I beg all your pardon, but why at 3:29 are we turning down the Hudson and not back to LGA?
As the groundtrack diagram shows, the aircraft looks like it could have made LGA or TET... However, in order to pull off a successful forced landing at either requires:
- An alignment with a runway - preferably into wind
- Knowledge that the chosen runway is clear of other aircraft
- Judgement / skill / co-ordination to arrive at the threshold of that runway at less than 50', at Vapp - Vapp + 20K, with (nearly) Full Flap and Gear down
If the last item is not achieved in any 1 aspect, then not only is everyone in the aircraft probably dead, but also maybe lots on the ground.
I might add that none of the above is trained for either... from starting the process from such a low height (we do double engine failure training from high altitude, but with a lot of planning between both crew, and with both concentrating on the forced landing, not one trying to restart engine(s) ).
I am reluctant to state this crew showed "extraordinary" levels of skill in what they did, since that might imply that "most" airline crews would not have achieved it, and we do not yet know enough about what they did. However, the "decision" to go for the water does seem crucial to the outcome.
I am surprised by the numbers here who seemed to think an airliner would break up on ditching, many's the time I had considered it the better option than an off airfield forced landing if required, and requiring much less skill (luck?) than a successfull "on airfield" forced landing. Whether in the past I or they were in error is irrelevant - we now have evidence that water is a definite option
NoD