It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Airways Plane down in the Hudson river

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaulThey weren't even looking for the engines. They must have been doing something else.[edit on 18/1/09 by NuclearPaul]


Rescuing passengers and make sure that nobody was left in the water outside or inside the aircraft.

Counting engines doesn't have first priority immediately after a crash landing.

Well it turns out that one engine is indeed still on the wing.










posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I am completely amazed by the quick decision making that saved lives...watch the video to the right of the pic.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


Ivar, what IS your point....that one engine didn't shear off the wing?!?

AND this means, what, exactly???

Could you at least realize,and recogonize WHY the aft doors were not opened???

You see, in ALL ditching training scenarios it is assumed that the aft portion of the airplane will tend to sit low in the water....hence, one does NOT open the doors there.

Flight Attendants, no matter the Airline they work for, are trained to 'assess conditions' at every exit....if an exit is 'blocked' because it it not a viable exit, then the Flight Attendants direct people to a viable exit.

As pilots, we are trained similarly....but, as was seen, the Captain is responsible for ascertainig that everyone is off the airplane, before He/She leaves. Not all scenarios allow that, say if a fire were over-taking the airplane.

But, as a pilot, we can understand that the airplane won't sink immediately, and that most people can, or at least should, no how to swim...of course, very cold water means only minutes of survivability, but of course there were plenty of vessels, the ferry boats to assist inb the rescue operations....



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yetichi
couldn't a submarine go under the plane and keep it from sinking? i'm watching this live on tv and was just wondering.


Well, mabye, but then again this is reality, so no.Are you under the impression that there is a whole bunch of submarines just hanging around the the Hudson river just waiting to prop up planes?


I mean, seriously, a submarine?


I mean wow, just, really?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I've got about ten submarines...yeah, that's it....I'll sell 'em to ya!!

Wish I had the franchise for fishing out airplanes with our crane, THAT day!

Man!! Woulda made a bundle of dough...of course, it would have been water-soaked....but it can always dry out!!!!

Hey!!! Got lots of suitcases, slight water damage....EVERYTHING has to go, selling out the entire warehouse!!!!

(classified ad)....slightly used Airbus 320. Immaculate, low miles, some water damage. Upholstery is pristine (front seats).



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


Ivar, what IS your point....that one engine didn't shear off the wing?!?

AND this means, what, exactly???


As my post was a replay to NuclearPaul about the divers i'm just stating the fact that one engine is still on the wing.

On Boeing aircrafts that i'm familiar with one would expect that the engines left the wings during a water landing due to the design with fuse pins.
It seems like the wing structure above the remaining engine is bended downward, so the stress on the engine during impact must have been extreme.




You see, in ALL ditching training scenarios it is assumed that the aft portion of the airplane will tend to sit low in the water....hence, one does NOT open the doors there.


That's our procedures as well in case of a water landing.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


You're right....or better let me say, you are CORRECT when you say that thew fuse pins will allow the nacelles to shear off....even thought that'sNOT what you said, but I think yiou implied.

(Did I mention that I ordered a new keyboard???)

For the entertainment of t he non-airline-related audience, engines are supposed to 'shear off' of their mountings, since they represent quiteafirehazardin traditonal airplane accident scenarios....of course, ditching in a river tends to PRECLUDE the fire danger, one would think.

Well, there HAS to be a balance between the 'shear-strength' of the "fuse-pins" and THE NEED TO KEEP THE ENGINE in place.....does't there.

Regardless, even IF the engine shears off....yes, we got rid of that hot piece....the fuel lines are still broken open.....and, YES it is difficult to ignite kerosene, but don't tell HollyWood (or Bruce Willis....)



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


(classified ad)....slightly used Airbus 320. Immaculate, low miles, some water damage. Upholstery is pristine (front seats).



Just curious, do you think an airplane like this one, can be repair and put into service again or will it be declared "total scrap"?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swatman

Originally posted by Yetichi
couldn't a submarine go under the plane and keep it from sinking? i'm watching this live on tv and was just wondering.


this is the most ridiculous thing ive literally ever read.



Whooa there nellie!

While that certainly does qualify as "ridiculous", I think you might want to keep that "most" throphy in your pocket.

We are on ATS after all and I would bet you a dollar that I could find an even more ridiculous one on this very site, without even breaking a sweat. As a matter of fact, there are one or two that would give this guys a run for the money right here in this thread.



Ahem.. directly above mine perhaps is a good place to start?

[edit on 19-1-2009 by gormly]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
www.flightglobal.com...


