snowfalcon2, Re “Could be addressed in training…” (#962)
An alternative is to consider the human aspects of the crew’s task in a relatively short timescale, vis:-
Identify the nature of the problem; probably the initial focus was on starting one engine. Then, with two engines malfunctioning there could have been many other alerts. If the generators were off line then an electrical checklist might have been considered – after attempting to recover engines.
Next consider a return to airport with abnormal landing; then an emergency landing … not at an airport … then ‘we going for the Hudson’.
Add to this inter crew / cabin communication, ATC, selecting the landing configuration, then it could be quite explainable that the crew never got beyond the QRH index. We don’t know of any distracting vibrations, or possible airframe damage; many things might flash through the mind during the surprise of such a severe event.
However, apparently what the crew did do exceptionally well, was (rule 1) fly the aircraft. This is better than having the ditching valve closed and arriving in the water in a tangled mess of aluminium!
We shall see from the investigation the exact sequence of events, but I suspect that this accident will be the basis for future training of what went well; the Captain flew and monitored, the First Officer managed and monitored, each with their own priorities and sufficient skill (airmanship) without the need for lengthy briefings and drills - mainly because there wasn’t time.