canadairguy Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Starting the APU "under 10" isn't required by certification Trivia alert: ...with one exception, Don. I was involved with the certification by Israeli authorities of a Canadian-built aircraft. The Israeli flight manual for that type has one unique limitation, which is that the APU must be operated in flight below 10,000. The Israelis want pilots to be able to attempt a relight after a dual engine failure at low altitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 "This crew may have had the time to at least try an APU start but 3 minutes isn't much time." I "heard" today, the FO was able to get one running again. Problem was, they could only get approximately 35% out of it? "Starting the APU "under 10" isn't required by certification, isn't considered an operationally smart decision and is very costly." Is "operationallly smart" something different than a cost consideration? If airline were to lose just one aircraft and 150 pax every twenty years to birds, what's the cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 newgirl; S'truth!...when we first got checked out on 'er, she quickly became known as "Capricious Christine", (I attribute this to Loyd Stanley who had a wonderful sense of humour and from whom I first heard the name), because every once in a while she'd do something "unpredictable" - "Now what is it doing?" was a familiar catch-phrase in the early days - it really is a different airplane. The airplane doesn't deserve the term "capricious" anymore because we know her "habits", but Christine kinda stuck. canadaairguy; Thank you - I was wondering when I made the all-inclusive statement if it had exceptions - appreciate the info. Lakelad - yes, the link is a broken one because of the space in the copy - thanks for providing a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 The Israeli flight manual for that type has one unique limitation, which is that the APU must be operated in flight below 10,000. Well, natch'...look how close they are to the "gas pumps" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Well, natch'...look how close they are to the "gas pumps" Not to mention the sources of ignition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Just watched the 60 Minutes interview with crew. I thought that it was very well done. Katy Couric did a great job and they didn't sensationalize the facts of the story. They also took to time to tell the story from the FAs perspective. Sully certainly lived up to his reputation. He was thoughtful, humble and just a little vulnerable. All in all, it's a great story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Just watched the 60 Minutes interview with crew. I thought that it was very well done. Katy Couric did a great job and they didn't sensationalize the facts of the story. They also took to time to tell the story from the FAs perspective. Sully certainly lived up to his reputation. He was thoughtful, humble and just a little vulnerable. All in all, it's a great story. I particularly noted his remark that he felt "comforted" when he heard the FA's begin their shouted commands. It is only in those rare moments that one truly appreciates the importance of a "team". Pity that in ordinary times, people on the same "team" look for the advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Well done indeed. The event and the CBS story both. Frank and straightforward words from Sully on his thoughts and worries. It would have been a bit much I suppose hoping for a more professional type of briefing on a general news show. Hate having to wait for the NTSB report. He did confirm the MAYDAY issue and the APU question. I would have liked to hear from the F/O in his own words to know what exactly he was doing during all of this. ENG DUAL FAIL procedure I guess but what were his thoughts and experiences in the situation. I found the passenger situation somewhat curious and not to find fault in any way with what Sully did but I might expect a few questions being asked in terms of F/A roles and requirements. - They didn't know they were heading into the water. That might have been useful info for the Cabin crew - eg "Brace for water landing". - To be expected, after the impact the passengers were silent and motionless for a few moments. Should the Cabin crews instructions have included something like "after stopping, proceed to ......" - Those pax at the back rushed the back exit and succeeded in opening it. Would the FAA see that as reason enough to require a forth F/A? The one F/A back there sure seemed on her own during all of this. - Seeeing all the pax on the wing I'm puzzled why they didn't use the wing slide/rafts or panic and all rush/swim for the rafts at the front swamping them. -What the heck kept the plane floating for as long as it did? -And from a purely business point of view would it have killed any of them to verbally plug their company just once in the interview? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 -What the heck kept the plane floating for as long as it did? Isn't it all made of plastic ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 It might be earlier in this thread...really good link to popular mechanics explaining how the fuel kept the plane buoyant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGT Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I thought it was a really good interview but I too would have liked to hear the FOs story. ...very interesting to hear the FAs did not know it was going to be a water landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I agree if there was one thing that "Sully" should have done was ensure the back end knew they were going to be landing in the water. The FA that was at the back of the a/c had no idea and she says that a passenger tried to open the door. Sully said that he knew it would wind up tail low in the water, if the FA knew that and the passengers knew, maybe nobody would have opened the rear door. As it was - no harm no foul, but could have had catastrophic consequences. Something puzzles me a bit though, the FA Doreen said that the water was up to her neck and she was pushing passengers and telling them to climb over the seats etc. Yet later, after all the passengers were off Sully "walked" up and down the aisle twice to ensure everyone was off. From the FA's description it sounds more like he would have had to swim underwater to accomplish this task. Other than that it was very well presented I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I agree if there was one thing that "Sully" should have done was ensure the back end knew they were going to be landing in the water. Do you not think he was a little busy??? He was lucky in that he got "BRACE-BRACE" out. Sully said that he knew it would wind up tail low in the water, if the FA knew that and the passengers knew, maybe nobody would have opened the rear door. As it was - no harm no foul, but could have had catastrophic consequences How so...?..you can't open the door if there is water pressure against it. If it had been a land crash, maybe so...if the wing/engine was on fire but in this case that statement is pure speculation and not really an issue... Yet later, after all the passengers were off Sully "walked" up and down the aisle twice Depends on the interpertation of "aisle". Perhaps he could see every seat was vacant by walking down the "dry aisle" only....yes?