Lucky folks

The only way I can describe yesterday's events at Pearson is "damn lucky"...

That's rather unfair -- everyone involved: the cabin crew, Airbus
designers, the folks who made the slides, you name it, all contributed
to a highly successful evac in less than stellar circumstances, but
still...damn lucky.

Heard a report that by the time Rescue arrived, 52 seconds into the event,
over 50% of the 309 were clear. And not one was seriously injured.

Amazing.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

You are right. The media is putting a heroic spin on it, but all
involved just did their jobs as usual. This time circumstances were
such that all were able to get out. From watching the news, you'd think
we've conquered plane crashes and if everyone would just do what these
people did, there would never be another fatality. The final conditon
in which tons of metal and jet fuel come to rest will present a
completely unique set of challenges each time.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

Just listened to an interview with a passenger that claimed that she flew
very often and was supprised at how high they were over the approach end of
the runway. She sounded quite intelligent and said that they landed well
down the runway, further than "normal" and hit once very hard, bounced
several times, then skidded back and forth before running off the end. She
said the rain was torrential. She said she did not think that the plane had
been hit by lightning, but after the hard initial landing the lights in the
passenger cabin went out. There was an "expert" interviewed yesterday that
mentioned something about some of the cabin electrical system having a
g-load protection device that shuts some of the passenger cabin electrical
system down if there is a large g load, presumably to limit the possibility
of fire in the cabin.

Jim

"David Lesher" wrote in message
...



The only way I can describe yesterday's events at Pearson is "damn
lucky"...

That's rather unfair -- everyone involved: the cabin crew, Airbus
designers, the folks who made the slides, you name it, all contributed
to a highly successful evac in less than stellar circumstances, but
still...damn lucky.

Heard a report that by the time Rescue arrived, 52 seconds into the event,
over 50% of the 309 were clear. And not one was seriously injured.

Amazing.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Gene Seibel wrote:
You are right. The media is putting a heroic spin on it, but all
involved just did their jobs as usual.

Doing your job in adverse circumstances is pretty heroic, IMO.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Howdy!

In article ,
Jim Burns wrote:
Just listened to an interview with a passenger that claimed that she flew
very often and was supprised at how high they were over the approach end of
the runway. She sounded quite intelligent and said that they landed well
down the runway, further than "normal" and hit once very hard, bounced
several times, then skidded back and forth before running off the end. She
said the rain was torrential. She said she did not think that the plane had
been hit by lightning, but after the hard initial landing the lights in the
passenger cabin went out. There was an "expert" interviewed yesterday that
mentioned something about some of the cabin electrical system having a
g-load protection device that shuts some of the passenger cabin electrical
system down if there is a large g load, presumably to limit the possibility
of fire in the cabin.

One eyewitness offered a reasonably clueful account. He noted that the
airplane landed long (in so many words), and commented on how hard the
pilot seemed to be using reverse thrust. I think he also commented on
seeing a lightning strike, but it was unclear where that fit in the
chronology.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

In article ,
(Michael Houghton) wrote:

Howdy!

In article ,
Jim Burns wrote:
Just listened to an interview with a passenger that claimed that she flew
very often and was supprised at how high they were over the approach end of
the runway. She sounded quite intelligent and said that they landed well
down the runway, further than "normal" and hit once very hard, bounced
several times, then skidded back and forth before running off the end. She
said the rain was torrential. She said she did not think that the plane had
been hit by lightning, but after the hard initial landing the lights in the
passenger cabin went out. There was an "expert" interviewed yesterday that
mentioned something about some of the cabin electrical system having a
g-load protection device that shuts some of the passenger cabin electrical
system down if there is a large g load, presumably to limit the possibility
of fire in the cabin.

One eyewitness offered a reasonably clueful account. He noted that the
airplane landed long (in so many words), and commented on how hard the
pilot seemed to be using reverse thrust. I think he also commented on
seeing a lightning strike, but it was unclear where that fit in the
chronology.


Those descriptions would be consistent with a 180 degree wind shift,
which often accompanies thunderstorms.

Those descriptions would be consistent with a 180 degree wind shift,
which often accompanies thunderstorms.

One wonders why the pilot didn't go around and try again when the conditions
were more favorable.

"Guy Byars" wrote in message
. ..

Those descriptions would be consistent with a 180 degree wind shift,
which often accompanies thunderstorms.

One wonders why the pilot didn't go around and try again when the
conditions
were more favorable.

They had gone around once already before the accident landing...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

That's rather unfair -- everyone involved: the cabin crew, Airbus
designers, the folks who made the slides.....

I've heard reports that several slides malfunctioned. May or may not
be accurate.

vince norris

vincent p. norris writes:

That's rather unfair -- everyone involved: the cabin crew, Airbus
designers, the folks who made the slides.....

I've heard reports that several slides malfunctioned. May or may not
be accurate.

No surprise; "malfunctioned" means didn't deploy fully; and that's to
be expected. Deployment assumes there's clear space outside to expand into.
If the a/c is on one side, in a forest, against a rock wall, etc...

I think the certification test is with 50% working.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433