Some new footage too link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1488655367/...1
As it's not motoring related, something will probably happen to this thread before too long (will let DD decide exactly what!)
Edited by smokie on 05/02/2009 at 19:51
|
"Cool and factual" is almost an understatement.
An amazing individual, just as is the case with the pilot who, just over a year ago you will recall, managed to land a Boeing 777 on a flight from China just inside the perimeter fence at Heathrow after the power dropped dramatically.
Again, all 152 passengers and crew, just three less than in the Airbus 320, survived.
The AAIB's initial report stated: "Aircraft damaged beyond economic repair." Of course, Boeing's build quality is widely renowned...:-)
|
|
These examples just go to show how valuable flight simulators are to these pilots. They probably practice this sort of thing quite a bit but hope they never need it in real life.
|
|
Man of the year, without a doubt - a true hero.
|
|
|
>>They probably practice this sort of thing quite a bit but hope they never need it in real life.
Engine-out landings, yes - ditchings, no. The really impressive thing here was that there were only three and a half minutes between almost total loss of thrust and landing in the Hudson. During that time, the Captain flew the plane and handled the radio, considered and rejected successively a return to LGA and a landing at Teterboro, and 'landed' the plane.
The BA crew who landed the BA038 (777) at Heathrow did a good job - a great job, everybody got out - but that crew didn't have a choice other than to go for the runway - no disrespect to them.
Less reported was the comparable performance of the Ryanair crew at Rome Ciampino airport in November who first had multiple bird ingestion and loss of thrust on one engine on final approach, made a go around decision, then had a further multiple birdstrike on the second engine. The Captain made a split second decision to 'crash' the 737 onto the runway. Had they continued the go around for even a couple of seconds longer there would probably have been a major disaster. Broke the 'plane, but everybody got out.
I agree that we can take a lesson from the conduct of these disciplined individuals into our everyday motoring - puts all those inconsiderate CLOGs into perspective really.
|
As someone who's approaching the end of an airline pilot training course, I'm pretty sure I'd react calmly in this situation. Whether or not I'd make the right decisions, however, is something I can't answer. Wouldn't feel worthy to carry this guy's flight bag.
In testament to Boeing's build quality, an Easyjet 737 was accidentally taken past Vmo (maximum operating speed) by over 100 kts. Not sure whether it was the first passenger jet to go supersonic since Concorde, but must have been close. Might work it out later on. :-)
|
|
|
|
The New York, Heathrow, and Ciampino incidents are examples of superb airmanship. I believe that many more, of a more minor nature occur that do not come to the attention of the public, or even passengers involved. After "get it down in one piece", "dont upset the punters" takes priority. Several pilots have told me this, both RAF and a retired airline captain who is a personal friend. I recently was on a flight which was delayed for an hour for "technical reasons" on arrival at the airlines home base the aircraft was taxied to the engineering hanger, and we were bussed to the gate. Was it flown with a defect, who knows? Not the passengers thats for sure.
|
|
I take it there is nothing to stop the ingestion of birds into engines due to the sheer force they would be getting sucked in by?
|
|
I think the BBC reported that the pilot actually ran training courses on ditching - must be getting a lot more business now :-)
|
I think the BBC reported that the pilot actually ran training courses on ditching
...although I can't find anything now to back that up.
|
Note that Captain Sullenberger himself seems rather embarrassed by all the fuss and has sought to emphasize the work of the whole crew, good training, experience and professionalism over individual heroics. All three cabin crew were over 50 and had 20+ years of experience - and one of them, despite bleeding from an injured leg, had to forcibly stop a passenger from opening a rear exit, which would have flooded the plane.
Much to be said in any context - including driving - for knowing the basics thoroughly and so being able to stay calm enough to cope when the unexpected happens.
|
It's worth bearing in mind that all airline pilots have six-monthly simulator checks when they do nothing but practice emergencies - and the culture is one of constantly looking ahead and thinking "what if the... fails now..?"
The Hudson Captain is a consultant in safety management in addition to his day job, so he really was the right choice for the day!
I've just had a quick count of my first page of RN rotary training - over 25% of the first 30 hours I did were spent on learning to deal with emergencies such as limited power and engine failure/autorotations, and that was in the first six weeks.
|
There is a clip on youtube somewhere of a Thomsonfly 757 ingesting a bird on take off from Manchester. Recorded by an aircraft enthusiast with the atc conversation on the soundtrack. Same calm and utter professionalism as mentioned above.
Actually the record for safe landing after loosing all engines is surprisingly good. As well as the three recentish incidents quoted above there was a BA 747 that ingested volcanic ash over indonesia and Canadian 767 and Airbus incidents over the Great Lakes and Azores respectively. The latter two both involved fuel planning. Stanley Stewart's account of the 767 story in his book Emergency shows how, bit by bit a series of misunderstandings and errors painted the crew into a corner.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 06/02/2009 at 11:50
|
Google 'Gimli Glider' for the Canadian 767 incident in 1983. Ran out of fuel at 40,000 feet altitude. The Captain was halied as a hero but also disciplined for not checking the fuel load properly - basically confusing litres and gallons, almost unbelievable. Good story though, and highly relevant to motoring!
The volcanic ash incident 747 in, IIRC, 1982 was commanded by Captain Eric Moody who has been seen giving 'expert' analysis on Sky of the Hudson incident. It did actually have 3 engines working when it landed, though they initially lost all four and only got them relit after many attempts. At the time they had no idea of the cause, which must have been terrifying.
|
One thing that has been brushed aside (understandably, of course) is that these aircraft are fitted with a ditch "button" which is supposed to be activated for landing in water, but the pilots either forgot or didn't get around to it. It closes everything underneath the aircarft to make it more seaworthy.
|
>>these aircraft are fitted with a ditch "button" ... the pilots either forgot or didn't get around to it.
