USAIR A320 River Ditching

[derf]

INSIDE ENGINE/AIRCRAFT shots and MANY MORE!!!!
http://www.stephenmallon.com/gallery.html?gallery=The%20salvage%20of%20flight%201549

Sorry for the drive by photos

[Al Weaver]

I did some more work on a collage of ATC tapes and photos in the link below

http://fromtheflightdeck.com/Al/USAIR1549%20ATC-1.mpg

[Dmmoore]

Very nicely done Al!

[aardvark2zz]

After a lot of tests, learning, and computing (way too much), here it is in 2 parts. (super compressed).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQqbxgkTFTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htwSGLMlzH8
.

[Breck1011]

Air Bus landing in the Hudson

This was forwarded to me from a friend. It makes a lot of
> sense. I would
> have thought the engines would have still put out some
> power even if it had a massive bird strike as long as they held together.

> This was forwarded to me by my friends uncle, a WWII fighter pilot
> and retiree from Boeing.

> Cheers,
> Bill

> Subj: AirBus Ditching In the Hudson
>
> Courtesy of Bob Pettyjohn
>
> Airbus Ditching in the Hudson
>
> Some suspicions confirmed here.
> Sent:Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:52 AM
> Subject:Airbus Ditching in the Hudson
>
> Hello all:
>
> The press is having a field day turning "Sully"
> Sullenberger into a
> Lindbergh-like hero. I attended his welcoming home
> reception in Danville,CA last
> weekend... me and the estimated 3000 other attendees. All
> credit is given to
> him and his crew, but they will be the first to tell you,
> "they just did their
> jobs." They did them well, but when your job entails
> holding the lives of
> hundreds of people in your hands every time you fly, then
> doing your job well
> is the minimum acceptable standard.
>
> I don't, and I doubt if more than just a handful of
> other pilots, begrudge
> Sully his day in the sun. What I am concerned about is how
> the real cause of
> this accident is being glossed over and, on the part of
> Airbus Industries,
> actually lied about. There are stories circulating now
> about how the flight
> computers helped "save" the aircraft by insuring
> the ditching was done properly.
> The stories
> themselves are absolute nonsense and the contention that
> the flight
> computers ensured the proper attitude was maintained for
> ditching is pure fabrication.
>
> So what's wrong with Airbus wanting to steal a little
> glory for their
> computerized drones? There is a good chance it was the
> computers that put the
> aircraft into the water!
>
> I readily admit I heartily dislike Airbus because of their
> design
> philosophy, I will never set foot in an A-380 (the
> superjumbo) as I consider it a
> really bad accident looking for a place to happen. I am
> not much happier with the
> rest of them but especially the A-320 which has killed
> several folks, while
> the engineers try to perfect software that can replace a
> human brain that has
> a talent for flying... something that I, rather naturally,
> don't believe
> possible.
>
> It is well known that I love Boeings. I love to fly them.
> Beyond the sheer
> joy of just flying the Boeing, I also believe in their
> design philosophy that
> the last word has to be with the pilot, not the machine.
> No pilot, no matter
> how hard he tries, can turn an A-320 upside down. It just
> won't do it.
> Airbus believes it has designed a computer that is smarter
> than a pilot (the
> evidence of dead bodies scattered around Mulhouse,France
> to the contrary) and
> gives the last
> word to the computer. If a pilot moves the controls so as
> to turn the
> airplane upside down, the computer will refuse.
>
> I can turn the B777 upside down. Once I get it upside down,
> if I let go of
> the controls, it will turn itself right-side up (smart
> airplane). I don't
> believe I will ever be in a situation where I will need to
> turn the airplane
> upside down, but I feel good knowing I have the control to
> do it. That's why I'm
> not really kidding when I say: "if it ain't a
> Boeing; I ain't going".
>
> What follows is an e-mail from a retired US Air Pilot who
> has flown the
> Airbus A320 just like the one that ended up in the Hudson.
> It was written in
> response to a friend asking him if he knew the pilot who
> did the ditching. It
> is most illuminating and worth the read...
>
> Dear Chuck,
>
> I don't know him. I've seen him in the crew room
> and around the system but
> never met him. He was former PSA and I was
> former Piedmont and we never had the occasion to fly
> together.
>
> The dumb shit press just won't leave this alone. Most
> airliner ditchings
> aren't very successful since they take place on the
> open ocean with wind, rough
> seas, swells and rescue boats are hours or days away.
> This one happened in
> fresh smooth water, landing with the current and the
> rescue boats were there
> picking people up while they were still climbing out of
> the airplane. It
> also happened on a cold winter day when all the pleasure
> boats were parked.
> Had this happened in July it would be pretty hard not to
> whack a couple of
> little boats. Sully did a nice job but so would 95% of
> the other pilots in the
> industry. You would have done a nice job.
>
> Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers
> didn't put a
> perfectly good airplane in the water. In an older
> generation airplane like the 727
> or 737-300/400, the throttles are hooked to the fuel
> controllers on the engine
> by a steel throttle cable just like a TBM or a Comanche.
> On the Airbus
> nothing in the cockpit is real. Everything is electronic.
> The throttles, rudder
> and brake pedals and the side stick are hooked to
> rheostats who talk to a
> computer who talks to a electric hydraulic servo valve
> which in turn hopefully
> moves something.
>
> In a older generation airplane when you hit birds the
> engines keep screaming
> or they blow up but they don't both roll back to idle
> simultaneously like
> happened to Flt. 1549. All it would take is for bird guts
> to plug a pressure
> sensor or knock the pitot probe off or plug it and the
> computers would roll
> the engines back to idle thinking they were over boosting
> because the
> computers were getting bad data. The Airbus is a real pile
> of shit. I don't like
> riding on them. Google the Airbus A320 Crash at the
> Paris Airshow in 1998.
>
> Watch the video of an airbus A320 crash into a forest
> because the computers
> wouldn't allow a power increase following a low pass.
> The computers wouldn't
> allow a power increase because they determined that the
> airspeed was too low
> for the increase requested so the computers didn't
> give them any. Pushing
> the throttles forward in a Airbus does nothing more than
> request a power
> increase from the computer. If the computer doesn't
> like all the airplane and
> engine parameters you don't get a power increase.
> Airbus blamed the dead crew
> since they couldn't defend themselves. A Boeing would
> still be flying.
>
> Eric

