Is it possible? (US Airways flight)

[PhatAJ2008]

Heard a few rumors that the bird strike on the US Airways flight may have only taken out one engine, but the pilot shut down the wrong engine... I know pilots have mistakenly shut down the wrong engine before... Is it possible it happened on this flight?

 

[redneck jihad]

... Is it possible it happened on this flight?

no....

 

[BeCareful!]

And, No....

 

[Fubijaakr]

I think you're referring to the fact that one engine was still producing about 35% N1. Not enough to maintain flight, but luckily enough to provide electrical and hydraulic power to the aircraft and flight control systems.

Both engines have been found to contain bird remains.

This is a rumor generated and propagated by people who don't understand that just because an engine is still running doesn't mean it can provide enough power to sustain flight.

 

[Flywrite]

I found this:
http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/090204.html
with 8 keystrokes and two clicks. Maybe this would be a better source of info to clarify and refute a rumor than asking on a message board?

Does nobody know how to look things up for themselves anymore?

 

[redneck jihad]

Does nobody know how to look things up for themselves anymore?

ah, no...

 

[LR25]

Thats why at my airline we got flight engineers to slap the crap out us stupid pilots.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Heard a few rumors that the bird strike on the US Airways flight may have only taken out one engine, but the pilot shut down the wrong engine... I know pilots have mistakenly shut down the wrong engine before... Is it possible it happened on this flight?

The FDR (Flight Data Recorder) has been reviewed by the NTSB and it's been preliminarily determined that both engines lost power simultaneously, with one still turning at 35%. Usable thurst in turbine engines requires a much higher rotational speed. If they shut down the wrong side we'd know by now, both thru the CVR and FDR.

 

[Mike man]

I noticed the other day thy that 38% N1 was idle on the ground...FWIW. I didn't think to look during decent what flight idle was.

To answer your question it is possible that some one shut down the wrong engine, however it did not happen on this flight.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Maybe that's what the "idiot" comment on the ATC tapes was about.

"Idiot...you shut down the wrong engine."

Or not....

 

[Deli Guy]

Maybe that's what the "idiot" comment on the ATC tapes was about.

"Idiot...you shut down the wrong engine."

Or not....

Where was the "idiot" comment?

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Where was the "idiot" comment?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/survivors.qanda/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

:47 mark of this recording.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/survivors.qanda/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

:47 mark of this recording.

I dunnno. I'm hearing "88" something... not "idiot." Maybe a call sign with 88 was being addressed by another controller in the background.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

I dunnno. I'm hearing "88" something... not "idiot." Maybe a call sign with 88 was being addressed by another controller in the background.

After 10 years around jet engines, you may be correct. Besides, I used to listen to Ozzy Osbourne albums in reverse as a kid. Who knows what the heck I am hearing these days.

 

[SLUF4]

what would the N1 rotate at while just windmilling with no power in a glide?

 

[b707guy]

Depends on airspeed and altitude. Mid teens to low 20s N1 down near sea level and below 250 indicated.

Oxlong - you mentioned you observed 38% N1 as ground idle? Was this on a CFM-56? I haven't flown the newer series CFMs, but my experience with the older ones is that they should ground idle at around 21%, and flight idle on the ground (before "shifting" down to ground mode through whatever means the airplane decides it's on the ground) is closer to 38 or 40%.

 

[Britpilot]

Depends on airspeed and altitude. Mid teens to low 20s N1 down near sea level and below 250 indicated.

Oxlong - you mentioned you observed 38% N1 as ground idle? Was this on a CFM-56? I haven't flown the newer series CFMs, but my experience with the older ones is that they should ground idle at around 21%, and flight idle on the ground (before "shifting" down to ground mode through whatever means the airplane decides it's on the ground) is closer to 38 or 40%.

That's what I see on our CFM 56's. Around 21% Ground idle, around 38% Flight Idle, Approach Idle is a little more.

 

[Whine Lover]

I'm no expert...but, if I have two ( out of two ) engines flamed out, the " engine shutdown" checklist might not be my first choice.

