Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lear 35 down approaching Teterboro

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
    Flight Captain Chesley Sullenberger in his Airbus A320 is a hero in my eyes. Sullenberger deserves a golden star with a diamond because his decision is unique, until today. And why?
    Because he knew what his a/c is able to do, in a jet with ZERO engines running.
    If I may split a hair here, Sully had both engines running the entire time. They were just too damaged to produce any useful thrust. It seems like a redundant point from a thrust perspective, but from a systems perspective it made a big difference. The LPC spools continued to turn and combustion was not affected. This allowed vital accessories driving hydraulics to remain functional. Sully could have seen this on the engine display as he reported to ATC that he had "lost thrust in both engines". The engine restart efforts were futile because of the combustors were still running, but the crew could not have been expected to assess this in the time they had to react.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
      NEvidence? "Sully The Film" (2016), where Sullenberger as senior advisor and reason for the film appeared at the end.
      BTW, I imagine Sully must have blushed when he saw the final film CGI effect. Apparently, when struck by engine fan blades, geese explode into large sheets of flame and continue to do so for quite a while. They also give off large smoke trails like a shot-down B-17. In the film, there is even flame coming from the bypass. Quite a thing to behold.

      In reality, aside from some compressor stall exhaust pipe flame, there shouldn't have been anything shooting out of the engines aside from—maybe—a very thin amount of smoke, and I doubt it would be visible from any distance.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        An SU-35 at a similar bank and altitude might have done the same thing...
        except you're forgetting the thrust vectoring which would have negated the need for the ridiculous bank angle while permitting an VERy tight turn

        Comment


        • #49
          NTSB determination, for completeness:

          https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rele...R20190312.aspx

          Comment


          • #50
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Yw87l3Atw

            SIC was not authorized to be PF, but the PIC made the SIC fly the plane anyway.

            Several times the SIC wanted to transfer control to the PIC, who refused, until in short final and with the plane totally out of position to make a landing the SIC finally gave up and the PIC didn't have other option than take control and, instead of performing a go-around, performed almost an aerobatic maneuver to try to line up with the runway with the known consequences.

            It looks to me that the PIC had good reasons not to take the controls and he knew it.

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              It looks to me that the PIC had good reasons not to take the controls and he knew it.
              What reasons would those be?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                What reasons would those be?
                He knew he was not good at it?

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  He knew he was not good at it?
                  My take is that he did not know he was not good at it. He was 'coaching' the SIC the entire time. When he finally took over, he performed a hairbrained 'i got this' maneuver that simply oozes with misguided self-confidence.

                  Quickly followed by 'I don't got this..."

                  If retrospect, I think LEAR's should be required to have an airspeed indicator. Oh, no, wait, there was one... it was the SIC repeatedly saying "airspeed".

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    My take is that he did not know he was not good at it. He was 'coaching' the SIC the entire time. When he finally took over, he performed a hairbrained 'i got this' maneuver that simply oozes with misguided self-confidence.

                    Quickly followed by 'I don't got this..."

                    If retrospect, I think LEAR's should be required to have an airspeed indicator. Oh, no, wait, there was one... it was the SIC repeatedly saying "airspeed".
                    That guy is a disgrace to the profession. I just read the transcript. Disgusting.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I have a buddy who has done really well in his business and has a Lear with a pilot on his staff. (They contract for the SIC and use a few different ones for their trips.) I forwarded the link to him but I have to ask after watching it, how is it even conceivable that a professional pilot could be such a complete f*up? I mean, thinking you are still hundreds of miles from the airport when the entire flight is 25 minutes? He had to be drunk, no?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post

                        If retrospect, I think LEAR's should be required to have an airspeed indicator. Oh, no, wait, there was one... it was the SIC repeatedly saying "airspeed".
                        Some even have your all-time favorite instrument, the AoA indicator.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                          Some even have your all-time favorite instrument, the AoA indicator.
                          You're confusing me with Gabriel. I think it should be there, but I don't think it would have prevented most stall accidents. But, in the case of AF447, well-stalled with three pilots searching the instruments for answers, it might have saved the day.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            You're confusing me with Gabriel. I think it should be there, but I don't think it would have prevented most stall accidents.
                            I think it would but in a different way than what you seem to be thinking. Take any stall-related accident (including some that involved the pilot reacting AS IF the plane was about to stall when it wasn't). Take a time machine and tell the pilots: "Hey guys, we just installed this AOA indicator". Would that have prevented the accident? I don't think so.

                            Now, have pilots learn to fly actively using AoA indicators as part of their normal routine. And the accident sequence would have likely not occurred in the first place or been cut much shorter than the point where a stall recovery was needed. And not because the role the AoA indicator itself would have played in that sequence, but by the better AoA understanding and awareness that you would have even if at some point you find yourself flying without an AoA indicator.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                              Some even have your all-time favorite instrument, the AoA indicator.
                              If you are the type of pilot that will let an unauthorized pilot fly the full flight, not take controls after that unauthorized pilot repeatedly asked you to, completely both a descent and approach and, in the last seconds and with a few hundreds of feet attempt to align with the runway with a steep S turn at below approach speeds, an AoA indicator will not help you. Neither will a first officer calling "speed" 6 tomes. An AoA indicator will not cure cancer either. That doesn't meant that it is not a fantastic instrument.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                Now, have pilots learn to fly actively using AoA indicators as part of their normal routine. And the accident sequence would have likely not occurred in the first place or been cut much shorter than the point where a stall recovery was needed. And not because the role the AoA indicator itself would have played in that sequence, but by the better AoA understanding and awareness that you would have even if at some point you find yourself flying without an AoA indicator.
                                My feeling is that most stalls occur due to inattention to airspeed, so I expect that inattention to also extend to the AoA indicator. I also think you have to decide whether pilots are going to fly by airspeed or AoA, and thus far in aviation history, it's been airspeed. And thus far the AoA indicator has been called the barberpole. I agree that is useful in aerobatics, and possibly upsets involving the risk of accelerated stall, but I'm betting that, in the latter case, it won't be the center of attention.

                                Sully could have used it. Anywhere you have to fly at the limit of lift, such as extending a glide or a low altitude stall and ground avoidance situation. I also agree that it would be useful in building AoA awareness. I'm not opposed to it. Why would anybody be opposed to it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X