Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by FlyingTiger, Mar 24, 2015.
But not made by haynes
God, that explains so much.
Lufthansa knew about depression back in 09.
His comment to his gf that he was going to do something that would make people remember him continues to trouble me. That's significant malice aforethought.
Crash pilot was as sane and evil as Adolph Hitler.
It did not bother him killing all his passengers. He would have done it even if his passengers happened to be 149 children and puppies.
Can't see blaming this on depression or Prozac.
How do you KNOW that?
Typical sociopath. No consideration for fellow humans.
Thank you, doctor.
I got a picture with Cpt. Haynes after one of his speeches. I wish others were there but it was just him.
It really bugs me that he wasn't looking into the camera when it was taken.. Maybe he just doesn't like pictures.
I heard that they still had a good engine that revived after the bird strike, and the FAA wanted to grill the crap out of him for landing a perfectly good airplane in the Hudson - but the media got run away with the savior pilot thing and the FAA ran with it. Active airline guy who told me about it while passing through. Dunno if true or not
Why would a pilot choose landing in the water if he didn't have to?
Sounds like nonsense to me.
And that's exactly why I believe we will never see a pilot-less airplane. I truly believe that subconsciously the passengers know the pilot has "skin in the game", and therefore will do everything possible for a safe outcome.
I have flown professionally most of my life, and to be honest I have never considered the safety of my passengers. I know that sounds very odd, but the way I see it, it is fine. I consider MY safety, and if I'm safe I also know my passengers are safe. Like I said, I have skin in the game and I believe the passengers know it.
What would an automated plane have done in the TACA 110 scenario?
I cannot imagine a plane without pilots.
Could everyone on the plane gathered in the back and changed the CG enough to make it pitch up?
I get this would not save them as he was at the controls, I am just curious about how the heavies work.
Just guessing..... No. First, that many people can't fit into the seats so the aisle would be full. My guess is even with people cramming into rear seats only the front third would be empty.
Second, the Bus (under normal law) will only pitch down 15 degrees. I'm guessing there is a lot if left over elevator to make that happen with cg changes.
My late cousin flew for United for many years, and he used to say "The pilots are always the first ones at the scene of the accident."
Off topic but WTF???
One of Ernest Gann's mentors in Fate Is The Hunter would growl at him "I'm pretty sure if my ass get's there in one piece so will the passengers."
Makes sense to me.
He told me that they initially lost both but one of them relit and they didn't use it. He said they still had all systems functional when they went down and that wouldn't happen without power in at least one engine. He said that the official report said that there was a chance that one engine relit but that it was very downplayed by the FAA. Apparently what saved him was the media already making him a public hero and a face of aviation safety.
Not sure if true or not, just passing on what I heard. I dunno how the systems work in the plane and if all the systems would work or not. I always thought he was a bit humble about it. If I was in his shoes and crashed a flyable airplane as the FAA wanted my neck and the media made me a hero for it, I'd probably be humble too. Even if I did save everyone on board.
FWIW, once the RAT (ram air turbine) deploys it will provide electric and hydraulic power ( in degraded law), so vital systems are still functional.
The RAT deploys automatically only after both engines fail and stays deployed until manually stowed after landing, correct?
Hmm. His argument was that (apparently) both sides of the cockpit had instruments and etc functional when only the captains side should be working in a situation like that with backup systems working. Don't know if he was typed in the a320 or not, but he was flying crj700's currently. Just skimmed the report and it says in multiple places they lost power from both and I didn't see anything saying they could have relit but I didn't look very hard.
It seems like there ought to be info available from the NTSB records that might indicate whether a relight occurred or was possible, e.g., flight data recorder info, and results of the after-incident examination of the engines.
No that is exactly what they do. Perhaps your understanding of what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit does not comport with the legal definition?
Judges create the rules of court, which are entirely administrative in nature. The rules of civil procedure, which are substantive and actually govern how a trial is conducted (and consequently may affect costs), are created by the legislature.
Again. Your interpretation of what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit is entirely subjective. And the one thing that is far more frivolous than meritless lawsuits is motions for sanctions...
Repeat after me: The legislature creates the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws.
I've never heard that one "relit". Did Sullenberger state this? If it did, should he have trusted it!??Flying over New York city?! I think he reacted perfectly. I also think his background and experience had a lot to do with his decision. He had a lot of excellent training . Ca you document the story that he had a perfectly good engine?
If I recall the reported data correctly, one engine "tried" to restart but aborted after making partial power. Perhaps folks are re-interpreting the engine data or "misremembering"?
Yeah, funny that. How come no one ever seems to read it? From the final:
"Disassembly and examination of the engines revealed that two LPC IGVs in each engine had fractured because of the bird ingestion and were subsequently ingested into the engine cores, where they initiated secondary damage to the LPC and HPC. Immediately thereafter, the engine cores were incapable of supplying power to the fans; therefore, the fans could no longer rotate and produce sufficient thrust to sustain flight."
"...damage to the left engine HPC VGVs resulted in the blockage of most of the airflow through the compressor. The insufficient airflow into the combustor to cool the engine and through the LPT to drive the fan resulted in the loss of left engine power."
"...the destruction of all of the HPC VGVs [in the right engine - nauga] and the fracture of several compressor blades caused the loss of directional control of the airflow into the compressor, causing it to stall continuously, with no recovery possible, and, eventually, to lose power"
who sees analysis where others see fraud.
Sorry I call 100% bullsit.
Get back to me after you have graduated from law school and practiced law for 20 years. I have no patience for such ignorance.
Yes, it has to be manually stowed.
It can be deployed either with loss of both AC busses, or it can be manually deployed.
I was just repeating what I heard is all. Haven't found any evidence defending it and a good amount against it (thanks nauga). I thought it was interesting enough to bring up here for debate.
If I even had partial power on one engine in that instance I probably would have still put it down in the river. Who knows how long the engine would last under similar circumstances that killed the other one?
The guy I was talking to didn't cite any evidence except the state of the instruments in the cockpit and the one line in the NTSB report that said the engine may have recovered after the strike.
When you mentioned it, it brought back a fond memory of my days on the FSX 767.
Haven't played with that in years, but it was a blast. Only a game but fun learning a little about the complex systems you guys fly and operate for a living.
"According to FDR and CVR data, after the bird ingestion, the first officer followed the Engine Dual Failure checklist and spent about 30 to 40 seconds trying to relight the engines; however, since engine combustion was not lost, these attempts were ineffective in that they would not fix the problem"
"The NTSB concludes that, if the accident engines’ electronic control system had been capable of informing the flight crewmembers about the continuing operational status of the engines, they would have been aware that thrust could not be restored and would not have spent valuable time trying to relight the engines, which were too damaged for any pilot action to make operational."
I honestly don't understand why people do this when detailed reports and data are available. Or is the general consensus that the NTSB will commit fraud to the extent of fabricating engine teardowns, CVR transcripts and FDR data? The FDR traces and CVR transcript are on the NTSB docket site for those who are interested.
who is not that cynical...yet
I'm back! And your response is..?
Just bringing something I heard to the forum without having researched it yet in order to hear what others think and have found in a place made for discussion. Thanks for debunking the story with the facts.
Really? So I am going to have to go find links to all of the errors in your post? Sigh, when I get to a desktop, I'll post something. If you really have 20 years of practice, you really should know better.
Looks like you took that ball and ran it into the end zone!