UAL plane off runway in New Orleans
04-10-2011, 02:08 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: A320/A319/B737 Sys Acft Maint Controller
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by X2FLY
Wow, StirFry,
You have some serious Airbus Hate issues. The airbus is a great airplane, and the ECAMS work just fine when properly followed.. Sounds like you are hearing second hand opinions. The crew DID report smoke in the Cockpit, and sounds like they did exactly what they were trained to do. You don't second guess anything when you see smoke (Like it sounds like as opposed to getting a smoke indication) either way you get on the ground and figure it out later. When you actually get smoke in the cockpit, you attempt to follow the checklist, isolating as much as you can the smoke source (IF YOU CAN), and if not then you shut just about everything you can (Emergency Electrical Config). You should have enough to get back to the field in IMC, but apparently not since they were asking for a PAR (probably meant ASR) approach. They could have just wanted to expedite things however - believing something was burning (Since something probably was). The ECAMS work great so not sure what you are talking about. You sound like a rookie, who just happened to get his hands on a QRH and read the Smoke section. From an outsider not proficient in the bus- you would think it a bit confusing. Take a chill pill PAL.
x2fly
(former Airbus Instructor) SIM and current line pilot.
You have some serious Airbus Hate issues. The airbus is a great airplane, and the ECAMS work just fine when properly followed.. Sounds like you are hearing second hand opinions. The crew DID report smoke in the Cockpit, and sounds like they did exactly what they were trained to do. You don't second guess anything when you see smoke (Like it sounds like as opposed to getting a smoke indication) either way you get on the ground and figure it out later. When you actually get smoke in the cockpit, you attempt to follow the checklist, isolating as much as you can the smoke source (IF YOU CAN), and if not then you shut just about everything you can (Emergency Electrical Config). You should have enough to get back to the field in IMC, but apparently not since they were asking for a PAR (probably meant ASR) approach. They could have just wanted to expedite things however - believing something was burning (Since something probably was). The ECAMS work great so not sure what you are talking about. You sound like a rookie, who just happened to get his hands on a QRH and read the Smoke section. From an outsider not proficient in the bus- you would think it a bit confusing. Take a chill pill PAL.
x2fly
(former Airbus Instructor) SIM and current line pilot.
Well Dude?
I just read the preliminary NTSB report Yesterday, and Guess what?
No SMOKE!! And they have the Blowers. the SDCU, the Sensors, and the DFDR. Basically they said the load shedding both electrical any Hydraulic by droppingthe RAT were un-necessary with no visual evidence of smoke in the cockpit OR Cabin. and the load shed causes the CVR to be unpowered. (Which I can Guarantee they'll address!!) The Airbus Rep whom I've NEVER Met until last Friday is Camped out in the Flight safety office. So offhand? I'd say they're going to hang that poor captain out to DRY. (just my opinion though) I think you might want to rethnk your statement previously since I MIGHT actually know what I'm talking about.
And I Might actually KNOW the systems. (as well or BETTER than You, as MOST Airbus Controllers at ANY airline would.) I also Know that Had that Captain called before doing the "Johnny Ramjet" thing?? A VERY GOOD and HIGHLY Experienced Airbus Controller on duty would have Helped him. And? Of the 5 Fleet controllers on duty that morning? 3 were FULLY qualified Airbus Controllers so there's NO WAY he couldn't have gotten some "Good Scoop". Especially since ALL we DO is help Pilots and bring EVERY GUN to bear on whatever problem they might have. Why would you NOT get us in the loop? Your focus is and should be on the passengers and Crew, Our focus is on getting the PILOTS and the Airplane in theground Safely! We can replace Parts! We CAN'T replace Pilots!
04-10-2011, 05:25 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,814
Originally Posted by strfyr51
************************************************** *****
Well Dude?
I just read the preliminary NTSB report Yesterday, and Guess what?