I might go with some crazy sort of attempt to "restart" and see if I could find a checklist that said something along those lines.

Oh, I would probably also be swearing a lot, and my head would be swiveling around quicker than Linda Blair's while I was looking for the crash site I was going to be visiting in the next few minutes.

No Sirs, I don't think Sully and Skiles were busy shutting down any engines that day.

Let alone..."The wrong one".

DOH.


YKMKR

 

[indytestdude]

Yes they did try relighting the engines.

Food for thought:
1. Where were the thrust levers?
2. What vertical mode were they as far as auto flight?
3. Could the AT have commanded IDLE while they were descending?
4. Could they have mis-diagnosed the IDLE reading as being a failed engine?

Bottom line I hope they continue to be heros.

 

[Whine Lover]

"Yes they did try relighting the engines."

Ya. I know. Of course they did. And rather rapidly I would surmise.

However, I was responding to the original point of this ( as usual ) inane thread:

" Did they shut down the wrong engine? " (NO.)

My point being:

Shutting down an engine wasn't even part of the thought process in that cockpit.

( Unless, perhaps, they had a fire going, then securing it might have been a thought. Even then, why would you bother? You'd have to your advantage a very nice fire suppression system ( The Hudson ) in just a few moments anyway. )


YKW

 

[slapstick]

what's Bill O'Reilly's opinion?

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

4. Could they have mis-diagnosed the IDLE reading as being a failed engine?

Bottom line I hope they continue to be heros.

What part of both engines simultaneously lost power is confusing to you?

Why do people want this to be like British Midland Flt 92?

Is it because the 9/11 conspiracy is getting old and the moon landing hoax is even more stale?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

..................

 

[Jack Mehoff]

what's Bill O'Reilly's opinion?

Just do it LIVE!

 

[B-atch]

Yes they did try relighting the engines.

Food for thought:
1. Where were the thrust levers?
2. What vertical mode were they as far as auto flight?
3. Could the AT have commanded IDLE while they were descending?
4. Could they have mis-diagnosed the IDLE reading as being a failed engine?

Bottom line I hope they continue to be heros.

Another point that no-one has mentioned so far.
CFM's are FADEC equipped. FADEC "controls and PROTECTS" the engine. I wonder if the ingested birds caused abnormal pressure/temps to trigger a reduced fuel schedule... just my .02.

 

[Whine Lover]

That point was covered in another thread.


This is edited and copied from another Forum/Thread. I am not the Author. It does raise an interesting question.

“An opinion about the A320 from one unidentified pilot:

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 ... On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real. Everything is electronic.

In an 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. "

 

[Bringupthebird]

That point was covered in another thread.


This is edited and copied from another Forum/Thread. I am not the Author. It does raise an interesting question.

“An opinion about the A320 from one unidentified pilot:

Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water.

Sounds like another guy who thinks his very limited third-hand knowledge of aircraft systems is sufficient.

One of the things that computers do really well is compare data and can determine whether a sensor is lost or something has truly malfunctioned.

The author of this garbage better go back to the crew room and do a better job of eavesdropping.

 

[AC560]

One of the things that computers do really well is compare data and can determine whether a sensor is lost or something has truly malfunctioned.

Like say those in a B2 bomber?

 

[B-atch]

That point was covered in another thread.


This is edited and copied from another Forum/Thread. I am not the Author. It does raise an interesting question.

“An opinion about the A320 from one unidentified pilot:

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 ... On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real. Everything is electronic.

In an 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. "

Point taken, however this is a very general statement from someone who obviously knows nothing about CFM's or the A-320. This incident has happened before, not on an Airbus but on a B737-800 in Europe. It appears that FADEC might have such "control" over these power-plants, that the possibility of pilot input/trouble shooting has been completely taken out of the equation. I will reiterate, this possible anomaly is not limited to the Airbus! All FADEC equipped engines might need to be re-evaluated.

 

[Whine Lover]

"I will reiterate, this possible anomaly is not limited to the Airbus! "

I would have to agree with that statement.


YKW