On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:24:09 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Tman" wrote in message

A transport multi-turbojet glides quite well with no power. I'm not
familiar with the A320, but am with the B737, which has a glide ratio
pushing 20:1. That's when cleaned up -- no flaps, no gear.


Jet engines are not held in place with a single shear pin.


I'd attribute the successful outcome of this in order of:

- a darn good configuration of luck -- this was the right place at the
right time and the right conditions to make a happy ditching like this
occur. I guess it had a bit of bad luck -- would've been a better outcome
to set it down on a piece of asphalt with numbers on both ends, but that
being out of the possibility, it was fine that the water was smooth, the
hidden wires were not there, and massive rescue capacity was seconds away.

- secondly, and I think this is where the flight crew should really get
the kudos -- was the decisive decision making at the right time. Deciding
to ditch in the Hudson is by no means an easy barrier to cross -- but when
the other options aren't there, one needs to make the hard choice and
stick to it.

- and oh yeah, flying skill. Honestly, and I'm sure I'll be debated, but
a gentle ditching given all the other factors above, I'd really expect
from a competent pilot.

Good points. We often forget about the shuttle not being powered.

Glide ratio for anyone not familiar, is how far forward the plane will go
for every foot down. 20:1 means that a plane at 3000 feet altitude can go
60,000 feet or about 11 miles. A glider can be about 50:1 or 60:1, but they
don't carry 150 passengers. A Cessna 150 is only about 7:1, the shuttle
4.5:1


As for the crew, the Captain certainly did a great job and was cool about
it, but the rest of the crew, cockpit and cabin, are to be commended for
what they did for preparation and evacuation.



As for the Azores Glider:

"Without engine power, control of the aircraft depended on the last
backup, a ram air turbine, which supplied limited power to hydraulic
and electrical systems. While Piché flew the plane, DeJager monitored
its descent rate €” around 2000 feet (600 metres) per minute €” and
calculated that the plane had about 15 to 20 minutes left before they
had to ditch the plane in the water.

The crew flew the plane a few more minutes, until sighting the air
base. Piché then had to execute a series of 360 degree turns to lose
altitude. Although they successfully lined up with Runway 33, they
faced a new danger. The plane was on a final descent, going faster
than normal. Although they had unlocked the slats and deployed the
landing gear, the airspeed was 200 knots, compared to the preferable
130-140 knots.

At 06:45 UTC, or 02:45 EST, after 19 minutes without engine power, the
plane touched down hard 1,030 feet down Runway 33 with about 200 knots
(370 km/h). The aircraft bounced back into the air but touched down
again 2,800 feet from the approach end of the runway and came to a
stop 7,600 feet from the approach end of the 10,000 foot runway. With
the operation of the emergency brakes, several tires burst. Fourteen
passengers and two crew members suffered minor injuries during the
evacuation of the aircraft. Two passengers suffered serious, but not
life-threatening injuries.
"

At 32000 feet altitude and an airspeed of 330 knots he had something
like 150 miles of "stretch", for a glide ratio of some 25:1.
This was a A330 with twice the capacity of the A320-200 (306 people on
board) and 361 sq M of wing, compared to the A32 with 122 SqM of
wing., so LIKELY a lighter wing loading.

Note they did several 360 turns to lose enough altitude to land on the
island. and STILL landed significantly "hot".

wrote:

What needs to be remembered is when the birds hit the fans the nose
was still UP - he was still climbing. Loose power in that
configuration and forward speed decreases VERY quichly and the pilot
needs to trade altitude for speed IMMEDIATELY to avoid stalling the
plane..

Which he would have done without thinking. I doubt the airspeed went down at
all.

Once he has adequate flying speed he sure does not have much
altitude left - and to get that plane out over the river instead of
over Manhattan before loosing too much altitude

That is making a lot of assumptions about altitude and position that I don't
have the data on. Do you?

while still being
above minmum control speed on an A300 series plane takes some doing.

With both engines out, he does not have to maintain minimum control speed. That
is the speed needed to maintain directional control with one engine out and the
other at full thrust. Look up "Vmc".

This plane is not a Cessna - it is a flying computer - all
"fly-by-wire".

I've never flown an Airbus, but I've flown a lot of Cessnas. I've also talked
to a lot of people who have flown both. They say the Cessnas are much harder.

It is a good indication of the expertise of the pilot in command that
he got it down in an "open space - in one piece - and even MORE that
there was no loss of life, and very few injuries.

Oh, yeah. He did a good job.

-- Doug

In article
,
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.

That one would hope that any commercial pilot
would be capable of the
feat is comforting thought if one flies;
reality is far different.
Even whether this guy could duplicate the
result is probably 50:50 at
best; undoubtedly his chances of getting it to
the ditching spot
would be pretty good but the ditching itself
would be a crapshoot to
come off that well.

The guy was outstanding (and I suspect, if
asked, would say had some
luck on his side to boot)...

--

Uh huh. Obviously you aren't a pilot.

Wow, and obviously, neither are you! Most
"commercial" aircraft will do as you suggest,
under proper circumstances and pilot control, but
not all, on top of the hundreds, probably
thousands of mitigating circumstances to each and
every such situation.

Yep, planes *are* gliders. Every
single one of them, regardless of size. They
absolutely fly perfectly
well without power. If they didn't, you'd never
be able to land one.

