Posted on 02/07/2015 8:19:25 PM PST by Reverend Saltine
The misinformation on this thread is epic. With few exceptions, twin engine airplanes can have an engine failure shortly after take off at or near sea level and if properly flown safely return for a landing. The ATR certainly can. It has plenty of power and features like auto feather and rudder boost. I’m a very active multi engine flight instructor. One of the common mistakes pilots make is to misidentify the failed engine and shut down the “good” engine. It’s happened before and it will happen again.
The misinformation on this thread is epic. With few exceptions, twin engine airplanes can have an engine failure shortly after take off at or near sea level and if properly flown safely return for a landing. The ATR certainly can. It has plenty of power and features like auto feather and rudder boost. I’m a very active multi engine flight instructor. One of the common mistakes pilots make is to misidentify the failed engine and shut down the “good” engine. It’s happened before and it will happen again.
I suspect that when the Japanese Army Air Service built Matsuyama Airdrome in the 1930s that the field had open country around it. Now as Songshan it is in the middle of a large city.
One can speculate that maybe the crew might have had better luck if they were not dodging big buildings and urban infrastructure.
If it is not to much of an epic typing session: How does this miss identification occur, it baffles me.
Confucius say man who fly plane sideways not level-headed.
You’ve almost got it.
All the speculation about intentionally shutting down the good engine to maintain controllability is nonsense. All FAR Part 25 aircraft (virtually all western airliners) can climb with 1 engine, and maintain controllability. These aren’t light twins, where it is all somewhat guesswork and blue-line discipline. Part 25 aircraft guarantee every take off can achieve second-segment climb at V2 to V2+10, or the takeoff does not begin.
The reason the good engine was shut down should be obvious: in their hurry to restart the flamed out engine they shut down the good one in error.
This illustrates differences in training at airlines outside the U.S. Here, the only time you can troubleshoot is ABOVE critical altitude, usually 1,000’ above field elevation, and possibly with a fire. We train pilots that unless they are sure a fire is uncontainable, they must WAIT until above critical altitude to do ANYTHING except fly the aircraft. That way, the emergency can be handled in a methodical and disciplined way.
It seems like he was trying for a "Miracle on the Hudson." As it was, he managed to miss plowing into ten-story apartment buildings, and he put her into the softest acreage he could reach, a warm, shallow river. Kudos at least for not plowing into an apartment building.
Wow, thanks.
Epic ignorance on this thread is right. Sheesh, some of these posts remind me of Shepherd Smith breathlessly telling his audience that the Air Asia A320 may have had “both engines stall,” after reading expert discussion of aerodynamic stall.
Simple explanation, flameout, too-quick hands below EO critical altitude, cycled the wrong engine off/on.
On light twins, it is “dead foot, dead engine” (which rudder is not needed to maintain direction of flight). On airliners, it begins with maintaining direction, WITHOUT concern with which engine failed, until above a critical altitude, where a discipled two-pilot confirmation of which engine failed (engine instruments) process correctly identifies which engine has failed to prevent this very occurrence.
So, the confusion comes when “little airplane” pilots fly big airplanes, and forget big airplane training and disciple, and instead doing stupid things.
Perhaps the joystick didn't belong to the aircraft...
How do pilots do the “wrong” thing and crash, in a few short sentences? Well, there are technical answers, and there are human factors. On the technical side the short answer is, it’s not always easy. There have been accidents where an engine has failed and the pilot NEVER realized he’d had an engine quit. Sometimes an engine only partially fails. It can be tough to tell which engine is rough?
On the human side, things get even more complex. Panic sets in. Pilots get “task saturated” and just can’t process what they are looking at. Sometimes in haste they just grab the wrong lever.
The bottom line is, it takes a lot of training and then a lot of practice after the initial training to be ready when the time comes.
Case in point is the pilot that dropped that airliner in the Hudson.
That guy deserves every accolade the nation can give him.
That took balls of steel and nerves of iron.
Yes, panic is common in inexperienced crews.
Chelsey Sullenberger has been praised by some for his skill in landing an A320 on the Hudson river. I know him, and he was a fine pilot, but frankly most US airline pilots could have done the same with similar results.
Where Sullenberger and US airline pilots distinguish themselves is in maintaining cockpit discipline in an emergency. It requires experience (or specific training) to keep your cool in an emergency. US airlines specifically train that kind of discipline.
If you are competent in how to fly an aircraft you can keep that from happening even with a t-tail.
Brilliant, Thank you. :)
I have some time in a Seneca III. Nice airplane to fly. I think perspective pilots should learn to fly in airplanes that require that you have to really pay attention all of the time. I love flying the Hawk XP, it is one of my favorite single engine planes. It too expensive for me to fly, 100 LL is liquid gold these days.
That might help explain the crash.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.