Cat Driver wrote:Now that I think about it when the voice prompt said " retard " he didn't even have to do that.
Funny.
In seriousness though, would the "retard" prompt occur in an off-strip landing, or would the GPWS recognize the situation as a CFIT and yell multiple profanities in objection to the manoevre? Apparently that was an annoyance going into Prince George after the runway was lengthened and before the GPWS database was updated.
Well, once it finished squawking TOO LOW, GEAR, it would probably just shut up once the rad alt read 0. If I'm not mistaken, the landing prompts on a GPWS unit are based on given configurations and absolute altitudes. As such, there is no database that I am aware of that would trigger a different response from the unit. If you are in normal landing configuration, approaching at a reasonable descent rate, it would still count out your absolute altitude and call you a retard
In seriousness though, would the "retard" prompt occur in an off-strip landing, or would the GPWS recognize the situation as a CFIT and yell multiple profanities in objection to the manoevre? Apparently that was an annoyance going into Prince George after the runway was lengthened and before the GPWS database was updated.
I imagine that cockpit was far from quiet. Likely several chimes/bells/alarms going off and a TAWS system yellin' at them too.
As for the Captain vs. F/O flying, it would also depend on who had the ability to see out the forward window. If the skipper's glass was shattered or covered in 'Goose-Guts', then the other guy driving would only make sense (or visa-versa).
In emergency electrical configuration both radio altimeters are lost which means no GPWS or autocalls (no "retard" call .). As far as noise all you get is the Continuous Repetitive Chime (dingdingdingdingding, until you shut it off), which is cancelled when you push the Master Warning Light. After that it's blissfully quiet while you absorb the deep pile of s**t that you're in.
Some aircraft types have inhibit switches for the GPWS. Depending on the situation a checklist may call for a GEAR or FLAP or TERRAIN inhibit switch to be selected.
My comment on the " retard " call out was meant to be tongue in cheek.
On a serious note I am very interested in why only one engine separated from the wing.......the FDR should make for interesting data especially the deceleration forces and when the yaw started and how fast it accelerated.
Judging by the mobility of the people right after it came to a stop the forces were not debilitating for the passengers and crew.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
As a pilot i must say that this web site is important to me in learning about situations like this remarkable event. We see so many opinions about the circumstances and the post analysis. From the foolish to the sage advice there is something to be learned. So often speculation prevails, conjecture is all well and good. Never the less the successful outcome is about good decision making and the application of skill aquired through experience and training.
My take is the crew here from pilots to flite attendants were proffessionals doing there job. Whether or not they made mistakes in the chain of events that occured, there actions along with a liberal dose of good luck resulted in this amazing outcome.
Am I really the only one who thinks it's rubbish for a few birds to be able to induce a double engine failure on a 320? Jets chew through birds on a daily basis and you never even hear of a single engine failure, I really thought these fans were held to a higher standard.
square wrote:Am I really the only one who thinks it's rubbish for a few birds to be able to induce a double engine failure on a 320? Jets chew through birds on a daily basis and you never even hear of a single engine failure, I really thought these fans were held to a higher standard.
I thought the same thing until they said "flock of geese"... they're big birds.
---------- ADS -----------
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the things you did do.
So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover.
This will rank with the Gimli glider episode. I think the split second decision to head for the river was the one that shows remarkable calm in the face of a disaster, obviously the landing took some prowess, but the quick thinking shows that this Captain was impeccable. I haven't heard him crowing either, pretty class act all round.
---------- ADS -----------
You will never live long enough to know it all, so quit being anal about it..
square wrote:Am I really the only one who thinks it's rubbish for a few birds to be able to induce a double engine failure on a 320? Jets chew through birds on a daily basis and you never even hear of a single engine failure, I really thought these fans were held to a higher standard.
Cat, just speculating but perhaps the shearing of the engine mount bolts are oriented for rotational mass imbalance as would happen with a multiple blade failure on one side of the engine ? Bolt and fitting tolerance , age and maintenance errors could result in different forces being required to break either engines mount bolts. I believe the engine bolts are designed to break off BEFORE the wing structure is jeopardized . In this accident, the inboard wing appears intact. On another Note , Those Canadian geese must have been well fed , seeing as how they are a national icon , up there with the beaver and the maple leaf !! ( 4 legged beaver)
O.K. as long as everyone here understands that I am only posing a possibility based on what I have observed airplanes to do when landing on the water.
Here is one possibility that seems to me could have caused the left engine to separate and the right one to stay on.
When you look at the engine nacelles from the sides they have a smooth curve upward to the intake lip.
At water contact if the left wing was just a fraction lower that the right wing and the water entered the intake a fraction of a second before the right engine there would be an immediate yaw to the left with the result being a further lowering of that wing.
The right engine nacelle could then momentarily have " skied " just long enough for the deceleration forces to have reduced just enough to not meet the shear point of the bolts as the engine submersed .
There seems to have been a yaw to the left just as it slowed down which could be the result of the left wing having been lower in the water which was first started by the momentary skiing of the right engine nacelle...once the right engine entered the water it would have helped counter the dragging left wing with no engine attached.
There I probably should not have posted that but based on my experience flying sea planes that could be what happened.....
For sure he had the touch down attitude correct because the airplane did not self destruct.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
square wrote:Am I really the only one who thinks it's rubbish for a few birds to be able to induce a double engine failure on a 320? Jets chew through birds on a daily basis and you never even hear of a single engine failure, I really thought these fans were held to a higher standard.
I thought the same thing until they said "flock of geese"... they're big birds.
I still have friends in Toulouse at Airbus so I will be really interested in the final report.
However next to the fact so many lives were saved will be the new training procedures that will be put in place for the ditching of such a complex airplane......and many more pilots will now look out their windows in these airliners and look for possible emergency landing spots....because two engines can fail.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
As a float plane driver I concur with the catman,s hypothesis. I submit that at the time of the event the water was flat, and that being the case the attitude at touch down would be even more critical. Of course with flat water conditions there is more drag effect when contacting the surface, and it is clear that the engines hang below the bottom of the fuse. It follows that some luck was also on there side even if the nacelles worked like sponsons.
Not having flown a flying boat my question to the catman is how significant is the yaw on a flying boat
if a sponson contacts the water at high speed?
All he had to do stick and rudder wise is flare just off the water and wait for the airspeed to run out. I think where he really shone is in quickly realizing that a real runway was no longer possible, and immediately opting for the next best thing with no hesitation or squeamishness.
I agree completely, Rockie. After flying the jets for so long, it must be hard to act (fly) in non-instinctive ways, or out-of-character with years of training and rides....landing on water with a much lower visual picture of the 'runway', yet holding the optimal attitude.
Several years ago, a QF pilot rejected a 747 takeoff at Sydney and saved everyone's life by applying the brakes fully immediately. Apparently they never do this in a 747 in normal ops.
