No it isn't a valid point.
In a single engined aircraft your thinking is
oriented to "where will I go if the engine stops
now?" In a twin it is assumed that it is highly
unlikely that both will stop at once so the
thinking is "what do I do if one engine stops".
Finding somewhere to land isn't at the top of the
list until you realise that you've lost two. At
which point SOP seemed to be get at least one
re-lit. When this doesn't look good, "find
somewhere to land", which I doubt used to be a
sim scenario. I'm sure our airline pilot readers
will have further information on this.. Which is
about what that crew did and when that became necessary, they turned to do so.
Landing in a river with no thrust isn't a normal
option. It is a REALLY bad idea but it is a lot
better than the REALLY, REALLY bad idea of
trying for an airport and falling short in a built up area.
The crew made decisions everyone lived with, with
a little luck and amazingly quick help from the
river ferries. Hopefully the guys in Sydney
Harbour would do as well. I reckon everyone did
as well as could be expected and that was all that was required.
NTSB report here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf.
Read it all but here are some conclusions. Every
aviation accident can have lessons for all of
aviation, something that has been forgotten in
our 3rd world, banana republic aviation regulatory system in Australia :
13.
If a checklist that addressed a dual-engine
failure occurring at a low altitude had been
available to the flight crewmembers, they would
have been more likely to have completed
that checklist.
14.
Despite being unable to complete the Engine Dual
Failure checklist, the captain started the
auxiliary power unit, which improved the outcome
of the ditching by ensuring that a primary
source of electrical power was available to the
airplane and that the airplane remained in
normal law and maintained the flight envelope
protections, one of which protects against a
stall.
15.
The captains decision to ditch on the Hudson
River rather than attempting to land at an
airport provided the highest probability that the
accident would be survivable.
16.
The captains difficulty maintaining his intended
airspeed during the final approach resulted
in high angles-of-attack, which contributed to
the difficulties in flaring the airplane, the high
descent rate at touchdown, and the fuselage damage.
17.
The captains difficulty maintaining his intended
airspeed during the final approach resulted,
in part, from high workload,
stress, and task saturation.
18.
The captains decision to use flaps 2 for the
ditching, based on his experience and perception
of the situation, was reasonable and consistent
with the limited civilian industry and military
guidance that was available regarding forced
landings of large aircraft without power.
19.
The professionalism of the flight crewmembers and
their excellent crew resource
management during the accident sequence contributed
to their ability to maintain control of the
airplane, configure it to the extent possible
under the circumstances, and fly an approach
that increased the survivability of the impact.
20.
Comprehensive guidelines on the best means to
design and develop emergency and abnormal
checklists would promote operational
standardization and increase the likelihood of a
successful outcome to such events
In Apollo 13 the astronauts were just unfortunate
victims. On their own they'd have died. The
heroes were the back room guys like "Mad Don"
Arabian and his mates who figured out how to
power down the spacecraft so the batteries would last.
The story is told here in this little ballad to
the tune of "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbL3oNEDvJ0.
Maybe we can stop the harping on pilot's gliding
experience in scenarios like this? I don't think
Sully's glider experience even rated a mention in
the flight crew quals part and he himself is
alleged to have said it had no bearing on this event.
Also the German wings suicide/murder pilot was a
glider pilot (and not a great pilot by accounts
I've read). The bloke flying the Air France A330
which ended up with a perfectly flyable aircraft
in the water had a French glider licence too.
Didn't seem to help situational awareness and a
lack of aircraft systems knowledge was also revealed there.
Mike
At 01:10 PM 9/13/2016, you wrote:
It's also about how a powerful government
authority connived with the aircraft
manufacturer to blame the pilots for the loss of
the aircraft. Fortunately, Sully caught them out
and revealed their deception. Michael
-----Original Message----- From: Aus-soaring
[mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of DMcD Sent: Tuesday, 13 September
2016 12:30 PM To: Discussion of issues relating
to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re:
[Aus-soaring] "Sully" >>Saw the film "Sully"
where he landed a A320 on the Hudson River in
New York. I was quite interested in seeing this
film but my son said "Why make a film about
someone who just followed standard operational
procedures
" Is this a valid point? It's not
exactly Apollo 13. The real story, not the film
version. D
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
