lesson learned. If you ever have both engines failed before reaching 2000 feet, slowly whisper to the microphone for blackbox to record; "Mommy I love you"
Dear Richy, this video is meant to show "what is (almost) the lowest height from which you can return" :) In the case of flight 1549, what could have happened remains what could have happened. I am very happy that they survived, how they survived, even though it was a very difficult situation and good job by the crew, is not so important!
I cannot believe you have not taken into account the human factor. This was a dual-engine loss at 2500 feet, followed by an immediate water landing with 155 souls on board. No one said you are going to lose both engines at an altitude lower than any jet in history, but be cool, head back for LaGuardia like you're picking up the milk. No one has ever trained for an incident like that--no one, ever!
You probably know that anyone who searches out this video watched the Sully movie. When the NTSB investigated the Hudson incident, they didn't take reaction time into account at first, so it was possible to land safely only because the simulation was planned out. In reality, in an unplanned emergency situation, the reaction time made it impossible to land at a runway safely when the plane was at such a low altitude to start with.
haha! yeah! saw that movie yesterday, Tom hanks and Aaron Eckhart did amazing, loved the "Does anyone need to see more simulations?" after adding 35 seconds reaction time
man, this is interesting as hell. haha. great job, young pilot! I'm just a regular Joe in the US who was surfing RU-vid and came across this. I'm fascinated with how precisely pilots handle emergencies like this. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE an opportunity to try and fly a commercial simulator just once in my life. I watched THIS young man/pilot handle this flame out emergency so calm and reactive, it just really made me grin and feel better about flying in general! again, outstanding job, young man!
It's all good to be calm and collected when you are EXPECTING a dual engine failure I a simulator . I would imagine it would be a bit more stressful in the cockpit.if this happened unexpectedly in real life. Great video though
You can do flame out landings on your own computer with X Plane or MSF using your flight stick controller. If that's not good enough for you because you're so shallow that you need to inflate yourself with special feelings of importance by touching physical buttons in a commercial cockpit *otherwise you refuse to learn because it's not special enough for your special feelings,* well then you fail.
You might be able to pull off 2000ft if you delay gear extension as long as possible. Extended landing gear makes a lot of drag. They may let you dump fuel too to lighten the load.
Loss of engine is also equal to loss of momentum. In the case of dual engine failure on a twin engine airplane below 20hundred feet while holding a pitch of 10°-15° and below 250 knots, the forward momentum will be consumed quite quickly. I think the initial response of any pilot will be to quickly push forward, gear up, reduce flaps, switch on Apu, bank away from turrain, and quickly look for any place where there is little to no traffic or population to set that bird down. A 180° turn will take away a lot of momentum and require nose down action to avoid stall speeds and subsequently consume the little altitude left. In my personal opinion, I think all airfields should have a zone beyond the airfield to account for these types of snarios, but the fact that these incidents are so few and far in between means no organization will want to put out the amount to prep for it
one question. After the engines failure as usual you lost all of your power in electrical and hydraulic systems and counted on the ram air turbine. Why didn't you turn on the APU for power?
+Vanadeo No in an A320 you're not :P I don't even wanna think about trying to do this in a twin prop with a double engine failure at Lukla, let alone a jet.
An MD-81 lost both engines at 3200 feet after departure from Arlanda, Stockholm, Sweden, after ice broke off of the wings and was ingested into the engines. Never for the briefest of moments was it on the pilots minds to return to the airport, they set it down in a clearing down range, and everyone on board made it. Had they started making sharp turns at low speed and low altitude, the most likely outcome is that noone had made it.
The difference here between this incident and the Hudson River one is that there was a clearing within range. There is no open land in New York City, other than the airports, so the only safe option was to land in the Hudson.
Jacob, the hydraulics are very much there, the difference is that pilot input is converted into electronic signal and then to hydraulic actuators, instead of a more direct linkeage
APU supplies only electrical and pneumatic systems .. In this situation he used the batteries for the instruments and deployed the RAT for hydraulic which were essential in this situation.
Its not the electricity that is the issue, the APU just provides a little trust, which may be the difference between landing on a runway and crashing 15 feet from it
This is a Question Mark Turnback from 2,500 agl on A320. Landed safely. Great pilot. No copilot needed either. I teach Question Mark Turbacks on singles and multies from 700 agl to 1,200 agl depending on airplane, weight and winds on specific take off.
It takes time to start a gas turbine engine. They don't start in a few seconds like a piston engine. And if there was for example a bird strike the engine could be damaged to the point of it being unusable, as it was with the Hudson Miracle.
APU is non-essential. He had power from the RAT and the ability to fly the aircraft. There's no point trying to get systems up and operational if it puts the aircraft at a higher risk.
Ram air turbine is a small electrical generator that is deployed into the airstream to supply a small amount of power to the aircraft systems during a emergency
Scary when I think that in my day during transatlantic flights, just after dinner was served, kids like this would actually fly the plane. Now I know why they stopped it “I have no energy” along with the whole crashing- Go To Your Room!
