UA Airbus Rolls off taxiway at DIA
09-22-2016, 09:43 AM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 846
Not sure I want to fly a plane that can lose ALL it's brakes so easily.
Not trying to be facetious, it's just that you guys have come up with more than 1 way you can lose all your braking.
As much as you all bash "The guppy", I don't hear about them rolling off taxiways or runways and pilots not having any braking.
Just my 2cents.
Not trying to be facetious, it's just that you guys have come up with more than 1 way you can lose all your braking.
As much as you all bash "The guppy", I don't hear about them rolling off taxiways or runways and pilots not having any braking.
Just my 2cents.
Do I want to fly the 737 again - NO! But, I don't want fly the Airbus either. I scanned the section on flight laws - closed the manual and never picked it up again.
My 2cents --
09-22-2016, 10:05 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,265
Not sure I want to fly a plane that can lose ALL it's brakes so easily.
Not trying to be facetious, it's just that you guys have come up with more than 1 way you can lose all your braking.
As much as you all bash "The guppy", I don't hear about them rolling off taxiways or runways and pilots not having any braking.
Just my 2cents.
Not trying to be facetious, it's just that you guys have come up with more than 1 way you can lose all your braking.
As much as you all bash "The guppy", I don't hear about them rolling off taxiways or runways and pilots not having any braking.
Just my 2cents.
Until Air Canada a few months ago, there had never been a hull loss of an A320 in North America, and everyone walked away from that.
09-22-2016, 10:34 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Airbus seem to just roll off taxiways without the ability to stop. Could be really bad in place like PIT or some places in DIA.
09-22-2016, 11:37 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: CA
Posts: 1,039
Not sure I want to fly a plane that can lose ALL it's brakes so easily.
Not trying to be facetious, it's just that you guys have come up with more than 1 way you can lose all your braking.
As much as you all bash "The guppy", I don't hear about them rolling off taxiways or runways and pilots not having any braking.
Just my 2cents.
Not trying to be facetious, it's just that you guys have come up with more than 1 way you can lose all your braking.
As much as you all bash "The guppy", I don't hear about them rolling off taxiways or runways and pilots not having any braking.
Just my 2cents.
09-22-2016, 01:31 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
I have flown the 100,200,300,500,700,800,900 and 900ER
Each has it's own idiosyncrasies.
"Easily" refers to the fact that there were no adverse conditions. No high approach speeds.
Just a plane simply taxiing out for take off, and rolls off the taxiway.
I was merely seeking an understanding of how, easily or not, that could have happened with such a modern transport aircraft.
It's not how often something like this has happened, it's the fact that it can happen, and that was what I was originally asking about.
I have no desire to fly the bus, just as you will never fly the guppy until it is in your best interest to do so.
The 737 is not fail safe, but it is the same reasons you chose not to fly it, that I chose to. Sure the switches and systems have changed little since the '100. No it's not as roomy and quiet as the bus.
But it does what it does pretty well. It is not a 757 replacement, even though United and many others use it as such.
I don't know why so many of you on this forum take everything so personally. If you don't like the 737, don't bid it.
We will have to wait and see what links there were in the chain that lead to this incident.
09-22-2016, 02:02 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 387
Cle
I have flown both fleets here and the bus at a previous carrier. In June we had a FM revision here that changed how what to do with the #2 Gen. Previously we left Gen 2 off until the engine was finished with the start sequence. My guess.....and it's only a guess is someone planned a 2 engine taxi at the gate and so they selected the #2 Gen on and then changed their mind and did a single engine taxi. When the FO started the second engine they forgot to set up the Generator and it conected. This is ok if you have a new generator control unit (GCU) but UAl has a dozen or so airplanes with the old version that "may" cause loss of brakes and steering if you are using the brakes or steering the airplane when it connects.
This is not a probably on later models. This will not be a problem here at UAL once they change out the remaining GCU (when I was transitioning to airplane they said would be over the next 24 months but I have never seen that number written down).
