• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

JB Emergency Question????

rvsm410

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Posts
690
Total Time
1
So now that all the hubbub is over, and congrats to the crew...I was wondering in the procedures...I noticed the engines were not producing much thrust nor thrust revers used for obvious reasons of ingestion and directional control, but I was looking to see if anything was being sucked into the engines so I was wondering if once the crew has the bird on the deck, do they hit the fuel cut offs to kill the engines while they are rolling/sliding down the runway?

I am assuming the APU would still be in use to provide hyd press.....
 
Last edited:

CA1900

Big Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2002
Posts
5,436
Total Time
11000+
rvsm410 said:
...I was wondering if once the crew has the bird on the deck, do they hit the fuel cut offs to kill the engines while they are rolling/sliding down the runway?

I sure wouldn't have. Hypothetically if they had continued sliding toward the end of the runway, I would think max reverse would be the prudent thing to do, ingestion or not. That'd be hard if they were shut down already. :D
 

rvsm410

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Posts
690
Total Time
1
Yeap, I read that report as well, I dont know if that system was changed since then or not...BUt I do see CA1900 point in his post...

I was just wondering....he ya are touch down. mains..nose..the airplane is standing tall, your right down the middle of the runway...pleanty left....do you shut off the fuel to prohibit any further problems of fire, and save the engines? But I see the point...It would be best to keep them running until you know you dont need them for anything.....
 

Fury220

Resident T-38A/C FAIP
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Posts
435
Total Time
!= 0
rvsm410 said:
Yeap, I read that report as well, I dont know if that system was changed since then or not...BUt I do see CA1900 point in his post...

I was just wondering....he ya are touch down. mains..nose..the airplane is standing tall, your right down the middle of the runway...pleanty left....do you shut off the fuel to prohibit any further problems of fire, and save the engines? But I see the point...It would be best to keep them running until you know you dont need them for anything.....

Yeah, but didn't they stop with around 1200 feet remaining? I'd keep the engines up and running with it looking that close. I dunno...armchair quarterbacking can really suck sometimes.
 

Counselair

"He said member..."
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Posts
210
Total Time
Wasted
CA1900 said:
I sure wouldn't have. Hypothetically if they had continued sliding toward the end of the runway, I would think max reverse would be the prudent thing to do, ingestion or not.

LAX 12,000' I believe they had mucho runway. I think I would have left them running for other reasons. However, with the length of the runway in mind I wouldn't be touching the reversers as to avoid further nose down moment shift on the nose gear. Roll it out, brake only when neccessary.

You Made Me Proud Guys,

Thursday Morning Quarterback,

Counselair:)
 

chperplt

Registered User
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,123
Total Time
.
LAX 12,000' I believe they had mucho runway

Plenty of runway because they stopped on the runway... another 800 feet or so and you wouldn't be saying that.
 

HawkerF/O

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Posts
757
Total Time
4500+
Counselair said:
CA1900 said:
I sure wouldn't have. Hypothetically if they had continued sliding toward the end of the runway, I would think max reverse would be the prudent thing to do, ingestion or not.

LAX 12,000' I believe they had mucho runway. I think I would have left them running for other reasons. However, with the length of the runway in mind I wouldn't be touching the reversers as to avoid further nose down moment shift on the nose gear. Roll it out, brake only when neccessary.

You Made Me Proud Guys,

Thursday Morning Quarterback,

Counselair:)
Counselair is right. Using the brakes or TRs would have shifted the weight of the aircraft forward onto the nose landing gear. The crew knew this much, as soon as the tires sheared off, the aircraft would decelerate rapidly and that was proven on the video. With that happening, the aircraft's weight would shift to the nose wheel. They knew that was going to happen and it did, so placing the weight on the nose wheel prematurely could have caused the nose to collapse. Shutting off the engines would have taken away the option of using TRs if they needed them. For those who think saving the engines was a factor, WRONG. Who cares about the engines once it is on the ground? If you have to destroy them to save your life or the life of passengers, or even just to avoid injury, so what? Is that really a consideration of professionals?
Chief Pilot: Ummm, I understand you destroyed the engines???
Me: Yes
CP: Well, do you have anything to say for yourself?
Me: Yes, I destroyed the engines
After the nose wheel hit, and the speed slows enough so the elevator will not pull the nose back into the air, full aft elevator. Also, Idle deploy on the TRs would have been an option as well, but as we saw, not necessary. That crew did what they did in a professional manner, and they did it well. They probably used the auto-land cause that runway does not have a center line anymore: The crew ground it off! 1st class job those guys did.
 