No, that's not so either. A plane with sufficient
speed and altitude, MIGHT, with proper control, be
able to "glide" into a landing. But the instant
'stall speed' arrives, that plane becomes a rock.
With luck, you'll have enough altitude to put it
nose down until you get the speed you need, and
then with more luck, the controls will withstand
the pressures of pulling the plane out of the
dive and add another few minutes of flying time.
And it's not how they land, either; there is no
"gliding" involved. In fact, they are under full
power during landing, slowed down by things like
lowered flaps and other surfaces that act as air
brakes, until position position speed and altitude
are such that the landing can be accomplished.
Still under power, the speed decreases until near
"stall" speed is achieved, and the plane falls the
last few feet onto the runway. Why do they do it
under power? Because then if there is a ground
problem, they still have the power available to go
around and try again. Jet engines do NOT
accelerate quickly; it takes time to get the
engines spinning fast enough again, if the landing
has to be aborted; so, they're kept spinning and
other means are used to slow down.


The fact that he was at 8000 ft, if he was,
makes the off-field
landing easier: more time to select a landing
spot and maneuver to it.

8,000 ft is very low for a plane to "glide" very
far. The engines may be 2-blocked but the plane
isn't flying level, it's climbing, and it's speed
isn't yet high. It's going to slow down quickly
without an engine and when it reaches the stall
speed, it becomes a rock; at 8k ft there's not
enough altitude to do a nose down to regain lost
speed. It's a fast thinking person who makes the
decision to try to hit the most likely reachable
spot that saves lives. A single miscalculation
and many people are likely to be dead.

In addition to all this, there are many planes
that, without power, will hit stall speed within
seconds due to their minimal wing areas. These
aren't passenger planes, but they're still planes,
and there's a good reason for the crew having
parachutes and ejection seats at the ready.
Regardless of altitude & pilot experience, losing
power means flailing to the ground very quickly.
Again, it takes a lot of skill to know whether to
abandone a millions of dollars aircraft in time to
get out before the planes spinning/rolling fall
makes evacuation impossible.

I'm quitting because I'll write a book here if not
careful, but ... please, don't try to be so
ignorant and non-chalant about things that can
take so many lives both on the plane and on the
ground. It's a very serious mattern.




Engine outs are so common that in small planes
they aren't even
considered an emergency. Commercial pilots
practice constantly for
such occurrences.

wrote:
One of the first things taught in flight school is how to maneuver a
plane with the engine turned off (and do all the other stuff, like
call "Mayday," look for a landing spot, deal with soiled trousers,
etc.). I still remember my instructor, whose name was Sneaky
*******, surreptitiously turning off the fuel supply!

Cough-cough, pop, fizz.... silence!

I wept.

Hey, ever land a glider on water?

My pants were wet. Does that count?

"Twayne" wrote:



Uh huh. Obviously you aren't a pilot.

Wow, and obviously, neither are you!

I am a pilot.


No, that's not so either. A plane with sufficient
speed and altitude, MIGHT, with proper control, be
able to "glide" into a landing.

If the plane has flying speed before the engines quit, it will have it after.
You just have to lower the nose some to maintain it. There are no dramatic
dives involved.

But the instant
'stall speed' arrives, that plane becomes a rock.

So keep it above stall speed. This is taught in the first couple of hours of
flight instruction.

With luck, you'll have enough altitude to put it
nose down until you get the speed you need, and
then with more luck, the controls will withstand
the pressures of pulling the plane out of the
dive and add another few minutes of flying time.

No dramatic dives involved. Just lower the nose a bit. Also taught in the
first few hours of instruction.

8,000 ft is very low for a plane to "glide" very
far. The engines may be 2-blocked but the plane
isn't flying level, it's climbing, and it's speed
isn't yet high. It's going to slow down quickly
without an engine and when it reaches the stall
speed, it becomes a rock; at 8k ft there's not
enough altitude to do a nose down to regain lost
speed.

Nonsense. An A320 will glide over 20 miles from 8,000 ft.


-- Doug

on 1/16/2009 5:51 AM (ET) Jimw wrote the following:
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York. They said it was caused by birds flying into
the engine. Then they showed a report of the number of bird caused
plane accidents and deaths each year. From 1990 to 2007 there were
almost 80,000 accidents caused by birds. There have been numerous
deaths and millions of dollars of damages.

OK, looking at the engines they showed on tv, I immediately thought
***Why dont they put some sort of screening over the engine***
It would only seem like a couple hundred dollars worth of hardware
cloth would solve the problem. Why dont they think of simple
solutions like this?

Jim

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...ance.plane.cnn

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

wrote:


He did an almost 180 turn over a highly populated area with a high
skyline and making that landing WITH power would not have been a walk
in the park. The fact he was able to keep it from flipping or breaking
up when the low-hung engines hit the water means he HAD to bring it in
nose high - without power - at something like 120 MPH (any lower would
have had it falling out of the air)

A power-off 180 to a landing is basic flight school stuff. A nose high, wings
level attitude at touchdown is easy enough as well. The news reports are making
far too much of the handling of the aircraft.

What I am really admiring is his decision making skills. Making the hard
choice of ditching in a very cold river vs. what had to be a big temptation to
try a landing at Teterboro or LGA. That's where the issues of highly populated
area and high skyline come in, not making the 180.

