+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Flight 1549

  1. #11
    LEARNING CONTINUALLY rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver is a jewel in the rough rigdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    S.E. TEXAS
    Posts
    771
    Inspo Vision

    Classic YBOD

    Re: Flight 1549

    Quote Originally Posted by jont  View Original Post
    I saw the entire event unfold, it was something I cant put into words, but that pilot is a "keeper".
    Captain Sully most certainly has the "right stuff." This can not be denied.
    Something I read recently states that the Airbus, such as this one, shuts the engines down by design, or in other words the onboard computer kills the engines in case of ingesting birds. The article went on to say a Boeing would keep on trying to fly and let the pilot make the decision. If so, Sully is even then a bigger hero.

  2. #12
    RBW Member sailor is on a distinguished road sailor is on a distinguished road sailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    355
    TR300c hCCR, Ray mCCR

    Dolphin, Inspiration Vision

    Re: Flight 1549

    Quote Originally Posted by rigdiver  View Original Post
    Captain Sully most certainly has the "right stuff." This can not be denied.
    Something I read recently states that the Airbus, such as this one, shuts the engines down by design, or in other words the onboard computer kills the engines in case of ingesting birds. The article went on to say a Boeing would keep on trying to fly and let the pilot make the decision. If so, Sully is even then a bigger hero.
    I can assure you there's no such thing like auto shut down, not in Boeing and neither in Airbus.
    The same engines used on the A320 family are also in use on the B737 ( CFM ).
    And there's no single onboard computer doing such kind of decisions, everything is double or triple in commercial aviation except the hull.

  3. #13
    Reads fine print (mostly) Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather has a brilliant future Skipbreather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,323
    MEGALODON MK15.5

    BMR500 IDA71 IDA64 RGUFM AKA60

    Re: Flight 1549

    Quote Originally Posted by rigdiver  View Original Post
    Something I read recently states that the Airbus, such as this one, shuts the engines down by design, or in other words the onboard computer kills the engines in case of ingesting birds. The article went on to say a Boeing would keep on trying to fly and let the pilot make the decision.
    No such thing on an A320. I flew them for almost 6 years. What the engines DO have: FADEC = Full Authority Digital Engine Control. The thrust levers in the cockpit are in fact simply electric switches. They send electric signals saying how much thrust the pilot is asking for to the computer that controls the fuel control on the engine. The computer has numerous inputs and knows-among MANY other things- just how much thrust to let the engine produce without overboosting or running past redline RPM. What that means to the A320 pilot is that in an emergency he can firewall the throttles and be confident he’ll get all the power the engines can make without destroying themselves.

    Where the computer vs pilot control philosophy comes into play- Boeing vs Airbus- has to do w/ the fly by wire flight controls. Boeing electronic flight control laws ultimately let the pilot do what he is commanding. Airbus laws, on the other hand, look at what the pilot wants to do and will actually ignore some pilot control inputs at the edges of the envelope. That took some REAL getting used to for me.

  4. #14
    King of the Geeks
    heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude has a reputation beyond repute heyydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,397
    HAMMERHEAD!

    Re: Flight 1549

    Quote Originally Posted by Skipbreather  View Original Post


    Where the computer vs pilot control philosophy comes into play- Boeing vs Airbus- has to do w/ the fly by wire flight controls. Boeing electronic flight control laws ultimately let the pilot do what he is commanding. Airbus laws, on the other hand, look at what the pilot wants to do and will actually ignore some pilot control inputs at the edges of the envelope. That took some REAL getting used to for me.
    Hey Ken,

    Sounds like the current philosophy difference between the EU and USA regarding Rebreather Electronics!


    Will Smithers and I cooked up an idea once where we'd have an "Automatic Fenzy" which would force the diver to ascend if they did something stupid - of course, we realized we'd kill most of the divers that way, so it just remained as part of our drunken plans to take over the world...

    :D

    See you at BTS.

    Kevin.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts