Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC

[Boomerang_Butt]

Denabol, forgive the speculation on my part, as I wasn't there to witness it...

but I would hazard a guess that the egress of these pax would have been a little slower than planned for due to the proximity of boats and land... in an open water ditching, if the water were that high in the cabin, it would be a case of get them out in lifejackets and worry about the rafts later... pax can always jump and swim to a raft if need be. So probably would be much faster if immediate rescue wasn't in sight... who knows the flight crew might have had time to make an announcement of the sort if they saw boats close by before ditching...

Yes a scary situation, one we train for in the (cabin) sim and yes even in practice strong assertive tactics are required. It's a matter of asserting your authority as the trained professional and if need be, use a willing able bodied passenger to assist you to keep those doors closed... heck, tell them it'll sink faster once those doors are open if it keeps them away from the back! It's amazing even a small 5 foot something flight attendant can keep back a bigger passenger if the verbal technique is right, I've seen it done and she might as well have had a bloody big axe in her hand! :}

Seems that a LOT of factors were in the favor of pax/crew today, one or two things different it could have been a much sadder outcome (Air Florida as mentioned, which was my first thought on hearing the news bulletin!)

[Long D]

It seems we are loosing our focus here, this is an incredible job well handled, everyone can speculate as much as they want, but they were not in there going through the procedure and planning the most safest action which proved to be. At times and conditions like these, it is a split second decision. I admire the professinalism of the crew, well done.:D:D:D:D

Long D

[d192049d]

Smithy, they are in the climb at 3000 feet over what to me looks like built up area with lots of high rise and it all goes to hell in a hand basket. First instinct fly the plane, identify the problem, fly the plane, tell somebody, fly the plane, tell the cabin, fly the plane by which time he has traded altitude for airspeed and his options are even less. He sees the water and goes for that.......the area he "picked" was devoid of bridges which when you think about how many there are in NYC, would make a landing in line with the river even harder...they all did brilliantly...christ, practice efato in my 152 got my blood pumping...they, like the crew of the BA777 at LHR are heroes in a world gone mad and looking for a great story

[Boomerang_Butt]

Sorry, not meaning to take away from the crew, just trying to say that perhaps slowing down the evac as boats were nearby (if that is what they did- quite possible) kept things calm and prevented too much panic (and hence kept injuries/fatalities down)

If you've ever seen someone who thinks they're drowning you'll know just what I mean. Just wanted to address some of the questions from a cabin/pax management perspective

Anyway however it was done, good job to all involved. That's all I'll say on the subject.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Fer Crissakes, Smith - are you for real !!! I suppose he was trying to save the kindergarten, and hospital that lay in his path,too. !!#$!!&%$ :ugh:

This was one of the most magnificent pieces of flying we have been privileged to witness - and you dare criticise ?

The mind boggles.

[jportzer]

I believe this A320 did not have pax vests, since it does not overfly large stretches of water. The vests seen probably came from the rescue boats.This seems possible. If you look carefully you can see large numbers of seat-bottom cushions floating near the wing, in the photos taken after most of the passengers had gotten away. Perhaps the passengers took these at first and then switched to the life vests when they were tossed to them from the ferry crews.

[The Green Goblin]

Could he not have put it down closer to the shoreline making it easier for the passengers to swim to dry land?

Perhaps, but you would assume the deepest part of the river is in the middle. Wouldn't want to hit any hidden obscured or submerged objects and tear the bird apart now would we? One would think the risk of such an occurance would be amplified the closer one gets a sizable bird to shore.

Besides you're a pom, I would have thought you would be a fan of a brisk swim to wake you up in the morning?

[Bus429]

The foregoing demonstrates the now common mix of genuine informed comment, praise where due, over-the-top praise, mis-informed speculation gradually degenerating into a slagging session among those posting.

Well done crew, rescue services, others who helped and to pax who may have assisted.

[JEM60]

Good old Shaun Maffett. Making the point that First Officers play a part too. I am always annoyed when no mention is made of them.

[golfyankeesierra]

I don't believe USairways don't have lifevests, probably some pax left without in a hurry.
I also clearly saw airline-type inflatable lifevests on tv-footage.

If you look carefully you can see large numbers of seat-bottom cushions floating near the wing
I understand the ferries dumped lifevests in the water for possible swimmers. Those on ferries are usually the big foamtypes, easily mistaken for seatcushions.

[Dysag]

"Also, are the engine pylons designed to shear off under the stress of a water landing?"