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I thought it was a really good interview but I too would have liked to hear the FOs story. CBS was selling airtime so they needed to focus on a single face - the "hero". I imagine the the whole interview was more inclusive of the other crew but those parts ended up on the editing rm floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Do you not think he was a little busy??? He was lucky in that he got "BRACE-BRACE" out. He said "brace for impact" he could have got out "brace for water landing" How so...?..you can't open the door if there is water pressure against it. If it had been a land crash, maybe so...if the wing/engine was on fire but in this case that statement is pure speculation and not really an issue... Apparently this is not the case - the door was opened and water came pouring in. If the FA had not got the door partially closed water would have come in at a faster rate and perhaps changed the outcome. Perhaps the "ditch switch" should render the doors inoperative. Perhaps he could see every seat was vacant by walking down the "dry aisle" only....yes?? Perhaps - but what about the two year old that hid under the seat in the confusion or some such. If he was so sure everyone got out he would not have stated that he didn't get any relief until later when the official count was shown as 155. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Hey, why can't everyone lay off the guy? Nobody does anything perfectly. He didn't; a nearly 100% probability we wouldn't have either. Bottom line: a LOT of lessons have been learned by everybody. Is this not the true idea behind investigations, even if we only know a few of the answers up front? (I too would like to hear the FO's story, BTW... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Perfect, not the right word... He did a "great" job.... Hey everyone, start looking out the window... 15-20 degrees nose up, eyes inside, maybe flatten out rotation, and look outside. Start looking out the window..... Again, look out the window... Now lets hear the responses.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydee Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 He said "brace for impact" he could have got out "brace for water landing" Another topic lately is about Darwin Award Candidates. Mo32 gets my vote. 155 people are alive today to tell the story because of this mans talent and his concern is Sully didn't say something technically correct. Unreal ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Actually the Brace for water impact was my comment. In no way was that a criticism of Sully. He made the "BRACE FOR IMPACT" call as trained. My reason for the comment about the call was in wondering if anything could be learned from the fact that the Cabin crew were unaware they were ditching. I imagine the NTSB will ask themselves the same question. Were flt crews trained to make a distinction between land and water impact in making the brace call, cabin crew may have modified their commands to the passengers accordingly. Did you see how many of the wing walkers were wearing life jackets? In this case - fine, no harm done. But what if the plane hadn't floated as well. The wearing of life jackets would have an impact on the survivability of the ditching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Actually the Brace for water impact was my comment. In no way was that a criticism of Sully. He made the "BRACE FOR IMPACT" call as trained. My reason for the comment about the call was in wondering if anything could be learned from the fact that the Cabin crew were unaware they were ditching. I imagine the NTSB will ask themselves the same question. Were flt crews trained to make a distinction between land and water impact in making the brace call, cabin crew may have modified their commands to the passengers accordingly. Did you see how many of the wing walkers were wearing life jackets? In this case - fine, no harm done. But what if the plane hadn't floated as well. The wearing of life jackets would have an impact on the survivability of the ditching. so would there be time (during the 3 mins) for the FAs to get the passengers to don their life vests and then get them into a brace position? Not very likely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 so would there be time (during the 3 mins) for the FAs to get the passengers to don their life vests and then get them into a brace position? Not very likely! Even if that happened, you just know that most of the pax would inflate the life vests in the cabin... making it more difficult to evacuate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 so would there be time (during the 3 mins) for the FAs to get the passengers to don their life vests and then get them into a brace position? Not very likely! According to the crew it was only 90 seconds. How many times can you yell BRACE to the passengers in that time. At least mentioning vests would have tweaked quite a few more pax to remember the vests. I'm not finding fault with anybody here. There is none. Just looking at what happenned and wondering if that would work next time or could it be improved. The NTSB will ask the question and they'll also ask themselves how 1 flt attendant at the back can be expected to control 2 doors against a phalanx of panicked pax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 155 people are alive today to tell the story because of this mans talent and his concern is Sully didn't say something technically correct. Unreal ! See specs comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Another topic lately is about Darwin Award Candidates. Mo32 gets my vote. That certainly adds to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Hey, why can't everyone lay off the guy? Nobody does anything perfectly. He didn't; a nearly 100% probability we wouldn't have either. I am not criticizing the guy, all of us are just trying to dissect how this miraculous event occurred and see if there was anything that could be improved on with 20/20 hindsight. I am sure Sully rolls this around in his mind as well, and will use it as a teaching aid in the future. It was a terrific outcome to a horrendous situation and along with a tremendous skill set demonstrated by the crew, there was some luck involved as well. All I and others are trying to do is examine the situation and see if any lessons can be learned so that should it occur again some of those lessons could reduce the dependence on luck to promote a similar result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.