Airliner Down

Not my word for it.

Not my word for it.

Don't take my word for anything, read the article below and then tell me if your b.s. o-meter does not go off.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hudson.plane.folo/index.html

Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549

* Story Highlights
* Three say US Airways Flight 1549 nearly made emergency landing earlier last week
* Two days before last week's crash-landing, passengers report loud bang on flight
* One passenger says he sent a text message to his wife: "I love you"
* Next Article in U.S. »

* Read
* VIDEO
* PHOTOS
* TIMELINE

By Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost
CNN Special Investigations Unit
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

(CNN) -- Two days before US Airways Flight 1549 crashed into the Hudson River, passengers on the same route and same aircraft say they heard a series of loud bangs and the flight crew told them they could have to make an emergency landing, CNN has learned.
Crews successfully hoist the wreckage of US Airways Flight 1549 out of the water on Saturday.

Crews successfully hoist the wreckage of US Airways Flight 1549 out of the water on Saturday.
Click to view previous image
1 of 2
Click to view next image
more photos »

Steve Jeffrey of Charlotte, North Carolina, told CNN he was flying in first class Tuesday when, about 20 minutes into the flight, "it sounded like the wing was just snapping off."

"The red lights started going on. A little pandemonium was going on," Jeffrey recalled.

He said the incident occurred over Newark, New Jersey, soon after the plane -- also flying as Flight 1549 -- had taken off from LaGuardia Airport in New York.

"It seemed so loud, like luggage was hitting the side but times a thousand. It startled everyone on the plane," Jeffrey said. "We started looking at each other. The stewardesses started running around. They made an announcement that 'everyone heard the noise, we're going to turn around and head back to LaGuardia and check out what happened.'

"I fly about 50 to 60 times per year, and I've never heard a noise so loud," he said. "It wasn't turbulence, it wasn't luggage bouncing around. It was just completely like the engine was thrown against the side of the plane. It just -- it didn't shake the plane but it shook you out of the seat when you're drifting off, it really woke you up. And when it happened again, everyone just started looking at each other and there was a quiet murmuring around the plane, and you could feel the tension rising just in looking.

"I remember turning to my [business] partner and saying, 'I hope you got everything in order back home, life insurance and everything, because that didn't sound good.' "
Don't Miss

* NTSB: Crash could have been 'catastrophic'
* Videos show plane hitting water
* Rescuers still in disbelief
* Lessons learned from earlier crashes

Jeffrey said he sent a text message to his wife about a "scary, scary noise on the plane. Doesn't sound right. They're flying back to LaGuardia to check it out. I'll call you when we land. I love you."

He added, "About 10 minutes later when we never made the turn, we kept going, that's when the pilot came on and explained -- I wish I could remember the words -- I remember him using air, compression and lock -- I'm not sure the right order, but he made it sound like the air didn't get to the engine and it stalled the engine out, which he said doesn't happen all the time but it's not abnormal."

Expert Aviation Consulting, an Indianapolis, Indiana, private consulting firm that includes commercial airline pilots on its staff, said the plane that landed in the Hudson was the same one as Flight 1549 from LaGuardia two days earlier. Photo See images from the rescue in last week's crash »

"EAC confirms that US Airways ship number N106US flew on January 13, 2009, and January 15, 2009, with the same flight number of AWE 1549 from New York's LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte Douglas [International] Airport in North Carolina," Expert Aviation said in a statement to CNN.

The company said it checked with contacts in the aviation industry to confirm that it was the same plane.

The National Transportation Safety Board released the tail number of the downed Airbus A-320, which is N106US.

NTSB spokesman Peter Knudson said as part of its investigation into the Hudson River crash, it will be looking at all maintenance activities, but has no indications of any anomalies or any malfunctions in the aircraft, so far in the investigation.

Following CNN's inquiry, he confirmed that the Airbus 320's maintenance records show "there was an entry in the aircraft's maintenance log that indicates a compressor stall occurred on Jan. 13."

The Federal Aviation Administration referred CNN to US Airways.

US Airways would not confirm that the Flight 1549 that took off January 13 was the same plane that splashed into the Hudson two days later.