But, unlike most other large airliners, if you lose all hydraulics on a 737 the pilot can still control the jet through manual reversion, although it takes alot of physical effort. You can still operate most of the primary flight control surfaces because they are still mechanicaly connected to the flight controls. Its very similar to power steering in a car, lose the power steering and the controls are heavy, but still controllable
i don't understand what you are referring to, but that simulation featured the loss of Green and Yellow systems situation. On the a320 a loss of all hydraulics situation is unlikely to happen as the Blue system is powered by the RAT.
@richygambs321 He did say that he was going to experiment and see what the minimum altitude would be to return to the runway. And also this is not meant for training purposes, The first one @2000 was a crash! So he did it again @ 2,500 just to demonstrate what it would take to be able to return to the airport. I'm certain that he is aware that engine outs are a surprise! It's nice to see things like this however just to know exactly how far you can push the envelope if you absolutely had to
Lisvenachux Roytulin is that not a rather pointless video then? Seeing as a320 is a 2 manned plane. Helpful for a simulator but seriously doubt one person would be taking off in this plane in real life. Still appreciated the vid, but would limit the necessary education if the above answer is correct... Then again, me no know :)
Thank you Pranas, i would like you to make some other interesting videos, such a 737 and 320 driftdown procedures as well the depresurization and emergency descents. Greetings from Mexico!!
Nice video! Extreme stuff. Didn't got why stay on RAT only thorough. APU would be handy on this case.
11 лет назад
A loss of hydraulic systems is always unlikely without any external cause of damage, which can happen to any plane. Let it be a terrorist, an engine falling apart or a fatal decompression, if those things happen it doesn't matter if you are on a Boeing or an Airbus. For example, just a few month ago an Air Berlin A330 crew needed to perform an emergency landing in Phuket because of an uncontained engine failure resulting in loss of hydraulics, it was quite near-catastrophic.
At 165 knots Turnback, it is better to have some flaps and slats. At least flaps 1. I think you have then on Flaps 1. The lower the speed, the lower the flaps used. Normal flight laws.. You know how to do hard maneuvers on take off. And you were also turning around 40 degrees bank to Turnback. Very good.. You dont turn 30 degrees only. Waste of time and altitude. i bet he was flying gliders in the summer.. Single Pilot Turnback to opposite from 2,500 B737. Great job to save them all, future captain..
In this case you knew the engines would fail so of course you can readily react to the situation. Would a real case scenario need longer for you to assess and address the situation?
+Giovanni Di Cello Pilots are trained to act accordingly. The second the pilot heard the noise of dual engine they would have started the turn immediately. So maybe an additional 5 seconds for the pilot to look down and see dual engine flame out then turn.
@@bobalobalie This has actually happened before on two occasions and in both there is no evidence the pilots reacted as quickly as you are suggesting. In one it took about thirty seconds for the pilots to determine a definite course of action, and in the other they were so close to the ground landing the plane immediately off field was the only option.
no, he probably could not have made it (regarding captain sully). And yes, he anticipated it, as should every pilot on start. And most of the time you can't turn straight,because most of the time there are obstacles in the way, wich you absolutely don't want to hit, like a town, trees or something like that
Baltic Aviation Academy correct me if im wrong.. but at this situation, would you consider turning on the apu a good or a bad thing? to my knowledge.. turning the apu would provide emergency power if the batteries were to be damaged or depleted.. in addition, the apu's power will produce a pressure differential near the engines just enough to rotate the turbines a little bit :P making it easier for the pilot "pranas" to maneuver the plane.:P
Yes, you are right. But take into acount that APU takes some time to start up, and, as he was flying solo, he probably didnt have time (or enough hands :P) to do it.
wow thats amazing. one slight observation, I noticed he ducks closer to the front windows to get a better view of the runway but since the simulation is only a projected image would he infact be able to see further round? Thanks again and Yeh I hope nobody's ever in that situation but nice to know there's still a procedure in that event.
+SLOPPY1001 i believe that the image is projected onto a screen in front of the cockpit windows, to give the pilots a better impression of 3d space when they move around in the cockpit
No HUMAN ERROR factor. Because pilots are not supposed to make such wimpy errors.. He did good. A Question Mark Shaped Turnback from 2,500 agl. No copilot needed either..
What are the two wheels with black and white bars that spin? They are located near the thrust levers. Great videos, by the way. I'm not a pilot but I've enjoyed watching these to learn what goes on in the cockpit.
Failure to start the APU would have cost you a few points if this was a real training lesson as would failure to call ATC Also I just thought of something with the cockpit design of the Airbus A320 What would be the course of action if both pilots were left handed or both were right handed since the side stick cannot be moved? Wouldn't it be unsafe for a pilot to attempt to fly the plane with his/her non dominant hand?
