SixPapaCharlie
May the force be with you
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,391
- Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
Maybe you could just get a tee shirt made or something....
But not made by haynes
Maybe you could just get a tee shirt made or something....
I was hit by lightning when I was younger.
Depression does not absolve this man of his culpability. The general category of "mental health issues" is vast. Not every person with mental health issues is so far gone that they can't distinguish right from wrong. This guy had depression, and he was a narcissistic evil petty man. These are not mutually exclusive. I know people with depression that would never do such an evil thing.
Crash pilot was as sane and evil as Adolph Hitler.
It did not bother him killing all his passengers.
Typical sociopath. No consideration for fellow humans.
But not made by haynes
I heard that they still had a good engine that revived after the bird strike, and the FAA wanted to grill the crap out of him for landing a perfectly good airplane in the Hudson - but the media got run away with the savior pilot thing and the FAA ran with it. Active airline guy who told me about it while passing through. Dunno if true or not
Why would a pilot choose landing in the water if he didn't have to?
Sounds like nonsense to me.
Just guessing..... No. First, that many people can't fit into the seats so the aisle would be full. My guess is even with people cramming into rear seats only the front third would be empty.physics question.
Could everyone on the plane gathered in the back and changed the CG enough to make it pitch up?
I get this would not save them as he was at the controls, I am just curious about how the heavies work.
And that's exactly why I believe we will never see a pilot-less airplane. I truly believe that subconsciously the passengers know the pilot has "skin in the game", and therefore will do everything possible for a safe outcome.
I have flown professionally most of my life, and to be honest I have never considered the safety of my passengers. I know that sounds very odd, but the way I see it, it is fine. I consider MY safety, and if I'm safe I also know my passengers are safe. Like I said, I have skin in the game and I believe the passengers know it.
But not made by haynes
I heard that they still had a good engine that revived after the bird strike, and the FAA wanted to grill the crap out of him for landing a perfectly good airplane in the Hudson - but the media got run away with the savior pilot thing and the FAA ran with it. Active airline guy who told me about it while passing through. Dunno if true or not
And that's exactly why I believe we will never see a pilot-less airplane. I truly believe that subconsciously the passengers know the pilot has "skin in the game", and therefore will do everything possible for a safe outcome.
I have flown professionally most of my life, and to be honest I have never considered the safety of my passengers. I know that sounds very odd, but the way I see it, it is fine. I consider MY safety, and if I'm safe I also know my passengers are safe. Like I said, I have skin in the game and I believe the passengers know it.
Off topic but WTF???
He told me that they initially lost both but one of them relit and they didn't use it. He said they still had all systems functional when they went down and that wouldn't happen without power in at least one engine. He said that the official report said that there was a chance that one engine relit but that it was very downplayed by the FAA. Apparently what saved him was the media already making him a public hero and a face of aviation safety.
Not sure if true or not, just passing on what I heard. I dunno how the systems work in the plane and if all the systems would work or not. I always thought he was a bit humble about it. If I was in his shoes and crashed a flyable airplane as the FAA wanted my neck and the media made me a hero for it, I'd probably be humble too. Even if I did save everyone on board.
FWIW, once the RAT (ram air turbine) deploys it will provide electric and hydraulic power ( in degraded law), so vital systems are still functional.
FWIW, once the RAT (ram air turbine) deploys it will provide electric and hydraulic power ( in degraded law), so vital systems are still functional.
Hmm. His argument was that (apparently) both sides of the cockpit had instruments and etc functional when only the captains side should be working in a situation like that with backup systems working. Don't know if he was typed in the a320 or not, but he was flying crj700's currently. Just skimmed the report and it says in multiple places they lost power from both and I didn't see anything saying they could have relit but I didn't look very hard.
I tend to agree, assuming you include judges in your definition of lawyers. They are the ones that don't throw out obviously frivolous suits.
They are the ones that created the rules that make litigation so expensive such that the process is the punishment, and incentivize defendants to simply pay, no matter what, if the case gets past the summary judgment stage, which encourages more suits.
