A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

See and Avoid - Birds



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 11th 09, 06:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
sisu1a
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default See and Avoid - Birds

*In the video, it looks like he might have been able do it. *

The key word in your post was 'might'. He also 'migh't have made it
to Teterboro, which too was rejected. The Hudson was the only sure
bet. At least if that plan went south it was only 155 people instead
of an entire neigborhood or urban block's worth as well...

-Paul
  #12  
Old March 11th 09, 07:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
bildan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 646
Default See and Avoid - Birds

On Mar 11, 11:33*am, sisu1a wrote:
*In the video, it looks like he might have been able do it. *


The key word in your post was 'might'. * He also 'migh't have made it
to Teterboro, which too was rejected. * *The Hudson was the only sure
bet. At least if that plan went south it was only 155 people instead
of an entire *neigborhood or urban block's worth as well...

-Paul


AFAIK, there is no procedure for a double engine failure - Sully was
writing the book as he went. The man deserves enormous credit for
pulling it off.

I did hear that one simulation showed that IF he had turned for
Teterboro exactly at the time of the bird strike, he MIGHT have made
it with a very thin margin. For it to work, the option would have had
to have been pre-planned. All things considered, the Hudson was the
best option.

For glider pilots, the take home lesson is that we all need well
considered options in mind for every takeoff. The probability of a
PTT is infinitely greater than a double engine failure.
  #13  
Old March 11th 09, 08:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,565
Default See and Avoid - Birds

On Mar 11, 11:33*am, bildan wrote:
AFAIK, there is no procedure for a double engine failure - Sully was
writing the book as he went. *



I don't know the A320 but I think every transport aircraft I have
worked on has an all engine out procedure. I just checked MD-11,
MD-10, A300, A310 for which I have documentation at my desk, and each
has an "all engine flameout" procedure.

Andy
  #14  
Old March 11th 09, 11:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BrianC-V6
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default See and Avoid - Birds

On Mar 11, 1:32*pm, Andy wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:33*am, bildan wrote:

AFAIK, there is no procedure for a double engine failure - Sully was
writing the book as he went. *


I don't know the A320 but I think every transport aircraft I have
worked on has an all engine out procedure. *I just checked MD-11,
MD-10, A300, A310 for which I have documentation at my desk, and each
has an "all engine flameout" procedure.

Andy


Somewhere I read that the reason that they didn't activate the
ditching button was that, that action was on page 3 of the all engine
out checklist. They never made it past page 1 of the check list.

Brian
  #15  
Old March 11th 09, 11:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Scott[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 256
Default See and Avoid - Birds

sisu1a wrote:
In the video, it looks like he might have been able do it.


The key word in your post was 'might'. He also 'migh't have made it
to Teterboro, which too was rejected. The Hudson was the only sure
bet. At least if that plan went south it was only 155 people instead
of an entire neigborhood or urban block's worth as well...

-Paul

Agreed. That's why I put might in there It's just that I "practice"
this very thing on my Microsoft Flight Sim with a model of my Corben
Junior Ace (and the only thing that beats it to the ground after an
engine failure is an anvul) and have gotten somewhat proficient at it
now. Granted, it's only a sim and nobody dies if I screw up

Is there any statistics showing what the success rate of water landings is?

Scott
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
C-182's to avoid? Alan Browne Owning 27 November 17th 07 09:58 PM
See & Avoid Ol Shy & Bashful Piloting 27 August 2nd 07 01:27 PM
See and avoid... Ramy Soaring 22 January 30th 07 10:18 PM
See and Avoid Failure Steve Leonard Soaring 3 October 28th 05 01:54 AM
See and avoid Kees Mies Piloting 39 March 22nd 04 09:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.