jknight8907

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Posts
215
Total Time
100
HawkerF/O said:
Counselair said:
Counselair is right. Using the brakes or TRs would have shifted the weight of the aircraft forward onto the nose landing gear. The crew knew this much, as soon as the tires sheared off, the aircraft would decelerate rapidly and that was proven on the video. With that happening, the aircraft's weight would shift to the nose wheel. They knew that was going to happen and it did, so placing the weight on the nose wheel prematurely could have caused the nose to collapse. Shutting off the engines would have taken away the option of using TRs if they needed them. For those who think saving the engines was a factor, WRONG. Who cares about the engines once it is on the ground? If you have to destroy them to save your life or the life of passengers, or even just to avoid injury, so what? Is that really a consideration of professionals?
Chief Pilot: Ummm, I understand you destroyed the engines???
Me: Yes
CP: Well, do you have anything to say for yourself?
Me: Yes, I destroyed the engines
After the nose wheel hit, and the speed slows enough so the elevator will not pull the nose back into the air, full aft elevator. Also, Idle deploy on the TRs would have been an option as well, but as we saw, not necessary. That crew did what they did in a professional manner, and they did it well. They probably used the auto-land cause that runway does not have a center line anymore: The crew ground it off! 1st class job those guys did.
Probably used the autoland????



riiiiiiiight.
 

ATR-DRIVR

Used Register
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Posts
1,555
Total Time
18k+
I was wondering if the spoilers were dis-armed either on purpose or by some default. When they touched down the wing stayed clean with no deployment of the spoilers. Does the bus not have that?

Just curious on the systems. Excellent job though.
 

HawkerF/O

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Posts
757
Total Time
4500+
I am sure they do have them, but here is where their use would get you into trouble. Spoilers would have Xfered weight to the nose of the airplane. Especially Auto spoliers. Trying to keep the nose in the air with auto-spoilers is not going to happen. When those spoilers come out, that nose is going to come down. By the time the plane slowed enough so the spoilers would not have such a pronounced effect on the weight transfer, they would have been ineffective. Good Call.
ATR-DRIVR said:
I was wondering if the spoilers were dis-armed either on purpose or by some default. When they touched down the wing stayed clean with no deployment of the spoilers. Does the bus not have that?

Just curious on the systems. Excellent job though.
 

Brett Hull

Pastafarian
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
971
Total Time
7900
Having no experience in anything bigger than an old Lear 55, I'm going to go out on a limb and say autoland was not used.

Autoland plants the airplane firmly in the TDZ. It appeared they kept the power up a little longer than normal in order to assure a smooth touchdown (it looked like they floated through the TDZ - nothing wrong with that considering the circumstances) and the ability to keep the nose up as long as possible.

Busdrivers, set us straight here.
 

jknight8907

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Posts
215
Total Time
100
HawkerF/O said:
jknight8907 said:
Do you know differently? For a guy with no jet time or even a pilot's certificate, you are talking out of school.
How many autolands have you seen that held the nosewheel off until it ran out of elevator authority, not to mention floating it on ever-so-gently?

No jet time needed for that observation.....
 

HawkerF/O

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Posts
757
Total Time
4500+
I should have clarified my statement a little better. I think the pilot let the computer roll out the airplane. How many pilots have you seen stick a center line like they did with a problem such as the one that was on the Airbus? That plane didn't move off the centerline.

Jknight, in fact you DO need jet time for this observation. If you had more experience, you would know that the elevator did not run out of authority, as that would have brought the nose down with a great deal of force. The pilots are a little more professional than that. The tail is swept, just like the wings and unlike the 172 you are learning in, and when a swept wing quits flying, it breaks over, unlike a straight wing that just kind of bottoms out/flutters and starts to descend. We don't do full stalls in jets like we do in 172s. Why? It's dangerous and you'll lose a lot of altitude. You do stalls at 3000, jets must be a 10,000 to even practice stall recognition and recovery. I know you are use to lowering the nose when you get the 1st indication of a stall, but in jets we leave the nose where it is and power out of it. Unload the wings on a jet, and hang on! Didn't know I was going to be giving instruction today.