I am really looking forward to hearing the cockpit voice recorder. I suspect we
are going to hear a pair of very cool cats.

-- Doug

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
news
wrote:


He did an almost 180 turn over a highly populated area with a high
skyline and making that landing WITH power would not have been a walk
in the park. The fact he was able to keep it from flipping or breaking
up when the low-hung engines hit the water means he HAD to bring it in
nose high - without power - at something like 120 MPH (any lower would
have had it falling out of the air)

A power-off 180 to a landing is basic flight school stuff. A nose high,
wings
level attitude at touchdown is easy enough as well. The news reports are
making
far too much of the handling of the aircraft.

What I am really admiring is his decision making skills. Making the hard
choice of ditching in a very cold river vs. what had to be a big
temptation to
try a landing at Teterboro or LGA. That's where the issues of highly
populated
area and high skyline come in, not making the 180.

I am really looking forward to hearing the cockpit voice recorder. I
suspect we
are going to hear a pair of very cool cats.

-- Doug

I know this. I've seen films on a lot of "ditchings", which in my mind
means landing on water. When I think of it, I think of exactly what
happened here. One comes in and skids on the water, and comes to a stop.
The films look like KERSPLAT, and a cartwheel or a spin, or breaking up.

You say this type of landing is textbook and is learned by any pilot
student. Well, either they ain't paying attention, or reality doesn't go
like flight school.

Steve

"SteveB" wrote:


I know this. I've seen films on a lot of "ditchings", which in my mind
means landing on water. When I think of it, I think of exactly what
happened here. One comes in and skids on the water, and comes to a stop.
The films look like KERSPLAT, and a cartwheel or a spin, or breaking up.

You say this type of landing is textbook and is learned by any pilot
student. Well, either they ain't paying attention, or reality doesn't go
like flight school.

I'm sorry. I don't know what you are saying here. Could you rephrase?
Thanks,
Doug

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote:


I know this. I've seen films on a lot of "ditchings", which in my mind
means landing on water. When I think of it, I think of exactly what
happened here. One comes in and skids on the water, and comes to a stop.
The films look like KERSPLAT, and a cartwheel or a spin, or breaking up.

You say this type of landing is textbook and is learned by any pilot
student. Well, either they ain't paying attention, or reality doesn't go
like flight school.

I'm sorry. I don't know what you are saying here. Could you rephrase?
Thanks,
Doug

I reread it, and got confused myself. I meant to say "All the films I have
seen of previous ditchings, the films look like KERSPLAT, and a cartwheel or
a spin, or breaking up." I meant to say that I had never seen a plane come
in like that one did, and come to a stop from evenly skidding on water. All
the other ones I had seen had a violent ending from dragging a wing, or just
something that interrupted the sliding motion. One would imagine that a
plane could come in and just skid to a stop on that smooth water.
Apparently, that rarely happens. Water is hard when you hit it at a fairly
good speed. BTDT.

Hope that clarifies it.

"SteveB" wrote:


I reread it, and got confused myself. I meant to say "All the films I have
seen of previous ditchings, the films look like KERSPLAT, and a cartwheel or
a spin, or breaking up." I meant to say that I had never seen a plane come
in like that one did, and come to a stop from evenly skidding on water. All
the other ones I had seen had a violent ending from dragging a wing, or just
something that interrupted the sliding motion. One would imagine that a
plane could come in and just skid to a stop on that smooth water.
Apparently, that rarely happens. Water is hard when you hit it at a fairly
good speed. BTDT.

Hope that clarifies it.

Sure does. Yes, most ditchings turn out badly. This is especially true for
fixed gear planes and planes with planes with underwing engines like the A320.
The reason is that the gear or engines catch the water at high speed. I'm sure
that the fairly violent turn that you can see at the end of the ditching videos
is a result of the left engine digging into the water.

Ditchings are something that are taught, but not practiced in flight school for
obvious reasons. My comments about the aircraft handling being routine don't
diminish the fact that the pilot did everything right. He put the plane over
the water in a very nose high, wings level attitude. Probably at the lowest
speed he could manage. He held the nose up as long as he could. All that with
enough adrenaline in his system to fill the Hudson.

After that, it was mostly luck. The Hudson was fairly smooth. He had the
current with him and he managed not to catch an engine until he had bled off
most of his speed. -- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:

Ditchings are something that are taught, but not practiced in flight school for
obvious reasons. My comments about the aircraft handling being routine don't

Most flight school.
Ditching practice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Yf6_MVTck

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


And the airbus is inherently unstable and is virtually unflyable
without the assistance of the flight computers. It is "fly by wire".

Good thing he still had electrical power or it would have ended a LOT
worse.

While some behave better than others, no certificated aircraft is
"inherently unstable."

The B2 bomber and F-117A are inherently unstable.

I don't think military aircraft are certificated. IIRC, "Stable" comes
in "positive," "neutral," and "negative" but "negative" does not mean
"unstable."

In article ,
"Twayne" wrote:



On Jan 16, 8:21 am, Smitty Two
wrote:


Uh huh. Obviously you aren't a pilot.

Wow, and obviously, neither are you!