[Al Weaver]

Too bad Eric doesn't post this here himself and then learn something through his clouded eyes.

This is 90% BS knocking a product because he has already taken sides.

But just due to its sheer length in scroll down it won't get read by many except those who just want to weigh in on the A vs B arguments again.

Tis true that computers may be involved in this but the critical computer belongs to the CFM56 and is known as a FADEC. Only that computer can command the engine to protect itself to the detriment of continued safe flight.

Most FADECs are programed to protect the aircraft by reverting to either synthesized air data or locking in at the last commanded thrust above idle. The investigation needs to examine the control loops to see exactly what happened. From a purely automatic standpoint the FADECs should have continued to deliver safe thrust unless they received a command from the pilots to reduce thrust. If upon reducing thrust the FADECs would no longer allow an increase in thrust then the FADEC logic needs to be examined.

[aircraftfire]

Here you can find the "Miracle of the Hudson River Plane Crash" documentary about the ditching:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?zdvemoymwyg
I haven't seen it yet (just a couple of minutes). It looks similar to the other Air Crash Investigation episodes.

By the way, other episodes can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/apapele/

[Dmmoore]

I just finished reading Eric's post. He has more than one misconception to work through. After 40 years of maintaining engines, the last 15 mixed with FADEC and non FADEC engines, I can state without fear of being wrong, he needs to re-examine how FADEC works as well as to what the throttle is connected on a non FADEC engine. The FCU or ECU is a mechanical computer that use the same inputs to control the engine.

[Breck1011]

It has been a while now and the hearings are over. Other than killing all the Geese in the world, did you hear anything about the FADEC rollback theory? It is bad programing? I saw the pictures of the right engine when it came out of the water and the fan is intact. The bullet is smashed though.

[Al Weaver]

It has been a while now and the hearings are over. Other than killing all the Geese in the world, did you hear anything about the FADEC rollback theory? It is bad programing? I saw the pictures of the right engine when it came out of the water and the fan is intact. The bullet is smashed though.

I had not heard of the FADEC rollback theory. early on I had asked about a FADEC control function (something would have to trigger it) but got no answer. I also asked about EGT since that would have been my guess as to what wouid cause a FADEC to limit the pilots ability to control the engine. At this point I don't even know what the EGT was doing. If you get a hold of the NTSB factuals on the engines (were they released at the hearing) I would be very interested in them.

My photo of the right engine does not indicate any evidence that the spinner bullet was broken. If you have another picture could you post it?

LH Engine

737-01.jpg (315.42 KB) Viewed 659 times