They are the ones that are incredibly reluctant to award sanctions for frivolous law suits.
They are the ones that have crafted remedies for every perceived wrong.
I've never heard that one "relit". Did Sullenberger state this? If it did, should he have trusted it!??Flying over New York city?! I think he reacted perfectly. I also think his background and experience had a lot to do with his decision. He had a lot of excellent training . Ca you document the story that he had a perfectly good engine?He told me that they initially lost both but one of them relit and they didn't use it. He said they still had all systems functional when they went down and that wouldn't happen without power in at least one engine. He said that the official report said that there was a chance that one engine relit but that it was very downplayed by the FAA. Apparently what saved him was the media already making him a public hero and a face of aviation safety.
Not sure if true or not, just passing on what I heard. I dunno how the systems work in the plane and if all the systems would work or not. I always thought he was a bit humble about it. If I was in his shoes and crashed a flyable airplane as the FAA wanted my neck and the media made me a hero for it, I'd probably be humble too. Even if I did save everyone on board.
I've never heard that one "relit". Did Sullenberger state this? If it did, should he have trusted it!??Flying over New York city?! I think he reacted perfectly. I also think his background and experience had a lot to do with his decision. He had a lot of excellent training . Ca you document the story that he had a perfectly good engine?
Yeah, funny that. How come no one ever seems to read it? From the final:It seems like there ought to be info available from the NTSB records that might indicate whether a relight occurred or was possible, e.g., flight data recorder info, and results of the after-incident examination of the engines.
He told me that they initially lost both but one of them relit and they didn't use it. He said they still had all systems functional when they went down and that wouldn't happen without power in at least one engine. He said that the official report said that there was a chance that one engine relit but that it was very downplayed by the FAA. Apparently what saved him was the media already making him a public hero and a face of aviation safety.
Not sure if true or not, just passing on what I heard. I dunno how the systems work in the plane and if all the systems would work or not. I always thought he was a bit humble about it. If I was in his shoes and crashed a flyable airplane as the FAA wanted my neck and the media made me a hero for it, I'd probably be humble too. Even if I did save everyone on board.
No that is exactly what they do. Perhaps your understanding of what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit does not comport with the legal definition?
Judges create the rules of court, which are entirely administrative in nature. The rules of civil procedure, which are substantive and actually govern how a trial is conducted (and consequently may affect costs), are created by the legislature.
Again. Your interpretation of what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit is entirely subjective. And the one thing that is far more frivolous than meritless lawsuits is motions for sanctions...
Repeat after me: The legislature creates the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws.
The RAT deploys automatically only after both engines fail and stays deployed until manually stowed after landing, correct?
Yes, it has to be manually stowed.
It can be deployed either with loss of both AC busses, or it can be manually deployed.
...the one line in the NTSB report that said the engine may have recovered after the strike.
I honestly don't understand why people do this when detailed reports and data are available. Or is the general consensus that the NTSB will commit fraud to the extent of fabricating engine teardowns, CVR transcripts and FDR data? The FDR traces and CVR transcript are on the NTSB docket site for those who are interested.I was just repeating what I heard is all.
Get back to me after you have graduated from law school and practiced law for 20 years. I have no patience for such ignorance.
I honestly don't understand why people do this when detailed reports and data are available.
I'm back! And your response is..?
"According to FDR and CVR data, after the bird ingestion, the first officer followed the Engine Dual Failure checklist and spent about 30 to 40 seconds trying to relight the engines; however, since engine combustion was not lost, these attempts were ineffective in that they would not fix the problem"
"The NTSB concludes that, if the accident engines’ electronic control system had been capable of informing the flight crewmembers about the continuing operational status of the engines, they would have been aware that thrust could not be restored and would not have spent valuable time trying to relight the engines, which were too damaged for any pilot action to make operational."
I honestly don't understand why people do this when detailed reports and data are available. Or is the general consensus that the NTSB will commit fraud to the extent of fabricating engine teardowns, CVR transcripts and FDR data? The FDR traces and CVR transcript are on the NTSB docket site for those who are interested.
Nauga,
who is not that cynical...yet