Actually, I am, Twayne. Nothing wrong with being ignorant about planes,
as you obviously are, but isn't it just a tad bit embarrassing to boast
about your ignorance at such length? Here's your homework assignment:
Read "Stick and Rudder."

HeyBub wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


And the airbus is inherently unstable and is virtually unflyable
without the assistance of the flight computers. It is "fly by wire".

Good thing he still had electrical power or it would have ended a LOT
worse.
While some behave better than others, no certificated aircraft is
"inherently unstable."

The B2 bomber and F-117A are inherently unstable.


"Type certificate" is a concept applied to civil aircraft and it is
issued by whomever the civil aviation regulatory body is for the country
in question. For the US it is FAA. The military are responsible for
their own stuff.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:26:58 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Twayne" wrote:



On Jan 16, 8:21 am, Smitty Two
wrote:


Uh huh. Obviously you aren't a pilot.

Wow, and obviously, neither are you!

Actually, I am, Twayne. Nothing wrong with being ignorant about planes,
as you obviously are, but isn't it just a tad bit embarrassing to boast
about your ignorance at such length? Here's your homework assignment:
Read "Stick and Rudder."


I just talked to my recently retired AirCanada pilot friend.
He's flown A320s out of New York.
That plane never got above something like 3250 feet. That's just over
twice the hieght of the tallest buildings nearby.

He said the glide ratio on a 320-200 can be stretched out to something
better than 30:1 at the right speed when fully loaded - but this
plane would have been flying JUST fast enough to not stall on the turn
to line it up with the river, and then had barely enough altitude to
clear the GW Bridge. There was NO WAY it could have reached the small
airport nearby, which was too short to land on without thrust
reversers.
He's got a lot of respect for the pilot and flight crew who made the
split-second decisions, and communicated them effectively, as well as
handling the extremely tricky landing procedure.

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:26:58 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"Twayne" wrote:



On Jan 16, 8:21 am, Smitty Two
wrote:


Uh huh. Obviously you aren't a pilot.

Wow, and obviously, neither are you!

Actually, I am, Twayne. Nothing wrong with being ignorant about planes,
as you obviously are, but isn't it just a tad bit embarrassing to boast
about your ignorance at such length? Here's your homework assignment:
Read "Stick and Rudder."


I just talked to my recently retired AirCanada pilot friend.
He's flown A320s out of New York.
That plane never got above something like 3250 feet. That's just over
twice the hieght of the tallest buildings nearby.

He said the glide ratio on a 320-200 can be stretched out to something
better than 30:1 at the right speed when fully loaded - but this
plane would have been flying JUST fast enough to not stall on the turn
to line it up with the river, and then had barely enough altitude to
clear the GW Bridge. There was NO WAY it could have reached the small
airport nearby, which was too short to land on without thrust
reversers.
He's got a lot of respect for the pilot and flight crew who made the
split-second decisions, and communicated them effectively, as well as
handling the extremely tricky landing procedure.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Yes, I have a lot of respect for the
pilot, as well. And I still say that any captain with the majors and
tens of thousands of hours in his logbook might well have done the same
thing, and done it well. He did a hell of fine job, but it wasn't the
one-in-a-million miracle that some people insist on believing.

Let's see, 30:1 at 3250 AGL works out to a theoretical maximum glide of
over 18 miles.

Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators, so no surprise that the pilot
did the 180 with minimal airspeed in order to preserve altitude. A 180
turn uses up quite a bit of it.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:02:47 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:


Interesting. Thanks for the info. Yes, I have a lot of respect for the
pilot, as well. And I still say that any captain with the majors and
tens of thousands of hours in his logbook might well have done the same
thing, and done it well. He did a hell of fine job, but it wasn't the
one-in-a-million miracle that some people insist on believing.

Let's see, 30:1 at 3250 AGL works out to a theoretical maximum glide of
over 18 miles.

I don't believe he would have 30:1 at climb speed.


Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators, so no surprise that the pilot
did the 180 with minimal airspeed in order to preserve altitude. A 180
turn uses up quite a bit of it.

Depends on the rate of turn.

news reports that airplane had engines out in past 2 weeks, so problem
may be more than birds

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:27:28 -0600, Andy Asberry
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:02:47 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:


Interesting. Thanks for the info. Yes, I have a lot of respect for the
pilot, as well. And I still say that any captain with the majors and
tens of thousands of hours in his logbook might well have done the same
thing, and done it well. He did a hell of fine job, but it wasn't the
one-in-a-million miracle that some people insist on believing.

Let's see, 30:1 at 3250 AGL works out to a theoretical maximum glide of
over 18 miles.

I don't believe he would have 30:1 at climb speed.


Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators, so no surprise that the pilot
did the 180 with minimal airspeed in order to preserve altitude. A 180
turn uses up quite a bit of it.

Depends on the rate of turn.


At the speed he was "gliding" significantly less than 20:1 according
to my pilot friend.

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:27:28 -0600, Andy Asberry
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:02:47 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:


Interesting. Thanks for the info. Yes, I have a lot of respect for the
pilot, as well. And I still say that any captain with the majors and
tens of thousands of hours in his logbook might well have done the same
thing, and done it well. He did a hell of fine job, but it wasn't the
one-in-a-million miracle that some people insist on believing.

Let's see, 30:1 at 3250 AGL works out to a theoretical maximum glide of
over 18 miles.