+mewantbrains A pilot in the left seat, regardless of his dominant hand and regardless if the airplane has a sidestick or a yoke, has to be able to control the yoke/sidestick with his left hand because with the right hand he controls the throttle. And also the other way around of course.
+Daniel Yep, as Daniel said, just imagine the side stick between the pilots legs and it is literally no different to a yoke apart from a different design. It is just further to the sides, but the throttle is still to the right of the captain and the left of the copilot. Just a bit further distance between the side stick and the throttle than the yoke to the throttle. You still use the same hands for controlling the throttle and side stick/yoke in an Airbus and Boeing.
I just figured that it would be very difficult to fly with your non dominant hand I tried flying with my left hand in FSX and I crashed everytime I tried to land
04:44 Landing gear doors opened. = More drag. The first turn has to be steeper. Like for that airplane, say 40 degrees of bank, not 30 only. Shallow turns extend the radious of turning away from the airport..
@@andyturbo - Nope. I teach those Turnbacks for real to a real runway, not just simulated. You have to turn 40-45 degrees to avoid using a lot of room and altitude on a shallower turn. Do you teach those Turnbacks for many years or not?? I have videos from 15 years ago and had to do them for real and avoided crashing on houses..
@@outwiththem Hey mate thanks for the reply. Im interested in sharing both our ways of how we were taught and comparing with a non biased approach to see our thoughts in the interest of safety. *My* CFI drilled the process i mentioned however this was regarding a single engine PA-28 suffering a engine failure at around 1500ft on the climb out. He said the 40° bank turn is actually nicknamed the turn of death (as it has been responsible for a few student pilots crashing when panicking during a single prop engine out at 1500ft. Perhaps this doesnt become a Factor when dealing with a dual engine flamout of a airliner? I would love to hear your imput. Cheers mate
@@andyturbo I learned then in 1996 from the only CFI I found in eastern USA teaching what they call now EFATO. He has a video from 1995 doing 4 kinds of EFATO. From 50 feet agl 2 kinds and landing on runway again. and 2 kinds of Turnbacks to opposite. From 500 agl partial power and 700 agl no power. We were using a runway of 4,500 feet total length surrounded by houses in New Jersey. Yes, Cherokee PA28 150 hp only. That CFI is a coward FOS if he cannot turn 45 degree bank glide from say 700 agl. We did them many times, and at night too from 700 agl with houses under us. My 1996 CFI retired but last month he put a channel on you tube with the 3 kinds of turnbacks, including the Canyon Turnback. Check it out. channel is EmergencyTakeoffAirplaneTurnbacks. Im subscribed to it.
@@outwiththem Mate thank you so much for sharing that. Seriously. I am currently CPL licenced doing both twin and command IR endorsements. I will actually call someone at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and ask to speak to the cheif of pilot regulations and training. I want to run it by them a independent from my flying schook as well as being a regulator. If what your saying is correct (and i believe you) I feel in the public safety he should be removed as a CFI who has authority on a lot of things. Basic things like this in training has to be 100%. Thank you again mate.
Jesus. The APU early start after DEF is not SOP but was initiated on 1549 as the A320 ditching requires maximum slats and flaps for the final approach. The A320 cannot move these surfaces if only powered by the RAT.
I was wondering why you didn't try to start the APU. It would take some time to get started, but al least you'd have a little bit of energy when the RAM stops spinning
Why in the world you engaged RAM aitr turbine instead of APU? You didn't run out of fuel, you had a dual engine failure. Then you would have had hydraulic pressure after the touchdown also.
I understand this is a simulator, and a demo for RU-vid, but you should also factor in the time it would take to communicate with ATC. You can't simply fly back and land on a runway, irregardless of your predicament. Very dangerous!
He should've waited around 30 seconds for the human factor, no pilot after dual engine loss would turn immediately to the runway. As a result he would have not made the runway at 2000ft.
BS. Pilots are supposed to Aviate, then Navigate, you navigate to the runway closest if no power on and you are not too low. 3,000 agl, he should know that airplane could glide back to airport Power Dependant Pilot. from 3,000 agl you head back to runway, Not a river or another state, or BS ditching on a 19 degree farenheit day....
Anyone notice at 3.55 just before the video cut on final approach that he still had three red landing gear lights? I suspect that this wasn't a text book landing as the gear wasn't down and locked, that is why the landing was "cut out"
Maybe the training must include some sort of drug that make your adrenaline goes up to recreate your internal body state in that kind of real life situations.
Fenthonol, cocaine, 4 cups of coffee before the section?? The threat of losing your career if you fuck up in front of instructors is enough. But some pilots are liked and get priviledges to try a second time if they mess up. There should be only one chance. Thats it..
Steven if you've seen sully, it always depends on the amount of altitude and what sort of situation you’re in. If they’re is enough altitude then there might be a possibility it could glide but i’m not a professional though so again it really depends on where you are though.
