To be fair, knowing how to drive doesn't seem to be a requirement to drive in Houston

Starting 17:15, to go with what the pilots already mentioned, requirements for reverser deployment (one being fire switch for the engine must be down).

tk for tu juan said:

---

Starting 17:15, to go with what the pilots already mentioned, requirements for reverser deployment (one being fire switch for the engine must be down).

---

Someone ain't gonna like that explanation....

Ag with kids said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

Starting 17:15, to go with what the pilots already mentioned, requirements for reverser deployment (one being fire switch for the engine must be down).

---

Someone ain't gonna like that explanation....

---

NM. I was getting snarky, without knowing exactly what you are suggesting.

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

Starting 17:15, to go with what the pilots already mentioned, requirements for reverser deployment (one being fire switch for the engine must be down).

---

Someone ain't gonna like that explanation....

---

Why not?

---

Read back on the thread...

Ag with kids said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

Starting 17:15, to go with what the pilots already mentioned, requirements for reverser deployment (one being fire switch for the engine must be down).

---

Someone ain't gonna like that explanation....

---

Why not?

---

Read back on the thread...

---

Are you suggesting that the fire switch is a "gotcha".

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

Starting 17:15, to go with what the pilots already mentioned, requirements for reverser deployment (one being fire switch for the engine must be down).

---

Someone ain't gonna like that explanation....

---

Why not?

---

Read back on the thread...

---

Are you suggesting that the fire switch is a "gotcha".

---

Absolutely not.

As I said, read back on the thread and get a good laugh..

Ag with kids said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

Starting 17:15, to go with what the pilots already mentioned, requirements for reverser deployment (one being fire switch for the engine must be down).

---

Someone ain't gonna like that explanation....

---

Why not?

---

Read back on the thread...

---

Are you suggesting that the fire switch is a "gotcha".

---

Absolutely not.

As I said, read back on the thread and get a good laugh..

---

I've read this thread and sadly already gotten a few good laughs. There appears to be a bunch of conjecture and some actual informed responses.

Give me a clue what I am supposed to find so funny.

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

Starting 17:15, to go with what the pilots already mentioned, requirements for reverser deployment (one being fire switch for the engine must be down).

---

Someone ain't gonna like that explanation....

---

Why not?

---

Read back on the thread...

---

Are you suggesting that the fire switch is a "gotcha".

---

Absolutely not.

As I said, read back on the thread and get a good laugh..

---

I've read this thread and sadly already gotten a few good laughs. There appears to be a bunch of conjecture and some actual informed responses.

Give me a clue what I am supposed to find so funny.

---

The rebel who kept arguing with pilots and other engineers about how TRs work...

I understand that Rebel was trying unnecessarily to get into the weeds. 3000 psi of hydraulics doesn't care about slightly more than idle thrust.

Why did you bring the fire switch into the conversation? I do understand why the fire switch needs to be pushed in.

Never mind. I'm done for the night.

IF the fire switch was pulled on the engine, then the thrust reverser would not deploy. This could be why the reverser was not deployed on engine #1, pointing to the "they shut down the engine opposite of the bird strike" theory discussed before. But that is a big IF, we will not know until the flight data recorder info is released.

You should probably go back and read the thread if you thought I was arguing with anyone.

TexasRebel said:

---

You should probably go back and read the thread if you thought I was arguing with anyone.

---

take the L already

Whens lunch said:

---

I understand that Rebel was trying unnecessarily to get into the weeds. 3000 psi of hydraulics doesn't care about slightly more than idle thrust.

Why did you bring the fire switch into the conversation? I do understand why the fire switch needs to be pushed in.

Never mind. I'm done for the night.

---

I didn't?

TexasRebel said:

---

You should probably go back and read the thread if you thought I was arguing with anyone.

---

Then what the hell were you talking about?

tk for tu juan said:

---

IF the fire switch was pulled on the engine, then the thrust reverser would not deploy. This could be why the reverser was not deployed on engine #1, pointing to the "they shut down the engine opposite of the bird strike" theory discussed before. But that is a big IF, we will not know until the flight data recorder info is released.