I don't believe he would have 30:1 at climb speed.


Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators, so no surprise that the pilot
did the 180 with minimal airspeed in order to preserve altitude. A 180
turn uses up quite a bit of it.

Depends on the rate of turn.


At the speed he was "gliding" significantly less than 20:1 according
to my pilot friend.

How does your friend happen to know the speed the pilot chose?

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:27:28 -0600, Andy Asberry
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:02:47 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Yes, I have a lot of respect for the
pilot, as well. And I still say that any captain with the majors and
tens of thousands of hours in his logbook might well have done the same
thing, and done it well. He did a hell of fine job, but it wasn't the
one-in-a-million miracle that some people insist on believing.

Let's see, 30:1 at 3250 AGL works out to a theoretical maximum glide of
over 18 miles.
I don't believe he would have 30:1 at climb speed.

Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators, so no surprise that the pilot
did the 180 with minimal airspeed in order to preserve altitude. A 180
turn uses up quite a bit of it.
Depends on the rate of turn.

At the speed he was "gliding" significantly less than 20:1 according
to my pilot friend.

How does your friend happen to know the speed the pilot chose?

Chose?? With no power how does he choose?

Lou

On Jan 21, 6:30*am, LouB wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:27:28 -0600, Andy Asberry
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:02:47 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Yes, I have a lot of respect for the
pilot, as well. And I still say that any captain with the majors and
tens of thousands of hours in his logbook might well have done the same
thing, and done it well. He did a hell of fine job, but it wasn't the
one-in-a-million miracle that some people insist on believing.

Let's see, 30:1 at 3250 AGL works out to a theoretical maximum glide of
over 18 miles.
I don't believe he would have 30:1 at climb speed.

Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators, so no surprise that the pilot
did the 180 with minimal airspeed in order to preserve altitude. A 180
turn uses up quite a bit of it.
Depends on the rate of turn.

At the speed he was "gliding" significantly less than 20:1 according
to my pilot friend.

How does your friend happen to know the speed the pilot chose?

Chose?? *With no power how does he choose?

Lou

Clare will tell you

LouB wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:

How does your friend happen to know the speed the pilot chose?

You can see speed and altitude for the flight he
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A.../KLGA/tracklog

Chose?? With no power how does he choose?

This is a misconception running through this whole thread. The primary flight
control for speed is the fore and aft movement of the stick, not throttles. The
throttles are the primary flight control for altitude. All the flight controls
interact with each other, but those are the primaries.

Consider an airplane in stable flight. It could be climbing, descending, or
level, but the pilot has trimmed it so it can fly "hands off". This is the
normal flight condition. Let's assume straight and level for simplicity.

If the pilot increases the power, the plane will go up, the airspeed will stay
constant. If the pilot decreases the power, the plane will go down, the
airspeed will stay constant.

If the pilot pulls back on the stick, the airspeed will go down, the altitude
will increase. (That's the interaction I mentioned). If the pilot pushes
forward on the stick, the airspeed will go up and the plane will go down.

That's not obvious for people who haven't piloted a plane, but true anyway. A
classic book on the subject is Wolfgang Langewiesche's "Stick and Rudder"

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Rudder-E.../dp/0070362408

Well worth reading if you are interested in the subject.

Now, a show of hands. How many folks think the rudders turn the airplane?

-- Doug

In article , LouB
wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:27:28 -0600, Andy Asberry
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:02:47 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Yes, I have a lot of respect for the
pilot, as well. And I still say that any captain with the majors and
tens of thousands of hours in his logbook might well have done the same
thing, and done it well. He did a hell of fine job, but it wasn't the
one-in-a-million miracle that some people insist on believing.

Let's see, 30:1 at 3250 AGL works out to a theoretical maximum glide of
over 18 miles.
I don't believe he would have 30:1 at climb speed.

Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators, so no surprise that the pilot
did the 180 with minimal airspeed in order to preserve altitude. A 180
turn uses up quite a bit of it.
Depends on the rate of turn.

At the speed he was "gliding" significantly less than 20:1 according
to my pilot friend.

How does your friend happen to know the speed the pilot chose?

Chose?? With no power how does he choose?

Lou

Like I said, "Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators." Point the nose
down, you go faster. Point it up, you go slower.

In article ,
Douglas Johnson wrote:


You can see speed and altitude for the flight he
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...Z/KLGA/KLGA/tr
acklog

Thanks for that link, then. I see those are groundspeeds but hopefully
close enough. Pilot Operating Handbook for the 320 lists 150 knots as
landing airspeed; flightaware's last figure is 153. I'd say he had the
landing dialed in. FWIW, POH also notes that standard descents are done
with engines idling.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:30:20 -0500, LouB wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:27:28 -0600, Andy Asberry
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:02:47 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Yes, I have a lot of respect for the
pilot, as well. And I still say that any captain with the majors and
tens of thousands of hours in his logbook might well have done the same
thing, and done it well. He did a hell of fine job, but it wasn't the
one-in-a-million miracle that some people insist on believing.

Let's see, 30:1 at 3250 AGL works out to a theoretical maximum glide of
over 18 miles.
I don't believe he would have 30:1 at climb speed.

Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators, so no surprise that the pilot
did the 180 with minimal airspeed in order to preserve altitude. A 180
turn uses up quite a bit of it.
Depends on the rate of turn.

