As aviators (in my case non-pilot aircrew) we are all looking to learn from the mistakes of others or in this case and Sully's case, the success of others. We then assess this against our own decision making, knowledge and cognitive capabilities in order to determine if we were in that situation would we have done better or worse and what what would we now do differently to improve our chances of a successful outcome for some possible similar event in the future.
In this discussion there has been a lot talk about whether the gear should have been up or down, whether the BRACE command should have been given, whether the checklists should have been followed, referred to, or just thrown out of the window. In my opinion, I'm not sure any of us can learn much from this since every accident of this nature has such wildly different circumstances. Phase of flight (T/O,LDG), day or night, weather, visibility, terrain, obstacles, controlled flight with or without propulsion available, result of crew actions (or inactions) or unexpected aircraft malfunction. But probably most importantly is the time available. It seems that luck might be directly proportional to this. That is, the more time you have, the more chance you have to make your own luck (Gimli glider springs to mind) vs the less time you have, the more you rely on a bit of luck to walk away. There can be no doubt though, that whatever gets thrown at you unexpectedly, knowing your job and executing it well is going to give you the best chance of making use of Lady luck if she shows up. For tech crew that's ANC and particularly the A part which we seem to lament the loss of today!
But there is another factor. Whether it is crew error that has caused the situation to arise or an event beyond control of the crew, the survivability of these types of accidents comes down to three things. An acceptably low ROD, no significant obstacles in the landing path and the strength of the monocoque construction of the fuselage. The latter factor provides protection from flame, heat, debris and water impact during the event which I imagine must be akin to a heavily arrested landing on an aircraft carrier!!
I have selected some flights below where aircraft made unexpected 'landings' and where despite in some cases spectacular crew mistakes, the vast majority of people survived primarily because the fuselage remained intact. Other's will know better than me, but I'd be surprised if the BRACE command was given in many of them and checklists would not have been considered in some at all. It's also instructive to note the Air France outcome in relation to passengers being dazed and the high probability that no Brace for impact command was given.
Air France Flight 296 6 January 1988. Airbus A320. 136 crew and passengers. Pancaked into a sapling forest. All survived crash. Many of the passengers were dazed from hitting their heads on the backs of the seats in front of them. Three died during evacuation in post crash fuel fire.
Asiana Airlines Flight 214 6 July 2013. B777. 307 crew and pax. Tail hit seawall and cartwheeled on runaway. 1 died in crash. 2 non seat belt wearing pax died after being thrown from aircraft. All remaining crew and pax evacuated safely despite post crash fire caused by oil and engine fluids.
Air Niugini Flight 73. September 28, 2018. B737. 47 crew and pax. Aircraft 'landed' short of the runway in to a lagoon. All but one survived the crash.
British Airways Flight 38. 17 January 2008. B777. 152 crew and pax. Fuel freezing shutdown both engines on finals. Aircraft glides and 'lands' short of threshold casuing gear collapse and significant air frame damage. All crew and pax evacuate safely. No post crash fire.
Miracle on Hudson.
Ural Airlines U6178, Moscow - Simferopol.
It's axiomatic that when faced with an off runway landing the crew will do everything possible to reduce ROD but an obstacle free pathway ahead may just be down to lady luck and to time available. Assuming these go right, it is the strength of the fuselage (that cacoons the occupants) that will now determine the outcome and it seems that regardless of manufacturer, or whether landing gear, engines or complete wings get ripped off, fuselage construction has saved many lives in these accidents. I think this is worth noting when discussing grandfathering certifications arising from real air frame crash testing against the newer composite material constructions, the safety of which i understand is determined more by computer modeling. Not arguing either way (I'm just not that bright) but just saying that this accident, others I have mentioned above and the many others I haven't mentioned, all highlight an important element of aircraft construction that despite all of the unknowns that leads an aircraft to 'land' off runaway, has most likely saved thousands of lives.
Last edited by Lord Farringdon; 18th Aug 2019 at 09:34.
Reason: Corrected Air Niugini Flight 73 details.