737 down off Honolulu

So what’s the latest on the ditching? Any news out there? How did they get out? Anyone hurt? How’d the plane do? Broke up? How long did it float? Etc
 
Doc Holliday said:
Still don’t get what you are trying to accomplish.

On the Airbus we would pull up the QRH when we had an ECAM alert, and follow the steps as written, and verify against the ECAM. The ECAM was useful in that if you skipped a step, the ECAM would still show what was missed.

Pretty much the same technique on the Boeing with the EICAS. (Disclaimer: I haven’t been on the Boeing in almost a decade)

Not sure how you determine the ECAM or EICAS are not part of automation.

BTW, what equipment are you currently on?
Click to expand...
I’m not going to try and get you to understand. It has proven to be difficult with you regardless of the topic. I fly the airbus.
 
kayoh190 said:
While some guys still elect to use the paper QRH, this is a time where the iPad version is a big help - being able to tap a link to a new spot in the checklist really saves time over flipping around.
Click to expand...
True, but I doubt a small operator will have electronic flight manuals with the sophisticated hyperlinking that we have just recently achieved at the largest airlines.

Tarheelpilot said:
One of the not so awesome trends of modern aviation is the development of procedures and checklists that are written for people that have no idea what’s going on with the aircraft.
Click to expand...
I've flown both the DC8 and DC9 and those checklists weren't any shorter than what we have now. They were less well organized, too.

The methodical checklist disciple approach works best in most situations. There are situations, uncontrolled fire/smoke or dual-engine failure come to mind, when you have to put the checklist down and land as quickly as possible.

A 737-200 will fly all day long with one engine shutdown--until that one engine also fails. The question that we need an answer to is at what point in this flight did the crew know that the second engine was also compromised.
 
Larry in TN said:
True, but I doubt a small operator will have electronic flight manuals with the sophisticated hyperlinking that we have just recently achieved at the largest airlines.
Click to expand...

Most foreign airlines that operate AB equipment use AB manuals exclusively, AB publishes their FOM and puts the carrier’s name on them, unlike US carriers which for the most part write their own manuals and procedures.

This allows the latest and greatest to be used by any carrier subscribing to the system, such as what you described.
 
Larry in TN said:
True, but I doubt a small operator will have electronic flight manuals with the sophisticated hyperlinking that we have just recently achieved at the largest airlines.


I've flown both the DC8 and DC9 and those checklists weren't any shorter than what we have now. They were less well organized, too.

The methodical checklist disciple approach works best in most situations. There are situations, uncontrolled fire/smoke or dual-engine failure come to mind, when you have to put the checklist down and land as quickly as possible.

A 737-200 will fly all day long with one engine shutdown--until that one engine also fails. The question that we need an answer to is at what point in this flight did the crew know that the second engine was also compromised.
Click to expand...
I flew the 727 so I have some limited experience with older equipment as well. I don’t disagree with anything you have said. The key point to what you posted is follow the methodical procedures unless you shouldn’t. I’m talking about a trend that I have seen to leave out the unless you shouldn’t part.
 
kayoh190 said:
While some guys still elect to use the paper QRH, this is a time where the iPad version is a big help - being able to tap a link to a new spot in the checklist really saves time over flipping around.
Click to expand...
Kinda depends on the ride. My car has a touch screen to control most features (radio, etc.) and it can be tough to work on anything but smooth roads.

And with two engines failing on that 737, they may NOT have had a smooth ride going.

On the positive side, the increased proliferation of voice control might help this.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Sluggo63 said:
I agree. Going from a plane with a paper checklist to now one with an Electronic Checklist (ECL), it’s amazing how much easier and more organized everything becomes with the ECL rather than the paper QRH. Sometimes technology is a good thing.
Click to expand...
It’s not just the transfer to electrons, though. Some of the older airplanes’ checklists would have to be dramatically changed/improved to make an electronic version more user-friendly. We’ve got checklists that refer to two other checklists before the primary checklist is complete...the electronic version doesn’t allow you to keep your finger in the primary checklist to remind you to go back and finish it. ;)
 
luvflyin said:
So what’s the latest on the ditching? Any news out there? How did they get out? Anyone hurt? How’d the plane do? Broke up? How long did it float? Etc
Click to expand...

pulled from water an hour after ditching. One crew on tail when USCG helicopter arrived, one holding onto floating cargo ( so implies some breakup). Tail suddenly sank and left that guy struggling in water, so helicopter rescued him first. Honolulu fire/rescue boat picked up other. Both went to hospital with serious injuries.
 