At the speed he was "gliding" significantly less than 20:1 according
to my pilot friend.

How does your friend happen to know the speed the pilot chose?

Chose?? With no power how does he choose?

Lou
He needs to trade, very carefully, altitude for speed vs distance.

The fact he was able to get the right combination speaks volumes about
the man's flying knowlege . Apparently he was just above stall when he
dragged the tail in (nose high, likely on full flaps, or very close) -
and dragging the tail reduced the speed to below stall which allowed
the plane to pancake in virtually level at a low enough speed that it
just tore one engine off it's pilon without significantly turning or
flipping the plane.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:26:03 -0600, Douglas Johnson
wrote:

LouB wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:

How does your friend happen to know the speed the pilot chose?

You can see speed and altitude for the flight he
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A.../KLGA/tracklog

Chose?? With no power how does he choose?

This is a misconception running through this whole thread. The primary flight
control for speed is the fore and aft movement of the stick, not throttles. The
throttles are the primary flight control for altitude. All the flight controls
interact with each other, but those are the primaries.

Consider an airplane in stable flight. It could be climbing, descending, or
level, but the pilot has trimmed it so it can fly "hands off". This is the
normal flight condition. Let's assume straight and level for simplicity.

If the pilot increases the power, the plane will go up, the airspeed will stay
constant. If the pilot decreases the power, the plane will go down, the
airspeed will stay constant.

If the pilot pulls back on the stick, the airspeed will go down, the altitude
will increase. (That's the interaction I mentioned). If the pilot pushes
forward on the stick, the airspeed will go up and the plane will go down.

That's not obvious for people who haven't piloted a plane, but true anyway. A
classic book on the subject is Wolfgang Langewiesche's "Stick and Rudder"

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Rudder-E.../dp/0070362408

Well worth reading if you are interested in the subject.

Now, a show of hands. How many folks think the rudders turn the airplane?

-- Doug
The rudders just skid the plane (and help co-ordinate the plane by
lifting or dropping the tail as ir follows the plane around the "cone"
instigated by the ailerons banking the plane.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:14:18 -0800 (PST), cavedweller
wrote:

On Jan 21, 6:30Â*am, LouB wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:27:28 -0600, Andy Asberry
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:02:47 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Yes, I have a lot of respect for the
pilot, as well. And I still say that any captain with the majors and
tens of thousands of hours in his logbook might well have done the same
thing, and done it well. He did a hell of fine job, but it wasn't the
one-in-a-million miracle that some people insist on believing.

Let's see, 30:1 at 3250 AGL works out to a theoretical maximum glide of
over 18 miles.
I don't believe he would have 30:1 at climb speed.

Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators, so no surprise that the pilot
did the 180 with minimal airspeed in order to preserve altitude. A 180
turn uses up quite a bit of it.
Depends on the rate of turn.

At the speed he was "gliding" significantly less than 20:1 according
to my pilot friend.

How does your friend happen to know the speed the pilot chose?

Chose?? Â*With no power how does he choose?

Lou

Clare will tell you
Well looking at the flight track info, he lost the engines at aprox
3:27 at 3200 feet while heading somewhat northerly at 202 knots in a
climb of 1000 feet per minute as he dropped the nose and traded off
1200 feet of altitude for 8 knots of airspeed and then banked to the
left ( to a more southerly track)and traded off another 400 feet of
altitude for another 13 knots. ( the turn, loss of altitude, and
following loss of airspeed all being directly connected)He then
stretched his glide, losing another 400 feet and dropping 21 knots of
speed (2 minutes elapsed) then traded off 3 knots of speed for an
extra 100 feet of altitude ( crossing GWB?) then it appears he put the
nose up, dropping 2 knots and 900 feet of altitude. In the nose up
altitude (and likely with flaps extended) he lost another 36 knots
and 100 feet, bringing him to 300 ft ASL. at 153 knots. (total elapsed
time aprox 4 minutes) at which time the plane was virtrually stalled
and the tail either dragging or ready to drag in the water. When the
tail hit the water, the forward speed dropped very quickly and the
entire belly of the plane met the water.

That's my take on it, anyway.

wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:30:20 -0500, LouB wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:27:28 -0600, Andy Asberry
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:02:47 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Yes, I have a lot of respect for the
pilot, as well. And I still say that any captain with the majors and
tens of thousands of hours in his logbook might well have done the same
thing, and done it well. He did a hell of fine job, but it wasn't the
one-in-a-million miracle that some people insist on believing.

Let's see, 30:1 at 3250 AGL works out to a theoretical maximum glide of
over 18 miles.
I don't believe he would have 30:1 at climb speed.

Airspeed is adjusted with the elevators, so no surprise that the pilot
did the 180 with minimal airspeed in order to preserve altitude. A 180
turn uses up quite a bit of it.
Depends on the rate of turn.
At the speed he was "gliding" significantly less than 20:1 according
to my pilot friend.
How does your friend happen to know the speed the pilot chose?
Chose?? With no power how does he choose?

Lou
He needs to trade, very carefully, altitude for speed vs distance.