---

Sorry. While I am loath to speculate without more information, I think this "IF" is not as big as I would like. Meaning, I hate to think they had #2 in idle and shut down #!.

I've seen it tried in the simulator and clearly it happened in flight sometime because of the change in procedures to orally verify like crazy in abnormal operations. Retired for over 8 years, now and I just don't remember what finally generated that positive change.

I seem to remember the change being pretty quick in Widget territory, so I'm thinking we had someone shut down the wrong engine, but get it restarted right away, avoiding a catastrophe.
They reported what they had done and the terminology change to "Pilot monitoring" came out.

Sadly at 73, it's crazy what I can retrieve from my memory right away and what hides for days or forever. Sometimes hearing or reading just the right word will bring it all back.

Ag with kids said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

Starting 17:15, to go with what the pilots already mentioned, requirements for reverser deployment (one being fire switch for the engine must be down).

---

Someone ain't gonna like that explanation....

---

Mea culpa. I attributed your comment to the bolded portion of the quoted post by tk for tu Juan. It was the only detail pulled from that boring training video and posted.

Whens lunch said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

IF the fire switch was pulled on the engine, then the thrust reverser would not deploy. This could be why the reverser was not deployed on engine #1, pointing to the "they shut down the engine opposite of the bird strike" theory discussed before. But that is a big IF, we will not know until the flight data recorder info is released.

---

Sorry. While I am loath to speculate without more information, I think this "IF" is not as big as I would like. Meaning, I hate to think they had #2 in idle and shut down #!.

I've seen it tried in the simulator and clearly it happened in flight sometime because of the change in procedures to orally verify like crazy in abnormal operations. Retired for over 8 years, now and I just don't remember what finally generated that positive change.

I seem to remember the change being pretty quick in Widget territory, so I'm thinking we had someone shut down the wrong engine, but get it restarted right away, avoiding a catastrophe.
They reported what they had done and the terminology change to "Pilot monitoring" came out.

Sadly at 73, it's crazy what I can retrieve from my memory right away and what hides for days or forever. Sometimes hearing or reading just the right word will bring it all back.

---

Could it be this one? They shut down the wrong engine in a 737 due to misunderstanding the A/C system on that model...

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

Starting 17:15, to go with what the pilots already mentioned, requirements for reverser deployment (one being fire switch for the engine must be down).

---

Someone ain't gonna like that explanation....

---

Mea culpa. I attributed your comment to the bolded portion of the quoted post by tk for tu Juan. It was the only detail pulled from that boring training video and posted.

---

No problem. I actually had to go back and read a number of posts to find that.

Ag with kids said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

IF the fire switch was pulled on the engine, then the thrust reverser would not deploy. This could be why the reverser was not deployed on engine #1, pointing to the "they shut down the engine opposite of the bird strike" theory discussed before. But that is a big IF, we will not know until the flight data recorder info is released.

---

Sorry. While I am loath to speculate without more information, I think this "IF" is not as big as I would like. Meaning, I hate to think they had #2 in idle and shut down #!.

I've seen it tried in the simulator and clearly it happened in flight sometime because of the change in procedures to orally verify like crazy in abnormal operations. Retired for over 8 years, now and I just don't remember what finally generated that positive change.

I seem to remember the change being pretty quick in Widget territory, so I'm thinking we had someone shut down the wrong engine, but get it restarted right away, avoiding a catastrophe.
They reported what they had done and the terminology change to "Pilot monitoring" came out.

Sadly at 73, it's crazy what I can retrieve from my memory right away and what hides for days or forever. Sometimes hearing or reading just the right word will bring it all back.

---

Could it be this one? They shut down the wrong engine in a 737 due to misunderstanding the A/C system on that model...

---

Could be. I was a 75/76 F/O then. Did this change come with the formal deployment of
CRM and when was that? I asking myself, btw.

Whens lunch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

IF the fire switch was pulled on the engine, then the thrust reverser would not deploy. This could be why the reverser was not deployed on engine #1, pointing to the "they shut down the engine opposite of the bird strike" theory discussed before. But that is a big IF, we will not know until the flight data recorder info is released.

---

Sorry. While I am loath to speculate without more information, I think this "IF" is not as big as I would like. Meaning, I hate to think they had #2 in idle and shut down #!.