Valerie Wunder, a US Airways spokeswoman, said: "US Air is working with the National Transportation Safety Board in this investigation." She would not comment on any other details, including Tuesday's flight, though she did confirm US Airways is looking into it.

Jeffrey told CNN that US Airways earlier Monday confirmed to him that the Tuesday incident occurred aboard the plane that crashed.

John Hodock, another passenger on the Tuesday flight, said in an e-mail to CNN: "About 20 minutes after take-off, the plane had a series of compressor stalls on the right engine. There were several very loud bangs and fire coming out of the engine. The pilot at first told us that we were going to make an emergency landing, but after about five minutes, continued the flight to Charlotte."

In an interview, Hodock said the pilot "got on the intercom and said they were going to have to make an emergency landing at the nearest airport. But then, only five to 10 minutes later, the pilot came back on and said it was a stalled compressor and they were going to continue to Charlotte."

A third passenger, who did not want her named used, also said she heard a "loud banging sound" on the right side of the plane. She said she heard the pilot say the "compressor for the engine was stalled" and they needed "to turn around and go back." However, she said, the problem was fixed and the flight continued without incident.
advertisement

Pilots and aviation officials said that a compressor stall results from insufficient air getting into the engine and that multiple stalls could result in engine damage. However, the officials said, a momentary compressor stall may be less serious and could be corrected in flight by simply restarting the engine.

A bird strike could lead to a compressor stall, the officials said.
 
Sure Jonathan, but it was an "Airbus" kind of like a Fiat, or Citroen,
Airbusses have history of weird problems. :)

that sort of crap wouldn't happen to a Boeing!

All aircraft are subject to Murphy's law, **** still breaks, I make a pretty good living fixing broken airplane stuff.
Windshear, thunderstorms, hail, birds, they will all still bring one of these big boys down,
the laws of phyiscs don't give a crap if you have a FADEC or not.

Here, stalls are alive and well.

CFM International is working on a software modification for its CFM56-5B engines after a series of engine stalls on Airbus aircraft in 2008.

Evendale-based CFM is a joint venture of GE Aviation and France’s Snecma. The high-pressure compressors and combustors for CFM56 engines are produced by GE, and the engines are assembled in Evendale and France.

GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said there have been 10 brief engine stalls – lasting “a second or two” – on Airbus A320 family of twin-engine aircraft since last April. They included a Dec. 14 incident in which both engines on an Air France plane stalled after takeoff. That was the only double stall incident reported.

All of the engines restarted, and none of the incidents resulted in engine shutdowns or emergency landings, he said.

The problem has occurred on high-flight-time engines that have been on wing for up to seven years without an overhaul, Kennedy said. Wear and tear on the engines cause them to run somewhat hotter than newer engines, which increases their susceptibility to stalling in certain conditions, he said.

CFM has been working on the software fix since early last year. It expects to have the modification installed on all of nearly 3,300 CFM56-5B engines within six months, beginning in late February with engines with high flight time, he said. The modification has been certified at the engine level and is undergoing certification at the aircraft level, he said.

“It’s like dropping a CD into your computer. Every year you update the software,” Kennedy said.

The modification will monitor engine temperature and adjust the air flow when the throttle is rolled back after take-off, Kennedy said. “It’s like reducing the angle of attack on a fighter aircraft wing,” he said.

CFM has reviewed remote diagnostics fleet data for engines it has under services contracts – representing 60 percent of the overall fleet. It has identified three aircraft with high engine temperature conditions on which it replaced or is replacing one of the engines as a precaution.

Kennedy said that, following the Dec. 14 incident, CFM analyzed its fleet data and contacted the Federal Aviation Administration. The company recommended the agency issue an Airworthiness Directive to address the situation.

The FAA issued a directive on Dec. 31, requiring aircraft operators to review exhaust gas data and inspect the high-pressure compressors on CFM56-5B engines that are operating at certain high temperatures. Engines that do not pass inspection must be removed. The directive also requires them to replace one engine if both are operating at high temperatures, even if both pass inspection.