Van Johnston said:
pulled from water an hour after ditching. One crew on tail when USCG helicopter arrived, one holding onto floating cargo ( so implies some breakup). Tail suddenly sank and left that guy struggling in water, so helicopter rescued him first. Honolulu fire/rescue boat picked up other. Both went to hospital with serious injuries.
Click to expand...
Which also implies that they didn’t grab the PFDs that I would assume are in reach.

Not criticizing, mind you...but it kind of goes back to the statement about survival gear, that if it’s not on your person, it’s camping gear. If you have to get out fast, or are in shock from a crash/ditching, the things that are otherwise obvious don’t always happen.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Which also implies that they didn’t grab the PFDs that I would assume are in reach.

Not criticizing, mind you...but it kind of goes back to the statement about survival gear, that if it’s not on your person, it’s camping gear. If you have to get out fast, or are in shock from a crash/ditching, the things that are otherwise obvious don’t always happen.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be routine for a twin jet crew to fly wearing PFDs (no matter how raggedy the freighter).
 
weilke said:
I don't think it would be routine for a twin jet crew to fly wearing PFDs (no matter how raggedy the freighter).
Click to expand...
I was also not implying that they should. Just reinforcing that if it’s not on you, it may not make it out with you. That eventuality needs to be part of the plan.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I was also not implying that they should. Just reinforcing that if it’s not on you, it may not make it out with you. That eventuality needs to be part of the plan.
Click to expand...
Since they’re in a sealed pouch, I don’t know if my employer would be too fond of me “breaking the seal” on every new life vest I fly with to don it on the off chance that that’s the day I’m going to lose both motors and end up in the drink.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Since they’re in a sealed pouch, I don’t know if my employer would be too fond of me “breaking the seal” on every new life vest I fly with to don it on the off chance that that’s the day I’m going to lose both motors and end up in the drink.
Click to expand...
Again, not anything I’m suggesting.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Since they’re in a sealed pouch, I don’t know if my employer would be too fond of me “breaking the seal” on every new life vest I fly with to don it on the off chance that that’s the day I’m going to lose both motors and end up in the drink.
Click to expand...
I bet it would be quite the topic of conversation among passengers who happen to catch a glimpse of flight crew so attired. :eek:
 
Pilawt said:
I bet it would be quite the topic of conversation among passengers who happen to catch a glimpse of flight crew so attired. :eek:
Click to expand...

Fortunately he had the foresight to fly for a company where that's not an issue. ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
It’s not just the transfer to electrons, though. Some of the older airplanes’ checklists would have to be dramatically changed/improved to make an electronic version more user-friendly. We’ve got checklists that refer to two other checklists before the primary checklist is complete...the electronic version doesn’t allow you to keep your finger in the primary checklist to remind you to go back and finish it. ;)
Click to expand...
It's even easier than that. The ECL we use is embedded in the airplane, not part of a separate iPad/tablet app. It's really well thought out, and there's no need to mark places in checklists because the checklist will automatically ensure you do the correct steps, even if there's checklists to jump around. It does all the jumping forward and back for you. I'm usually a skeptic when it comes to electronic replacing paper (you should see our new electronic maintenance log... its a PITA compared to just the old book), but using an ECL, I never want to go back to a paper QRH (we do still have to keep paper QRHs on board, just in case).
 
MauleSkinner said:
Which also implies that they didn’t grab the PFDs that I would assume are in reach.
Click to expand...
The vests are in a seal pouch in each pilot's seatback.

Due to the nature of their situation, they would not have had time to get up out of their seats to get their vest, open the pouch, and put them on before they ditched.

Both pilots were reported to have serious injuries so their ability to do that after the ditching and still evacuate safely may have been compromised.
 
Larry in TN said:
The vests are in a seal pouch in each pilot's seatback.

Due to the nature of their situation, they would not have had time to get up out of their seats to get their vest, open the pouch, and put them on before they ditched.

Both pilots were reported to have serious injuries so their ability to do that after the ditching and still evacuate safely may have been compromised.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point.
 
