Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Moscow Passenger Plane Catches Fire, Crash-Lands in Cornfield.

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Captain Sullinski!
    We're going to be in the corn

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      It sounds like at least one engine was still turning, though maybe not producing any useful thrust, perhaps still providing hydraulics and electrical power. Control law could have still been normal. Was the gear retracted before the strike? If not, wise to bring it up before the landing.

      Thank Бог for cornfields and rivers. Sooner or later this is going to end badly. What can be done that isn't being done?
      Read somewhere (maybe on AVHerald comments) the pilot was interviewed and specifically did not lower the gear on purpose. The one engine was certainly oscillating up and down, but like you noted, probably not producing enough consistent thrust to hold them aloft. Lucky there were a lot of cornfields straight ahead.

      Comment


      • #18
        Did someone say something about the need for ANOTHER memory checklist?

        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Was the gear retracted before the strike? If not, wise to bring it up before the landing.
        TeeVee and ATL's and Bobby's comments acknowledged as good ones!
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
          I'll pass that along.
          I've since read that they leveled off at 750' but there is no confirmation of their height when the actual bird strikes occurred, so it is possible that the gear was still down at that point. Question to you: Can the gear be retracted with the #1 engine at or below idle? Is the PTU on your planes automatically inhibited below 1500ft (this was a recommended retrofit, not a requirement)?

          Comment


          • #20
            You can see the strike in the two videos I posted above. Happens right at liftoff. Gear would be down.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              I've since read that they leveled off at 750' but there is no confirmation of their height when the actual bird strikes occurred, so it is possible that the gear was still down at that point. Question to you: Can the gear be retracted with the #1 engine at or below idle? Is the PTU on your planes automatically inhibited below 1500ft (this was a recommended retrofit, not a requirement)?
              As to the first, I imagine it can be, because the EDP produces 3000psi all the way down to 3% N2. As to the second, I'm not aware of our birds having that modification, at least not that I have seen, but I'll ask.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                As to the first, I imagine it can be, because the EDP produces 3000psi all the way down to 3% N2. As to the second, I'm not aware of our birds having that modification, at least not that I have seen, but I'll ask.
                The concern was that a green system failure at takeoff would result in the PTU running constantly to supply power from the yellow system, which would then overheat, but, as the overheat ECAM warning is inhibited below 1500ft, the crew would remain unaware, take no action, and the yellow system would also fail. I think this actually occurred. The mod was to inhibit the PTU below 1500ft. Anyway, if the EDP on #1 is able to retract the gear after losing power, this is of no relevance to the thread.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  The concern was that a green system failure at takeoff would result in the PTU running constantly to supply power from the yellow system, which would then overheat, but, as the overheat ECAM warning is inhibited below 1500ft, the crew would remain unaware, take no action, and the yellow system would also fail. I think this actually occurred. The mod was to inhibit the PTU below 1500ft. Anyway, if the EDP on #1 is able to retract the gear after losing power, this is of no relevance to the thread.
                  Ah! I AM familiar with that issue. Pending verification from my Fleet Chief, it appears our 320s and 321s DO have the mod, while our 319s (except for our two newest ones) do not. I conclude that based on the fact that only those older 319s are subject to OEB-47 1.0 with which you are familiar, I'm sure.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    We are not familiar with OEB-47 1.0 but we are familiar with MOD 34236 + 35879 / SB 29-1115 and MOD 35938 / SB 29-1126.

                    --- 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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      Ah! I AM familiar with that issue. Pending verification from my Fleet Chief, it appears our 320s and 321s DO have the mod, while our 319s (except for our two newest ones) do not. I conclude that based on the fact that only those older 319s are subject to OEB-47 1.0 with which you are familiar, I'm sure.
                      I'm confused by that. The issue was resolved by altering the PTU activation logic, not by altering ECAM (as airbus adheres to the philosophy of preventing non-critical distractions at low altitude). Isn't OEB-47 1.0 a deviation from HYD ENG PUMP LO PR and HYD RSVR OVHT? What was the OEB procedure in the QRH?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        I'm confused by that.
                        Which part?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          PTU ECAM Isn't OEB-47 1.0 a deviation from HYD ENG PUMP LO PR and HYD RSVR OVHT? What was the OEB procedure in the QRH?
                          And yet, people sometimes forget that aggressive pull ups can cause stalls and anti-skid systems function when you need top-performance braking.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                            Which part?
                            I mean, I'm confused by how you come to that conclusion. OEB's are procedural changes but this issue didn't involve a procedural change. Do you mean that aircraft with the PTU mod wouldn't be subject to OEB-47 1.0 because the mod removed the possibility of these two ECAM messages occurring together? Again, I don't know what was actually contained in OEB-47 1.0, I just know the criteria. I also don't understand how your older 319's are protected from this scenario. I'm genuinely curious.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              I mean, I'm confused by how you come to that conclusion. OEB's are procedural changes but this issue didn't involve a procedural change. Do you mean that aircraft with the PTU mod wouldn't be subject to OEB-47 1.0 because the mod removed the possibility of these two ECAM messages occurring together? Again, I don't know what was actually contained in OEB-47 1.0, I just know the criteria. I also don't understand how your older 319's are protected from this scenario. I'm genuinely curious.
                              Our older 319s are NOT protected from this scenario because they do NOT have the mod (as yet, more on that in a second). The OEB tells us to DISREGARD the Y RSVR OVRHT ECAM procedure that tells us to turn the Y ENG PUMP OFF (and thus lose the Y system). Instead, we are to keep the pump on, but turn the PTU off. This is also the case if we get the G RSVR OVHT ECAM following a Y system failure. The ECAM says to turn the G ENG PUMP OFF, but we are to not do that, and, again, are to turn the PTU off instead. Keep in mind that all of this applies only if G or Y systems were lost due to fluid leak, not due to pump failure.

                              Per my Fleet Chief, all 320 family aircraft from about msn 4177 have the mod and are thus not subject to the issue. Eventually, all of our birds will have the mod as well.

                              Hope this helps.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                                The OEB tells us to DISREGARD the Y RSVR OVRHT ECAM procedure that tells us to turn the Y ENG PUMP OFF (and thus lose the Y system). Instead, we are to keep the pump on, but turn the PTU off. This is also the case if we get the G RSVR OVHT ECAM following a Y system failure. The ECAM says to turn the G ENG PUMP OFF, but we are to not do that, and, again, are to turn the PTU off instead.
                                Aha. Now I get it. Also, out of curiousity, do your planes have the OEB reminder function on ECAM. That is a free-of-charge, optional retrofit (an optional feature from SB 31-1264) so I'm curious as to how successful it has been.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X