to attempt a restart? Wouldn't energy (altitude) be sacrificed in exchange for RAT power? At the moment I don't know, but I think having the APU "on" when below 10 for instance, isn't a bad plan Kip? To me, having the APU off is akin to leaving the pitot heat off most of the time to save the element? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 From page 7: "It's been a little while now, but doesn't the pax seatback safety card suggest the ac will float tail low and if so, aren't the F/A's supposed to look out and "evaluate" prior to pulling the handle? If that’s the case, why did one of the F/A's attempt to open the rear door(s) under the circumstances?" Personally I think you are being a little picky and doing a lot of arm-chair quarterbacking How many FAs have ever been in a crash landing, let alone a ditching!!?? Can you imagine the adrenaline rush, the heartbeat rate, just to know that you are still alive...EVACUATE EVACUATE!!!!! So OK, she tried to open a door that could not open due to water pressure...no harm done...lesson learned......if there had been a fire out there, (land crash), perhaps she would have slamed the door shut, but at any rate I think the entire crew did extremely well given the circumstances. Yes, her "error" will be the topic of many sessions of ART but in my opinion the level of criticism leveled at her should be minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Feds confirm bird remains in both engines: USA TODAY's Alan Levin reports that federal investigators have identified bird remains in both engines of the US Airways jet that made the dramatic landing last month in the Hudson River. A320 Airbus had struck a flock of Canada geese flying in formation. Well we have been briefing the CGS, (Canada Geese Squadrons), for years that they are NOT ALLOWED to fly in formation within 25 miles of a Control Zone. I mean, really, the Americans would not even allow us to approach and land in formation with"whiz-bang" airplanes in the Military.. I'm sure the leader of that formation will have a lot to answer for and I would not be surprised if he was demoted to just a wing-goose, maybe position 5 or 6 but I am certain he will never lead a formation again ...sorta like "break step on the bridge!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I know little of the technical aspects of the bus. I’m wondering, isn’t there some degree of degradation in "law", electronics and hydraulics when operating with a RAT as opposed to an APU? Is an engine relight possible with a RAT from low altitude or would you spend your last seconds trying to get a perfectly good APU lit to attempt a restart? Wouldn't energy (altitude) be sacrificed in exchange for RAT power? At the moment I don't know, but I think having the APU "on" when below 10 for instance, isn't a bad plan Kip? To me, having the APU off is akin to leaving the pitot heat off most of the time to save the element? Well I don't want to get in an urinating contest about APU "on" or "off" but I think better minds than ours have ascertained that statistically, having an APU on below 10,000 feet can not be justified based on this isolated incident, and data aquired from all other sources. Relight...............no way, certainly not in this instance, no time even if they had a GPU, attached by a very long cord to the aircraft. Perhaps Don Hudson has more info on the subject.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Defcon, they say the rat was deployed when the a/c was recovered.... but in any case, both engines were said to still be putting out a little power, so they would have been still powering the gens and hydraulic pumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 "How many FAs have ever been in a crash landing, let alone a ditching!!?? Can you imagine the adrenaline rush, the heartbeat rate, just to know that you are still alive...EVACUATE EVACUATE!!!!!" Ok, I asked in the interest of learning. If you're suggesting it's a fact that "emotion" led a crew-member to abandon procedure, I do believe something can be learned here? I disagree with your "no harm was done" analysis Kip. In fact, once the F/A pulled the door handle, all the skill & good fortune that allowed all to survive to that point in time might have been lost by the non-trained etc action of one crew member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I disagree with your "no harm was done" analysis Kip. In fact, once the F/A pulled the door handle, all the skill & good fortune that allowed all to survive to that point in time might have been lost by the non-trained etc action of one crew member. How??? The door won't open with water pressure on it...."non-trained"?? She was trained, perhaps a little "brain fart" at the time, but it all ended well. Without boring you, let me say that when an emergency happens, and even if it was trained for many times, when it actually happens, there is no conclusive proof that all the training in the world will ensure the correct actions are taken.(( I speak from experience....I'm sure you have heard of the bag of luck.... and the bag of experience )) We all hope the training kicks in and in most cases it does but prior to the "drill" happening, one may make a mistake...and she did...but it was no big deal in this case. As I said, her actions will be discussed in many ARTs, but she got her stuff together and did her job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Has it been determined it was actually an FA that cracked the rear door? Last I read, it was a passenger who might have panicked and ignored an instruction to NOT try and open the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 "The door won't open with water pressure on it...."non-trained"?? She was trained, perhaps a little "brain fart" at the time, but it all ended well." Yes it did end well, fortunately. The FA cracked the door. Door travel was limited by water pressure. Nonetheless, the “cracked” door allowed water to fill the cabin. I understand panic and its effects quite well. From a passenger, panic can be understood, but from a trained crewmember? Training is preparation for that one in a million event. Without personal insult to the gal involved, there is something here to be learned. I've got to believe that's the purpose of the complex investigation process. If I understand you correctly, I agree, ART classes are going to dissect these issues later, meaning, we've learned something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The day of, CNN was interviewing a male passenger that was seated at the back of the aircraft. He described the actions of the FA following the ditch in step-by-step detail. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 If I understand you correctly, I agree, ART classes are going to dissect these issues later, meaning, we've learned something? Undoubtedly we have learned something, however I would hope the ART instructors would stay away from assumptions until the investigation is complete and not base their comments on ""forum talk and rumours". PS...if you want to quote one line out of an individuals post just.. 1)highlight the line and "copy" to your computers clipboard. 