Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549

Bumping this as it's very interesting... nice find OP

you'll never catch me on one of those tubular aluminum torpedoes in the sky.

Excellent find.

Thanks for posting.

the whole thing was a false-flag to cover up

a) the second half of the bail out goin' through and

b) horrors in Gaza

Hmmm???

Maybe it was a "test" run for the EMP/DEW srike.

Wouldn't want to waste all the DARPA and MIT technology
on a plane fuull of bankers and find out your High-Tech Toys were'nt dialed in properly.



For ??????

.
... so ... they hit geese then too? ...
.
... EVERY flight I've been on has a certain amount of "noise" ...
.
... so now we are supposed to believe these geese were trained and on a suicide mission? ...
.

MAEVE:
Good find!

Same plane? To me, that sounds more like a mechanical malfunction than a bunch of geese.

hmmmmmm........sumum kinda weird.....eh???

lol lol lol
SO MUCH FOR YOUR FREAKIN MIRACLE.

This was no boating accident.

Warning issued to airlines flying Airbuses
The Dominion Post

An emergency safety directive has been issued to airlines using twin-engine Airbus A320s after both engines on one stalled over the Mediterranean, just 18 days after an Air New Zealand A320 crashed killing all seven on board.

However, an Air New Zealand spokesman said its A320s, including the one that crashed, are equipped with rival International Aero Engine V2500s plant.

The directive from European and United States aviation authorities, comes as mystery continues as to the cause of the Air New Zealand crash off the coast of southern France.

Five New Zealanders and two Germans died in the November 28 crash during a test flight.

On December 14, an Air France Airbus A321 a stretched version of the A320 suffered a double engine stall as it climbed out of Tunisia, bound for Paris.

Passengers heard loud bangs from both of its CFM International 56 engines and the stalling occurred as pilots eased back on power.

The engines are designed to not close down on stalling and power was quickly resumed. The aircraft made a safe emergency landing.

The safety directive calls for airlines with about 1500 Airbuses to urgently check and repair high-pressure compressor fans on CFM 56s on A318s, A319s, A320s and A321s.

European authorities said that since April last year, six different engines used by three operators had stalled. These were followed by the Air France incident.

American authorities warned such stalling problems "could prevent continued safe flight or landing".

Meanwhile, on January 13 the French crash authority, the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses (BEA), will hold a Paris meeting in a bid to move the Air New Zealand investigation forward.

Aviation sources say it is coming under pressure to come up with an explanation as the A320 is a European and North American commuter workhorse. Concern was already mounting following an October incident with a Qantas Airbus A330 that lost altitude after going into a dive, injuring 40.

A safety directive on software was issued for A320s last month.

The Air New Zealand plane plunged into the sea without issuing a distress call. Six of the seven bodies have been recovered but are still undergoing dna testing for identification.

This article has been viewed 9,399 times.

[link to www.airliners.net]

From MAEVE's link:

[link to www.cnn.com]

Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549

By Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost
CNN Special Investigations Unit

(CNN) -- Two days before US Airways Flight 1549 crashed into the Hudson River, passengers on the same route and same aircraft say they heard a series of loud bangs and the flight crew told them they could have to make an emergency landing, CNN has learned.

Steve Jeffrey of Charlotte, North Carolina, told CNN he was flying in first class Tuesday when, about 20 minutes into the flight, "it sounded like the wing was just snapping off."

"The red lights started going on. A little pandemonium was going on," Jeffrey recalled.

He said the incident occurred over Newark, New Jersey, soon after the plane -- also flying as Flight 1549 -- had taken off from LaGuardia Airport in New York.

"It seemed so loud, like luggage was hitting the side but times a thousand. It startled everyone on the plane," Jeffrey said. "We started looking at each other. The stewardesses started running around. They made an announcement that 'everyone heard the noise, we're going to turn around and head back to LaGuardia and check out what happened.'

"I fly about 50 to 60 times per year, and I've never heard a noise so loud," he said. "It wasn't turbulence, it wasn't luggage bouncing around. It was just completely like the engine was thrown against the side of the plane. It just -- it didn't shake the plane but it shook you out of the seat when you're drifting off, it really woke you up. And when it happened again, everyone just started looking at each other and there was a quiet murmuring around the plane, and you could feel the tension rising just in looking.

"I remember turning to my [business] partner and saying, 'I hope you got everything in order back home, life insurance and everything, because that didn't sound good.' "

Jeffrey said he sent a text message to his wife about a "scary, scary noise on the plane. Doesn't sound right. They're flying back to LaGuardia to check it out. I'll call you when we land. I love you."

