USairways 1549 had compressor stall a few days prior

[mikecweb]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hud...olo/index.html

(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. See images from the rescue in last week's crash »

"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.

[wheelsup]

Gotta love how he admitted to using his phone and sending a text message though.

[mxflyer]

The flight crews' glory is over. Time for the typical media smear-campaign. Thank you CNN for being the first to "break" this stroy.

I have one important question; My phone losses reception at 100' AGL, What kind of phone service does that guy have? Definately not T-Mobile.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by mxflyer

I have one important question; My phone losses reception at 100' AGL, What kind of phone service does that guy have? Definately not T-Mobile.

Not AT&T...I lose reception in my home office.

-mini

[beechpilot]

There is no point to this story. It's just typical media making something outta nothing. Whatever was wrong with the aircraft on the 13th was obviously fixed or it likely wouldn't have been returned to revenue service.

[Pilots12]

I have near perfect service at 3000-4000agl in the 172

Kills the battery searching for the signal though.

[Minuteman]

Welp, looks like it's going to be MX at US Airways' turn to get savaged by the FAA (a la AA MD-80 wiring or WN lap joints)

[Cav]

Originally Posted by beechpilot

There is no point to this story. It's just typical media making something outta nothing. Whatever was wrong with the aircraft on the 13th was obviously fixed or it likely wouldn't have been returned to revenue service.

Was it? Personally I have no problem with the media scrutiny of airline mx. It's a necessary check and balance. I'm sure no carrier has ever shorted on mx during tough financial times. I'm not accusing USAirways but if there is a problem there I, as a pilot, would value the media's influence.

[mikecweb]

I'm not saying the two are related but it's definitely interesting. I've had a couple compressor stalls and they scared the #### out of me at the time.

[beechpilot]

Originally Posted by Cav

Was it? Personally I have no problem with the media scrutiny of airline mx. It's a necessary check and balance. I'm sure no carrier has ever shorted on mx during tough financial times. I'm not accusing USAirways but if there is a problem there I, as a pilot, would value the media's influence.

I understand where you're coming from and it makes sense. It just seems rather difficult for me to believe that a problem which almost created an emergency two days prior to the ditching didn't get looked into. The only way to know for sure is to look at mx records which I'm sure has already been done or will be done.

Media scrutiny isn't bad if they report something of real substance. For instance, let's say an aircraft had a known engine problem and mx ignored it and the result was a crash. That's an example of where an investigation and media scrutiny would bring the problem to light. I just feel that the Airways incident is different because the compressor problem and the dual birdstrike were unrelated events.

[beechpilot]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

I'm not saying the two are related but it's definitely interesting. I've had a couple compressor stalls and they scared the #### out of me at the time.

Yeah, it is interesting that the same plane on the same route had the issue. Apparently that aircraft and flight number didn't like each other.

[jtrain609]

Oh come on you're doing the Colgan, right? Ops check good and send it back out!

[falconvalley]

Originally Posted by Cav

Was it? Personally I have no problem with the media scrutiny of airline mx. It's a necessary check and balance. I'm sure no carrier has ever shorted on mx during tough financial times. I'm not accusing USAirways but if there is a problem there I, as a pilot, would value the media's influence.

True, but it doesn't mean that they're on to anything or really have a clue when they're on to anything. I bet a mechanic was recently sighted near a US Airways airplane!

[FlyChicaga]

Originally Posted by beechpilot

Media scrutiny isn't bad if they report something of real substance. For instance, let's say an aircraft had a known engine problem and mx ignored it and the result was a crash. That's an example of where an investigation and media scrutiny would bring the problem to light. I just feel that the Airways incident is different because the compressor problem and the dual birdstrike were unrelated events.

Is the dual birdstrike a factual occurance yet, or simply the statement from the crew? How do we know that these events are unrelated?



As someone who works in human factors and aviation safety, we are trained to take a more "cynical" view, if you will, of events such as this. At first glance, it seems clear that the crew was faced with one of the most dire emergencies an airline pilot can have thrown at them, and they successfully handled the emergency and kept their passengers safe. However, what happens if the crew had a compressor stall in one engine, and ended up shutting down the wrong one? Will the crew be held in such high regard in that case? What if they did not follow the restart checklist properly?


It is the job of the NTSB to analyze all the information they can to find out exactly what happened, and what we can learn from it. This case is no different than the Continental B737 runway excursion in Denver. We all were applauding the crew because of the outcome, but what if safety was compromised multiple times along the way? Should we only use the outcome of events like this as a measure of safety? Or should we look deeper to see how really safe we are?

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by FlyChicaga

Is the dual birdstrike a factual occurance yet, or simply the statement from the crew? How do we know that these events are unrelated?



As someone who works in human factors and aviation safety, we are trained to take a more "cynical" view, if you will, of events such as this. At first glance, it seems clear that the crew was faced with one of the most dire emergencies an airline pilot can have thrown at them, and they successfully handled the emergency and kept their passengers safe. However, what happens if the crew had a compressor stall in one engine, and ended up shutting down the wrong one? Will the crew be held in such high regard in that case? What if they did not follow the restart checklist properly?