CFM56-5B engines are used to power all of the aircraft in the single-aisle Airbus A320 family, including A318, A319, A320 and A321 planes. Other CFM56 variants power Boeing 737s and other Airbus aircraft.
 
Wow !

Wow !

Scott,

Thank you for the TSB. While the problem is prob more widespread then 10 incidents, I am simply saying that the co-incidence of the turbine having trouble on an earlier flight is very suspect. Turbines eat birds for lunch every day, yes some do damage, a whole flock might even result in some bad indigestion for a large jetliner.

Scott, how much data sharing do you have with the CAA over in Europe. They record and spot check flight recorder data all the time and would see a plotted rise in older engines. They have a much more technical data grabbing system in place. I had hoped our FAA and related service orgs would have things like this well in hand. It seems they are still working on the old theory its only a problem when the bodies are piling up.......nothing changes it seems.

"7 years under wing" with no rebuilds.........High EGT's ?

Fly the friendly skies, or get out and push ! ;)

So what is being said is that field testing has uncovered old tired engines are not working like they should, reflash the PCM and problem solved.

I stand corrected and I apologize.



J
 
We have people plotting every and all time-life limited components, for cost tracking and for maintenance, it is nothing for me to get a hydraulic pump off an engine or airframe with 22,000 hours, yes thousand. The engines are tracked the same way. It costs about $10,000,000 for a new engine, so believe me, they don't wait for a failure, All of your Heavy transports that are ETOPs rated have to be able to fly at full load for 3 hours or 180 minutes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

This allows the twin engine aircraft to fly over the ocean, used to be you had to have 3 engines for trans-oceanic.
They base this on the proven reliability of the engines.
I believe that it has to be less than 0.02 shutdowns per 1000 hours of operation on the same fleet type. Engine failures are rare, especially 2 engines.

On any given day, more than 87,000 flights are in the skies in the United States. Only one-third are commercial carriers, like American, United or Southwest. On an average day, air traffic controllers handle 28,537 commercial flights (major and regional airlines), 27,178 general aviation flights (private planes), 24,548 air taxi flights (planes for hire), 5,260 military flights and 2,148 air cargo flights (Federal Express, UPS, etc.). At any given moment, roughly 5,000 planes are in the skies above the United States. In one year, controllers handle an average of 64 million takeoffs and landings.


Still pretty safe and reliable, but the news always loves an aircraft or train accident.
 
Root cause found !

Root cause found !

I have it again on good authority through my contacts throughout the investigation what caused the accident.

It seems things like engines, wings, airfoils, elevators, airlerons, flaps, etc have no real bearing on the flight of the aircraft. Everything we have been taught in school and for our ratings is strictly for the purpose of passing the checkride for each rating. And making our superiors feel superior......

Now you may be asking ok, so what makes the airplane move. 2 things I was told. Combustion of cash, this creates the hot air that goes out the exhaust pipes, the turbines, etc are there only for show. I was told people would get too upset to see the midgets throwing piles of federal reserve notes into the cauldrons, which create the "high pressure gases" that push the plane thru the air. This explains 2 other things,

1. Global Warming,
2. Debt of bankrupt airlines.



The second thing that controls flight, of course we all need control and that comes from the nice skirt and pretty face that "pilots" the beverage cart. How I could have been so stupid. !!! Those pilots, and co pilots, navigators are all for show. If you have ever had an old crochetedy hag driving your beverage cart you know you have had a crappy flight, but I will tell you, a pretty blonde and those little airline bottles and the flight is smooth as silk. The direct barometer of the flight is how well that beverage cart is handled. THis is a known fact, even the astronauts know this before launch !

This brings me to the cause of the accident. The goose or "geese" the ones that fly through the air, had nothing to do with it and I am told by my feathered friends that they are going to sue US Air and the NTSB for slander, libel and a host of civil rights violations. What had happened was the little foot brake on the beverage cart was not properly applied, each flight attendant is pointing fingers at the other, but we know it was probably the "person of color" , as she was too excited about Obama getting sworn in as president in a few days. Anyway during climbout that crappy foot brake did not hold the cart near the front of the cockpit, the pilot had reached back for his bottle of "Grey Goose" and "Cold Duck" both his favorites. When all of a sudden the cart started rolling backwards and the pilot slipped while trying to keep the cart from rolling away. He then dropped his bottle of Grey Goose (vodka) and, being very upset started yelling about his Grey Goose getting loose in the plane. What passengers heard or thought they heard booming in the plane was actually the rumble of a few dozen airline bottles rolling around the cockpit and cabin......

