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: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


C0bzz....I have flown the B-757 and B-767.....and, well, if you wish your B-757 to be ETOPS certified, is has to have a RAT.

Of course, all of our B-767 have a RAT....but not ALL B-757 that Boeing put out were desigined for ETOPS....THAT is why my Airline bought a few 757-300s, they were 'white-tails'.....hope you know what THAT means.

(For others....even though they cost millions of dollars, compared to what an airplane would normally cost, they were a bargain....they were 'white tails'....from Boeing --- B757-300s WITHOUT the extras that made them qualifieds for extended over-water OPS....they were cheap stripped-down B-757-300's sold to Continental Airlines. OK, they are good airlplanes, but used mostly from NYC to Florida....new, but not able to go OverSeas...so think about it....VERY MODERN jets used Domestically....too bad they didn't advertise this concept!!!!

EDIT....I also have a lot of experience on the B-727, and the B-737-500, and B-737-600 and the B-737-700 and the B-737-800 and the B-737-900

PLUS, the B-757-200 and B-727-300....and the B-767-200 and tre B-767-400

And, as mentioned....the Airbus A-300, and the McDonnel-Douglas DC-10.

OK....my verifieds....yours I have noted already.

[edit on 1/21/0909 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
^^ being the A320 is FBW it doesn`t have manual reversion, so needs the electric system to fly and the moment the engines stop the hydrolics stop - hence why they all have a RAT

in fact , all new airliners from 1990 onwards have RATS since they`re all FBW now.

as cobzz said , the 737 doesn`t have one , most 757`s don`t have one and the 747 doesn`t need one



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


I know what you're saying, about FBW....but, there HAS to be way to keep control, even if there is no traditional hydraulics....or, actually, IS THERE in the Airbus?

You mentioned how Boeings, in the old days, used conversion....man, I've lost that term, but essentially, the Boeings were 'hooked up' by cables....Manual Reversion! is how we were taught.....BECAUSE we had cables to the ailerons.....and to the elevators, even IF we could not trim the Stabilizer.

Well, Harlequin, after the old days, we still needed cables....as in the B737....but later, it got more complicated....and we could still stay in control, since there was more automation, especially when it came to the electrical systems....

Back in the old days, the Flight Engineer had to 'de-power' the busses, such as hitting the 'Galley' switch, etc....well, now, it's all automatic.

When there is an engine loss, there is an automatic load-shedding.....it's all built into the QRH....or what you'd call a 'checklist'....



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Welcome to the Airbus! Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

Nope - you need hydraulics to fly the A320. Hydraulics can be run off the engines, or RAT (And maybe APU, I don't know, I don't like Airbus).

Electrics are powered by both engines, APU, or a Hydraulic Generator which is pressurised by the above, including the RAT.

The only manual reversion that I know of is the rudder.

All new planes are like this, or very simiilar.

[edit on 21/1/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
weed

to be blunt

no there isn`t

on the 767 onwards and A320 onwards , theres no cables at all, its all hydraulics with computer control run by electrics

anyway - i do remember a tale of a 737 being brought in on manual - hot damn a real handful to keep that baby straight and true with the strength of your arms.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


System in the MD-80 is so much cooler. Aircraft is flown with trim tabs. Elevator and maybe rudder (???) are hydraulic with tab reversion. H - STAB needs hydraulics in case of deep stall where the tabs won't work.





[edit on 21/1/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequinon the 767 onwards and A320 onwards , theres no cables at all, its all hydraulics with computer control run by electrics


The B767 is not fbw, it has the same hydromechanical flightcontrols as the B757.

Since most pilots don't have the musclepower to move the control surfaces on manual reversion it has a rat for stby hydraulics.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


Thank you on that correction



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
i wonder if there was anyone on the plane George bush and co needed silenced before obama took over?.. was the pilot to good and didnt crash and burn....



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The second engine has been found.

NEW YORK — Divers searching for the engine that broke off the US Airways plane that safely splashed down in the Hudson River last week found it Wednesday in hard mud about 23 metres below the surface of the murky, frigid water.

from this link



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Is there anything besides a double bird strike that would cause both engines to fail simultaneously?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by earlywatcher
Is there anything besides a double bird strike that would cause both engines to fail simultaneously?


With underslung engines, not much.
However on the MD80 we had some cases of clear ice from the wings entering the engines causing dual engine failure.
Most famous case would be the accident with OY-KHO (Dana Viking) a MD81.
en.wikipedia.org...