Initial flight-recorder information from the US Airways Airbus A320 which crashed into New York's Hudson River shows that both engines lost power simultaneously, and that the aircraft reached a maximum altitude of 3,200ft.


and


But around 90 seconds after take-off, says the NTSB spokeswoman, the CVR records the captain remarking about birds and, one second later, there is a "sound of thumps" and the engine noise starts "rapidly decreasing". At this point the captain acknowledged that both engines had lost thrust and took control of the aircraft.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Amazing the guy could find room to land on that part of the Hudson. It's busy.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 

"Update" People are coming forward stating. They were on the same flight, same #, Same route. They heard a series of loud bangs, 20 minutes ofter takeoff. The pilot comes on the air says prepare for crash landing, didn't happen. They flew on to Charlotte. Noone heard about that one. I think it was planned. They wantted to test this type of landing, just in case. I read this on Windows Live today. 1/19/09.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 
Hasn't been an airline fatality in two years.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I know this is beating a dead horse (or beautifully landed plane) but an interesting tidbit has turned up. It seems this very same plane that had the double bird strike had a malfunction a few days before. Same plane, same flight, different pilot. A compressor to the engine stalled setting off emergency lights but was restarted and the flight was able to continue.

www.cnn.com...
apnews.myway.com...

What are the chances?

What if it wasn't a double bird strike but some other kind of sabotage, and the earlier incident was practice run?

I still want to hear from passengers who saw the birds.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by earlywatcher
 


OK, earlywatcher, interesting finds.

IF it can be ascertained that was, indeed, the same airplane (and the NTSB will determine the validity of that claim) then it will be shown to be VERY, VERY poor judgement on behalf of the OTHER pilots to continue the flight after a compressor stall.

The NTSB will investigate, as will the FAA, to see if THOSE earlier pilots noted the incident in the Airplane's LogBook. ( The Cockpit Voice Recorder --- CVR --- only records about 30 minutes, and run continuously as long as there is power on the electrical busses). The Flight Data Recorder --- FDR --- (or more correctly, 'Digital' FDR) can record for up to a few week's data.

As a side comment, in modern High-Bypass jet engines, what is known as a 'compressor stall', as it refers to the older Turbo-Jets, is far, far more serious. I find it unlikely the published 'reports', which seem to be based on amateurish 'witnesses' accounts, are very accurate.

WHY is this? Because, in the High-Bypass modern engines the majority of the thrust is developed by that big fan you see in the front...consider it a 'ducted-fan' of sorts. Or, think of it as a big propellor. Anyway, in a two-stage High-Bypass engine design that big fan (the 'N1' fan) is connected via a concentric shaft to the 'turbine', or 'hot' section, deeper in the engine. The center front of the engine includes compressor blades to do the job of taking in air and increasing the pressure, through the various 'stages', whereby the compressed air can be introduced into the plenum, or the 'burner', so that fuel and ignition can be introduced to produce the hot expanding gases that then are vented through the turbine, or 'hot' section to provide the power to drive that big Fan, and produce the thrust.

The concept is simple: Suck, Squeeze, Burn, Blow.

IN FACT, except for the rotary nature of a jet engine, it isn't much different from how a car engine works. In a car, pistons in cylinders compress the air, fuel is injected, it is sparked, and energy is expended.

A piston engine needs to translate that explosive energy, which is accomplished via cams and levers to turn a shaft....the 'crankshaft' which in turn is connected, via the transmission to the drive-shaft of your car....etc, etc, etc. VERY inefficient!

So, really, internal combustion engines all work on the same principle, they just have different ways of conveying the energy output.

Finally, I hope this helped explain a few things....as to some 'conspiracy'??? Nah!!! No 'trial run' or any such baloney.

How do I know these things? I assure you, not from 'Google' -- but from experience. When I flew turbojets (on a B-727- a 'compressor stall' was barely a concern, more like a hiccup, a combination of insufficient airflow during the early stages of a take-off, usually in a crosswind).

In High-Bypass Fan engines, it is far more serious....and usually results in some sort of engine damage, which by definition requires a divert to an alternate landing site, not a "Re-Start" and continue to original destination. That's just crazy to assume that any pilot would do that!!!

I have personal experience....on A DC-10, from Paris to New York one morning...at about 22,000 feet we heard a bang, and saw the number three engine instruments showing a failure. Since we had just left Paris, and still had two good engines, and were currently over England....hmmmm....what would YOU do?

OF COURSE we diverted to London, since we knew we had Company maintenance (not contracted) there. There was NO WAY we could even consider continuing the flight across the Atlantic, even though we still had two 'good' engines!!! BTW, the DC-10 had High-Bypass fan engines.

OK, long story short, the engine that 'blew' had JUST been overhauled, and only had about 130 hours on it....yet, a blade in the 'hot' section appparently had a flaw that was missed, that developed into a crack, and once it let go it took out everything behind it, right out of the tailpipe.

Without the ability of the turbine section to properly transmit thrust to the big ole' fan, and with the imbalances that resulted, the engine shut down. We're lucky it did, and that it didn't shake itself off of the wing....but, of course, these things happen real fast, so not much danger of that happening.

(BTW, the engine was overhauled by a 'contractor', not by the airline I worked for....so, big shout out to those who hope to limit 'outsourcing' of maintenance procedures...)