He added, "About 10 minutes later when we never made the turn, we kept going, that's when the pilot came on and explained -- I wish I could remember the words -- I remember him using air, compression and lock -- I'm not sure the right order, but he made it sound like the air didn't get to the engine and it stalled the engine out, which he said doesn't happen all the time but it's not abnormal."

Expert Aviation Consulting, an Indianapolis, Indiana, private consulting firm that includes commercial airline pilots on its staff, said the plane that landed in the Hudson was the same one as Flight 1549 from LaGuardia two days earlier.

"EAC confirms that US Airways ship number N106US flew on January 13, 2009, and January 15, 2009, with the same flight number of AWE 1549 from New York's LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte Douglas [International] Airport in North Carolina," Expert Aviation said in a statement to CNN.

The company said it checked with contacts in the aviation industry to confirm that it was the same plane.

The National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the crash, did not return calls regarding this matter Monday. It has released the tail number of the downed Airbus A-320, which is N106US.

The Federal Aviation Administration referred CNN to US Airways.

US Airways would not confirm that the Flight 1549 that took off January 13 was the same plane that splashed into the Hudson two days later.

Valerie Wunder, a US Airways spokeswoman, said: "US Air is working with the National Transportation Safety Board in this investigation." She would not comment on any other details, including Tuesday's flight, though she did confirm US Airways is looking into it.

Jeffrey told CNN that US Airways earlier Monday confirmed to him that the Tuesday incident occurred aboard the plane that crashed.

John Hodock, another passenger on the Tuesday flight, said in an e-mail to CNN: "About 20 minutes after take-off, the plane had a series of compressor stalls on the right engine. There were several very loud bangs and fire coming out of the engine. The pilot at first told us that we were going to make an emergency landing, but after about five minutes, continued the flight to Charlotte."

In an interview, Hodock said the pilot "got on the intercom and said they were going to have to make an emergency landing at the nearest airport. But then, only five to 10 minutes later, the pilot came back on and said it was a stalled compressor and they were going to continue to Charlotte."

A third passenger, who did not want her named used, also said she heard a "loud banging sound" on the right side of the plane. She said she heard the pilot say the "compressor for the engine was stalled" and they needed "to turn around and go back." However, she said, the problem was fixed and the flight continued without incident.

Pilots and aviation officials said that a compressor stall results from insufficient air getting into the engine and that multiple stalls could result in engine damage. However, the officials said, a momentary compressor stall may be less serious and could be corrected in flight by simply restarting the engine.

A bird strike could lead to a compressor stall, the officials said.

pin

Someone told me she heard or read an interview with the pilot and said the co-pilot was flying it, and the co pilot told the captain that he just saw something fly by that was brown and black, so the captain said, "my plane." That means I will take over.

What was strange was both flight attendants said they had never heard that noise before.

Maybe they had engine problems and geese problems both. Very strange.

This AD supersedes EASA AD 2008-0227-E issued on 23 December 2008.
ATA 72
Engine – High Pressure Compressor (HPC) Stall Event–
Inspection/Replacement
Manufacturer(s):
AIRBUS (formerly AIRBUS INDUSTRIE)
Applicability:
A318-111, A318-112, A319-111, A319-112, A319-115, A320-214, A320 215,
A320-216, A321-111, A321-112, A321-211, A321-212, and A321-213 aircraft
models, all serial numbers with CFM56-5B engines installed.
Reason:
Several in service occurrences of HPC stalls have been reported by operators of
Airbus aircraft fitted with CFM 56-5B engines since January 2007. Root cause is
highly deteriorated HPCs. To improve operability and maintainability CFM released
ECU software 5BQ in January 2007 which features 2 degrees additional Variable
Stator Vanes closure in the low power region to increase the stall margin. This 5BQ
software introduction has reduced the frequency of stalls, however since April 2008,
6 different engines with 5BQ software have experienced stalls at 3 different operators.
On 15 December a CFM56-5B powered A321 experienced stalls on both engines
during the same flight. This event was caused by a high level of HPC deterioration.
Stalls on both engines during flight can cause a dual IFSD.
AD 2008-0227-E has been issued, applicable to CFM56-5B engines, to require for
aircraft with both engines indicating more than 80 degree Celsius (°C) of Exhaust
Gas Temperature (EGT) margin deterioration, one of the engines to be replaced.
Further to additional investigations done by Airbus, it has been determined necessary
to mandate additional aircraft level requirements for aircraft with both engines
indicating an EGT margin deterioration above 75°C.
This new EASA AD retains the requirements of AD 2008-0227-E which is superseded,
Page 3
3
introduces a repetitive requirement for determination of the EGT margin deterioration,
and requires additional actions for aircraft with both engines indicating more than 75°C
of EGT margin deterioration

Just the Pentagon drone(see DARPA & MIT) that "facilitated"
the engine failures

If this is in fact true, every passenger on downed flight 1549 should, and probably will sue the hell out of US Airways.

