coyote

I will agree there may be situations where the Captain is better suited to "manage" than operate the controls, for example a systems anomaly or specific requests of the cabin crew. Certainly, this is the prevailing wisdom in safety circles. Also, a new Captain in type may be less experienced than the FO, but vigilence must be maintained to avoid any reversal of command.

However, it will be very difficult to convince me that in a situation with degraded flight control and questions as to systems capabilites that the passengers are best served by the co-pilot landing the jet. (of course, the PF completes the event untill such time as a orderly transfer of control can take place). From a litigation standpoint, I'm sure we can imagine what a skilled attorney could do with this discussion.

By the way, does the 757 have a tiller on the right side?[/QUOTE]

AAflyer

[/QUOTE]

Do with what discussion. What if the Co-pilot had been a captain, even on said aircraft? The Captain is responsible for the aircraft, it says no where he has to fly it?

So the type rated co-pilot with over 10,000 hours and thousands of hours on type is suddenly not qualified to land? Or are you more qualified? I would think an attorney would have a field day with your logic.

I have flown with your type (please do not take that as a personal attack), and the type of Captain that makes me truly feel like a part of the crew. I prefer the ladder. Do not much care for the you are an important part of crew, please keep out of trouble, you have the experience, but.....

By the way had a flap problem back in 2003. I had 1000 hours on the 757, Captain had 200+. It was my leg when the event occurred, he asked me to keep flying as I had more time in type, and had a feel for the aircraft during the event.

Regards,
AAflyer

P.S. almost forgot to answer your question. Our 757s and 767s do not have tillers on the right side.

coyote

First off, I would like to remove the discussion from this crew and event. It would be in very poor taste to debate their actions without their input.

Speaking generaly,

There is no way to take you post other than a personal attack. Let me assure you, based upon a few posts you do not have enough data to "Type" me. So how about we start over. It's ok in my book to disagree, and I respect your opinion. You are trained on the type, which is why I am asking. Personally, I find this stuff interesting and would like to learn something from it without being in the position this crew was. None the less, playing the devil's advocate:

1) If the FO is better qualified, why isn't he the Capt? (Seniorty will not suffice as an argument, we are talking safety here, in court, with a jury of questionable intelligence)
2) Is there a procedure trained and published for transfer of control on the ground when the tiller will be helpful in maintaining/re-establishing directional control and is the co-pilot left seat trained on its capabilities?
3)Do your FO's order the evac? If not, why not. Isn't he more qualified?
4)The report states a decision was made to continue the approach even though an argument could be made for a longer runway and time for emergency personel to respond. Did the F/O make this decision? If the Captain made it, how did he evaluate the control dificulities?

I'll look forward to your response and depart the fix at this time. You have the closing argument.

fireman0174

There is NO WAY I would have continued flight to my destination when the QRH states "The battery will provide bus power for approximately 30 minutes."

They flew some 70 minutes beyond that 30 minute warning. You've got a system that has something wrong with it, you know it's not right but you really don't know what the specifics are.

Overflying good airports in this condition is not something I would even consider . . . . I would have landed and let the ground techs trouble-shoot the problem.

If they subsequently found out there wasn't a real problem, and that I was to conservative, fine, I can certainly live with that.

I will never forget the picture of a B-720 lower 40 compartment that had an "electrical problem". Virtually everything was burned and charred beyond easy recognition.

Wheels up

I too, cannot fathom why the captain would not land immediately with a DISC light on and running the stby buses and batt buses on battery power only. This is so elemental and obvious.

There must be some other information that has not been released that would explain the decision.

AAflyer

Thank you for your response. First off it was not an attack, and looking at how I worded the post I can see where you picked that up. This medium can be difficult to convey what you mean, with no way to input variables a person uses (mannerisms, body language etc)on a one to one dialogue. Please accept my apology.


1. You state if the FO is better qualified then why is he not Captain.. however I can not use seniority as a reason. Why not? If said junior Captain is new to the airplane on reserve, and the first officer could hold captain with thousands of hours on type but is not doing it for QOL issues he ma be more qualified. This does not make the Captain unqualified or dangerous in any way.

I flew at a few supplemental airlines prior to AA on the 727. The last one I was hired as an FO. I had been an FE and FO prior. I had been a 727FE checkairman, and 727 simulator instructor. The Captain was hired off the street from the 737, no 727 time. Who do you think was probably more qualified on the 727? I certainly knew my place as the FO, he also knew my background and relied upon me for events he was not familiar with.


