On Jan 16, 11:05*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
dpb wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:21 am, Smitty Two wrote:
...
As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well
without engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.
...

That's utter BS about "any pilot" and "easily". *The descending course
from perhaps 8000-ft over the city that Airbus was "flying perfectly
well" w/o power is mostly flying just a little better than a rock--
they're not gliders.

They ARE gliders. The engines of a multi-engine jet on final approach are
producing essentially zero thrust. Might as well be turned off.

In the instant case, the plane lost all power at several thousand feet -- it
didn't fall out of the sky.

In "In Defense of Flying" (by F. Lee Bailey) he told the story of his
check-ride for a commercial license after graduating from Navy Flight
School, including some 30-odd carrier landings. He was bored, especially by
the old fart giving him the test.

"Okay, hotshot, let's see if you can land this thing," said the examiner.
Bailey said he saw the field, straight ahead, 4,000 foot runway, and his
altitude was 3,000 feet. No problemo.

In spite of everything he could do, he passed over the far end of the runway
at an altitude of 900 feet! The goddamn plane just wouldn't get out of the
sky!

A chastened Bailey DID get his commercial ticket, albeit with much chuckling
on the part of the examiner.

F Lee Bailey is a bag o' hot air...

In a clean configuration I'd guess something on the order of 16:1 or
so; shortly after takeoff w/ flaps still extended (this was within 30
seconds, recall) and less than full airspeed I'd say be lucky to be
much over 5-6:1 From 8000 ft that's not going to be long.

The guy did a helluva job as any reading of anything his cohorts are
saying will confirm.

--