Hudson River Opportunity

Tony

You are probably right. Was a long time ago.

Think there was some discussion about snow or something on wing (long
time holding after de-ice) and power setting pilot used and
combination caused bird to not fly off normally in the snow storm on
R/W length available?

Is it just the American way for someone to risk his life to save
individuals involved in any kind of a catastrophe?

Big John
Big John



On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:51:31 -0500, TonyV
wrote:

brtlmj wrote:
On Jan 18, 1:16 pm, Tech Support wrote:
That accident was attributed to Pilot error as I remember.
Tried to take off with snow or frost or ice on wings.

Icing in the engines disabled some sensors, and the pilots thought
they were developing much higher power than they really did. I recall
reading that the accident was avoidable - had they recognized what was
wrong and pushed the throttles forward...

Shouldn't they have fire-walled the throttles regardless? I remember
reading about a Shorts driver, caught in a micro-burst, who did just
that - mandating an expensive engine hot section teardown. At the
"inquest" he was asked why he run his engines up to 120% of their rated
power. His answer was "I couldn't get any more".

Getting back to the Air Florida crash, the NTSB, when listening to the
cockpit voice recorder, immediately knew that the engines were not
producing enough power simply by the sound.

Tony V.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:39:02 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:

That sucker floated quite well if water was coming in the rear door
and the ditch switch was not activated.

A report I saw today said the rear door was not opened. The cabin crew
realized it was partly underwater and stopped a passenger from trying to
open it.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jan 19, 9:32*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:39:02 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
That sucker floated quite well if water was coming in the rear door
and the ditch switch was not activated.

A report I saw today said the rear door was not opened. The cabin crew
realized it was partly underwater and stopped a passenger from trying to
open it.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

There is at least one media report saying that a passenger was able to
partially open a rear door. There is also conflicting reports about
wether flight attendants tried to open the rear doors themselves first
or had asked passengers to do this before realizing this was a bad
idea. There are reports of passengers talking about water in the rear
of the plane fairly quickly. A door may have actually been partially
opened or this water from other sources may have made people think a
door was opened. I won't provide links here, it's easily googleable.
We will have to wait until clearer information to (hopefully) know for
sure, the NTSB report will be interesting reading.

Darryl

TonyV wrote:

(Air Florida accident)
Icing in the engines disabled some sensors, and the pilots thought
they were developing much higher power than they really did. I recall
reading that the accident was avoidable - had they recognized what was
wrong and pushed the throttles forward...

I read that report not long ago, so I happen to remember the details:

Mistake 1: They used reverse thrust for push-back on ground. This was
against a clear company policy. Doing so, they sucked a lot of snow into
the engines.

Mistake 2: They forgot to engage the de-ice system of the engines. This
resulted in clogged probes, resulting in wrong power readings. (The
instruments showed much more power than the engines actually delivered.)

Mistake 3: The copilot realized during the take-off run that there was
not enough power. The captain ignored his warnings and continued the
take-off. He also ignored the fact that the take-off run needed 800
meters more than expected.

On Jan 17, 7:11*am, Andy wrote:
Yes A320 has a RAT and it automatically deploys on loss of AC bus 1
and 2 which would happen if both engines lost power (and the APU was
not running). *

Preliminary reports indicate the APU was running. The APU
manufacturer has even received a thank you message from one
passenger. I cannot see a deployed RAT in any of the salvage photos.
So either engines at or above idle, or the APU, would have been able
to provide normal electrical and hydraulic services.

Andy