UAL 497 Crew - WELL DONE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dkryan
Astro,

Was the PAR used to place them back into VFR conditions, i.e., once they had visual contact with the water, did they continue a visual approach (PAPI or VASI referencing) to landing?

Or did they need the PAR down to the threshold?

When did this occur? I don't recall any reference to it in AW&ST online.

Also, what happened to their backup primary instruments?



x2
 
Originally Posted By: Popinski
Originally Posted By: cchase
Originally Posted By: Popinski
For international travel, it has to be a 747, 777 with a male pilot or else I'm not flying.


1940 called, they want you back?


Would you rather fly with the proven 777 or 747 or the unproven Airbus????


I was commenting on the gender remark, not about the plane. It's a demeaning statement to make.
 
Happened yesterday...AFAIK.

The back-up instruments should continue to function, they're independently powered, but they give you; an attitude gyro, altitude and airspeed...and they're located in the center stack, an awkward scan location...

That's it, no real heading, no nav, no VOR/DME, no ILS...so I put it in layman's terms. Best case, you can keep the shiny side up and not hit the ground with the standby instruments...but you can't navigate and you can't fly an approach of any kind.

Luckily, New Orleans has military users, so they have a PAR, unlike most civil fields. But PARs are not trained by any airline since they are a military-only capability.

I gather that the ceiling was about 600 feet, that's about 2 miles out on final...and whether they flew an ASR or PAR doesn't matter...they flew a jet without most of the cockpit working...that's why you hear the controllers "calling the turn"...the crew didn't even have heading.

I don't know what flight controls were working, but they clearly did not have brakes or steering on landing. Those are Fly By Wire just like the rest of the flight controls. With FBW, if you lose all of the computers (and there are 7 on the -320) that translate pilot inputs to the surface actuators, you're done. As each of the computers fail, you get degraded modes of operation, with reduced response and reduced surface movement...this is about 50 pages of discussion in the flight manual, so I would prefer not to go into it all here...and it's been about 7 years since I flew the "Bus"...

But from a former bus driver - they did a GREAT JOB.
 
Popinksi just needs his women in the kitchen-they have no place in a cockpit - only cook-pit.
grin.gif
 
Thanks, Astro.

A 600 foot ceiling and 2 mile viz makes for a tough VFR approach via the VASI.
 
It does...and with the thing in alternate law (or whatever degraded mode it was in...)...not only is it a tough approach, it's tougher with no VSI or flight path vector displayed...and it's being hand-flown, likely with masks and goggles on...

I taught the 747-400 at UAL for 5 years. We used to do the smoke goggle and mask on approach once a year, a real PITA...but that was with full displays and systems - you could use the autopilot and you have the full ILS...
 
I assume there are battery backups on FBW aircraft? Do these backups not provide full power to the systems?

Or did the backups also fail?
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It does...and with the thing in alternate law (or whatever degraded mode it was in...)...not only is it a tough approach, it's tougher with no VSI or flight path vector displayed...and it's being hand-flown, likely with masks and goggles on...

I taught the 747-400 at UAL for 5 years. We used to do the smoke goggle and mask on approach once a year, a real PITA...but that was with full displays and systems - you could use the autopilot and you have the full ILS...


Not to go off topic here (like most of the posters), nor am I referring to the UAL crew.

I read an article (maybe an editorial) in Aviation Week that lamented the lack of "stick and rudder" skills by a large number of pilots sitting in front of flat panel displays. The gist of the article was that when all of the automation failed, basic airmanship skills were found to be lacking, either in the sim or in reality (resulting in CFIT).

And it wasn't a product of the "300 hours to the right seat of a CRJ!" that was driving the problem. The article (if I can find it, I'll cite the page and edition) focused on what it called an "over reliance on automation and back-ups to that automation." This leaves flightcrews overly dependant on the computers and programming and less capable of sorting through an emergency while "hand-flying" the aircraft.

Obviously, this was not the case in New Orleans, but it's likely there have been other incidents that were preceded by "now what do we do?"
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Popinksi just needs his women in the kitchen-they have no place in a cockpit - only cook-pit.
grin.gif



+1.

But men make better cooks IMO.

There's nothing in this world that women are better at than men..except making babies. That's what they're designed for. Men for everything else including pain and suffering.
 
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
You're either a great troll or a sad individual. I really can't decide.


I am not a troll. Just worried about the future of men.
 
Originally Posted By: Popinski
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
You're either a great troll or a sad individual. I really can't decide.


I am not a troll. Just worried about the future of men.


If you're serious, you need to get in the 21st century man.
thumbsup2.gif


Women = Men.

Things are different than they used to be SS marriage, womens rights. Times are changing, and for the better. Women can do everything men can do. And most men will admit that they are smarter than us too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top