Cory Lidle died flying over the East River, not the Hudson River. And the issue there is how much space there is for making a U-turn; I think a helicoper would be able to make a much tighter turn, and so there wouldn't be much reason to ban helicoper flying as a result of a Cirrus airplane crashing.
But, if the tank is empty and full of air, that is lighter still. I would think an sealed, empty fuel tank is more buoyant than a tank full of jet fuel.
Do we know what class or classes of airspace the airplane flew through between the time the engines quit running and the time the plane hit the water?
This article argues that one of the reasons not to make a 180 degree turn if the engine quits on a single engine plane during takeoff at an altitude where you could make the runway, but only if you do everything absolutely perfectly, is that most pilots just aren't used to what they see out the window when making such turns at low altitude. If that's a real issue, then I would think that the what a pilot sees out the window for a water landing vs a runway landing would also be an issue.
Sensational video! If you have to ditch, the Hudson River is the place to do it.
I think you're way overestimating Airbus's fly-by-wire systems. They don't know whether the plane is coming in for a landing, at cruise, ditching in the ocean, or sitting still, and they're certainly not tied to the GPS system. They respond solely to the pilot's input (except in the case of the autopilot, which controls the flight controls in the exact same way that a Boeing aircraft using hydraulics does).
None, unless he's flown a sea plane. The media has been saying how pilots practice ditching in the water in simulators. Haha, that never happens. I've never practiced ditching into the water.
And you're right about that. But this is where there is a big difference between Boeing and Airbus. Boeing aircraft do have mechanical wires hooked up to the control yoke and then goes back to the hydraulic actuators to move the surface. Coining the term mechanically controlled, hydraulically actuated. Airbus is totally fly by wire. I guess it depends on your preference. The CRJ also has wires connected to the actuators. I like this because it gives the pilot a "feel" of the controls.
Hey saxman, thanks for that info. I'd always kind of assumed that the APU was shut down once the main engines were cranked up, as opposed to waiting until after takeoff.
Well you certainly don't have to takeoff with the APU on. Sometimes it doesn't even work. But when you leave it on you can get more performance from the engines. Normally the engines provide bleed air for pressurization, heating and cooling, and wing anti-ice. There is a small power penalty when you have these systems running. Since the APU also provides air for heating and cooling of the cabin, it is just left on so we can have more power for takeoff. After that, the bleeds are just switched to the engine and the APU shut down. Now when I say less power, I'm only talking about a small maybe not even half percent of a thrust setting. You'll be glad to know that even before a airplane is even certified to fly, it can lose an engine at takeoff (the worst possible moment) and still climb out on one engine and miss all obstacles and reach a height of at least 1500' above the airport. You may have tried to get on flights that are "overweight" and can't take a full plane of passengers. This may be because there is bad weather and you have to have the anti-ice on which takes a thrust penalty, which in turn makes a weight penalty. Its not that two engines can't do the job. It's if you lose an engine you'll still be able to climb out safely, even in bad weather. This is very common on the MD-80 or my own CRJ taking off out of LGA on a snowy day.
Dude, not confusing at all, and thanks "Chris 3!"You may have tried to get on flights that are "overweight" and can't take a full plane of passengers.
Hope you understood that. I may have confused you more than I helped.
Many years ago I was on a puddle jumper from LAX to Visalia. Three of us on the flight and they asked each one of us our weight and told us where to sit accordingly. And, they put a couple of 75lb sandbags in a couple of the other seats.Dude, not confusing at all, and thanks "Chris 3!"You may have tried to get on flights that are "overweight" and can't take a full plane of passengers.
Hope you understood that. I may have confused you more than I helped.
Never had to deal with an overweight plane, but once at Tampa a flight attendant asked for volunteers to move to seats in the back for weight distribution. An AirTran 737. Never heard of THAT before, and it wasn't anywhere near a full flight - though everybody was concentrated up front. Me and the girlfriend raised our hands and moved immediately - better seats anyway - and set the example for others. Thought it kinda weird that passenger weight - with so few aboard - was deemed so critical that people were asked to move.
But I thought the 777 and perhaps a few of the other newer Boeings were fly-by-wire, too.
Actually, it's pretty common on smaller aircraft (RJs, turboprops, etc.), since the passengers' weight and balance is a relatively larger component of the total aircraft's weight and balance. It's much rarer on larger aircraft (like Whooz's 737 experience).
Yeah you're right. I don't know every airplane. But the 777 still does have a control yoke hooked up to wires which go to the computer system. This is vs the side stick the "Airbii" have
Yes, and they found it at the bottom of the port. :lol: :lol:
Reminds me, you know what they call a current running thru a crevice in the river bottom? An Eddy Fisher.
Didn't you mean... Ebb E. Fissure?