No SMOKE!! And they have the Blowers. the SDCU, the Sensors, and the DFDR. Basically they said the load shedding both electrical any Hydraulic by droppingthe RAT were un-necessary with no visual evidence of smoke in the cockpit OR Cabin. and the load shed causes the CVR to be unpowered. (Which I can Guarantee they'll address!!) The Airbus Rep whom I've NEVER Met until last Friday is Camped out in the Flight safety office. So offhand? I'd say they're going to hang that poor captain out to DRY. (just my opinion though) I think you might want to rethnk your statement previously since I MIGHT actually know what I'm talking about.
And I Might actually KNOW the systems. (as well or BETTER than You, as MOST Airbus Controllers at ANY airline would.) I also Know that Had that Captain called before doing the "Johnny Ramjet" thing?? A VERY GOOD and HIGHLY Experienced Airbus Controller on duty would have Helped him. And? Of the 5 Fleet controllers on duty that morning? 3 were FULLY qualified Airbus Controllers so there's NO WAY he couldn't have gotten some "Good Scoop". Especially since ALL we DO is help Pilots and bring EVERY GUN to bear on whatever problem they might have. Why would you NOT get us in the loop? Your focus is and should be on the passengers and Crew, Our focus is on getting the PILOTS and the Airplane in theground Safely! We can replace Parts! We CAN'T replace Pilots!
Well Dude?
I just read the preliminary NTSB report Yesterday, and Guess what?
No SMOKE!! And they have the Blowers. the SDCU, the Sensors, and the DFDR. Basically they said the load shedding both electrical any Hydraulic by droppingthe RAT were un-necessary with no visual evidence of smoke in the cockpit OR Cabin. and the load shed causes the CVR to be unpowered. (Which I can Guarantee they'll address!!) The Airbus Rep whom I've NEVER Met until last Friday is Camped out in the Flight safety office. So offhand? I'd say they're going to hang that poor captain out to DRY. (just my opinion though) I think you might want to rethnk your statement previously since I MIGHT actually know what I'm talking about.
And I Might actually KNOW the systems. (as well or BETTER than You, as MOST Airbus Controllers at ANY airline would.) I also Know that Had that Captain called before doing the "Johnny Ramjet" thing?? A VERY GOOD and HIGHLY Experienced Airbus Controller on duty would have Helped him. And? Of the 5 Fleet controllers on duty that morning? 3 were FULLY qualified Airbus Controllers so there's NO WAY he couldn't have gotten some "Good Scoop". Especially since ALL we DO is help Pilots and bring EVERY GUN to bear on whatever problem they might have. Why would you NOT get us in the loop? Your focus is and should be on the passengers and Crew, Our focus is on getting the PILOTS and the Airplane in theground Safely! We can replace Parts! We CAN'T replace Pilots!
12-18-2020, 04:50 PM
#23
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 96
This doesn't sound pretty.
Originally Posted by Shrek
Sure they can - they have been doing it since emerging from Bankruptcy
Accident: United Airlines A320 at New Orleans on Apr 4th 2011, smoke in cockpit, complete electronic failure, runway excursion, evacuation (avherald.com)
12-18-2020, 07:08 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,130
While that was a figurative disaster, if the NTSB wrote that then shame on them, that was NOT constructive reading. That read like a college midterm.
“After the captain stated they were in emergency electrical configuration, the first officer stated "yup confirm. Let's go back." Had the captain been properly managing the abnormal, and now emergency, situation, he should have made the decision to return to the airport rather than the first officer making that decision.”
Glad the FO said something or the captain would have pushed on to Vegas. <\sarcasm>
“After the captain stated they were in emergency electrical configuration, the first officer stated "yup confirm. Let's go back." Had the captain been properly managing the abnormal, and now emergency, situation, he should have made the decision to return to the airport rather than the first officer making that decision.”
Glad the FO said something or the captain would have pushed on to Vegas. <\sarcasm>
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
EngineOut
Regional
153
05-10-2017 10:12 AM
