Neilzy Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Just been watching a documentry on the New York Jet that crashed into the Hudson (i know waiting for new motor) and it appears the crash was down to Canada geese flying into the engines, and the aircraft industry are dismayed at the problems caused by birds flying into aircraft engines. Amazing attitude from an industry who could only dream of perfecting flight in the way the real thing does!!!!!! and was after all was here first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyfreefly Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 I know Ive also been watching it as well (leg Fu*ked) hats of to the pilot though he made all the right choices apart from throttling up a few seconds later/or earlier and he would probably never even known that those big Ducks were there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanman Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 ...he made all the right choices apart from throttling up a few seconds later/or earlier and he would probably never even known that those big Ducks were there... Didn't see the documentary... can you expand on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommcb6016 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 ...he made all the right choices apart from throttling up a few seconds later/or earlier and he would probably never even known that those big Ducks were there... Didn't see the documentary... can you expand on this? Few second earlier or later and the birds wouldn't have been there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyfreefly Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Thats what I was going to say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanman Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 ...but he didn't know the birds were there so without that info the timing of his climb thrust reduction was defined by his company's/Airbus standard operating procedure. My query was because you implied he had a choice to make when in fact he had no info to permit him from deciding to depart from SOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyfreefly Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Dont try and make something out of this that is not implied .....its not written in any operating proceedure that the pilot in command has to apply the throttle within a certain time of being given clearance by ATC.... as long as he doesnt decide to just stay there..the moment he decides to throttle up is up to him the pilot what I meant was that it was so unlucky of him to commit to take off at that precise moment when a few seconds sooner or later and there would not have been a crash and nobody would ever have been any wiser about Geese being in the way..all his decisions after the impact were proven to be correct It shall we say WAS WRITTEN from the Big man above ps I am not religious in any way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanman Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 You didn't imply anything... you stated "he made all the right choices apart from throttling up" ie you stated he made a wrong choice. I was trying to point out that it wasn't a wrong choice but a choice he made not knowing what the imminent future would bring. As an aside, climb thrust reductions are often strictly enforced and monitored by noise monitoring equipment at major airports worldwide so adherance to SOP's to satisfy established noise abatement procedures can be timing critical. Deviation is ok if it can be justified but that takes prior knowledge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyfreefly Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 I Give up...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapper Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 concider yourself lucky Fancis is out of action Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanman Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 So should an (innocent) inaccuracy go unchallenged such that it is then believed by the smaller fish in the pond to be true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilzy Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 Nowt to do with fish just BIG GEESE 14lb one to be precise!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.