I've seen it tried in the simulator and clearly it happened in flight sometime because of the change in procedures to orally verify like crazy in abnormal operations. Retired for over 8 years, now and I just don't remember what finally generated that positive change.

I seem to remember the change being pretty quick in Widget territory, so I'm thinking we had someone shut down the wrong engine, but get it restarted right away, avoiding a catastrophe.
They reported what they had done and the terminology change to "Pilot monitoring" came out.

Sadly at 73, it's crazy what I can retrieve from my memory right away and what hides for days or forever. Sometimes hearing or reading just the right word will bring it all back.

---

Could it be this one? They shut down the wrong engine in a 737 due to misunderstanding the A/C system on that model...

---

Could be. I was a 75/76 F/O then. Did this change come with the formal deployment of
CRM and when was that? I asking myself, btw.

---

Looks like it was this accident...

Quote:

---

This last NTSB recommendation following the incident, addressing flight deck resource management problems, was the genesis for major changes in the way airline crewmembers were trained. This new type of training addressed behavioral management challenges such as poor crew coordination, loss of situational awareness, and judgment errors frequently observed in aviation accidents. It is credited with launching the crew resource management[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173#cite_note-:1-11][11][/url] (CRM) revolution in airline training. Within weeks of the NTSB recommendation, NASA held a conference to bring government and industry experts together to examine the potential merits of this training.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173#cite_note-12][12][/url]

---

I think it was the early 90s when Delta initiated a formal CRM program including it in practically all training. Not important. Getting way off topic.

I thought Tenerrife is when CRM became a big push.

This whole thread got off topic .

evan_aggie said:

---

This whole thread got off topic .

---

Welcome to TexAgs.

All the known info was compiled by the bottom of page 1

Everything else is guesswork and speculation and entertaining ourselves

very large flock of birds captured on camera at time of approach. Skip to :45 mark. Though plane appears to miss the bulk of the flock, its clear they are close enough that the flight path of the flock is disturbed and of course the other videos shows compressor stall.

good update by blancolirio. seems as if they had the gear down on first approach, but on go around raised it up and never lowered it back down. very little time across the whole sequence.

Question for pilots.

What is your SOP response to ATC giving you a bird advisory?

PA24 said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

Question for pilots.

What is your SOP response to ATC giving you a bird advisory?

---

Thanks and watching for birds

---

If your FO has control do you take that back or does it depend on the circumstances (exp, conditions, etc)?

JFABNRGR said:

---

PA24 said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

Question for pilots.

What is your SOP response to ATC giving you a bird advisory?

---

Thanks and watching for birds

---

If your FO has control do you take that back or does it depend on the circumstances (exp, conditions, etc)?

---

Let the F/O continue to fly. If something happens, the F/O can fly just fine. Frees the Capt. to manage the situation.

I assume you would do that.

Though I seem to recall the "Miracle on the Hudson", and the FO was flying, and Sully took back control.

Or maybe that was just Hollywood.

Situational

I can't speak for the A320 specifically, but redundant displays are usually turned off during electrical emergencies to save battery power, and the display reversion modes assume the pilot in the left seat is flying. In that case, yeah it makes sense for the CA to take over.

But for most other emergencies, whomever is flying at the time keeps flying, it's just one less decision to make during a stressful situation. So if its the FO's leg, just let him keep flying unless he's really messing up.

In any case, it is 100% the Captain's discretion based on the specific circumstances.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I assume you would do that.

Though I seem to recall the "Miracle on the Hudson", and the FO was flying, and Sully took back control.

Or maybe that was just Hollywood.

---

You are correct. The FO (who actually was captain rated but flying as an FO that day) was flying but Sully took over and I recall in an interview it wasn't because he didn't have confidence in the FO it's because he realized how potentially ****ed they were and he wanted any bad outcomes to be on him and not his FO.

coconutED said:

---

Situational

---

I understand, was just having a little fun, I totally understand that if bad things happen, it's often best not to add more stress and confusion by changing PiC.

In Sully's case, it sounds like him to take responsibility. It's what I'd expect from an Academy grad, and fighter pilot.

That he is also an experienced glider pilot was also a plus