US1549 Ditching in Hudson River - Q & A's (Merged)

[The Real Slim Shady]

After two multiple birdstrike incidents bringing down a 737 and now an A320 will y'all, frequent traveller or not, listen to and watch the safety demo now??

We are frequent flyers but we brief EVERY departure very carefully before we fly it to cover potential disasters.

[Final 3 Greens]

Always do, it's stupid not to.

The reinforcement of the knowledge at the start of each flight will help recall in the event of an incident and there are some differences between fleets, sub fleets etc, e.g. location of life vest, overwing exit mechanism, door mechanism, lifevest type (single/dual gas cyclinder, tie or clips etc.)

As a regular traveller, for example, I could have a stab at the type of overwing door from briefings over the years (B738 pivots at top, opens outward, remains attached, A32x plug type, needs to be pulled in, twisted and thrown out, weight about 25kg, older 737 similar.)

As a PPL, I always took delivering the passenger safety brief seriously, as you might have to rely on the RHS pax to open the cabin door, etc.

[The Real Slim Shady]

It always helps the CC if you let them know that you have a licence. They can put you next to an exit or ask you to assist as an ABP if there is a problem.:ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

TRSS

Thanks for your comments.

I am also aware that my knowledge of the cabin systems/environment is minimal, especially as I used to live next door to a house with CC tenants and saw what they had to learn for their type ratings :ooh:

That's important in not being 'over helpful', if you know what I mean, I'm sure your other half does.

[raffele]

Unfortunately, I don't think yesterday's events are going to change people's attitudes.

I always listen to the safety demo/video, regardless of whether I know it off by heart for that type or not. 2-3 minutes out from reading the inflight magazine on any length of flight won't hurt.

As for everyone else - as much as I'd like to think they'd start to pay attention, the simple answer is they won't. Why? Because the mentality will always be "air travel is the safest way to get around, accidents do happen but it'll never happen to me..."

[BOFH]

Anyone who is remotely sentient will listen, consider, and more importantly, plan what to do if things go TU. How many rows forward and aft to an exit? Who or what will be an obstacle to me? What can I wet and put over my face to use as a primitive gas mask?

The bad news is that a considerable proportion of people will not bother, and in the event of an evacuation, clog the aisles by trying to retrieve their luggage and duty-free from the overhead lockers, pierce the slides with stilettos, forget how to undo their belts, inflate their lifejackets prematurely and so on. There is nothing you can do about this if the crew is incapacitated and cannot maintain discipline.

I am sorry to say this, but I think you're tilting at windmills.

BOFH

[A2QFI]

I invariably give the safety briefing my full attention. However yesterday's incident has changed my view that the safety card pictures of a ditched aircraft floating are a work of fiction! A rough open sea must be a different matter but clearly passenger aircraft can ditch and float. Respect to all involved!

[VAFFPAX]

If there ever was a reason to listen, yesterday's event is the biggest one. That said, I will ALWAYS listen to the briefing, no matter how much I've heard it before.

S.

[Seat62K]

I, too, always listen to the briefing and consider it discourteous not to, even if its my umpteenth sector on one of Slim's company's blue baby Boeings!

[Seat62K]

The US Airways' incident got me wondering whether it is better for life jackets to be located beneath passengers' seats or behind a panel above their heads. It strikes me that there might be situations where being able to reach the life jacket whilst still strapped in might be important.
Does anyone have an opinion on this?

[dreamwatch]

I have no professional opinion, I'm just regular SLF, but it's always been a concern of mine that I couldn't reach/find the life jacket. I know where it's kept, naturally, but I'm not particularly flexible and economy cabins are a little bit on the wee side. ;) I'm sure it's there because of space issues, but if any genius ever came up with a better location it would let me rest a little easier. Every time I hear that part of the safety announcement I think 'I cant reach it, I can't reach it!'. :O

[dreamwatch]

BOFH -

The bad news is that a considerable proportion of people will not bother, and in the event of an evacuation, clog the aisles by trying to retrieve their luggage and duty-free from the overhead lockers, pierce the slides with stilettos, forget how to undo their belts, inflate their lifejackets prematurely and so on. There is nothing you can do about this if the crew is incapacitated and cannot maintain discipline.