In the rush to find the bottle rolling about the floor the aircraft entered a nose down attitude and crashed into the river.


1. Had nothing to do with geese that fly and.

2. Software upgrades are being recommended for all beverage carts in service. I have this on good authority from Scott Essex who flashed me the Recall / TSB this morning.......

So of course my original take on this was correct, 1 it was a conspiracy and 2. All the facts were not in before the media ran with it.

Now if you will excuse me I have to paint my tennis balls another color. I lost all the white ones in the snow the other day.

The truth !

Jonathan
 
its over

its over

I have it again on good authority through my contacts throughout the investigation what caused the accident.

It seems things like engines, wings, airfoils, elevators, airlerons, flaps, etc have no real bearing on the flight of the aircraft. Everything we have been taught in school and for our ratings is strictly for the purpose of passing the checkride for each rating. And making our superiors feel superior......

Now you may be asking ok, so what makes the airplane move. 2 things I was told. Combustion of cash, this creates the hot air that goes out the exhaust pipes, the turbines, etc are there only for show. I was told people would get too upset to see the midgets throwing piles of federal reserve notes into the cauldrons, which create the "high pressure gases" that push the plane thru the air. This explains 2 other things,

1. Global Warming,
2. Debt of bankrupt airlines.



The second thing that controls flight, of course we all need control and that comes from the nice skirt and pretty face that "pilots" the beverage cart. How I could have been so stupid. !!! Those pilots, and co pilots, navigators are all for show. If you have ever had an old crochetedy hag driving your beverage cart you know you have had a crappy flight, but I will tell you, a pretty blonde and those little airline bottles and the flight is smooth as silk. The direct barometer of the flight is how well that beverage cart is handled. THis is a known fact, even the astronauts know this before launch !

This brings me to the cause of the accident. The goose or "geese" the ones that fly through the air, had nothing to do with it and I am told by my feathered friends that they are going to sue US Air and the NTSB for slander, libel and a host of civil rights violations. What had happened was the little foot brake on the beverage cart was not properly applied, each flight attendant is pointing fingers at the other, but we know it was probably the "person of color" , as she was too excited about Obama getting sworn in as president in a few days. Anyway during climbout that crappy foot brake did not hold the cart near the front of the cockpit, the pilot had reached back for his bottle of "Grey Goose" and "Cold Duck" both his favorites. When all of a sudden the cart started rolling backwards and the pilot slipped while trying to keep the cart from rolling away. He then dropped his bottle of Grey Goose (vodka) and, being very upset started yelling about his Grey Goose getting loose in the plane. What passengers heard or thought they heard booming in the plane was actually the rumble of a few dozen airline bottles rolling around the cockpit and cabin......

In the rush to find the bottle rolling about the floor the aircraft entered a nose down attitude and crashed into the river.


1. Had nothing to do with geese that fly and.

2. Software upgrades are being recommended for all beverage carts in service. I have this on good authority from Scott Essex who flashed me the Recall / TSB this morning.......

So of course my original take on this was correct, 1 it was a conspiracy and 2. All the facts were not in before the media ran with it.

Now if you will excuse me I have to paint my tennis balls another color. I lost all the white ones in the snow the other day.

The truth !

Jonathan

This is Johnathans way of defusing his unsupportabe contenion by the humor of throwing hiself uhder the bus,\\Thread over
 
An opinion about the A320 from one unidentified pilot.

An opinion about the A320 from one unidentified pilot.

Scott SX, you'll like this........

(Received this email today)

************

An opinion about the A320 from one unidentified pilot!