I think what happened was a simple mistake by the crew. That said it could also have been a true failure of the system. I really couldn't tell you. I can say though i do not miss the 737 even with the few things that are different on the airplane.
For the guy who made reference to the flight laws.....fly by wire systems are the norm for modern aircraft. My question to you would be what are you going to do when you can hold the 777 or 787. Not bid it because of the fly by wire system?
I have flown both fleets here and the bus at a previous carrier. In June we had a FM revision here that changed how what to do with the #2 Gen. Previously we left Gen 2 off until the engine was finished with the start sequence. My guess.....and it's only a guess is someone planned a 2 engine taxi at the gate and so they selected the #2 Gen on and then changed their mind and did a single engine taxi. When the FO started the second engine they forgot to set up the Generator and it conected. This is ok if you have a new generator control unit (GCU) but UAl has a dozen or so airplanes with the old version that "may" cause loss of brakes and steering if you are using the brakes or steering the airplane when it connects.
This is not a probably on later models. This will not be a problem here at UAL once they change out the remaining GCU (when I was transitioning to airplane they said would be over the next 24 months but I have never seen that number written down).
I think what happened was a simple mistake by the crew. That said it could also have been a true failure of the system. I really couldn't tell you. I can say though i do not miss the 737 even with the few things that are different on the airplane.
For the guy who made reference to the flight laws.....fly by wire systems are the norm for modern aircraft. My question to you would be what are you going to do when you can hold the 777 or 787. Not bid it because of the fly by wire system?
09-22-2016, 02:38 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Posts: 859
Cle
I have flown both fleets here and the bus at a previous carrier. In June we had a FM revision here that changed how what to do with the #2 Gen. Previously we left Gen 2 off until the engine was finished with the start sequence. My guess.....and it's only a guess is someone planned a 2 engine taxi at the gate and so they selected the #2 Gen on and then changed their mind and did a single engine taxi. When the FO started the second engine they forgot to set up the Generator and it conected. This is ok if you have a new generator control unit (GCU) but UAl has a dozen or so airplanes with the old version that "may" cause loss of brakes and steering if you are using the brakes or steering the airplane when it connects.
This is not a probably on later models. This will not be a problem here at UAL once they change out the remaining GCU (when I was transitioning to airplane they said would be over the next 24 months but I have never seen that number written down).
I think what happened was a simple mistake by the crew. That said it could also have been a true failure of the system. I really couldn't tell you. I can say though i do not miss the 737 even with the few things that are different on the airplane.
For the guy who made reference to the flight laws.....fly by wire systems are the norm for modern aircraft. My question to you would be what are you going to do when you can hold the 777 or 787. Not bid it because of the fly by wire system?
I have flown both fleets here and the bus at a previous carrier. In June we had a FM revision here that changed how what to do with the #2 Gen. Previously we left Gen 2 off until the engine was finished with the start sequence. My guess.....and it's only a guess is someone planned a 2 engine taxi at the gate and so they selected the #2 Gen on and then changed their mind and did a single engine taxi. When the FO started the second engine they forgot to set up the Generator and it conected. This is ok if you have a new generator control unit (GCU) but UAl has a dozen or so airplanes with the old version that "may" cause loss of brakes and steering if you are using the brakes or steering the airplane when it connects.
This is not a probably on later models. This will not be a problem here at UAL once they change out the remaining GCU (when I was transitioning to airplane they said would be over the next 24 months but I have never seen that number written down).
I think what happened was a simple mistake by the crew. That said it could also have been a true failure of the system. I really couldn't tell you. I can say though i do not miss the 737 even with the few things that are different on the airplane.
For the guy who made reference to the flight laws.....fly by wire systems are the norm for modern aircraft. My question to you would be what are you going to do when you can hold the 777 or 787. Not bid it because of the fly by wire system?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