Put a lot of pressure on the guys in the management, because we never received any training concerning the ATR (automatic thrust restorsion) on the md80'S.
This accident brought 2 important changes: One, get a latter and climb upon the wing and confirm there's no ice present.
Two, install isolation blankets between the fuel tanks and the outer skin of the wings.

(got a bit off topic here, mod's can delete)



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


So the reason for concluding it's a double bird strike before the investigation has done its work is that there is no other possible reason. Again, I'm not knowledgeable in this area, just hypothesizing, but I expect that being out of fuel would cause both engines to fail except maybe not simultaneously (and we know they had plenty of fuel) but could some kind of fuel line problem do it?

Before all you pilots say, GEEZ, IT WAS A BIRD STRIKE, let it go! I know there is a 95% chance it was a bird strike but the fact that it was both engines failed simultaneously, that no passengers have yet reported seeing birds, that there was a "compressor" engine failure (noted in the log) in this same plane on the same flight two days earlier, that it was two days before the transition of presidential power, that without that miraculous landing a bird strike would have been a hard sell to explain a commercial plane crash in the middle of New York City gives me that 5% of doubt. I'm just curious about other possibilities for why a plane would suddenly go dead in the air. After all, no one could have guessed that it was O-rings that caused that very first space shuttle explosion or the British Air crash a number of years ago off Newfoundland would occur because of the entertainment systems in the seats (at least that's the story I heard).

Can anybody think of any little tiny unlikely thing that could have gone wrong on that plane so soon after takeoff that would cause the engines to simultaneously shut down (besides birds)?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by earlywatcher
 


The passengers wouldn't have seen birds because they would have scattered when the plane went through the flock. The fact that the pilots mentioned birds, the radar controllers mentioned birds, and the CVR caught a double thump immediately before power loss, all says bird strike. A compressor stall in one engine wouldn't have caused the left engine to lose power.

Airlines have been known to keep flying planes after compressor stalls, and fly them safely. In the military a compressor stall is an immediate engine change, no matter how minor it is. Most airlines will perform a borescope, and if no damage is seen on the scope keep flying the plane.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


NO, Harlequin. The B757 and B767 are NOT flt-by-wire. I would think I know this, since I have a type-rating on those airplanes. As well as a type-rating for the B-737 and the DC-9/MD-80 series.

Cables from the control wheel to hydraulic actuators....that is NOT the same as what Airbus has built.

It's true, though, that most modern airplanes are heavily dependant on electricity....and, BTW, not EVERY B757 or B767 has a RAT. The RAT is required only for an ETOPS-capable airplane. I am of course speaking about the Boeings....I only flew the old A-300, not familiar with the newer Airbuses.

But, based on my experience, I would say that...given that the current Airbuses are completely depentant on BOTH electrics and hydraulics for flight controls, then in the case of a dual engine failure (on the A320) and loss of normal electrics and hydraulics, then there HAS to be an ability to maintain flight controls....which means either a RAT, or an HDG, or a combination of both....because the Battery bus is designed only for about 30-minutes of essential power, to the Captain's basic instruments, and through an inverter, can provide AC power.

The RAT, or 'Ram Air Turbine', as installed on ETOPS-equipped B-757 and B-767 will automatically deploy when, while in 'air-mode', the system senses a loss of N1 in both engines.

The RAT, on a Boeing, supplies electricity to the Main Bus #1, which provides full power to the Captain's side of the airplane.

This ALSO provides electrical power to certain hydraulic pumps, as well as fuel pumps, but more importantly the hydraulic pumps keep the system pressurized so the flight controls work.

I'm sure that the Airbus is similar, even if the specific designs are different.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by earlywatcher
Is there anything besides a double bird strike that would cause both engines to fail simultaneously?


Cutting the fuel to both engines at the same time.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by earlywatcher
Is there anything besides a double bird strike that would cause both engines to fail simultaneously?


Cutting the fuel to both engines at the same time.


Or pulling both firehandles at the same time. Of course no sane pilot would have done that, but it is possible.
Of course in this scenario you wouldn't have the splashing sounds of birds hitting the fuselage on the CVR, also the QAR's and the DFDR's would have given you away in no time.
No conspiracy here, please move on.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I've learned a lot from you all. Thanks for your patience! I finally am ready to move along.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
The reason for the crash can finally be revealed, and it is quite shocking:





It appears that the terrorists will try anything and will quite likely never give up.



[edit on 1/22/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


im not a boeing man myself
and didn`t actually realise that the 767 was built at nearly the same time as the 757 and share alot of the same equipment.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join