I didn't know Sully the A320 pilot who landed in the Hudson River. I've seen him in the crew room and around the system but never met him. He was former PSA and I was former Piedmont and we never had the occasion to fly together.

The dumb sh*t press just won't leave this alone. Most airliner ditchings aren't very successful since they take place on the open ocean with wind, rough seas, swells and rescue boats are hours or days away. This one happened in fresh smooth water, landing with the current and the rescue boats were there picking people up while they were still climbing out of the airplane. It also happened on a cold winter day when all the pleasure boats were parked. Had this happened in July it would be pretty hard not to whack a couple of little boats. Sully did a nice job but so would 95% of the other pilots in the industry. You would have done a nice job.

Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly-by-wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water. In a older generation airplane like the 727 or 737 300/400 the throttles are hooked to the fuel controllers on the engine by a steel throttle cable just like a TBM or a Comanche. On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real. Everything is electronic. The throttles, rudder and brake pedals and the side stick are hooked to rheostats who talk to a computer who talks to a electric hydraulic servo valve which in turn hopefully moves something.

In an older generation airplane when you hit birds the engines keep screaming or they blow up but they don't both roll back to idle simultaneously like happened to Flt. 1549. All it would take is for bird guts to plug a pressure sensor or knock the pitot probe off or plug it and the computers would roll the engines back to idle thinking they were over boosting because the computers were getting bad data. The Airbus is a real pile of ****. I don't like riding on them. Google Airbus A320 Crash at the Paris Airshow in 1998. Watch the video of an airbus A320 crash into a forest because the computers wouldn't allow a power increase following a low pass. The computers wouldn't allow a power increase because they determined that the airspeed was too low for the increase requested so the computers didn't give them any. Pushing the throttles forward in a Airbus does nothing more than request a power increase from the computer. If the computer doesn't like all the airplane and engine parameters you don't get a power increase. Airbus blamed the dead crew since they couldn't defend themselves. A Boeing would still be flying.

***********************
 
Trez,
Not quite true, the airbus that descended into the trees had been requested to do so by the pilot, accidentaly of course. They selected an auto descent to too low an alititude, the computer carried out the descent as requested, when they realised their mistake and that the aircraft would descend into the ground they opened the throttles too late for them to spool up and arrest the descent rate.

Simple pilot error. Lots of Boeing pilots have made errors.

I believe it is now required that both pilots confirm altitude selected before engaging it.
 
That computer was going to land that aircraft no mater what.

Maybe I am old school, but I like Full Manual Overide.
I dont trust all that zipper head fancy automatic stuff, :)
 
Trez,
Not quite true, the airbus that descended into the trees had been requested to do so by the pilot, accidentaly of course. They selected an auto descent to too low an alititude, the computer carried out the descent as requested, when they realised their mistake and that the aircraft would descend into the ground they opened the throttles too late for them to spool up and arrest the descent rate.

Simple pilot error. Lots of Boeing pilots have made errors.

I believe it is now required that both pilots confirm altitude selected before engaging it.


I don't wish to be argumentative but re-read what you wrote.

"They selected an auto descent to too low an alititude, the computer carried out the descent as requested" - My understanding is that, if an altitude (or any other input that is out of limits) is selected that is, in this case, 'too low', the FGS will not accept it. IOW, it cannot be commanded to fly outside its 'limits'.
I cannot speak to this accident with any particular knowledge, so I won't relate to you what I heard was the cause of this accident. But it is beyond belief that any pilot would be at an altitude THAT LOW without the engines spooled, even if it was at the 'bottom' of a descent.
And I'm not going to defend the email word for word since I just passed it along.
BTW, I'll take a Boeing any day of the year. If fact, if they would put guns on a B727, I'd re-up and go back to war with it. And if there ain't no war, let's start one! I think we should start with Los Angeles.
(That out to get some of you libs going).
Trez
*********
 
It wasnt at Paris, the crew werent killed, the engines DID spool up, just not quickly
enough to clear the trees, and it was stall protection that limited the pitch-up.
It was an inadequately planned, badly executed fly-by, end of story.

A Boeing in that circumstance would have pitched up, stalled, and killed everyone. As it
was, only three people were killed. The Airbus refused to pitchup, and they settled
into the trees.