Yep. Geese = act of god. Both screws Stall at same time = act of bad engineering.

software mods...

January 7, 2009
GE venture to address jet engine stall problem
Business Courier of Cincinnati

CFM International is working on a software modification for its CFM56-5B engines after a series of engine stalls on Airbus aircraft in 2008.

Evendale-based CFM is a joint venture of GE Aviation and France’s Snecma. The high-pressure compressors and combustors for CFM56 engines are produced by GE, and the engines are assembled in Evendale and France.

GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said there have been 10 brief engine stalls – lasting “a second or two” – on Airbus A320 family of twin-engine aircraft since last April. They included a Dec. 14 incident in which both engines on an Air France plane stalled after takeoff. That was the only double stall incident reported.

All of the engines restarted, and none of the incidents resulted in engine shutdowns or emergency landings, he said.

The problem has occurred on high-flight-time engines that have been on wing for up to seven years without an overhaul, Kennedy said. Wear and tear on the engines cause them to run somewhat hotter than newer engines, which increases their susceptibility to stalling in certain conditions, he said.

CFM has been working on the software fix since early last year. It expects to have the modification installed on all of nearly 3,300 CFM56-5B engines within six months, beginning in late February with engines with high flight time, he said. The modification has been certified at the engine level and is undergoing certification at the aircraft level, he said.

“It’s like dropping a CD into your computer. Every year you update the software,” Kennedy said.

The modification will monitor engine temperature and adjust the air flow when the throttle is rolled back after take-off, Kennedy said. “It’s like reducing the angle of attack on a fighter aircraft wing,” he said.

CFM has reviewed remote diagnostics fleet data for engines it has under services contracts – representing 60 percent of the overall fleet. It has identified three aircraft with high engine temperature conditions on which it replaced or is replacing one of the engines as a precaution.

Kennedy said that, following the Dec. 14 incident, CFM analyzed its fleet data and contacted the Federal Aviation Administration. The company recommended the agency issue an Airworthiness Directive to address the situation.

The FAA issued a directive on Dec. 31, requiring aircraft operators to review exhaust gas data and inspect the high-pressure compressors on CFM56-5B engines that are operating at certain high temperatures. Engines that do not pass inspection must be removed. The directive also requires them to replace one engine if both are operating at high temperatures, even if both pass inspection.

CFM56-5B engines are used to power all of the aircraft in the single-aisle Airbus A320 family, including A318, A319, A320 and A321 planes. Other CFM56 variants power Boeing 737s and other Airbus aircraft.

[link to austin.bizjournals.com]

Airbus engine problem could help Boeing

Posted Jul 9th 2007 8:30AM by Douglas McIntyre
Filed under: Bad news, Launches, Industry, Competitive strategy, General Electric (GE), Boeing Co (BA)

Industry analysts say that Boeing (NYSE:BA) has orders for its new 787 Dreamliner that will keep its manufacturing lines full until 2014. So the company hardly needs help getting more orders.

Competitor Airbus may be giving the US company a hand anyway. GE (NYSE:GE), which supplies engines for big jets, has an exclusive arrangement to provide engines for the new Boeing 777. The conglomerate is taking the position that it cannot provide jet engines for the competing A350. Airbus hoped that finally getting this model off the ground would provide the company with a boost in sales. At the recent Paris Air Show, the firm announced a number of new orders for the plane.

GE has offered Airbus engines that are smaller than the ones it sells Boeing, but these will only work on some versions of the A350.

After delays of both the A350 and its jumbo jet, Airbus has lost a lot of credibility with airlines. With French and German shareholders, Airbus does not operate like an independent public company. If it cannot get its act together, its big owners may have to pour more money into the operation as its continues to try to keep up with Boeing.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

Like someone said earlier, only in America can a plane melt steel to cause a building to fall and only in America can birds take down a plane. Both were evaluated for this catastrophe and the evaluations are believed to be failures.

I didn't believe the first, nor did I believe the second. American we really need to improve our gullibility.

