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: 12
11
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Geraldo Rivera was just on The O'Reilly Factor and he claims he has proof that the engines on the plane were declared defective two days prior to the crash. Geraldo says there's a lot more to this story and that he's going to keep investigating.

Hmm, I remember I thought it was so strange that the media made so much of a fuss about this plane crash when I thought the fact that Israel was attacking a UN building in Gaza with phosphorous bombs should have been getting the attention of the MSM. Was I correct, was the MSM protecting Israel?




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
The same Geraldo Rivera that claimed to have found Al Capone's vault and all his treasure and found an empty room? The same Geraldo Rivera that blows everything out of proportion and hypes everything so much more than it needs? THERE'S a great source.

There is absolutely no evidence that there were problems before this flight with both engines. ONE engine had a compressor stall a couple days before the crash. That does not mean that the engine was defective. It means that the engine suffered a problem. A compressor stall doesn't mean that the engine failed because of that. I've seen engines go through compressor stalls, and then fly normally for months after and never have another problem.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
^^ 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


The left engine was running at 35% at impact. That was enough to provide power to hydraulic and electrical systems. The right engine was at 15%, and the RAT was deployed.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Actually, bzz, that REALLY happened, more than two decades ago, as I recall. I think it was Delta, they had their first B-767, it was on departure from LAX....don't have a clue what they were thinking, but for some reason selected both Fuel Control switches to Cut-Off. They actually briefed the F/As on the PA for the impending ditch before they realized their mistake. Made some news, since they just continued on their merry way, were found out later.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:38 AM
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.


Well, there is one other thing that I know of that can do it, almost simultaneously, namely some sort of ground up rock, commonly called volcanic ash. That does it quite nicely too, but who would be stupid enough to fly into ash cloud during the day? Edit: Quite unlikely in New York.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Actually, bzz, that REALLY happened, more than two decades ago, as I recall. I think it was Delta, they had their first B-767, it was on departure from LAX....don't have a clue what they were thinking, but for some reason selected both Fuel Control switches to Cut-Off.


I seem to recall that the Kegworth crash was caused by the pilots turning off the wrong engine when the other malfunctioned. Not exactly the same, but still, quite bad.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by apex]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


apex, if you're referring to a British Midlands accident some years ago, I seem to remember a case where the aft-facing Flight Attendants reported the fire on the side RELATIVE to the direction they were facing, and it caused some confusion (although I would think the pilots would be able to tell by looking at the engine instruments, but...)

Anyway, the terms 'ship-left' and 'ship-right' were confused, it seems. I think it led to the pilots ordering an evacuation on the WRONG side, after an aborted take-off, and some people were sent into the fire.

(Remember, we can't see much behind us...)

Of course, the F/As are supposed to be trained to assess conditions BEFORE opening doors....but, in emergencies, it can be chaotic at times.

It is important to note, though, how well the Inflight crew of USAir 1549 did....they knew they were in the water, and KNEW not to open the aft doors. Of course all doors have slide-rafts, but since the airplane will tend to float tail-low, only the two front doors and the over-wing exits are opened.

Most narrow-body airplanes the size of the A-320, or B-737 and equivalent have the over-wing exits, of course. Only in larger Wide-Body airplanes to you have a slide associated with the over-wing doors. (Theory is, on smaller airplanes, we leave the flaps down, so you can slide off the wing that way). This assumes you're on land, and want to get away....in USAir's case, the wings were great flotation devices, until rescue arrived.

On Wide-Body jets, the over-wing slides will detach and serve as additional rafts.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Leto
 


Geraldo Rivera is a bloody muckraker, times ten!

By focusing on something he doesn't understand in the first place, and hoping that he will get 'press' while he flaps his lips, before someone FINALLY shows him to be a complete ass, he hopes to get ratings to 'potentially' assist him in his next contract negotiation.

It it THAT simple!

Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly....and now Rivera....it's all about 'ratings' and getting the best money out of your next 'contract'!!!

It is NOT about, anymore, 'journalistic integrety'.....it is just about money, plain and simple.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Hey, did any of you see that full page ad in USA Today (of 7/22 yesterday) where it is explained how flight crews are being pressured to fly broken planes, by US Airways, and that pilots are resigning rather than fly broken planes over the water?

Anyway, the suggestion is that these corporations will place people at risk with faulty planes and will silence the flight crews. It was a full page explanation of how they are pressuring flight crews to fly unsafe planes. Figured I'd post it here.




top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join