I think the answer is somewhere on PPrune. I know for a fact that in the early days Airbus adopted a different means from Boeing to meet the requirement that (from memory) in an accident large masses should not fly around and cause even more damage to the plane and pax cabin. Boeing always used the famous "fuse pins" designed to let the engines separate early under relatively low loads. Airbus chose to ensure, as far as possible, that the engines remain attached.

I'm not 100% sure that this philosophy was carried over to the A320 Family, but I think it was.

[ilvlanik]

Here is a photo of another successful ditching of heavy airliner. Tupolev 124 jet, USSR, 1963, all 52 on board survived.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/CCCP-45021.jpg
Tupolev 124 ditching in Neva River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_124_ditching_in_Neva_River)
Article says "It remains one of 8 documented intentional water ditchings of commercial passenger planes. "

[Bye]

superb job well done by all the crew :D:D

runway condition ?

wet wet wet.

As SLF my view of ditching has always been, that the yellow rubbery things are just to help the investigators find all the bodies.

Better change my view now i spose.

and we better start looking to regulate the geese, or tax them out of the skies of course.

does anyone know how many geese were injured/killed and whether they were fitted with TCAS, or what make of geese they were.

just trying to give the accident investigators a leg up here in true PPRUNE fashion :E

again - well done crew :ok:

[Patuta]

There was a multiple bird strike (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/12/11/320045/detail-emerges-on-ryanair-birdstrike-accident-at-rome.html) just a few weeks ago on final approach. Both engines stalled. Ryanair plane landed hard but safely at Rome Ciampino.

[Golf_Seirra]

Quote "This crew really have done the industry proud.

From a flight attendants view , I am so amazed at how the 3 cabin crew ( 2 seated at front...1 at rear ?? ) managed to control 150 people once the aircraft landed in water. Not an easy task."

Well done to the FA's for getting the right ratio of PAX on the left and right wings ! Must have been interesting at the herding point :)

Out of interest, we always know the FO never gets a mention, but who WAS the Pilot Flying ?

We all assume it was the captain.......

How about a mention of ALL the crew...

Wonder if the crew got the flight folio and their headsets off.....

Well done...

[Jet II]

Exactly what does the "ditching button" on the 320 do? I assume it makes a variety of systems watertight. Does it, for instance, somehow lock the rear doors?


The 'Ditching' button closes outflow valve and in addition, the emergency ram air inlet, avionics ventilation extract valve and pack flow control valves close.

Has nothing to do with doors.

Second- perhaps people are confusing the Airbus 'power assisted' doors with 'electrically operated' doors- power assist helps in door opening when armed but is not always avilable in the event of electrical failure...

Power assist is purely mechanical - no electrics involved. All it is is a gas bottle attached to a ram that pushes the door open when opened in the armed mode.

[Hold position]

It does not mater who was flying the aircraft the main thing which should come out of this is how great the team work was .good example for your next CRM .

[timpet]

As reported:
Sullenberger's co-pilot was Jeff Skiles, 49, of Oregon, Wis., a 23-year US Airways veteran

[YPro]

Congrats to captain Sully and his crew.

As for all the reports of no fatalities; whatever happened to the bloody birds?

[denkraai]

What a nightmare. We sit there in our cockpits for years and years and nothing goes wrong. Then all of a sudden you have seconds to decide.
I salute you sir, and your crew.
(MD11 driver.):ok:

[forget]

Also, as to the question about why so few passengers appear to be wearing life vests. It is possible that this plane wasn't equipped with them -- relying on seat cushions, instead.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

<CR2 shakes head in wonder>
__________________

FAA Regs same as Canada. ;)
Air Canada’s regional carrier Jazz is removing life vests from all its planes to save weight and fuel. Jazz spokeswoman Manon Stuart said Friday that government regulations set by Transport Canada allow airlines to use floatation devices instead of life vests provided the planes remain within 50 nautical miles of shore.

[juniour jetset]

Question to those here who drive the Big Iron: in a situation like this, assuming it's the FO's sector, would the Captain take over ? We know this was not the case with BA38 / 777 at LHR, but what's the standard procedure (if any)?


Well, I asked the same question to my pal who is a skipper on a widebody and he told me that he would be inclined to let his first officer fly the aircraft whilst he initially sat on his hands, quickly assesed the situation and then went through with emergency action procedures.

He said, (generally) flying the thing was the easier of the jobs, and that managing the emergency and making the correct command descions for the whole operation is where the cool head was really needed.

I guess when you get close to the ground, is where the capt. may want to take control? each situation will be different I guess and depends who is flying in the righthand seat, beacuse it could be a 300hr recent abinito or a 9000hour senior FO - your willingness to let them land the thing may well depend on this. In the BA incident, the FO was a high hour pilot.