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


On the CFM56-7 when it's mounted on a Boeing wing we're allowed to continue to destination as long as it recovers from the stall after it's throttled back to idle and thrust is added again.
The philosophy seems to be that as long as all engine parameters are normal there's most likely no engine damage present.

On other types that i have flown the procedure is land asap on a suitable field for inspection.

I think i heard somwhere that this bus had the CFM-engines, the other option is IAE V2500.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


Ivar, thanks for that revelation!

I will admit I know little about the A-320, nor have I investigated the engine on the accident airplane/airframe.

You mentioned the CFM on a Boeing wing....sounds like you're describing a version mounted on a B-737?

Well, as WE were taught, a 'compressor stall' is serious, but to properly assess serious engine damage, we look at the N2. (I will, for now, ignore EGT....although that will factor in to the assessment)....

IF the N2 is 'zero', then we assum catastrophic damage, and a re-start is obviously impossible. Our QRH takes us through these steps of logic...but, as you know, one MUST follow the procedures (at least, in the simulator) in order to pass the ride.

Common sense tells us that a seized N2 shaft means no re-start is possible, so in an emergency and a real-life jeopardy situation the check-list could be 'damned', and we can jump to something else without going through all of the 'hoops' the simulator instructors and the syllabus tells us to do....WHICH IS what the USAir Captain did!!

OK....here we are, APU has been shut down shortly after engine start, in order to save fuel. Taxi out, both engines fine, line up and take-off....and encounter a flock of geese. A LOT of geese, bad enough that engines are damaged, and a dual power-loss ensues.

Well, guess what? N2 dropping below normal, on both engines....the generators trip off....NOW we're on Standby Power (It's a Boeing phrase, but should translate to Airbuses)....this means that we're now basically on the Batteries. IF you have time to start the APU, you can supply the main AC and DC busses....that would have been one of my first thoughts.

(on Standby Power, one radio works, the Captains basic instruments work, and the PA works....so the Captain could make the PA 'brace for impact' which clued the Flight Attendants to prepare best they could, even though they had no luxury of a thorough pre-briefing....they still did their jobs well)

IF the APU was started and online....the F/O was still very busy with the 'ditching' checklist, which is usually quite long and assumes you are far higher than 3200 feet when you begin reading and responding.....

From 3200 feet you glide forward about one to one-and-a-half miles, max....at 150 knots, (you can do the math). During a turn, as when lining up on the River, more altitude can be lost, so the direct-line solution is not mathematical, it not depends on the skills of the pilot, and his judgement and three-dimensional thinking.

His 'Brace For Impact' PA.....just the shortest possible clue he good give, since there was no time to brief the Flight Attendants....but, they knew their training, and knew what it meant....it is usually briefed, but in this emergency, it basically meant....'30 seconds to impact'.

Judging between 30-to 60 seconds, not easy....but 30 seconds is considered the minimum warning for the 'brace' command.

'Sully' basically 'dead-sticked' that airplane....when most ditching scenarios we've ever trained for assume at least SOME engine thrust....

SO, this was an absolutley, from any pilot's standpoint, a fantastic job.

Humility is a characteristic of good pilots....so, keep that in mind, please.

(edit....typos)

[edit on 1/21/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Since both engines were lost the first thing (and on auto) would have been the RAT dropping into the airflow

www.designnews.com...

^^ A380 RAT but in principle the same thing

then , if they have time now they have AC/DC power the APU could attempt to be started - although i think they were more concerned with finding somewhere , urgently, for the 60 ton glider to land.

btw when he `sent the balloon up` and went mayday , why was he told where to land? i allways thought that everything goes to hold and the mayday flight gets to go anywhere they darn well want?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Harlequin....does EVERY A-320 have a RAT?

Well....I only know from my experience.....UNLESS the term ETOPS is painted on the fuselage, or on the nose-gear door....then that airplane is NOT ETOPS certified.

For the general audience....ETOPS is an acronym for 'Extended Over-Water Operations'....and it refers to certain airplanes that are certified, according to FAA and ICAO standards, for extended over-water operations....when they are only a two-engined airplane.

Generally, for Part 121 it means than what the two-engined airplane could glide to, is usually defined as 50 miles, from the shore. Of course, when certain 'Operators', which include most Major Airlines, except (America West....but, if they are Operating under the FAA Certificate of USAir, then it's different)...when America West was 'operating' under the FAA Certificate of that time, the COULD NOT fly beyond 50 miles of the shore, unless the actual airplanes included certain FAA-required equipment, which included extra rafts and personal lifevests.....these are things that OTHER MAJOR Airlines Always provided.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
All A320's have a RAT. In my reading a RAT has nothing to do with ETOPS? The A320 needs a RAT because it needs hydraulics to fly. EMER Generator can be run off the presurised hydraulic system.

737, for example, doesn't need RAT as it has manual reversion. 747 doesn't need one as even a single engine windmilling provides enough hydraulic pressure; not enough for a generator though, batteries can do that.

[edit on 21/1/2009 by C0bzz]




top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join