The fact he was able to get the right combination speaks volumes about
the man's flying knowlege . Apparently he was just above stall when he
dragged the tail in (nose high, likely on full flaps, or very close) -
and dragging the tail reduced the speed to below stall which allowed
the plane to pancake in virtually level at a low enough speed that it
just tore one engine off it's pilon without significantly turning or
flipping the plane.

I see said the blind man to his deaf wife!

Thanks for the explanations:-))

Lou

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.

That one would hope that any commercial pilot would be capable of the
feat is comforting thought if one flies; reality is far different.
Even whether this guy could duplicate the result is probably 50:50 at
best; undoubtedly his chances of getting it to the ditching spot would
be pretty good but the ditching itself would be a crapshoot to come
off that well.

The guy was outstanding (and I suspect, if asked, would say had some
luck on his side to boot)...

--

I wonder if you remember The Gimli Glider, the 767
that ran out of fuel at cruising altitude. The pilot
happened to be a sailplane pilot also. I remember
reading that every time they tried to duplicate the
landing in the simulator, they had a simulated crash.

http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

TDD

When I worked with flight engines at Pratt and Whitney, all flight
engines had anti-icing features built into the blades (some of the
compressor blades were hollow and hot air circulated through them). This
solved the engine icing problem. The icing problem is with the aircraft
body itself.

We would NEVER put any "thing" in front of the engine for fear of
ingesting the "thing" and destroying the engine. A structure like a
screen and its supports has the potential for completely destroying any
jet engine.

Bird strikes are a very common event, particularly around airports.
Engines are designed to absorb bird strikes and tested against bird
strikes. At Pratt we had a steam powered catapult "chicken gun" which
was used to fire chickens into the inlet of a jet in a test stand. The
chicken was shot in at about 300 mph, and the engine was expected to
keep on running at power. For the design to be certified the engine
model had to pass this test.

I do not recall any requirement for tests with multiple chickens.

In the very early days (say around 1955) the chicken was alive. After
the SPCA etc. threw a hissy fit the test was changed so that the chicken
was killed before being shot into the engine. No one wanted us to scare
the chicken to death.

HTH,

EJ in NJ



Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Jimw" wrote in message
...
Off Topic, but hardware related.

I have to imagine it has been thought of. I also have to imagine it has to
be a problem. Air flow over the screen at 600 mph can be a problem.
Resistance and the support needed for the screen would be too. Not to
mention that some stuff that is normally sucked through the engine could
block the screen and cause even bigger problems.

They were also worried about icing and deicing. You'd have to almost put
the deicer directly into the engine itself and that can't be a good
thing. Also, when you look at the forces involved in hitting a large
goose at take off speeds or higher, you run out of materials that make
any sense very quickly.

on 1/22/2009 7:35 AM (ET) Ernie Willson wrote the following:
When I worked with flight engines at Pratt and Whitney, all flight
engines had anti-icing features built into the blades (some of the
compressor blades were hollow and hot air circulated through them).
This solved the engine icing problem. The icing problem is with the
aircraft body itself.

We would NEVER put any "thing" in front of the engine for fear of
ingesting the "thing" and destroying the engine. A structure like a
screen and its supports has the potential for completely destroying
any jet engine.

Bird strikes are a very common event, particularly around airports.
Engines are designed to absorb bird strikes and tested against bird
strikes. At Pratt we had a steam powered catapult "chicken gun" which
was used to fire chickens into the inlet of a jet in a test stand. The
chicken was shot in at about 300 mph, and the engine was expected to
keep on running at power. For the design to be certified the engine
model had to pass this test.

I do not recall any requirement for tests with multiple chickens.

In the very early days (say around 1955) the chicken was alive. After
the SPCA etc. threw a hissy fit the test was changed so that the
chicken was killed before being shot into the engine. No one wanted us
to scare the chicken to death.

HTH,

EJ in NJ



Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Jimw" wrote in message
...
Off Topic, but hardware related.

I have to imagine it has been thought of. I also have to imagine it
has to be a problem. Air flow over the screen at 600 mph can be a
problem. Resistance and the support needed for the screen would be
too. Not to mention that some stuff that is normally sucked through
the engine could block the screen and cause even bigger problems.

They were also worried about icing and deicing. You'd have to almost
put the deicer directly into the engine itself and that can't be a
good thing. Also, when you look at the forces involved in hitting a
large goose at take off speeds or higher, you run out of materials
that make any sense very quickly.
Don't they just go to the supermarket and buy chickens from the butcher?


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In article ,
willshak wrote:

Don't they just go to the supermarket and buy chickens from the butcher?

Nah. In order to be used, they have to mil-spec chickens (g).

willshak wrote:
on 1/22/2009 7:35 AM (ET) Ernie Willson wrote the following:
When I worked with flight engines at Pratt and Whitney,etc.

At Pratt we had a steam powered catapult "chicken gun" which
was used to fire chickens into the inlet of a jet in a test stand. The
chicken was shot in at about 300 mph, and the engine was expected to
keep on running at power. For the design to be certified the engine
model had to pass this test.

In the very early days (say around 1955) the chicken was alive. After
the SPCA etc. threw a hissy fit the test was changed so that the
chicken was killed before being shot into the engine. No one wanted us
to scare the chicken to death.

HTH,

EJ in NJ



Kurt Ullman wrote:

Don't they just go to the supermarket and buy chickens from the butcher?