Doc Holliday said:
So what’s your solution?
Click to expand...
Apparently there’s not a problem, so there’s no need for a solution.

I’m just applying a “theoretical” point made in several other threads, such as these
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...plies-do-you-carry-in-your-flight-bag.132475/
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/escape-underwater-oxygen-bottle-argument.130396/
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...over-through-the-rockies.130045/#post-3026388
to a real-life accident.

I find it interesting that people only argue with it in practice, not in theory.

if people are willing to accept the risk because there’s no simple solution, that’s fine. But not acknowledging that the risk exists is poor airmanship IMO.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
if it’s not on your person, it’s camping gear
Click to expand...
100%

Peculiar to me when I see people headed out to Catalina and while I appreciate the caution of bringing life jackets don't understand when they throw it in the back luggage compartment of a PA-28.. if you don't want to wear it that's fine but at least throw it in the back seat, it will do absolutely nothing for you in the luggage area
 
Tantalum said:
100%

Peculiar to me when I see people headed out to Catalina and while I appreciate the caution of bringing life jackets don't understand when they throw it in the back luggage compartment of a PA-28.. if you don't want to wear it that's fine but at least throw it in the back seat, it will do absolutely nothing for you in the luggage area
Click to expand...
It helps the plane float longer. :)

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
MauleSkinner said:
I was also not implying that they should. Just reinforcing that if it’s not on you, it may not make it out with you. That eventuality needs to be part of the plan.
Click to expand...
It is part of the plan. The plan is to grab them on the way out of the airplane and put them on and inflate them. Other than wearing them, I don’t know what else I’d be expected to do.

MauleSkinner said:
Apparently there’s not a problem, so there’s no need for a solution.

I’m just applying a “theoretical” point made in several other threads, such as these
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...plies-do-you-carry-in-your-flight-bag.132475/
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/escape-underwater-oxygen-bottle-argument.130396/
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...over-through-the-rockies.130045/#post-3026388
to a real-life accident.

I find it interesting that people only argue with it in practice, not in theory.

if people are willing to accept the risk because there’s no simple solution, that’s fine. But not acknowledging that the risk exists is poor airmanship IMO.
Click to expand...
What we’re talking about here is the risk/impact matrix.
3B48E352-0120-4E0E-9498-23E88EF68E4A.jpeg
In a modern, twin engine ETOPS jet airplane, the risk of ditching is UNLIKELY, the risk of ditching and forgetting a floatation device or raft (especially since the raft is automatically inflated when you open the door) is highly UNLIKELY. The impact would, of course, be SEVERE, so that would fall under acceptable risk.

Now, the equation changes if we’re talking about a single engine piston plane. In that case I would grade the risk as POSSIBLE/SEVERE and I come up with MANAGEABLE. Now it’s up to me to manage that risk. If I was flying a Bonanza across open water, I’d be wearing a PFD.

We can’t realistically guard against every risk no matter how likely or unlikely it is to occur. If that was the case, we’d be flying airplanes packed with first aid equipment, with the fire extinguisher on our laps while we were strapped with numerous firearms. That is, if we could even get ourselves airborne with all the risks facing us in the flight before us.
 
There ya go. The problem doesn’t exist, and shall never be spoken of again.
 
MauleSkinner said:
There ya go. The problem doesn’t exist, and shall never be spoken of again.
Click to expand...
Ok. I’m sorry. I’m not understanding what you’re trying to get at.
MauleSkinner said:
Which also implies that they didn’t grab the PFDs that I would assume are in reach.

...but it kind of goes back to the statement about survival gear, that if it’s not on your person, it’s camping gear.
Click to expand...
To me, it seems like you’re insinuating that if you’re not wearing your PFD (“not on your person”), it’s useless (“camping gear”). So I’m asking if you’re advocating wearing your PFD on an overwater flight in a turbojet aircraft so it doesn’t become “camping gear” if you have to dish.

if I’m missing something, please correct me.
 
bflynn said:
Where is the checklist for a complete loss of electrical power?
Click to expand...
For most modern transport aircraft, a complete loss of electrical power would most likely be accompanied by the loss of both wings and probably the tail section where the APU lives. So the checklist would be really short.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Ok. I’m sorry. I’m not understanding what you’re trying to get at.