2. Why you would use a tiller at high speed is beyond me.. Not sure what you are getting at. Rudder input is sufficient till reaching a slower airspeed.
Our procedure is whenever the Captain and First officer agree upon it. I have had some ask me to take it off the high speed and let them know when I am ready to relinquish controls. I had a couple that wanted the jet back in their hands at 80 knots. It discussed and agreed upon prior to landing would be the best answer.

3. This question is merely semantics on your part. The fact that a first officer may be more qualified than a Captain does not relinquish the authority of the aircraft. It is his/ or her plane (The Captain's aircraft). However a Captain will use all means available to handle any situation (even other crew members.

4. I can hardly answer the question you pose as I was not there. In my opinion the runway needs to be suitable for the emergency. The longest is not always the best option. Since I was not there it is once again hard for me to play QB. Maybe they decided to get the AC on the ground as quick as possible, in that event I would select the nearest runway.

In the end if a Captain wants to take the controls it is his/her aircraft. I would rather have the response "I just feel more comfortable in flying this" than "I am the Captain, I am more qualified" (which may not be the case).

Thanks for your professional response, I think in the end we may just agree to disagree. If you were my Captain I would respect your authority. I would hope you respect what I bring to the table as well.

Regards,

AAflyer

Phantom Flyer

Gentlemen:

I know that on United 757's, switching the Stand-by Power Selector to BAT will isolate the battery charger. Keep in mind, that not every carrier has their aircraft wired exactly the same. On our 757, the Main BAT and APU Bat are wired "in parallel" and we have 90 minutes of power in a "true" stand-by power situation. Not every A/C is the same.

Also keep in mind the fact that electrical anomalies are "sneaky" problems at best, especially when contactors have shorted on a relay or bus. As was previously stated, one never really knows in the cockpit, what relays, circuits or busses are powered and which aren't with some elctrical anomalies. The United B-767 diversion into Bogota is a prime example.

Yes, I'll agree that the Captain should have landed "at the nearest suitable airport" if he in fact, knew that he was down to stand-by power. The NTSB report states that "The flightcrew then reviewed the MAIN BATTERY CHARGER procedures referenced in the QRH". American apparently has a QRH procedure to address this problem and I'd be surprised if they just completely disregarded the QRH procedure and flew on. NONE of us were there and until the final NTSB report is issued, we probably won't know for sure.

I'm not defending a crew that I do not know and have not flown with but I have been on two NTSB accident investigation boards and am smart enough to know that "rushing to judgement" serves no one. A friend who just retired from American is sending me their QRH procedures. Maybe that will clear up some of the confusion.

Until proven guilty, I'll still buy the lads a pint.

G'Day Mates

aa73

Bingo!

It is obvious that the flight crew did not realize the battery was being discharged.

NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would continue to destination on battery power alone! There is more to this story folks. Don't be so critical of the crew without all the facts - especially when those facts are being reported by USA Today.

73

GravellyPointer

I for one Love my FREEDOM to vote for who I want, to have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of opinion on this topic.

The USA Today article was based on an interview with an NTSB Investigator familiar with the incident, and the NTSB report thus far. Seems credible enough for me to comment on.

Maybe the crew thought the battery was charging with the switch selection. Maybe they misunderstood the QRH.

Of course they should have landed on the longest runway available within 30 min of realizing the extent of the problem (intrepreting the QRH correctly). They should have gone around from 22R and made sure they had enough runway if choosing to land with limited flaps, no trim, and who knows what else. You lose all power including battery power, you're SOL.

Yea, they did a good job landing the plane, but had to rely on their superior airmanship because their superior experience and judgement failed them.

Just callin' it as it see it. Go ahead flame away. I do like AA though, I'll apply someday, maybe after we elect Palin in 2012 (OMG!)

aa73

YGTBSM. Did you even read the report? You are making dumb-a$$ assumptions without all the facts.

They did not know they had a drained battery until they started losing the buses. They started losing essential buses on final to 22R, at which point they declared an emergency. PRIOR to that they had a normal-flying airplane and were setting up for a normal landing on a 7500ft runway, which is no problem for ANY transport-category aircraft, much less a 757. Would you really attempt a go-around on a 757 on short final with no trim? That thing has so much power it practically stands up on its tail during a go around.

One thing we know for sure, is that the crew followed the QRH TO THE LETTER. The QRH mentions no reference to "landing at the nearest suitable" when on STBY BAT power, leading one to believe that the problem can be worked before draining the battery. In fact, we were just issued a change bulletin from the fleet manager to a possibly mis-written QRH, which is the Boeing version.