I believe the do now. Back in the 50's it was as easy to get a live
chicken as a plucked and cleaned one. The live chicken is closer to a
real bird strike than a cleaned one, however, I doubt that the missing
viscera and feathers affects the effects on the engine.

BTW there is a "spec" chicken. IIRC the spec says that the chicken must
be thoroughly thawed, it must hit the engine inlet at or above a certain
velocity, and it must be heavier than a stated minimum weight.

EJ in NJ

On Jan 16, 3:13*pm, "JohnR66" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message

...
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.

No they're not gliders, but if your descending without power, the plane is
losing potential energy so it can, in some cases, fly faster and retain
maneuverability.
You just better have some space to land cause there is no second chance.

That one would hope that any commercial pilot would be capable of the
feat is comforting thought if one flies; reality is far different.
Even whether this guy could duplicate the result is probably 50:50 at
best; undoubtedly his chances of getting it to the ditching spot would
be pretty good but the ditching itself would be a crapshoot to come
off that well.

The guy was outstanding (and I suspect, if asked, would say had some
luck on his side to boot)...

--

The maximum altitude reached was reported as 3500 ft and the total
time from the point of impact by the birds to touchdown on the river
was 3 1/2 minutes. During that time, the pilot had to assess the
situation, determine a landing position, handle the radio and flying
functions while the co-pilot followed the engine restart checklist and
attempted an engine restart.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:27:30 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

I wonder if you remember The Gimli Glider, the 767
that ran out of fuel at cruising altitude. The pilot
happened to be a sailplane pilot also. I remember
reading that every time they tried to duplicate the
landing in the simulator, they had a simulated crash.

http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

TDD

And in further irony, the Air Canada maintenance van that was
dispatched to begin repairs ran out of gas on the road :-)

J

wrote:

He needs to trade, very carefully, altitude for speed vs distance.

The fact he was able to get the right combination speaks volumes about
the man's flying knowlege .

Yep. It shows he read the A320 flight manual and knew the plane's Vbg.

Apparently he was just above stall when he
dragged the tail in (nose high, likely on full flaps, or very close) -
and dragging the tail reduced the speed to below stall which allowed
the plane to pancake in virtually level at a low enough speed that it
just tore one engine off it's pilon without significantly turning or
flipping the plane.

Very nicely done.

But here's my standard for brilliant flying and cool command:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232

A DC-10 lost all hydraulic power and thus all flight controls except the
throttles on two engines. Captain and crew brought it to a semi-controlled
landing at Sioux City, Iowa. 185 survivors out of 296 on board.

Approach control cleared him to "land any runway". His response:

"[laughter] Roger. [laughter] You want to be particular and make it a runway,
huh?"

Earlier on a more serious note the captain said:

"Whatever you do, keep us away from the city."

As the airplane was approaching, still 15 minutes out, air traffic control
notified the hospitals in the area not with the usual "an airliner is in
distress", but "an airliner has crashed".

At the end of the Wikipedia article, there is a link to a transcript of a speech
the captain gave to NASA. It is a stunning insight to the accident, crew and
ground responses to emergencies, airline training, and the man himself.

Here it is for a shortcut:

http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/dc10_sioux_city.html

-- Doug

On Jan 22, 11:21�am, Douglas Johnson wrote:
wrote:
He needs to trade, very carefully, altitude for speed vs distance.

The fact he was able to get the right combination speaks volumes about
the man's flying knowlege .

Yep. �It shows he read the A320 flight manual and knew the plane's Vbg.

Apparently he was just above stall when he
dragged the tail in (nose high, likely on full flaps, or very close) -
and dragging the tail reduced the speed to below stall which allowed
the plane to pancake in virtually level at a low enough speed that it
just tore one engine off it's pilon without significantly turning or
flipping the plane.

Very nicely done.

But here's my standard for brilliant flying and cool command:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232

A DC-10 lost all hydraulic power and thus all flight controls except the
throttles on two engines. �Captain and crew brought it to a semi-controlled
landing at Sioux City, Iowa. �185 survivors out of 296 on board. �

Approach control cleared him to "land any runway". �His response:

"[laughter] Roger. [laughter] You want to be particular and make it a runway,
huh?" �

Earlier on a more serious note the captain said:

"Whatever you do, keep us away from the city."

As the airplane was approaching, still 15 minutes out, air traffic control
notified the hospitals in the area not with the usual "an airliner is in
distress", but "an airliner has crashed". �

At the end of the Wikipedia article, there is a link to a transcript of a speech
the captain gave to NASA. �It is a stunning insight to the accident, �crew and
ground responses to emergencies, airline training, and the man himself. �

Here it is for a shortcut:

http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/dc10_sioux_city.html

-- Doug

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND the show AIR EMERGENCY on the national geographic
channel. It tells the story of many crashes in great detail not about
the gory stuff but the technical aspects.

Near all problems are a combination of troubles

Josh wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:27:30 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
I wonder if you remember The Gimli Glider, the 767
that ran out of fuel at cruising altitude. The pilot
happened to be a sailplane pilot also. I remember
reading that every time they tried to duplicate the
landing in the simulator, they had a simulated crash.

http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

TDD

And in further irony, the Air Canada maintenance van that was
dispatched to begin repairs ran out of gas on the road :-)

J

That was funnier than anything that could
be made up. Red faces all around.

TDD