2)click ADD REPLY 3) at the top of the reply window click QUOTE and QUOTE in [ ....] brackets appears 4) paste in the line you want after QUOTE in brackets. 5)Click the word QUOTE* that is showing above the reply window and /Quote in square brackets will appear. When you post your reply the line you want to quote will show up on a white background.. If you already knew this, my apologies for boring you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 "Well I don't want to get in an urinating contest about APU "on" or "off" " Agreed "I think better minds than ours have ascertained that statistically, having an APU on below 10,000 feet can not be justified based on this isolated incident, and data aquired from all other sources." Better minds, Economics = cost benefit vs.... in my mind? I'd sure like to see the data supporting this justification. "Relight...............no way, certainly not in this instance, no time even if they had a GPU, attached by a very long cord to the aircraft." Perhaps the engines were pooched, but "no time" (approx 3-4mins) to get one going, damage aside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/acciden...5-09%20L116.mp3 Audio of ATC communications with US Airways 1549 If this doesn't send chills up your spine, I don't know what will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 PS...if you want to quote one line out of an individuals post just.. 1)highlight the line and "copy" to your computers clipboard. 2)click ADD REPLY 3) at the top of the reply window click QUOTE and QUOTE in [ ....] brackets appears 4) paste in the line you want after QUOTE in brackets. 5)Click the word QUOTE* that is showing above the reply window and /Quote in square brackets will appear. When you post your reply the line you want to quote will show up on a white background.. If you already knew this, my apologies for boring you. I didn't have it...thank you and if you could, I've never been able to get the happy faces to work either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/acciden...5-09%20L116.mp3 Audio of ATC communications with US Airways 1549 If this doesn't send chills up your spine, I don't know what will. We going too fast for you bean....? a shorter version was posted earlier today. See page 9...posted by JUMP SEAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I didn't have it...thank you and if you could, I've never been able to get the happy faces to work either? Smilies?????????? The smilies on the LH side of the reply window can be placed anywhere in a message. Wherever your cursor is left in the reply window is where a smilie will be if you use your mouse and go over and click on a particular smilie. This forum has a limit on the number of smiles one can put in a message and the limit is 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 We going too fast for you bean....? a shorter version was posted earlier today. See page 9...posted by JUMP SEAT Oops...... I guess longer isn't better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 We going too fast for you bean....? a shorter version was posted earlier today. See page 9...posted by JUMP SEAT I think he gets a gimme considering you reposted what was already on page 8 of the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I think he gets a gimme considering you reposted what was already on page 8 of the thread Kinda slow today............I corrected my gross error..thank yew !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 This forum has a limit on the number of smiles one can put in a message and the limit is 5 ...unless you outsmart it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Mitch.......you are c-h-e-a-t-i-n-g !!!! Shhhhhhhhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 DEFCON; I know little of the technical aspects of the bus. I’m wondering, isn’t there some degree of degradation in "law", electronics and hydraulics when operating with a RAT as opposed to an APU? Is an engine relight possible with a RAT from low altitude or would you spend your last seconds trying to get a perfectly good APU lit to attempt a restart? Wouldn't energy (altitude) be sacrificed in exchange for RAT power? At the moment I don't know, but I think having the APU "on" when below 10 for instance, isn't a bad plan Kip? To me, having the APU off is akin to leaving the pitot heat off most of the time to save the element? With an Airboos, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing! Christine'll getcha everytime when she knows y'ain't looking!, (fabulous airplane though!) As Kip has already correctly stated, engine start from the ground power unit isn't possible, nor is it from the RAT... There are claims, mainly by Honeywell on a corporate bragsheet issued the day after the accident that "their" APU was running and saved the day. Clearly they were speculating in advance of the facts and deserve to wear a lot of egg, but they recovered and said it was "their" generators that saved the day - inane hubris never sleeps. As stated, the RAT would not have deployed given the conditions, (both engines developing sufficient power to keep the electrical and hydraulic systems fully operational). It may have "deployed" under impact forces. That said, I've seen the photos and although the long object hanging down at the left wing root looks like a RAT, I think it's a bit long, but it could be. That's where it's located. Starting the APU "under 10" isn't required by certification, isn't considered an operationally smart decision and is very costly. It is most certainly not equivalent to not turning the pitot heat on. The only place that starting the APU is done is into and out of Bogata, for the go-around or for engine failure on takeoff where the APU not engine bleeds pressurize the airplane and provide more thrust out the back end. This crew may have had the time to at least try an APU start but 3 minutes isn't much time. The Airbus release/statement however does say the APU was running at takeoff. So we don't really know yet and I'm not about to take Honeywell's word for very much these days given their penchant for early release... Here's some more audio from the FAA, just (properly) released: "1549 Audio Transcripts", well I did as it asked and the link thingy isn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newgirl Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Christine! Good one Don. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakelad Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Alternate link for FAA audio/transcripts (for DH, appears an errant 'space' crept into your link construction:'/data_stat istics/') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.