Also, some of the nicest landing you will have will be with the newer auto-land systems. I know the older ones were a little rough, but they have made great strides in the auto-land systems literally holding the mains off 2 feet off the ground and rolling it on. It's pretty sweet.

Once again, I should have clarified what I menat when I 1st posted, and I apoligize if anyone misunderstood what I was trying to say.
 

jknight8907

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Posts
215
Total Time
100
HawkerF/O said:
I should have clarified my statement a little better. I think the pilot let the computer roll out the airplane. How many pilots have you seen stick a center line like they did with a problem such as the one that was on the Airbus? That plane didn't move off the centerline.

Jknight, in fact you DO need jet time for this observation. If you had more experience, you would know that the elevator did not run out of authority, as that would have brought the nose down with a great deal of force. The pilots are a little more professional than that. The tail is swept, just like the wings and unlike the 172 you are learning in, and when a swept wing quits flying, it breaks over, unlike a straight wing that just kind of bottoms out/flutters and starts to descend. We don't do full stalls in jets like we do in 172s. Why? It's dangerous and you'll lose a lot of altitude. You do stalls at 3000, jets must be a 10,000 to even practice stall recognition and recovery. I know you are use to lowering the nose when you get the 1st indication of a stall, but in jets we leave the nose where it is and power out of it. Unload the wings on a jet, and hang on! Didn't know I was going to be giving instruction today.

Also, some of the nicest landing you will have will be with the newer auto-land systems. I know the older ones were a little rough, but they have made great strides in the auto-land systems literally holding the mains off 2 feet off the ground and rolling it on. It's pretty sweet.

Once again, I should have clarified what I menat when I 1st posted, and I apoligize if anyone misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Yes, I know that he didn't let it completely run out of authority. However, he did hold it off as long as he could while still avoiding a hard derotation.

I'm not learning in a 172 (not that that matters).

I guess the final say on whether or not he used autoland will come when the full report is published.
 

HawkerF/O

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Posts
757
Total Time
4500+
jknight8907 said:
Yes, I know that he didn't let it completely run out of authority. However, he did hold it off as long as he could while still avoiding a hard derotation.
You said " How many autolands have you seen that held the nosewheel off until it ran out of elevator authority," How is that knowing he didn't let it run out of authority when you just sat up there and said he did? Look, I am not trying to knock you, but you came at me a little strong. I bet you are a stand up guy and learning to become a great stick, I think you just need to be a little less sarcastic, especially on technical issues, until you have a little more experience. I don't know you and you don't know me, but obviously we have lots in common so let's do what you said and wait on that final report then whoever is wrong can buy the other a drink. What say you?
 

Dr Pokenhiemer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
301
Total Time
9000+
I can't believe two things.

1) Why does everyone have to play "I could've/would've done it better." Just give kudos to the crew for staying calm and doing a textbook job. Noone got hurt--who cares if the spoilers were disarmed or if TR's were used.

2) Who feeds those rediculous questions to Larry King? "Does the good weather make it easier to deal with am emergency?" Just prior to touchdown, "What is going through the minds of the pilots at this instant?" WHAT A MORON!! Thought he would be smarter than that--maybe that's why I never watched him before last night.
 

FL030

Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
22
Total Time
800
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A review of entries at NTSB.gov will show that there are two modes of failures that have caused the 90 degree spectaculars. One is of the incorrect re-assmbly of a nose strut and the other is an internal failure of the steering valve.

For the first it looks like JetBlue has 2, UAL has 1, Canada 3000 has 1 and another unnamed carrier in Ireland. Who knows how many other times this has happened.

America West has one of the steering valve incidents.

  • The UAL gear problem was caused by a third party facility. Were the others? - TM
 

jknight8907

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 25, 2004
Posts
215
Total Time
100
HawkerF/O said:
You said " How many autolands have you seen that held the nosewheel off until it ran out of elevator authority," How is that knowing he didn't let it run out of authority when you just sat up there and said he did? Look, I am not trying to knock you, but you came at me a little strong. I bet you are a stand up guy and learning to become a great stick, I think you just need to be a little less sarcastic, especially on technical issues, until you have a little more experience. I don't know you and you don't know me, but obviously we have lots in common so let's do what you said and wait on that final report then whoever is wrong can buy the other a drink. What say you?
*shrug* Fine with me. I'll try to phrase my statements better next time.
 
Top