Pure speculation from me, but the latter I should think. The elapsed time from birdstrike to ditch was three and a half minutes - from the point at which they accepted their inability to reach an airport, probably less than half that.
Captain Sullenberger was flying the plane and handling the radios, First Officer Skiles will have spent a good part of the time trying to restart an engine.
The ditching checklist is probably very useful if the the loss of thrust is at cruising altitude and there is half an hour's gliding time. From 3,200 ft it's doubtful if they even got the ditching checklist out, somewhere near the end of which would be the ditch button.
I doubt that the flight crew would have been criticised for this even if the outcome hadn't been so good - but I'm not a professional so I could of course be quite wrong.
Just glad it wasn't me - sometimes it takes me three and a half minutes to set the TV recorder ;-)
Super-cool performance as has been said - the instinct to go for a runway, which if it they hadn't made it would have meant disaster, must have been almost irresistible - but Sullenberger dealt with that decision in seconds.
|
>>The ditching checklist is probably very useful .
>>
Having read at length an aviation forum ( now 1500 replies ) there does not appear to be a ditching checklist for this sort of situation but the aviation world is re visiting this aspect of a ditching just after departure from such an airport.
The Hudson was quiet as it was off season for tourist boats, another plus.
Quite a few have said it was in effect a "normal dead stick" ( no engine power) landing on a big wide runway but a slight lack of visual aids like a centre line especially trying to keep the nose up.
I was certainy impressed with the apparently calm actions of all the crew.
As they say in the trade "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate." in that order.
Can that be translated for use on the road?
Control it, aim it, involve SWMBO ?
Some have said thart the boat captains were the big heros as they were acting way outside their role, especially the 19 year old skipper of the second ferry on scene.
>>The Hudson Captain is a consultant in safety management.
safetyreliability.com/about_us
Still lots to learn from the events - for all who fly.
|
>>Having read at length an aviation forum ( now 1500 replies ) there does not appear to be a ditching checklist for this sort of situation
Certainly not for this sort of situation - interesting post from the forum you are probably referring to here - it would take longer just to read the list, than the time they had to actually do it -
tinyurl.com/dcjjps
|
The Captain was halied as a hero but also disciplined for not checking the fuel load properly - basically confusing litres and gallons almost >>unbelievable.
More complex than that, at least according to Stanley Stewart's account.
The 767 had one defective fuel gauge, but the captain misunderstood a colleague and believed both to be u/s . While the machine was between flights a technician inadvertently tripped the second gauge. Because the captain expected this he did not investigate and re-set the circuit breaker for the working gauge. The flight could be safely undertaken by starting with a known load and montoring the flow of fuel to the engines. The minimum equipment list for the 767 required at least one working gauge, but as the type was new in Air Canada service there were mutiple amends to the MEL and it was misread as permitting departure.
Fuel is supplied by volume, in this case litres, but converted to weight for load/balance purposes. The fueller knew the a/c required approx 22 tonnes, but used the wrong conversion factor and loaded the litre equivalent of 22,000 lb. The captain checked the arithmetic but took the conversion as read and the error was repeated when the tanks were dipped to check the load. The flight was Montreal to Edmonton via Ottawa. Prior to deperting Ottawa the tanks were re-dipped and, in the brush stroke that finally painted them into the corner, the wrong conversion was used again.
A particularly clear example of how several mistakes, not all directly connected, conspired to leave a large aircraft powerless over the Great Lakes.
|
>>More complex than that
Yes indeed - there were other 'holes in the cheese' as the aviators say, and they all had to line up - there was no connection between the gauge problem and the conversion error, but the combination caused the result. I still found the conversion error (and the ineffective checking of the calculation, a further cheese-hole) surprising though.
|
Ive found the vid... not on youtube but here - preview.tinyurl.com/2tspbr
very cool calm and collected!
|
|
I take it there is nothing to stop the ingestion of birds into engines due to the sheer force they would be getting sucked in by?
Think 500mph, plus the suck factor. The wire mesh or whatever would just be joining the birds in the engine!
|
I know nothing about flying , but common sense tells me that a wire mesh would only be needed on take off , and speeds there are nowhere near 500 mph , for these reasons ;
At cruising , you are well above flocks of birds - these tend to be close to ground at 2-3000 feet appx
On arrival , you have radar and some sight to warn you of bird flocks ( not one random creature , that would be terribly unlucky ), and also the birds can see / hear / feel you approaching . Also , you are already coming down with a lighter aircraft that's used its fuel and have a much better chance of gliding.
At take off , you suddenly appear in the sky , are often turning sharply and climbing - the birds find you suddenly amongst them and may ' panic '
So if one was to devise a kind of mesh , it could be jettisoned after take off - but what happens to it then is another question... or maybe it could retract into the aircraft body like a vacuum cleaner power cable ? I must say that as far as I'm concerned , this ( bird strike ) is the fly in the ointment of a new airport in the Thames Gateway.
|
>>common sense tells me that a wire mesh would only be needed on take off , and speeds there are nowhere near 500 mph
Good point about the speed. Not sure that 200-250mph wouldn't be a problem though, having hit a small fox at 40mph and trashed the air conditioning on a Ford Galaxy.
Geese have been seen at 30,000 feet, but I'm sure the numbers are near the ground and the airport as you say. Flight 1549's climb out from Laguardia was right over a bird sanctuary!
Air-to-air missiles?
The Ryanair at Ciampino hit a flock of starlings about 200m above the ground. Not much you can do about that. The Rome starlings are famous - and make a terrible mess on your car!
tinyurl.com/dxwd5l
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