I'm an anxious flyer, and I also like to think I'm polite. How anyone can be so rude, ignorant and plain stupid enough to ignore the FA's as they give a SAFETY briefing boggles the mind. Frankly, if they all end up toast that's their problem, but as you so rightfully state BOFH, it's the fact that they end up taking people with them that really grinds my gears. It's not lifejackets that should be under the seat, it's stun guns - zap the blighters out of the way as you calmly count the rows to your nearest exit.

Interestingly, one of the news sites reported that a passenger from flight 1549 insisted on taking her luggage. Yeah, that whole landing in the river thing didn't pase you at all, did it lady? :hmm:

[EGAC_Ramper]

On the latest B737NG's (at least with us) the lifejackets are stowed in the panel above your head just like the oxygen masks. Also helps with preventing/catching thieves of lifejackets as it does occur!!:ugh:


Regards

[Door_One_Right]

I guess there are arguments for both. If you were ditching because of fire, you wouldn't want to be looking up to find your lifejacket, you'd be bending low, so a jacket under the seat would probably help you. As each situation is different and from my experience, rarely goes by the book, it's a case of six of one...

[Eboy]

If an aircraft is intact after ditching, why not stay inside where it is airtight (watertight) until rescue crews come?

[Eboy]

On a flight in the States today I listened to the briefing as I always do. Others were chattering at about the same level as before. :rolleyes:

[Conan The Barber]

Because an airliner is neither airtight nor watertight. The rate at which the water leaks into the fuselage can be reduced, by closing various valves in the air-con and pressurization systems, in order to give pax and crew enough time to evacuate before the cabin becomes submerged.

[TightSlot]

Were the fuselage to partially submerge, opening outward hinged doors against water and wave pressure might become difficult when a decision to leave was finally taken.

[TightSlot]

I've merged several threads on this extraordinary incident for ease of reference.

As usual, the excellent Matt at the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/) has a different take on things...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01240/matt17012009_1240930a.gif

[PAXboy]

Extraordinary? Yes, almost beyond words. I agree that it will make no diff to the folks that listen to the briefing. IF more do so - then it will only be for a few weeks. You think that 777 pax listen more carefully after 038?

Also, I think the smoothness of the river that was (as far as I can tell) on the EBB tide as opposed to a river on the FLOOD (it creates a very choppy surface) and not on open water - made this survivable. It is reported hat both engines dropped away (as they should) and so helped to make a smooth 'run out'. My guess (note - guess!) is that both flight crew were superb and lucky, lucky, lucky. That is NOT a criticism but luck had so much to play in this. Had they have been on the opposite runway - would they have been turning over a nice stretch of ebb tide? And many other points. Again, not to take away from crew (flight + cabin) who proved their mettle and that they deserved their responsibilities. But luck was a huge part of this.

[Load Toad]

You are preaching to the converted - or the never didn't think 'that' way.

The problem is as air travel is more popular that many people are too arrogant / stupid / ignorant to listen or even attempt take safety seriously.

I recently flew from Dhaka to HK in cattle class and not for the first time was less than impressed with the (lack of) respect and attention given to the cabin crew and the safety announcements. And that isn't an observation restricted to one of the more 'interesting' routings.

[jetset lady]

Well so much for that then! We left the States last night and virtually no one paid attention to the demo. It was the usual story. "It'll never happen to me!" Well, you know what? One day, it just might! :ugh:

Another quick point, if I may? Many people were sat with their headphones plugged in to the seat socket and hanging around their neck. They couldn't understand why I asked them to remove them completely. If you do this, please think about what is going to happen in an emergency evacuation. You are going to jump up, without thinking, and either strangle yourself, or get yourself and your fellow passengers in that row, caught up in the wires. It may sound silly at the time, but there really is a valid reason for us asking you to take them off completely.

Jsl

[old,not bold]

Does anyone know what happened to the overwing slides, in their role as liferafts? I heard news items "passengers standing on the wing", and in the photos I saw the slides weren't very evident.

Secondly, we have in this thread all the usual fulminations about listening to the briefing, but I wonder what how the evacuation actually went in that Airbus. We can assume that the attention paid to the briefing, before takeoff, was as per the norm. Does anyone know the answer to that, ie can anyone state the facts as opposed to rehashing uninformed press reports?

My suspicion is that it went very well, because it was very successful. If that's right, what conclusion do we draw about the briefing?

I confess to having to eat my words, like many others, about a break-up on impact being the only possible outcome in a civil jet airliner ditching, medium size and above. Even so, I cannot bring myself to call it a "water landing", one of the silliest euphamisms around at the moment.

[malanda]

This has been a real wake-up call for me. I'm a pretty experienced SLF (1000+ sectors) and always pay attention for the briefing. But would I have thought to reach for the lifejacket if not told to at the time of the ditching? Hand on heart, probably not. Think I'd just GTFO.

[Rainboe]

Had they have been on the opposite runway - would they have been turning over a nice stretch of ebb tide? And many other points. Again, not to take away from crew (flight + cabin) who proved their mettle and that they deserved their responsibilities. But luck was a huge part of this.Rubbish. You shouldn't be so adamant about the luck thing. If you were more aware of aviation, you would know of the many aeroplanes that have ditched and been very undamaged. Japan Airlines even had a DC8 that flew again after being ditched in Tokyo Bay. Stop playing up the luck thing- it was skillfull flying mostly, so don't try and denigrate it!

Ebb tide, flowing water, even choppy water- makes no difference. The Hudson is not tidal BTW!

[Seat62K]

The starboard life raft can be seen clearly towards the end of the (Coast Guard?) video, a link to which was posted on this site. It looked to be attached to the trailing edge of the wing but I may be wrong about that as the image resolution is poor.

I, too, wonder if I'd put on my lifejacket in a situation where I was not instructed to do so but thought that a landing on water was imminent (hence my question above about life jackets in panels above passengers' heads which are obviously not accessible when seated). By the way, this is not a comment on the US Airways incident as I do not know whether any instruction was given.

Does anyone know how easy it would be to open the lifejacket container in the dark?

[greggx101]

I wonder how many USAir Dividend Miles the pax will get.

[rog747]

i must say now that we have had maybe a half dozen or so recent catastrophic events in the immediate or final phase of flight where the crew, and here i am gonna say very importantly the pax (SLF) were NOT expecting this, and the a/c was badly damaged/destroyed and the evacuations' were immediate and unexpected...
such as..
AIR FRANCE A340 landin over run YYZ
BA 777 LHR crash land double engine power loss on final)
RYANAIR 737 crash land CIA (doube engine bird stike on final)
IBERIA A340 UIO landing over run
CONTINENTAL 737 DEN rejected t/o
US AIR NYC A320 ditching after t/o double engine failure bird strike ?
there were NO fatalities in these accidents,
but i could go on and mention others not quite so fortunate,
GARUDA,ONE 2 GO, TACA, S7air, SUDAN, and more,

lets hope the pax really now do start taking note of the critical phase of flight, and assume maybe it may just happen to me one day and be as prepared as you can.

[Load Toad]

For that to be the safety announcement would have to be carried out prior to boarding and a test taken with a minimum pass rate before being allowed ont' 'plane.

[reventor]

I sometimes pay attention to the pre-flight briefing, mostly to be polite to the person performing it. The probability of actually benefiting from this briefing is insignificant in my case. US1549 doesn't change that (yet, at least). For the pre-flight briefing to be useful (for me), the following conditions will have to be met:
1) The pre-flight briefing must change, since I already know its content, it has absolutely no value.
2) An incident must occur, to which the pre-flight information actually applies.
3) The incident must be of such a nature that the pre-flight info is my sole source, meaning no instructions or new briefing by crew superseeding the initial brief, which would render it worthless.
4) The incident must of such a nature that the outcome of which actually depends on my behavior is aligned with the pre-flight briefing.

