Having one thrust reverser deployed on the side of the bird strike was super weird. Both thrust reversers can be controlled by the APU hydraulic system
The APU doesn’t have a hydraulic system. There are three redundant electric pumps however, and these can run off the battery. Regardless, I don’t believe there was any issue with the hydraulics as the plane was well controlled on the final approach.
I see what you mean. It’s not directly connected I see. Only indirectly via electrical pump as you pointed out.
It is curious that no flaps or spoilers were deployed. Maybe the control was not as great as it appeared. The plane did touch down a long way down the runway.
Even with a landing gear failure nothing else made sense: landing 2/3rds way up runway, no flaps, excess speed etc
Complete loss of power due to strikes on all engines. The ram air turbine is not enough to move all those parts.
Boeing 737 allows for gravity drop of landing gear which would work even with total power loss
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/79782/can-the-landing-gear-be-lowered-when-system-a-hydraulic-pressure-is-lost-in-boei
Ram air turbine is sufficient for control surfaces, which is what it’s designed for
Having one thrust reverser deployed on the side of the bird strike was super weird. Both thrust reversers can be controlled by the APU hydraulic system
The APU doesn’t have a hydraulic system. There are three redundant electric pumps however, and these can run off the battery. Regardless, I don’t believe there was any issue with the hydraulics as the plane was well controlled on the final approach.
It just gets weirder doesn’t it
I see what you mean. It’s not directly connected I see. Only indirectly via electrical pump as you pointed out.
It is curious that no flaps or spoilers were deployed. Maybe the control was not as great as it appeared. The plane did touch down a long way down the runway.
There’s no ram air turbine on a 737.