Location: Perdido en el corazón de la grande Babylón
Posts: 899
@ iaf22
1) none whatsoever - at correct ditching attitude it shouldn't be anywhere near water, as rear fuselage makes first contact. Its small size would also make any pitching moment insignificant.
2) who knows? wait for the report! Ethiopian ditching went avry because capt. has already suffered a few hefty blows on his head with crash axe and there was general commotion with hijackers during ditching, which made complying with correct ditching technique difficult.
3) wait for the report! I bet those CVR and FDR won't be difficult to read out.
Whatever preceded and ultimately caused the splash, I'm certain that cabin and cockpit deserve a praise for ditching and evacuation done very well.
Last edited by Clandestino; 16th Jan 2009 at 12:17.
Reason: Typo
3°)Landing gear : a witness said Landing gear was down! Being opposite to any ditching procedure i know. Might it be because it was planning to land at the smaller airport and then reconsider the situation ? I doubt they went through the Manual gear extension procedure and i doubt gear down could have such a good effect on ditching...
Everyone is so damn fast to congratulate everyone here.
Great job well done all, etc. etc. blah blah blah.
I will be waiting to see what the final investigation finds what the cause of the dual engine failure on takeoff has been.
Yes, I'm still up for the damn fast congratulations. A great job was done. Perhaps there was a mistake in there somewhere, what do I know. The end result has great job all over it, everyone walked on to shore.
A routine job would have been that they all got out at the gate at Charlotte - that did not happen, and, all of us did not congatulate the crew for a routine job.
Okay... fair is fair, hey all you other crews with routine flights yesterday, congatulations for a routine flight!
Well hats of to all the crew and the people who built such a rugged aircraft. Amazing story and for once NY gets a good news aviation story for once.
I mind many years back the an RAF Nimrod was lost due to multiple gesse ingestions and years later the the same type was succesfully ditched in the water with no fatalities. So the pilots of these wonderfull machines can hopefully write a textbook answer to landing in water.
For the pilots out there what will happen to the pilots now after this. I assume it will be giving evidence/what happened etc but after all that , will they get an award or a better job , i dont know i just ask you guys
The BBC really should listern a little. on this lunchtimes BBC news so called experts Learmont and Moody(ex BA) also forgot the FO. The whole incident has been assumed that the Captain was PF, maybe he was not as in the LHR777 forced landing. Equally what about the cabin crew??
To cap it all the BBC refer to the Airbus as an Airplane (yuk!)
I mind many years back the an RAF Nimrod was lost due to multiple gesse ingestions and years later the the same type was succesfully ditched in the water with no fatalities. So the pilots of these wonderfull machines can hopefully write a textbook answer to landing in water.
Keepittidy, as has been mentioned before the pilot who ditched the Nimrod was copilot on the A320. The copilot is the common denominator!
Mickjoebill
Apologies, Co-Pilot was not Nimrod pilot, my bad
Last edited by mickjoebill; 17th Jan 2009 at 00:35.
Reason: correction
Zero loss of SOB - lucky and great flying! Not to take anything away from the Cptn and FO, but if there was a large flock of goose, and none of the crew spotted it? I for one can't wait for more detail to unfold. What was the wind condition at the time of the ditching?
As SLF when checking in "what is pilots name" if not Sullenberger sharp intake of breath. Seriously top marks all round, when I was being taught at the Queen's expense ditching in anything was thought to be seriously dodgy Pictures were shown of aircraft nosing in with nothing much underneath but a radiator, to do it with underslung engines was thought impossible. The stress engineers who got the sums right also deserve a medal.
I've often wished that airlines or safety organizations offered some kind of pax training - something where you could actually try putting on the life vest and using the oxygen mask, and also be trained to assist FAs and crew in case of an emergency. Always seemed to me that it would be helpful.
Agree with all that's been said here praising the pilot and crew. I fly US Airways often, and find it encouraging to know how skilled the people in charge of my life all those times really are.
A fantastic outcome for professional aviation today.
Well done to Captain Sullenberger, to his First Officer and to his Cabin Crew! We are all very proud of your professionalism and execution of a safe outcome for your passengers and crew.
3°)Landing gear : a witness said Landing gear was down! Being opposite to any ditching procedure i know. Might it be because it was planning to land at the smaller airport and then reconsider the situation ? I doubt they went through the Manual gear extension procedure and i doubt gear down could have such a good effect on ditching... Unless the witness is NTSB who cares. If all is at this appears. this event is yet another reason to ditch the age 60 mandatory retirement rule as captain was approaching it.
I suspect it was a "Bleeds Off" takeoff, which may have helped the situation immeasurably.
Deicing was being done in LGA, and even if you don't deice yourself, a bleeds off takeoff (APU running, supplying air for packs) will stop a lot of the stink of sucking up Deicing fluid on the runway, AND that crap is slick and a lot ends up on the runway, so I tend to always go bleeds off/MAXpower when deicing is being done (regardless of whether or not I deiced)especially at LGA with the short unforgiving runways.
If the APU was running for takeoff then there was no rat deployment at all, full electrics were always available, and a simple push of the yellow electric pump would restore much of the hydraulics if the engines weren't even windmilling.... On the otherhand, to restore the blue system the RAT manual deploy button would have to be pushed with the APU running...
IF the APU wasn't running, then the crew was even busier (though they may have immediately pushed the start switch at the beginning of the event) will be interesting to see.
Good job all around, can't wait to read the cvr transcripts and the reports...
Replying to post #330....skankark said...
"Well I have been flying for 25 years and good airmanship to me , is keeping a good lookout at all times and specially so , below 10000 feet agl. In a multi crew cockpit, having a bird hit ( above 500 agl ) has always been considered a crime and the crew more often than not ,have been admonished for their lack of airmanship. Not taking away any credit from the crew , I was just wondering if the entire episode could have been avoided totally (It really pains to see a wonderful machine like an Airbus in water). Being a Bus driver myself , I am certain that the duties of the crew ,include one head up ,at all times , and this has not been done dilligently (I hope I am wrong). The aftermath handling ,undoubtedly deserves the highest appreciation. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ALL 155 OF YOU. Warm regards KS"
Looks like they hit the birds at around 3000ft.....so how are you supposed to avoid a flock of geese......if that is what it was.....flying IFR at 200kts