The chances of this occuring? Well, if I fly a couple of flights every day, it will probably take me about a million years to encounter this perfect storm. And I'm the idiot for not paying attention? ;)

Of course, this does not mean I'm not concerned with safety, it merely suggests that I rely on probability to guide my decision making. In that respect, US1549 was quite interesting, in the sense that I've learned a lot about ditching, for example the brace technique for US Air and that certain doors are best left closed when in water. The various reports also give a good understanding of what to expect in terms of chaos, irrational behavior and challenges in the evacuation process. This is new and interesting stuff, in stark contrast to the run-of-the-mill safety briefing.

[rog747]

Ebb tide, flowing water, even choppy water- makes no difference. The Hudson is not tidal BTW!
quote from some guy above...!

erm
YES, the hudson is tidal i can assure you,
and the currents are very fast and they were on that day !
2-3kts downstream.

secondly
re the above poster who thinks hes knows it all about safety briefs....
no safety briefing is run of the mill...

you must expect the unexpected and it may just save your life,:D
do you stay in a hotel and not bother to check your fire exit???:=

as i said in my post above we have had many unexpected catasprohic landing and take off events (but not fatal) in the past 2-3 years in large commercial jets operated by western airlines,
look at the list above !:rolleyes:

one minute your sitting their all warm and comfy in your seat, on your i-pod or your're tired or with your shoes off:=
then you are suddenly plunged into a different world of chaos...
pax have had to get outta the plane double quick and with the help of superb cabin crews...
examples...
the air france a340 toronto crash, and BA 777 at london airport,
also the britannia airways crash of a 757 on landing at gerona in spain is
good example too, right mess but luckily no one killed...

if the crew at the rear door of this ditched US air a320 had allowed the pax to have fully opened that rear main door then the outcome would not have been so happy as the a/c would have flooded quickly and sunk faster...
if that pax had read his safety card he would have known not to have done that !!!:ugh:

in ditchings usually the overwing exits are they way to go or out the cockpit window...remember that... just one day the cockpit window
may be your only or last safe exit !
(but not always, look at the 146/RJ85/100 series jets...no overwings)
READ and listen to the safety briefs/cards:)

just one day it will help you...

save the arrogance/complacency
''or, i dont need to know'' for somewhere else please,

[routem]

Reventor, Its nice to know that you are psychic !! How will you ever know if the briefing has changed unless you listen to it !!

My own experience as a regular SLF is that it very much depends upon the CC as to how many folk concentrate on the briefing. I just wish, sometimes, that the other CC would also listen so they could tell their colleague that their briefing is not loud enough, unintelligble. I have also seen that rare beast - the CC who has stopped the briefing and bollocked a passenger who was talking or had a headset on - good on ya !!

[Final 3 Greens]

Hi JSL

Hope your trip went well.

You say It may sound silly at the time, but there really is a valid reason for us asking you to take them off completely.

You might be interested to note that Air Malta provides earbud type headphoes on the London flights and, in the safety brief, reminds people to remove them from the sockets before going to the loo.

Apparently, some people forget they have them on and hurt themselves when leaving the seat :eek:

[Final 3 Greens]

I have also seen that rare beast - the CC who has stopped the briefing and bollocked a passenger who was talking or had a headset on - good on ya !!

Seen that a few times on Ryanair and easyJet.

It works :ok:

[pulse1]

rog747,

YES, the hudson is tidal i can assure you,
and the currents are very fast and they were on that day !


Might he not mean that the Hudson is a river and is always flowing downstream at that point?

The interesting point for me is that the wind was in the same direction as the flow and the water was quite calm. Had the wind been in the opposite direction, the water would probably had more of a chop, making an into wind landing even more difficult.

[forget]

737NG Overwing Exit. This has to be an improvement on the 'pull in - throw' out variety.

Also, from EGAC Ramper. On the latest B737NG's (at least with us) the lifejackets are stowed in the panel above your head just like the oxygen masks. Also helps with preventing/catching thieves of lifejackets as it does occur!!

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/737.jpg

[starbuck123]

Hi folks

First of all, well done to the crew of that aircraft...amazing!
I do have some questions though that will put my mind at ease as im flying off to prague this friday.

On the saftey card you read before take off (which i always do) it shows pictures of the escape shoot coming out all the doors which can then be used as a life raft. If you look at this plane the back of it was under water so they couldnt open the two back doors therefore - 2 life rafts! what happens now? surely you need all of them for all the passengers?

