You too can be a "Hero On The Hudson"

[bdk]

Now you too can be a hero on the Hudson:

http://www.addictinggames.com/heroonthehudson.html

[Ztex]

I flew that profile on FSX the night it happened...no problem..just watch the bridges!

No sweat...of course my rear end was not even close to sucking on the upholstery

[bdk]

Any comments on this then (sorry, don't know the source and can't comment on the validity):

______________________________________________


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 //// 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 a 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.

[JDK]

Any comments on this then (sorry, don't know the source and can't comment on the validity):

______________________________________________


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 //// 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.

Faie enough, but the point is he did, for real.

Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water.

Pure speculation. Are we going to find out the real cause? Yes. Is this constructive? No, only if you want to fuel a 'Boeing vs Airbus' argument. There's those that 'know' X is better than z, and won't care about the evidence, there's the rest of us that might be interested in following evidence rather pre-judgement. (C'mon bdk, you can smell the stink off this one.)

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.

Blah, blah blah. All systems have their own set of failures. There's no 'ideal', it best compromise. Presumably this author drives a manual car with no power steering and hand-wind windows.

Airbus blamed the dead crew since they couldn't defend themselves. A Boeing would still be flying.

Airbus could blame who they like - they didn't do the crash investigation any more than Boeing do, or either should be trusted to do. IIRC, the investigation didn't come to the implied conclusion. But, ya know, maybe the author has an anti- Airbus pro- Boeing bias? I dunno, I just get a subtle vibe...

The BIG IMPORTANT outcome from this accident is the general public now 'know' that crash-landings on water can be survivable. No 'death plunge', no 'drops out of sky all die' and a 'pilot hero'. This is all a good thing, and the best news for airlines for a LOOONG time.

[bdk]

The BIG IMPORTANT outcome from this accident is the general public now 'know' that crash-landings on water can be survivable. No 'death plunge', no 'drops out of sky all die' and a 'pilot hero'. This is all a good thing, and the best news for airlines for a LOOONG time.

I agree with all the above James. I think one of the more interesting points that the unnamed author makes though is the difference in control laws between Airbus and everyone else. Airbus flies the airplane with the computer and lets the pilot have influences upon the system (at the computer's discretion). Other large transport aircraft manufacturers use computers, but they are designed more to "assist the pilot" and the systems have mechanical backups.

I'm by no means an expert on this subject, but if anyone knows a pilot that has flown both, I'd be curious to get another opinion.

[RyanShort1]

The BIG IMPORTANT outcome from this accident is the general public now 'know' that crash-landings on water can be survivable. No 'death plunge', no 'drops out of sky all die' and a 'pilot hero'. This is all a good thing, and the best news for airlines for a LOOONG time.

I agree with all the above James. I think one of the more interesting points that the unnamed author makes though is the difference in control laws between Airbus and everyone else. Airbus flies the airplane with the computer and lets the pilot have influences upon the system (at the computer's discretion). Other large transport aircraft manufacturers use computers, but they are designed more to "assist the pilot" and the systems have mechanical backups.

I'm by no means an expert on this subject, but if anyone knows a pilot that has flown both, I'd be curious to get another opinion.

You could try to get some airline captain responses over at pprune.org. Of course, like any forum, there are the wannabes there as well.

Ryan

[Ztex]

Fly by wire has it's problems, but like James said all systems have failures.

I do agree with the general feeling expressed in the article. When the computer controls the airplane one can't help a certain feeling of helplessness...Just ask the B-2 crew on Guam...basically an uncommanded pitch up because of water in a sensor? Does not inspire confidence.

At least the airframe held up to the landing!

[JDK]

I do agree with the general feeling expressed in the article. When the computer controls the airplane one can't help a certain feeling of helplessness...Just ask the B-2 crew on Guam...basically an uncommanded pitch up because of water in a sensor? Does not inspire confidence.

It would be interesting (if that's your bag) to see a meaningful analysis of verified human error (like taking off with control locks in place) vs fly-by-wire failures, and other failures.

The 'I don't like this newfangled development' is an old story in aviation; from the introduction of instruments, post W.W.II procedures in airline flying, and open cockpits getting closed in. Or in the Regia Aeronautica, not.

I've never noticed any meaningful difference as SLF between Boeing and Airbus; and while I'm sure there are on the ground or in the cockpit most data I've been presented shows varying degrees of 'proving' an a priori bias - often along nationalistic lines as well. Most airline bus-drivers I know don't seem to have a strong preference except along other lines (routes, personal history etc.). But that's not a meaningful sample. They're both 'good enough to turn a profit and (mostly) get there, IMHO.

I suppose I could find the accident report on the 1998 accident, but I can't be bothered - the Hudson heroes I'm interested flew the 1939 Lockheed version.

[CAPFlyer]

I can't speak from a flying standpoint, but I can tell you that whomever designed ALL of the Airbus fuel systems should be hung, drawn, quartered, and then tared, feathered, and put in the square for everyone to throw rotten fruit on. It is the most awful system and is the primary reason airlines can't "quick turn" any of the aircraft. It's really aggravating to be holding up the departure of a "hot" A32X because they've finished everything else but it takes you 25 minutes to fuel the plane since you can only upload at 150 gallons a minute (compared to 400+ on a 737).

[CAPFlyer]

I can't speak from a flying standpoint, but I can tell you that whomever designed ALL of the Airbus fuel systems should be hung, drawn, quartered, and then tared, feathered, and put in the square for everyone to throw rotten fruit on. It is the most awful system and is the primary reason airlines can't "quick turn" any of the aircraft. It's really aggravating to be holding up the departure of a "hot" A32X because they've finished everything else but it takes you 25 minutes to fuel the plane since you can only upload at 150 gallons a minute (compared to 400+ on a 737).

Oh, and since I can't edit a post in here...

I've fueled every airplane in the Airbus commercial inventory except the A380, so when I say "ALL" I really mean "ALL". Not a single one of them has a fuel system that's worth a crap and they're all far more complicated than they need to be (hell, they have friggin' TIP TANKS on the A32X series but most people, including pilots, don't even realize they exist because Airbus doesn't let you see how much fuel is in them separate of the main wing tanks).

[JDK]

Thanks, Capflyer.
However I must declare a total lack of interest in this discussion. My apologies for commenting.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh, and since I can't edit a post in here...

Can't you? Odd.

[CAPFlyer]

Apparently ZT or Scott has the "User can edit posts" function off for the Off Topic forum.

[Pat]

Apparently ZT or Scott has the "User can edit posts" function off for the Off Topic forum.

Yeah James/Zane, what's up with that? I noticed the same thing...

-Pat

[Ztex]

Must be a Scott thing...

I can edit/lock/move but I can't turn the switches anywhere on the forum.

[The Inspector]

Years ago, when I was an instructor @ BADWRENCH I taught DC-8/MD-80/DC-10 and had a running joke infested 'argument' with the 757 instructor wha also had a wierd sense of humor.
He's kid me about 'green cable, red cable' to fly the DC series, I'd look at him and ask "so, if I lose all hydraulics on a DC8 and all 4 generators I can still fly my airplane although with some difficulty. If you lose electrical power on the '57 how hard do you need to tug on that wire bundle to make a sucessful turn?' 'AWWWWWWWWW--never mind' was his usual reply