COMPANY NEWS; Airbus Gives G.E. Big Engine Order

*
E-MAIL
* Print
*
Reprints
* Save
* Share
o Linkedin
o Digg
o Facebook
o Mixx
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Permalink

REUTERS
Published: July 29, 1987

LEAD: The General Electric Company said today that Airbus Industrie, the European aircraft manufacturer, had ordered more than $2 billion in aircraft engines from G.E. and CFM International, G.E.'s joint venture with Snecma of France.

The General Electric Company said today that Airbus Industrie, the European aircraft manufacturer, had ordered more than $2 billion in aircraft engines from G.E. and CFM International, G.E.'s joint venture with Snecma of France.

The company said it was its largest purchase order ever received at one time from a single commercial engine customer. The orders consist of a total of 376 engines, 158 from G.E. and 218 for CFM International.

The orders reflect the trans-Atlantic linkups of the aviation world. Airbus, the main European maker of aircraft, relies on the two American manufacturers, G.E. and Pratt & Whitney, to power its planes. On the other hand, Rolls-Royce, the main European competitor in the field of aircraft engines, receives most of its orders for planes made by the Boeing Company.

The huge order should go some way toward lowering the trade tension between the United States and Europe over Airbus, which receives Government loans to help it compete with Boeing and the McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Washington has called the subsidies unfair.

The G.E. order consists of 58 of its CF6-80C2 engines to power the Airbus A300 and A310 medium-range, wide-body aircraft. Each plane has two engines.

Airbus also bought 100 CF6 engines for its A330 plane, a medium-range aircraft that was officially brought out last month and is due to enter service in 1993.

G.E. stock closed up 62.5 cents a share today, to $57.75, in New York Stock Exchange trading

Well that makes sense then....if they were affair of a problem that might cause an accident and knew they were carrying a plane loaded with Top Banking guys it would only make sense to put Sully on that plane - he was the best man for that job, he has worked with the NTSB, and he has trained in psychology and the process of keeping a crew and passengers calm in the event of an emergency.

Is this one of the planes they were "fixing wiring in" earlier last year?

Anybody ever watch that Twilight Zone movie where that thing is out on the wing of the plane?

In the cockpit, the integrated modular avionics (IMA) suite will control more systems than in the A380’s IMA, including door and slide controls and the oxygen system. The approach centralizes computing power, reduces wiring and saves weight.
Engineers working on the powerplant design recently released the aero lines for the nacelle. Elsewhere in the powerplant integration effort, Airbus has chosen an electric thrust reverser system by Goodrich. Although an electric system costs more than a hydraulic one, it will save weight and result in more systems segregation and, therefore, safety, explained McConnell.

Meanwhile, Airbus continues to talk with General Electric about the possibility of a second engine choice for the airplane. Now offered with only the new Rolls-Royce Trent XWB, the A350 in its earlier incarnation would have featured General Electric GEnx engines as an option, but once the XWB-1000 emerged as a direct competitor to the 777-200LR and -300ER, GE pulled its offering for fear of cannibalizing sales of those GE90-115B-powered airplanes. Although Airbus still holds out hope that it can find a solution, company vice president of marketing Colin Stuart holds firm to his belief that it can compete without a second engine choice.

“We do think from a commercial viewpoint that a choice of engine is important, but it would not be the end of the world [if there isn’t],” said Stuart. “There are many aircraft that are sold with just a single engine choice. We would like to see a second engine, but that engine would come to this aircraft only if it’s the right engine for the marketplace; if it’s the right engine in terms of fuel consumption, fuel efficiency; if it covers the thrust range that we’re looking at, which covers the seventy-odd thousand up to the ninety-, ninety-thousand pound thrust range.”

That would seem to rule out any proposed option by GE to power only the -800 and -900 and leave the -1000 to Rolls-Royce. Airbus apparently has shown no interest in a partial solution, and has said that the 53,000- to 75,000-pound-thrust General Electric GEnx would not work for the A350, meaning it would require a clean-sheet design that GE, as of last report, has resisted. Airbus’ thrust requirements now stand at 74,000 pounds for the -800, 83,000 pounds for the -900 and 92,000 pounds for the -1000.