Also last september i flew the same airline and same typr of aircraft to las vegas and on the saftey card it advised that the seat you was sitting on was your life jacket. dont ever remember seeing any others, have things changed?

last question....if engines cut out at cruisng altitude and cant be started can a plane glide back down to safety or does it just drop like a brick?

Thats probably a silly question but im a bit of a nervous flyer so i apologies now! Thanks

[forget]

....if engines cut out at cruisng altitude and cant be started can a plane glide back down to safety or does it just drop like a brick?

That's me gone :ugh::ugh::ugh: Unless Rainboe drops in here.:hmm:

[rog747]

quote
Hi folks

First of all, well done to the crew of that aircraft...amazing!
I do have some questions though that will put my mind at ease as im flying off to prague this friday.

On the saftey card you read before take off (which i always do) it shows pictures of the escape shoot coming out all the doors which can then be used as a life raft. If you look at this plane the back of it was under water so they couldnt open the two back doors therefore - 2 life rafts! what happens now? surely you need all of them for all the passengers?

Also last september i flew the same airline and same typr of aircraft to las vegas and on the saftey card it advised that the seat you was sitting on was your life jacket. dont ever remember seeing any others, have things changed?

last question....if engines cut out at cruisng altitude and cant be started can a plane glide back down to safety or does it just drop like a brick?

Thats probably a silly question but im a bit of a nervous flyer so i apologies now! Thanks
unquote

dear starbuck,
no question re safety is silly,
i commend your questions,
at least you take the trouble to look around you....

firstly
use of the rear doors as an exit in ditching and use of the slide-raft?
(slide-raft if fitted, btw, see below)

well many a/c do not use the rear doors in a water landing so you are correct in thinking then there maybe not enough spaces in the front door slide-raft for all pax to sit in.
good point actually so heres the answer,

some a/c are NOT fitted with chutes/slides that can be used as rafts
they are not the same thing.
some airlines who do not fly over open water do not carry life jackets,nor life rafts NOR escape slides that can be used as rafts,
the seat cushion is what you use as a life preserver.

on extended over water flights the a/c WILL have ALL of the above,
if you lose the use of the 2 rear doors due to the water coming in then you lose the use of the 2 rear slide-rafts,
your MAIN life preserver will be you in your life jacket,:Oin the water,
if rafts cannot be launched or the slide-rafts fail then you have only your life-jacket.

lastly
re loss of power in the cruise?
the cruise meaning you are at high altitude.
if power is lost then the pilots will of course attempt to re-light the
engine(s)...
it is possible from several ways,
but it can be depending on the height of a/c,
the outside air temp, ice etc
whether the apu is working and will infact start itself!
engines can be started using ''wind-milling'' method,
and whether you have any fuel left (see below)

the BA747 over java lost all 4 due to volcanic ash but he got 1 then 2 engines restarted to get down to jakarta runway,
if he hadnt i think he would have had to have ditched in the sea at night,
not nice.
he had 30 minutes of glide (on no power)
the air transat A330 lost all its fuel over the atlantic, lost both engines and glided over 20 minutes to a safe but hard and fast landing without any power to the azores.

the ryanair 737 a few weeks back on final approach to Rome hit birds and lost both engines...
this was a critical moment and the pilots skillfully and luckily made the runway, landed hard and smashed the gear up but everyone walked away ok...
he had very little height and speed left when he lost all power, so in theory he was dropping like a brick...
he used all his flying skill and efforts (same as the BA 777 LHR crew did) to coax the a/c down or as near the runway as he could.

as you can see its all different scenarios,

[starbuck123]

I take it with the comment "forgot" made here

"That's me gone :ugh::ugh::ugh: Unless Rainboe drops in here.http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/yeees.gif "

they are being sarcastic or something other, you may want to make your self clear!

i seem to remember this part of the forum being for passengers??
Would be nice if someone could answer the question with proper answers and not use silly symbols

Thanks

[starbuck123]

Thanks to rog747 for the answers, all of which make sense! You can see now why should always read the saftey card as aircraft are different! Flying with BMI baby this friday so will see how that compares!

Thanks again

[rog747]

i agree starbuck this section of pprune is for pax/slf questions,

if airline or flying crew can answer then please can it be constructively
thanks

i am ex airline ops/safety in uk since 1972 now retired

[Final 3 Greens]

Starbuck

Don't worry about it.

Forget's comment is probably reacting to your choice of words, since "drop like a stone" sounds a bit like a red top headline, a little sensational.

One fact of flying known to all pilots is that aeroplanes fly becuase of the wing, not the engines, which are there to get them up off the ground and keep them up at cruising speed.

But it is the SLF forum and your question is okay for me ( I am SLF and also hold a pilot's licence for little aeroplanes and you can only fit a small ego into the cabin :})

Rainboe can be fierce, but he is a very experienced pilot and as much as I often argue with him on these fora, if this happened to me, I couldn't think of any better than Rainboe to be captain, I reckon he would get a Boeing down safely, too, in similar circunstances.

But he does take offense at (a) anyone he perceives as implying criticism of the profession and (b) people who are nervous passengers.

The first I can understand, as professionals do stick together and the second is because he is a grumpy old git :}

But if you avoid the sensationalism and ask Rainboe nicely, you might be surprised at the quality of the reply you receive.

All the best!

[starbuck123]

Hi Final Greens

Thanks for the comments! i would never saying anything negative towards pilots as they do a great job and have up most respect for what they do!

Being a nervous fly is only something that has happened in the last few years. It seems to be take off that worrys me for some reason. once im up in the air im fine!

I would be intrested to know why he dont like nervous passengers?
The "drop like a stone" was a bit daft so i apologies but my questions were genuin and not being a pliot or have any experiance in the industry i needed to know. The commnets made previous have tought me alot already about different types of shoots and things.

Its nice to know that if passengers do have questions or issues that pilots can answer them on here. maybe it should happen more then there wouldnt be any nervous flyers??

[rog747]

starbuck,

your terminology of 'stone and drop like one' is ok coz thats exactly what does happen if an aeroplane does not have the speed left to maintain the height that one needs to avoid the dropped stone scenario !
quite simply put...
speed is organised by power (engines) and height is maintained by speed (get it) lol

so please dont think you really were that wrong lol


so thats why when you are in the cruise (high up) you have lotsa lovely height to play with if you lose power.
(and thus hopefully lotsa time too for sorting out the no-power issue coz you can glide an awfully long way without the power from that height)

what is not nice is being near the ground when the power goes,
hence skill, speed, height, and the attitude of the a/c is crucial here to coax and/or maintain what you have to get you somewhere as safe as can be rather quick.

[Final 3 Greens]

what is not nice is being near the ground when the power goes,

We train for engine failure after take off in the little planeswith only one engine.

From 200 feet, with no engine, you have maybe 10-15 seconds before you land, so I agree with Rog747 :ok:

With multiple engines in an airliner, the probability is lower, but we have had a cluster of events recently.

The very high standards of training for airline pilots have shown their value in these incidents.

[Seat62K]

To return to the "luck vs. skill" issue raised several posts ago, surely it was a case of both and not either/or?
In different circumstances (that is to say, where neither the Hudson nor anything else which could have performed the role of a "runway" was available) no amount of skill would have prevented a very different outcome (i.e. fatalities).
The pilot flying the A320 exhibited great skill, but he (and all those onboard) were also very lucky. Put another way, their luck enabled the pilot to exhibit his skill.
The same is true, for example, in the Air Transat case cited above. What would have happened if no airport had been within "gliding" distance?
(Wasn't there another Canadian airliner - Air Canada, I think - which also "glided"? A mix-up between imperial and metric fuel quantities, if I remember correctly.)

[reventor]

Who can name five incidents, in which passengers have suffered noteworthy injuries or worse, caused directly by lacking information given in the pre-flight safety brief?

Panic-induced actions excluded, as it obviously entails a frame of mind unable to recall and logically act on previously given instructions. Excluded as well are actions performed deliberately and knowingly against the instructions/regulations, such as not wearing a seatbelt when required etc.

The NTSB stats for 2007 say roughly 1 accident per million depatures. Cross your fingers for me as I herocially board these death machines time and time again. Death by boredom that is. :p

[rog747]

Who can name five incidents, in which passengers have suffered noteworthy injuries or worse, caused directly by lacking information given in the pre-flight safety brief?

Panic-induced actions excluded, as it obviously entails a frame of mind unable to recall and logically act on previously given instructions. Excluded as well are actions performed deliberately and knowingly against the instructions/regulations, such as not wearing a seatbelt when required etc.

The NTSB stats for 2007 say roughly 1 accident per million depatures. Cross your fingers for me as I herocially board these death machines time and time again. Death by boredom that is.

my answer,
of course reventor flying commercially in the western world is safe as you can ever be if you do the numbers crunch!

i can certainly name several fatal unexpected/unprepared accidents whereby casualties may have been lower had the pax been more aware of their situation if they knew that the unexpected means be alert.
if they had been more aware of unexpected events that CAN and DO occur in the critical phase of flight then they may have lived.

TENERIFE KLM and Pan Am 2 747's collide on runway,
the KLM pax all were killed, Pan Am jet did have survivors, but many more Pan Am pax could have got out from their smashed and burning jet,
older pax going on a cruise ship holiday and simply did not comprehend what had happened to them, they sat in their seats, did not move, did not unfasten their seat belts and died...

MANCHESTER British Airtours 737 rejected t/o engine fire
fire penetrated cabin quickly before exits had opened.
again here in this incident the scenario was confused and some exits unusable,
some delays in opening exits due confusion and jamming, and some pax died as the urgency to evacuate was not understood, nor their understanding of the location of their best exit.
lethal smoke/fumes gave very little time for any delay in acting.

i hope this gives you an idea how important it is to really be prepared.
you think ''oh it wont happen to me'', as you sit their reading your economist mag with your shoes thrown off under the seat...

well, i can assure you if you have some idea of how and where you would get out in an unexpected event upon t/off or landing then you decrease your risk quite alot...
listen to the crew, they are there only for you and no one else otherwise vending machines would have been installed long ago for coke and chips...
read the card, how do the doors and exit windows open and where are the exits nearest to me...
you know the story (if you ever listened before lol)

[13 please]

Oh reventor, reventor,

You have nothing to worry to about, if anything does indeed occur on any of your flights, it's going to be such a shock, you'll drop dead with shock.!!

I've been cabin crew for 17 years, I know that possibly anything can happen at anytime.

This is purely my opinion, but in an incident like the one in the Hudson, or last year's 777 at LHR, if half the pax mentally prepare themselves, and the other half do not think anything will ever happen to them, I'm pretty sure which lot would get out first.
In some past incidents, that would mean the difference between life and death.

Reventor, I hope you sit in window seats, so you don't get in anybody's way whilst they evacuate.!!

[Final 3 Greens]

Further to my earlier post and just for anyone who is interested, here is a clip of a light aircraft that had engine failure at 200 feet.

Note how quickly the aircraft returns to earth. BTW, the cow was okay (you'll have to watch the clip to see what I mean :}

Biplane Clips CowVideo (http://www.break.com/index/biplane-clips-cow.html)

Many thanks to Van Horck for finding this and posting it on another thread.

Once again, proof that the wings make the aeroplane fly :ok:

[rogerg]

An aeroplane needs two things to fly, airspeed and money.

[strake]

Using the word "luck" for this incident seems to have four letter connotations to some.

IMHO:

It was bad luck that a flock of birds crossed the path of the aircraft.
It was extremely bad luck that they were ingested into both engines thus stopping them.
It was good luck that the aircraft had achieved a reasonable amount of height.
It was good luck that the Hudson River is where it is.
It was extremely good luck that the passengers had a couple of guys up front who pulled off what appears to be the most amazing landing in the history of commercial aviation.
It was good luck that all the passengers got out of the aircraft with little injury, bar one.
It was good luck that plenty of boats were available to rush to the rescue.

[reventor]

The arguments appear to assume that listening to the safety brief is a prerequisite for situational awareness and acting with a minimum of intelligence in an emergency. That is a ridiculous notion. The content of the safety brief (which is a different matter than listening to it) is so basic and dumbed-down I would expect it to have little effect in certain emergencies, such as the one in MAN. I also doubt the effect on passengers' mental preparedness from the safety briefing, it certainly causes nothing but mild irritation with me.

[OFBSLF]

After two multiple birdstrike incidents bringing down a 737 and now an A320 will y'all, frequent traveller or not, listen to and watch the safety demo now??

We are frequent flyers but we brief EVERY departure very carefully before we fly it to cover potential disasters.
No. By the time you do the safety demo, I'm way ahead of you.

The first thing I do when I sit down is find the nearest exits and count the rows from my seat to the exit row. I then try to memorize that number. Then I pull out safety card and review the information. In particular, I try to memorize the procedure for opening the various exits. If I'm in the exit row, I've compared the diagram to the exit, to make sure that I understand how to operate it. I also check to see if it says there is a life vest and if so, the procedure for using it.

I know how to open the seat belt and, in fact, have already fastened it. I know how to put on the O2 mask. I know to put mine on before assisting anyone else. I've already located the exits. I've already figured out how to put on the life vest.

Sorry, but by the time you give the briefing, I've already spent 5 minutes studying the safety card and the aircraft. I've already made my plan for my first choice of exit in case of an evacuation. Do I listen to the briefing? Yes, but I don't give it my full attention.

[Eboy]

If the wings had been deiced before takeoff would they have been more slippery in the water (harder to stand on)?

[al446]

The MAN 737 fire was somewhat more complicated than you state although I broadly agree with you. It was this incident that brought about the mandatory installation of floor level emergency lighting of aisles, indeed it brought about one of the most comprehensive reviews of aviation evacuation procedures ever. What was discovered during the investigation afaik was that pax were disorientated due to smoke and fumes, this raised the issues both of materials used in seat manufacture and lack of any form of reference for pax when having to crawl down the aisles to get under smoke, I believe that it was found that those who got to the aisles clogged it by heading in opposite directions. There were other findings on which I am sketchy but the same situation would still be possible if those findings had not been acted on. The briefing was irrelevent as different situations appertained.
Hope I have not got this wrong and, if not, that it is helpful.

[WHBM]

Safety briefings should be serious and sensible stuff, and come over as such. Hopefully we will soon see the end of such stupidities as BA's one with the silly rabbit, or Virgin's one voiced by Vic Reeves which seems to be some second-rate entry in a comedy film festival. Because if the safety briefing doesn't take it seriously, neither will the passengers. However they got past the CAA surprises me.

[TheWestCoast]

Though on US carriers, the one you notice and pay attention to is Delta's. AA and UA have forgettable, amateurish presentations in comparison.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgpzUo_kbFY:ok:

[rog747]

yes al446 i agree
i was siting the MAN example as a complete confusion so that the poster
reventor could just see how ernest it is to get your surroundings rather than the his impression of briefing relevance can help you as well...

cheers for that

re eboy
was the us air accident a/c de-iced ?
i dont know, if it was,
the stuff leave a nasty mucky mess and the pilots on take off may select bleeds off on the engines to stop sucking up the stuff..

the outside air temp v the river water temp on the effect of icing the wings in the water when the pax were standing on them is of interest to me,
seems from info given from the pax is that the wings were icy within a couple of mins in the water...
if it had been de-iced before take off then im not sure if the effect remains
once it was in the water...

[Contacttower]

Moving to a slightly different topic...I was wondering; do the full motion simulators that airline pilots train on accurately recreate the effects of a ditching on the aircraft? I mean can they tell you after practicing a ditching whether the aircraft would have broken up or not?

[wawkrk]

I have 18 photos of the A320 recovery from the Hudson River taken by the crane driver. I just cannot get the hang of posting pics on the forum having never done it before.

[OFBSLF]

Just put the pictures on a photo hosting site (flickr, photobucket, etc.) and link.

If you want to get fancy, put the url for a picture inside img tags (don't include the spaces that I'm adding): [ img ]url here[/ img ]