UAL plane off runway in New Orleans
04-04-2011, 08:07 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Sounds like the reporter was a pax...probably wasn't waving his press creds around.
The article just makes it sound like a direct quote from the FO. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
04-04-2011, 08:13 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,882
http://avherald.com/h?article=43a6bc08&opt=0
From the above:
"At the time of the emergency runway 10/28 at New Orleans was not available and was closed. Frantic attempts by tower to get the runway clear during the emergency proved unsuccessful, the runway was cleared and opened about 10 minutes after UA-497 had landed."
From the above:
"At the time of the emergency runway 10/28 at New Orleans was not available and was closed. Frantic attempts by tower to get the runway clear during the emergency proved unsuccessful, the runway was cleared and opened about 10 minutes after UA-497 had landed."
04-04-2011, 06:33 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: blueJet
Posts: 4,511
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
within minutes of taking off Monday after rocking back and forth.
Originally Posted by TonyWilliams
What do you think this means to a reporter?
04-04-2011, 06:41 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 115
Any Airbus guys on here...if you go to emer electrics what do you have left?
Anyone know what they're doing to 10/28? NOTAM just states "closed". If it was something simple like stripe repainting or similar, that's a pretty serious issue they couldn't get it cleared in time for them. If an aircraft in distress wants a runway, barring part of it being bulldozed or something, they get it. Period.
At the time of the emergency runway 10/28 at New Orleans was not available and was closed. Frantic attempts by tower to get the runway clear during the emergency proved unsuccessful, the runway was cleared and opened about 10 minutes after UA-497 had landed.
04-05-2011, 08:28 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: A320/A319/B737 Sys Acft Maint Controller
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Rabid Seagull
10 second story on CNN said smoke in the cabin/cockpit/ passenger's pants? forced emergency landing which looks like the nose went off the runway/ taxiway.
I wonder how many people texted during the landing that their lives were over ( a- la the SWA airlines story right before this one on CNN. Please turn on all your electronic crap when it matters the most
)?
I wonder how many people texted during the landing that their lives were over ( a- la the SWA airlines story right before this one on CNN. Please turn on all your electronic crap when it matters the most
)?The ECAM Message was "Land ASAP" usually reported by the "SDCU" with smoke in the Avionics or Cargo bay.. (any of you Airbus guys ask your mechanics or controllers if you doubt me) Unfortunately, this is many times a false indication because the Airbus smoke detectors can't tell real smoke from Diesel soot ingested by the cooling fans from a diesel Ground power unit NOR Condensation from humidity. The ECAM checklist is OVERLY complex and possibly a "SET UP", EXTREMELY confusing (Don't take my word for it. Read the entire checklist yourself) because Airbus is too damn Dumb to admit that warning is a "Sham", where if a Capt is REALLY "COOL", he/she could reset the Flight warning computers and get rid of the entire message (Which is ALSO in the flight manual.) This incident buttresses my opinion that this airplane is an Overwrought "JOKE" ! I'm damn GLAD the AirForce bought the Boeing tankers Cuz AIRBUS ain't READY for "Prime Time" and They're NEVER going to BE ready!
That Poor Capt was led down the Primrose Path! And Airbus will soon have 14,000 excuses as to WHY!! If they say anything at ALL!
04-05-2011, 11:31 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: Cap. 737
Posts: 293
United Flight Emergency Landing - ABC News
In this video, they have audio of the communications, sounds like everyone did a great job.
In this video, they have audio of the communications, sounds like everyone did a great job.
04-05-2011, 08:25 PM
#17
Capt, SCA A-320
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: A-320 Left
Posts: 10
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.
Last edited by X2FLY; 04-06-2011 at 07:14 AM.
04-06-2011, 04:28 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Guppy Capt.
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by strfyr51
************************************************** *****
The ECAM Message was "Land ASAP" usually reported by the "SDCU" with smoke in the Avionics or Cargo bay.. (any of you Airbus guys ask your mechanics or controllers if you doubt me) Unfortunately, this is many times a false indication because the Airbus smoke detectors can't tell real smoke from Diesel soot ingested by the cooling fans from a diesel Ground power unit NOR Condensation from humidity. The ECAM checklist is OVERLY complex and possibly a "SET UP", EXTREMELY confusing (Don't take my word for it. Read the entire checklist yourself) because Airbus is too damn Dumb to admit that warning is a "Sham", where if a Capt is REALLY "COOL", he/she could reset the Flight warning computers and get rid of the entire message (Which is ALSO in the flight manual.) This incident buttresses my opinion that this airplane is an Overwrought "JOKE" ! I'm damn GLAD the AirForce bought the Boeing tankers Cuz AIRBUS ain't READY for "Prime Time" and They're NEVER going to BE ready!
That Poor Capt was led down the Primrose Path! And Airbus will soon have 14,000 excuses as to WHY!! If they say anything at ALL!
The ECAM Message was "Land ASAP" usually reported by the "SDCU" with smoke in the Avionics or Cargo bay.. (any of you Airbus guys ask your mechanics or controllers if you doubt me) Unfortunately, this is many times a false indication because the Airbus smoke detectors can't tell real smoke from Diesel soot ingested by the cooling fans from a diesel Ground power unit NOR Condensation from humidity. The ECAM checklist is OVERLY complex and possibly a "SET UP", EXTREMELY confusing (Don't take my word for it. Read the entire checklist yourself) because Airbus is too damn Dumb to admit that warning is a "Sham", where if a Capt is REALLY "COOL", he/she could reset the Flight warning computers and get rid of the entire message (Which is ALSO in the flight manual.) This incident buttresses my opinion that this airplane is an Overwrought "JOKE" ! I'm damn GLAD the AirForce bought the Boeing tankers Cuz AIRBUS ain't READY for "Prime Time" and They're NEVER going to BE ready!
That Poor Capt was led down the Primrose Path! And Airbus will soon have 14,000 excuses as to WHY!! If they say anything at ALL!
And would this "false indication" cause a loss of primary instruments?
04-06-2011, 04:40 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Guppy Capt.
Posts: 1,887
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.
04-08-2011, 01:39 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 777 Left
Posts: 347
NTSB is saying Pilots were wrong????
Okay guys, I just do not understand this. Are they saying the pilots were wrong or lying about smoke and/or failure of intruments? Huh??? I am not sure if I should be angered at the NTSB or the reporter for this article, but I cannot imagine the pilots would be so out of touch or ?????
What are they trying to say here?
NTSB: No signs of smoke in United A320 emergency
What are they trying to say here?
NTSB: No signs of smoke in United A320 emergency
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
EngineOut
Regional
153
05-10-2017 10:12 AM