It is the job of the NTSB to analyze all the information they can to find out exactly what happened, and what we can learn from it. This case is no different than the Continental B737 runway excursion in Denver. We all were applauding the crew because of the outcome, but what if safety was compromised multiple times along the way? Should we only use the outcome of events like this as a measure of safety? Or should we look deeper to see how really safe we are?

I will say this, the NTSB has said that the FDR's that they recovered are telling them that both engines stopped at the same time, so while there's still the chance that they simply shut down the wrong engine after a compressor stall (or ingesting a bird into the engine), on the surface it looks like both engines were in fact FODed out at the same time.

I can't find a link to it because everything on the internets today seems to be revolving around your boy from Chicago, but I read it on the Huffington Post earlier this week.

Oh, and would the FADEC shut the engine down before the pilot could do anything about the issue?

[beechpilot]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

Oh come on you're doing the Colgan, right? Ops check good and send it back out!

Negative on the Colgan. I'm a CFI.

[beechpilot]

Originally Posted by FlyChicaga

Is the dual birdstrike a factual occurance yet, or simply the statement from the crew? How do we know that these events are unrelated?



As someone who works in human factors and aviation safety, we are trained to take a more "cynical" view, if you will, of events such as this. At first glance, it seems clear that the crew was faced with one of the most dire emergencies an airline pilot can have thrown at them, and they successfully handled the emergency and kept their passengers safe. However, what happens if the crew had a compressor stall in one engine, and ended up shutting down the wrong one? Will the crew be held in such high regard in that case? What if they did not follow the restart checklist properly?


It is the job of the NTSB to analyze all the information they can to find out exactly what happened, and what we can learn from it. This case is no different than the Continental B737 runway excursion in Denver. We all were applauding the crew because of the outcome, but what if safety was compromised multiple times along the way? Should we only use the outcome of events like this as a measure of safety? Or should we look deeper to see how really safe we are?

You are right and I realize that we don't have all the facts just yet. I wasn't thinking that deep when I posted.

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by beechpilot

Negative on the Colgan. I'm a CFI.

My mistake, I figure with the whole being in KAUG thing and having Beech Pilot as your screen name you'd be a Beech driver at Colgan.

[FlyChicaga]

Jtrain, I can't hear you over that sweater.

[jtrain609]

Isn't it awesome dude? It's so big that Seggy couldn't fill the thing in!

[Doug Taylor]

Isn't it awesome dude? It's so big that Seggy couldn't fill the thing in!

When read without the proper context, this has to be the post of the year.

[Chris Barnes]

Did a search for compressor stalls and found the following on wikipedia - I wonder if the compressor stall that happened earlier was a result of previous damage to engine components?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressor_stall


Factors affecting compressor performance

• Damaged compressor components such as damaged blades. One of the most common causes of compressor stalls in commercial aviation aircraft is a bird strike. On take-off, while maneuvering on the ground or while on approach to landing, planes operate in proximity to birds. It is not uncommon for birds to be sucked into the intake of the engine and the disruption to the airflow and damage to the blades often causes compressor stall.

• Worn or contaminated compressor components - e.g. such as eroded rotor blades, seals or bleed valves.

• Mis-assembled compressor components - e.g. incorrectly assembled compressor guide vanes.

Factors increasing compressor loads

• Aircraft operation outside of design envelope - e.g. Extreme flight manoeuvre resulting in airflow separations within the engine intake. Flight within icing conditions where ice can build up within the intake or compressor. Engine thrust requirements too high for the operating altitude. (limited with modern fly-by-wire controls)

• Engine operation outside specified design parameters - e.g. Abrupt increases in engine thrust ("slam acceleration") causing a mismatch between engine components. (Occurrence reduced through the use of modern electronic control units)

• Turbulent or hot airflow to the engine intake - e.g. Use of reverse thrust at low forward speed, resulting in re-ingestion of hot turbulent air, or for military aircraft, ingestion of hot exhaust gases from fired missile.

• Worn or contaminated engine components - e.g. poorly performing control unit or turbine within an engine may result in a mismatch increasing the likelihood of stall.

[Firebird2XC]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

When read without the proper context, this has to be the post of the year.

"Was that a.... "

Oh.. nevermind.

[FlyChicaga]

I just wanted to share this story.

A year ago I had my six month proficiency check with a former military pilot, who really wanted to give myself and my sim partner a learning experience. He threw a lot of things at us that really made me open my eyes as a young, relatively inexperienced Captain. One of those was compressor stalls after takeoff. It was violent, loud, and disorientating. However, it was a great learning experience.

He later told us that he save that same scenario to a line check airman at our company. A week after this check airman's proficiency check, he experienced a violent compressor stall while at cruise altitude over Cleveland. Apparently it was quite the experience, since people were screaming in back, a few people vomited in fear, etc. The crew performed an emergency descent and landing at Cleveland. The check airman had called this instructor to thank him for giving him the compressor stalls in the sim, because it gave him some experience to draw from when he experienced it for real. He said without that experience, he'd probably have been just as scared as everyone in the back of the airplane, since it was so violent.

[beechpilot]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

My mistake, I figure with the whole being in KAUG thing and having Beech Pilot as your screen name you'd be a Beech driver at Colgan.

Well, the reason my screen name is beechpilot is because 99% of my hours are in Beechcraft. I did all of my training and now teach in Beech Sierras/Sports etc and also fly Barons.