Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

JB Emergency Question????

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
 
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.
 
Dr Pokenhiemer said:
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.

After Katrina, I saw a news-bimbo on CNN talking about a landing accident at NEW (nevermind the airport was still closed and half-submerged) as the news copter beamed down some live footage of a couple of upside-down airplanes. In the tight shot, there was plenty of mud visible all over the planes--they had obviously been under water recently. Then the camera zooms out and we can all see that they're on the friggin' ramp surrounded by a bunch of other damaged planes, yet she blabs on about all the dangers from all the relief aircraft operating there and how there was "obviously some sort of takeoff or landing accident" yada yada yada...could've slapped that bitch.
 
HawkerF/O said:
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.

Thread hijack alert!!!!!!!, or maybe just a slight change of direction.

You do NOT power out of a stall on a swept wing jet, when you practice "stalls" in your sim, or your airplane, you are practicing recovery from an approach to stall . I don't know the numbers for your airplane, but most transport catagory aircraft will give a stall indication at around stall plus 7%. It is that seven percent that allows you to use power for your recovery. If you reach true aerodynamic stall in a swept wing jet, you WILL NOT recover with power alone. I speak from personal experience.

The latest in upset recovery training makes this very point. You don't recover until you push over and break the stall. In fact, the proper recovery could actually be to pull power off if you stall in a nose high attitude while flying a jet with it's engines slung under the wings, because the thrust vector rotates the nose up in those airplanes.

The swept wing may be different from a 172, but it still follows the same basic law. Too much angle of attack, and it stalls, and stays stalled until the angle is decreased.

If you go back and re-read your own words, you'll realize what I mean.

sorry for the lack of development in this post, it's been a long day.

later,
enigma

PS, it's been a while since I flew a Lear with its marginally swept wing, but that airplane is restricted to being flown by factory test pilots when it is test flown after wing work that requires any type of flight near the stall regime. Specifically, if the leading edges were removed, the factory sends a test pilot to make the first test flight because the stall characteristics are considered too much for an untrained test pilot.
 
You make a great point! They should have used full reverse and maximum braking so they could have shown the world and superior pilots like yourself what 10,000' of remaining runway looks like from the cockpit with a collapsed nose gear while ordering an egress.:eek:

Sigh,

Counselair




chperplt said:
Plenty of runway because they stopped on the runway... another 800 feet or so and you wouldn't be saying that.
 
pilotmiketx said:
jknight8907 said:
His comment was tongue-in-cheek. You see, what he was trying to say was that the crew...aw to hell with it, if you're too dense to get it, it's your own damn fault.
Apparently not. He later makes statements attesting that in his opinion the pilots used the autoland for the rollout.
 
Wonder if it occured to some of you Monday morning quarterback geniuses out there that 800 feet was remaining because there was no point in braking earlier - that braking harder would have put more stress on the damaged nose gear? Brakes were available, he just didn't need them much. Looks like good planning and execution to me.

Regarding autolands - the A320 is incapable of performing a manual landing (long, light touchdown and nose high rollout) and then tracking the centerline on autopilot even with a working nose wheel. And what would the autopilot use to track the centerline with, rudder? I think that's what feet are for. The captain has thousands of hours in the left seat and is more than capable of tracking the centerline all by himself. It's not a skill requiring supernatural reflexes you know. But it was good airmanship, not an electronic trick. Give the man credit.
 
Blue Dude said:
Wonder if it occured to some of you Monday morning quarterback geniuses out there that 800 feet was remaining because there was no point in braking earlier - that braking harder would have put more stress on the damaged nose gear? Brakes were available, he just didn't need them much. Looks like good planning and execution to me.

Give the man credit.

Hey pardner, did it occur to you how much runway was wasted in the flare?
 
Texasskicker said:
Hey pardner, did it occur to you how much runway was wasted in the flare?

I had occured to me that the aircraft landed safely. I'll take that any day.
 
And thank the Lord for that

chum2 said:
I had occured to me that the aircraft landed safely. I'll take that any day.

Absolutely, and no sane person will deny the ultimate outcome was amazing. Wow!

But are you are inferring is that luck is more important than skill?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom