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
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!
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?
man, this is interesting as hell. haha. great job, young pilot! I'm just a regular Joe in the US who was surfing TH-cam 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.
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.
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
+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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 :)
Great video! 3:35 Only one question. How without both of the engines gear could come down using regular handle? There should be no pressure in hydraulic system in this case. One should have used gravity extension. Or not? Did I miss something?
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.
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!
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
@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
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 ปีที่แล้ว
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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....
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
Start the APU as soon as possible to try to get as much extra thrust as you can after flameout? or were you assuming APU unsuccessful? might have been able to make 2000 feet if you has a co-pilot
I understand this is a simulator, and a demo for TH-cam, 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!
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..
because your PC sim is not the real aircraft/not modelled properly. The onboard battery can still run some basic things like the screen, but the RAT and APU are needed to have controls.
In case of both engine failure only B HYD system will work with the help of RAT, both Y & G HYD SYS will be INOP ..with Blue HYD SYS we can control A/C
No offense, but you're very young. Would love to see what an experienced pilot would do in the same situation. Love the videos though, so keep it up :)
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..
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.
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.
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!
35 seconds
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
I have read articles suggesting that they do not interview pilots in a cross-examination style as if they assume the pilot is automatically guilty.
...But I bet you do it in FSX all the time.
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"
+Serhan Sevim There are other ways ,he could save the ship
+Serhan Sevim LOL or hope for a good landing on some field :D
Or land in the sea in front of you and begin to sail a boat instead 😁
rofl you just made my day 😂
before reaching 2500 ft
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!
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?
man, this is interesting as hell. haha. great job, young pilot! I'm just a regular Joe in the US who was surfing TH-cam 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!
Dave Lloyd let me make flying better for you too
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.
I love the noise and acceleration of an A320.. Awesome.
Yeah especially the sound when the gear retracts.
Look at the ECAM at 4:44
"Doors not closed" :D
MultiMischer It’s landing gear doors not closed.
L/G Doors not closed means the landing gear doos are not closed, L/G stands for Landing gear
That creates more drag. And cuts the glide distance..
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 Well he's on the runway, i'm pretty sure a little drag is better than having closed gear on the runway.
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 a pilot without critical thinking is a danger to himself and others
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.
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.
No fuel dump in a320
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
@@sincerelovechild I like the idea of turning on the apu instead of the ram air turbine...
Now do it at Innsbruck :)
+Wayne Farrell Lukla xD
+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.
+talktomeaboutlife Do you know what "joke" means?
Dale Wei-Yen Wong I do. Do you?
talktomeaboutlife
I do do, you do do, and I think he do do too. Diddy didnt do though. xD hahaha
why dint he switch on the APU?
+Maffu Taffu yes but APU is good too and after you have more screen and it is safe
cause it takes like an entire minute to get the APU up and running. By that time he is already on the ground.
+Henry Chan yes but he can try to start it
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.
Karthik Nakul the RAT did the work
did you figure the landing gear drag to the first landing why didn't you wait longer
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.
So what if they hit birds at 200 ago?
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
Congratulations on saving the crew and passengers! Would there be another plane on the runway at a busy airport?
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
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.
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.
Why dont you started the APU and used the Gravity Gear Extension ? PS Good Video
I think eh didnt had the Time to do that.Cause eh is alone in the Cockpit.
Good call, in a real cockpit he should have, but he probably didn't have time to do that.
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 :)
zebba zebadee it also depends on the weight (amount of fuel, passengers, and cargo) of the aircraft, wind and more...
Why don't you turn on the APU during a duel engine failure to provide backup power? That is US Airways Flight 1549 did.
Only one pilot. Normally, there would be a co-pilot to share in the task load. Perhaps there was another reason for no APU in this example.
Roger Hylton The APU takes about a minute to start and power the aircraft. He would be dead or on the ground.
He was in the air for a lot longer than 60 seconds, providing him with more than enough time to start the APU.
He had power from the ram engine turbine
Great video! 3:35 Only one question. How without both of the engines gear could come down using regular handle? There should be no pressure in hydraulic system in this case. One should have used gravity extension. Or not? Did I miss something?
YOU DA MAN, Pranas! Lemme buy you a pint
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.
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!
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
Did you make a 180 to come back and land on the same runway the opposite way?
APU would have been a good bet instead of losing power but you're the Captain, Captain.
You started turning back before the emergency power even kicked in lol
why wait while going away from airport. Turn like a man will do instead of freezing on controls..
@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
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!!
Capt Sully says: "We can't make it. We may end up in The Hudson".
Nice video! Extreme stuff. Didn't got why stay on RAT only thorough. APU would be handy on this case.
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.
Academy:" what would you do in that situation"
Me : *fart*
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..
wouldnt you start the apu first instead of relying on the ram ?
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.
What I learned today, dual engine failure at FL 020 = say yes to heaven
It's interesting to note how much height a fully laden A320 loses in a 180 degree turn.
Why didn’t you turn on the APU?
Love to have this in my game room for practicing. Best job in the world
Please I want to be a pilot please give me a link am from Nigeria
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.
Boris D ur right XD ..
by the time the APU is started, hes already back on the RWY
Estos vídeos lo único que hacen es hacerme querer mas la aviación...
Algún día Eduardo algún día...
Awesome video what if the wing flaps fail and the engines are fine?
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
Why not restart the API on glide back to get some hydraulic pressure for air brakes? Or extend the spoilers on touchdown?
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.
That's trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS). It is usually automatically adjusted.
Good video. Enjoyable to watch
Aside the dual engine fail you have a pilot incapacitation.. or is the single pilot future plane?
I want you cap to show us dual engine failure after airborne , and thank you for this information
Hassan_ 747 thats not much to show tho, plumitting to the groung
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
+Oliver Cairns ah cool many thanks for the reply
How come there wasn't a sink rate alarm?
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....
Hi! I know this may seem like an odd question, but what is the music you used at the end of the video? Thanks!
is it possible for students pilots who study at BAA to reach their 1500HRS by type rating ( after took their ATPL ) ?
Pranas is the new Sully
I would have lowered the gear just before touching down to reduce drag
Wow! A Nice landing second time!
Good job! Thanks for answering my question.
Отлично сработано! Спасибо, что ответили на мой вопрос.
how come he cant just turn the apu on?
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
And you have all your hydraulics and electronics back
+Chuan Shuo Chen He clearly has enough time
He had a ram air turbine
Wew, workload not permit, he have to focus on flying the bird
@@VergiliarEcaros Now that I'm starting the MCC training I see how this could be a problem lol
Especially in this occasion where he is in single pilot
Start the APU as soon as possible to try to get as much extra thrust as you can after flameout? or were you assuming APU unsuccessful? might have been able to make 2000 feet if you has a co-pilot
Very interesting
Great lesson!
Please I want to become a pilot please give me link am from Nigerian
Engine failure in real life: “mommy i love you, sorry for not closing the fridge”
Stupid coward. You do the turnback. Coward..
Plus at the time the APU will be relyable .. He would be already on ground .. It takes time to start .. Around 4 minutes
That is bullshit..
Very educative, cheers.
I heard that if engines flamed out shortly after takeoff, it is a good idea to land in the Hudson.
Sully: Can we all got serious right now?
If you have both engine failure you need a first officer to assist you and tell you to start the APU
Wow the second time you were really coming in hot...nice one
I understand this is a simulator, and a demo for TH-cam, 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 said "notify ATC" which represents a real scenario
John Smith Atc notification is a task of FO in this scenario.
Why doesn't he turned on the APU? Would have provided electrics Hyd pressure and pneumatics
+Abel Antonio León Féliz Airbus use Ram Air Turbine
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..
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 are they that harsh?? omg I thought it was just a training session
@@sabinhong0307 The first sentence was a joke only. You cannot do that..
are you turning to a crosswind runway or back towards a parallel runway. I see you dont do teardrop turn or such like-? 35 seconds to drop the gear??
Question Mark Turnback to opposite runway..
Now, try it in real life during an IFR departure at Innsbruck...
Ja genau. Bei Schnee und full house.....
How do you still manage to have control? I set both engine failure and then the controls won't move.
because your PC sim is not the real aircraft/not modelled properly. The onboard battery can still run some basic things like the screen, but the RAT and APU are needed to have controls.
Holy Wow. It's just a sim and you had me puckering tight. Thanks for the show.
You can neither dump fuel in the A320 nor in the 737.
Will the hydrolic works when both engines failed.?
I tries in my FSX Aerosoft A320 sim, At that time I couldn't control and crashed.
In case of both engine failure only B HYD system will work with the help of RAT, both Y & G HYD SYS will be INOP ..with Blue HYD SYS we can control A/C
Jinu Gopan however if you have time to get APU running you can use the yellow elec pump
This is SOPs, some companies like it one way, some companies like it the other
I just wanted to know one thing....is the APU kept ON during takeoff?? Please reply if you are reading this and know the answer😁😁
No. It’s turned off once both engines are started
Can he do that at Lukla Nepal for us? A320, not a 150 or any of that crap..
No offense, but you're very young. Would love to see what an experienced pilot would do in the same situation. Love the videos though, so keep it up :)
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..
but he mentioned about the ram air turbine being turned on. isn't not enough to give electricity?
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..
No dont bank over 30°.. the drag on a 40° turn is significantly more than a 30°. Over compensating for the extra distance.
@@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.
What happened to the AP2 button? *;D*
Why not switch on the APU .. So that we might have the hydraulic power to stop the plane by powering the braking system
What would you do, if engine fail between v1 and rotate or in just v1. FYI I am not from aviation industry.
Death or alive ?
One engine or both?
Pucker factor 9/10
Did you have to engage the APU?
When landing gear is gravity extended doors do not close.
I would leave the gear up and execute a belly landing. Lowering the landing gear introduces too much drag.
Was this a simulator, or real. It looked kinda like a computer on the windshield.
What if both engine fail during rotate?? I think the best way is record to blackbox and say "i love my family"
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.
Use the electric to control braking system by power the hydraulic
The "porpoising" needs to stop. Relax, use pressure instead of yanking...