Moral; Pick a valid accident, get your facts right, or dont expect people to put much value on your opinion. Particularly if you call yourself a Professional.

That said, there are issues with the Airbus philosophy of fly-by-wire.
The sidestick means the pilot-not-flying is 'out of the loop' regarding control column
position. This causes training problems on final approach and flare, as the PNF can
only see what the plane is doing, not what its being asked to do by the PF.
This allowed a very heavy landing causing a lot of damage recently in Greece.

I believe there may be similar issues with throttle positions.

Any way you look at it, Sullenberger seems to have made the right decisions.
If all had drowned, however, there would have been no shortage of critics to tell
you what he should have done instead. I think he knows that.

I may be wrong, but i dont think a Boeing would have made it any further.

It is unlikely that the engine management options are very different between
different airframes using the same engines.
 
A Boeing in that circumstance would have pitched up, stalled, and killed everyone. .....dont expect people to put much value on your opinion. Particularly if you call yourself a Professional./QUOTE]

I can't tell you how many times I've had to (in the simulators) go to max. thrust, severe pitch up, and fly the sh't out of it to escape wind sheer. Flying the stick shaker with the aircraft still configured for landing was a maneuver very close to stall but not quite stalled. But these were Boeing airplanes and punching the already spooled engines gets you immediate thrust. The A320 in the crash referenced above was light weight enough to have recovered had the engines spooled fast enough and the pilot was skilled in dealing with wind shear. Just my humble, formerly-professional opinion, if I may be allowed.
Trez
****************
 
Yes, the pilot claimed the engines were slow to spool up, but the real problem
was that he was at 30 feet instead of the intended 100 feet. i.e lower than the
trees.

I wasnt having a go at anyone, but the guy's facts were flat wrong, so why would
one give much credit to his argument.

And, with due respect, pulling rank does not alter the validity of a point.

I may not be an airline pilot, but i can read as good as the next guy.

For what its worth, I prefer the Boeing approach to FBW. When all the electronics
fail, manual reversion needs to be available.

I think Capt Sullenberger was very courageous to take the option to ditch,
knowing that he would be hammered if it hadnt worked out so well.

We just need to persuade the geese to fly in vertical echelon, so they cant take
out both engines.
What we do with the starlings is another question. :)
 
I just heard on the news today that there was indeed goose parts in BOTH engines.


Stan
 
.........the real problem was that he was at 30 feet instead of the intended 100 feet. i.e lower than the trees.

I think you might find that he was higher than 30 ft..
The trees were sheared by the wings and/or engines somewhat higher.
Remember that, on most air carrier aircraft, the radio (radar) altitude rx/tx antenna is mounted on a landing gear truck, in order to give a cockpit reading as to the height of the gear over the runway, on a precision approach. (This may have changed in recent years. I've been gone for a while).
But I'm through with this discussion since my knowledge is much too limited to state anything as fact.
Trez
**************
 
Last edited:
Trez,

I don't think the pilot deliberatly flew down to 30 ft, I think the report says he was suprised when shown video evidence that the aircraft had done the flyby at 30 ft.

I used to "assist" the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch with on site investigations and aircraft recoveries and visited a number of accident sites. I happened to discuss this particular accident with the investigator. He said basically they dialled up 100ft and asked the aircraft to descend to that altitude and hold it. The aircraft did just that but due to an error by the crew, (can't remember exactly what incorrect QNH maybe) they had selected an altitude that when corrected was basically just below gound level. They sat there dumb and happy confident the thing would automatically spool up the engines and hold a precise 100ft as it had done in every practice.

On this occasion, when they realised their error it was too late to stop the descent. I am not an Airbus man so have nothing here to defend but the un-named person you quoted is plain making it up.
 
I think we can drop it, Karl. It was a well-discussed accident in Europe, presumably less
so in the U.S. and I could care less about it. I only commented on the inaccuracies
quoted about it. Garbage is garbage, wherever it originates.

In any event, it has no relevance to the thread and it appears to upset sensitive souls.
 
Top