To me, it seems like you’re insinuating that if you’re not wearing your PFD (“not on your person”), it’s useless (“camping gear”). So I’m asking if you’re advocating wearing your PFD on an overwater flight in a turbojet aircraft so it doesn’t become “camping gear” if you have to dish.

if I’m missing something, please correct me.
Click to expand...
You are missing the fact that I insinuated nothing, I merely stated that it appears to me they got out of the airplane without survival gear that wasn’t attached to their bodies, which therefore was useless to them, just like all those other people said.

But, per the risk assessment matrix, even though it’s very likely that someone will start arguing on POA about a statement/insinuation that wasn’t made, the severity is negligible, therefore the risk is tolerable. ;)
 
Last edited:
Rokke214 said:
For most modern transport aircraft, a complete loss of electrical power would most likely be accompanied by the loss of both wings and probably the tail section where the APU lives. So the checklist would be really short.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I only know of one. But none of that other stuff happened. They just continued to (appropriately for this thread) Honolulu.
 
Tantalum said:
100%

Peculiar to me when I see people headed out to Catalina and while I appreciate the caution of bringing life jackets don't understand when they throw it in the back luggage compartment of a PA-28.. if you don't want to wear it that's fine but at least throw it in the back seat, it will do absolutely nothing for you in the luggage area
Click to expand...
My approach was to climb high enough to stay within gliding distance of the shore.

Has anyone looked up the consciousness and survival times for the water temperatures in that area?
 
Palmpilot said:
My approach was to climb high enough to stay within gliding distance of the shore.
Click to expand...
Same here.. at least I try

Useful time is short, depending water temp and time of year
upload_2021-7-6_11-53-23.png
lifted from http://www.shipwrite.bc.ca/Chilling_truth.htm

The water temp at Catalina today is 66.9 F.. you have less than 45 minutes for rescue to find your tiny head bobbing up and down in the waves

The whole "just fly towards a boat" thing is ridiculous.. at least half the time you cross you're above an overcast marine layer and there aren't exactly THAT many boats

I feel like people who with a cavalier attitude about over water single engine piston ops haven't spent enough time on, or around, the water. But that's just me
 
Lindberg said:
I might be reading the chart wrong, but I see 2 - 40 hours.

View attachment 98010
Click to expand...
I was referring to the loss of dexterity with no protective clothing.. most people will be wearing a pair of shorts with a t-shirt for that trip. Once you start losing dexterity and your arms go numb it will be very hard to keep your head above water and cling to any floating debris that might be there

Even if you can survive a good 40 hours, with a typical current some where between 1 to 3 knots you're not going to be anywhere close to where they think the plane went down. They'll never find you
 
Tantalum said:
I was referring to the loss of dexterity with no protective clothing.. most people will be wearing a pair of shorts with a t-shirt for that trip. Once you start losing dexterity and your arms go numb it will be very hard to keep your head above water and cling to any floating debris that might be there
Click to expand...
You don't need a lot of dexterity to wrap your arms around something. And none if you are wearing a PFD. If anything, the lesson here is that wearing a PFD could take your survival time from minutes to hours or days.
Even if you can survive a good 40 hours, with a typical current some where between 1 to 3 knots you're not going to be anywhere close to where they think the plane went down. They'll never find you
Click to expand...
I'm not in the Coast Guard, but I'll bet if the current is 1 to 3 knots, then 40 hours after the crash, they won't be searching at the spot where it went down.

Regardless, the question was about consciousness and survival times, and at 67* F, it's much more than 45 minutes. Even longer in Honolulu where the water temp is almost 80*.
 
Tantalum said:
I was referring to the loss of dexterity with no protective clothing.. most people will be wearing a pair of shorts with a t-shirt for that trip. Once you start losing dexterity and your arms go numb it will be very hard to keep your head above water and cling to any floating debris that might be there

Even if you can survive a good 40 hours, with a typical current some where between 1 to 3 knots you're not going to be anywhere close to where they think the plane went down. They'll never find you
Click to expand...
Although I didn't spell it out, what I had in mind when I asked the question was whether a life jacket would be sufficient. Because of the uncertainty surrounding that issue, I would try to fly high enough to glide to a shoreline even if I were wearing one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top