While Stuart conceded that a single engine offering is not ideal, he stressed that the benefit of the third, fully offerable aircraft variant far outweighs the disadvantage of no engine choice. “All of the aircraft types–the 800, 900 and 1000–have orders placed against them,” said Stuart. “That is very different from the Boeing 787 program, where there are, in fact, only two aircraft–the 787-8 and 787-9. We have a very substantial advantage here in that there are three aircraft in this family covering the range from the 767 up into the 777-200s and even 300ER.” [The high-density, short range 787-3, officially the third variant of the 787, would use the same fuselage as the 787-8, but carry 80 more passengers and fly optimum routes of between just 2,500 to 3,050 nm. Boeing also continues its studies on the 787-10, a still not launched “double stretch” of the baseline -8.–Ed.]

Although several customers for the original A350 canceled their orders because of the lack of a GE engine, Airbus did a respectable job of regaining lost sales momentum since it re-introduced the airplane as the XWB at the last Farnborough airshow. Through mid-June, it had drawn firm orders for 374 airplanes from 23 customers, including a firm order announced on June 4 for 12 A350-800s together with an order for the same number of A330-200s from Italy’s Air One.

“We have had the great advantage that the A330–both -200 and -300–has been complementary to the A350XWBs,” noted Stuart. “We’ve been able to place A330s to support the earlier requirements for these 250- to 300-seat airplanes out into the marketplace before the A350 is able to be delivered.”

According to Airbus’ published timelines, final assembly will begin during the first half of 2011, first flight will occur early in 2012, and the 315-passenger -900 would enter service in mid-2013. The 276-seat A350-800 would go into service about a year later and, finally, the 369-seat -1000 would gain certification in the second half of 2015.

[link to www.ainonline.com]

GECAS Places $2 Billion Airbus Order

The world's largest leasing company will add the smallest Airbus airliner to its aircraft portfolio. GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS) placed a firm order today for 42 single-aisle Airbus jets, including 30 firm orders for the Airbus A318 and 12 firm orders for A320s.

The order is valued at just more than $2 billion.

This marks the first order for the A318 by the US-based lessor, which will begin taking deliveries during the first quarter of 2004.

The deal also marks the third time GECAS has ordered the A320, although 10 of the 12 firm orders were previously optioned aircraft. Deliveries will begin in mid-2003.

GECAS, which took delivery of its first Airbus jet just three years ago, now has more than 200 Airbus jets on order, said GECAS president Henry Hubschman.

Hubschman is also considering Airbus products on the other end of the capacity spectrum, including the A330-500 and the A3XX.

"We're in discussions for the A3XX, but not ready to make an announcement at this point. We're still evaluating the product," Hubschman said.

The A318s will be powered by the CFM56-5B engine, making GECAS the first leasing company to order CFM-powered models. (ILFC has ordered Pratt-powered A318s.) GE's involvement in the CFM program makes the engine selection a natural one.

Hubschman believes that the CFM-powered A318s will be especially attractive to airlines already operating A320 family aircraft, which are powered by the CFM engine, and thereby help facilitate placing the aircraft.

"We're already in discussions with a number of these airlines," he said.

- by Rebecca Rayko

GECAS and the GE/Honeywell Merger: A Response to Reynolds and Ordover

Eric R. Emch
U.S. Department of Justice


August 2003

Antitrust Division Economic Analysis Group Discussion Paper No. 03-13

Abstract:
The European Commission blocked the proposed 2001 merger of General Electric and Honeywell in part because of fears about the past and future effect on competition of GE's aircraft leasing arm, GECAS. It argued that in the past GECAS had skewed aircraft engine sales toward GE in a way that harmed competition, and that a post-merger GECAS would have brought about an even greater foreclosure in Honeywell's aircraft systems markets. A recent article by Reynolds and Ordover (2002) articulates in more detail a theoretical and empirical basis for this prediction. It estimates GECAS's past engine impact, and details theoretical steps that lead to a GECAS-based rationale for blocking the merger. This paper shows that the Reynolds and Ordover empirical analysis of GECAS' past impact is flawed, and that a better estimate yields at most a shift of 1.5% of large commercial aircraft engine sales toward GE after GECAS' arrival. It argues that this small engine share shift does not translate into past or future anticompetitive effects in any market and that Reynolds and Ordover's model, which does predict such an outcome, rests on flawed assumptions.

Keywords: Antitrust, vertical integration, tying, industrial organization

JEL Classifications: K0, L1, L4
Working Paper Series
Date posted: October 23, 2003 ; Last revised: November 12, 2003

If the engines were prone to HPC stalls because of the software used, ingesting a couple of geese could have made the engines much closer to the point of losing power.

Understand?

The two factors combined could have resulted in loss of power.

Where possibly just one factor HPC stall or ingesting a goose might not have resulted in power loss.