[Boomerang_Butt]

Sorry, my post may have come across as meaning power assist is electrical, thanks for clarifying it, I meant that perhaps the averge person confuses the 'power' to mean 'electrical'

Quite a few posters mentioned ALL the crew, and pax as well... well done them for not losing their heads- they look quite calm from the wing shot- perhaps seeing the ferries on the way helped :E

[knobbygb]

Airbus A320s, like the one involved in today's dramatic but fatality-free crash, and their Boeing 737 counterparts, will come to rest in survivable ditchings in a tail down attitude with the rear door sills under water.

Firstly, may I say that as pax/ppl I usually respect the overwhelming "pro's only" comments on threads such as this and quite rightly too, but I thought this might be an interesting response to the above.

I have a large collection of safety cards (gained leagally by asking crew for spares, so don't preach) and having just checked, the A320 ones (UA, B6, BA, BD etc.) ALL clearly show via diagrams that the rear exits should possibly be used in a ditching. Contrary to the article above, all the instances of 737 I checked seem to specifically prohibit the use of the rear exists in this scenario and a few (BA 734, BD 733/5 for example) state that ONLY the overwing exits (not the front doors) should be used. Interestingly, several have no specific guidance on the use of exits after ditchings!

It seems clear from the pictures that this aircraft would very quickly have sunk with open rear exits. Maybe this will be one of the (I'm sure many) safety improvements that comes from this amazing incident. I'll be watching with interest as both pilot and pax. Just a thought.

[captainspeaking]

My thoughts, as ever, are with the families of the birds concerned.

[Otto Nove Due]

Take a look at this guys, he narrowly avoided a head on with helicopter N461SA coming in the opposite direction up the river at 1000ft! Looks like the heli took avoidance measures.

Go to 15th Jan, 15:25. Click on a plane for details. The A320 appears at 15:59:57
LaGuardia Airport - AirportMonitor - by Megadata - powered by PASSUR (http://www4.passur.com/lga.html)

Here's the track log from flightaware.com

FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > Track Log > AWE1549 > 15-Jan-2009 > KLGA-KLGA (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE1549/history/20090115/2026Z/KLGA/KLGA/tracklog)

[Rollingthunder]

The aircraft is still floating and tied up to a dock. I imagine a couple of heavy-duty cranes in the morning to do a lift and then some serious considerations about how to get it the hell out of there. The wings are going to have to come off.

[vanHorck]

the airport monitor does not seem to work. Could it be because i m not in the US?

A helicopter was indeed rerouted according to an earlier thread

[JamesT73J]

I wonder if the nr. 2 engine is still on the pylon, hence the wing down appearance the fuselage has had since the early photos. The training in this profession - and others - just amazes me. What a super job by all concerned.

[clearfinalsno1]

For those wondering if they could pull it off this video gives an idea of how it might have been.

It's a departure from RW31 looking out of the left cabin windows. Manhatton and central park come clearly into view at 2mins 30secs, quickly followed by the river at 2mins 50secs. By this stage presumably the crew were well on their way down (and thus the view much more challenging).

It brings a lump to the throat realising the only option left to do is to whack it round to the left and go for a southerly ditch. For a light aircraft, I guess Central Park itself might be an option (has any aircraft ever landed there?)

YouTube - TAKE OFF FROM LA GUARDIA AIRPORT NEW YORK (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk-B3JQZbrk)

[Otto Nove Due]

It works for me and I'm in Ireland. Make sure you click Start!

[Checkboard]

You don't pay Captains to be the best pilot on the plane (indeed, after a recent type change, they may be the least experienced on type!) - you pay Captains to make decisions.

Losing both engines at low altitude, with two airports nearly within range, this Captain made possibly the biggest decision of his career to ditch in a river - and it paid off.

The FO may indeed have been brilliant - but the Captain gets the kudos IMHO. :D

I'm surprised by the number of comments from pilots that they expected a ditching to be nigh impossible - some even preferring certain destruction by attempting a landing on a highway!! :uhoh: My initial jet type rating included watching the engineering videos of the ditching tests. Lots of large scale models gliding into water tanks, engines shearing off etc. It was always expected in that airline to be a survivable procedure. :cool:

[scrivenger]

Superb airmanship, superb crew management, superb training, superb aircraft, superb passengers what more can I say. Well done to all concerned you are a credit to the beautiful industry that is 'aviation'.

[Safety Concerns]

Respect to the whole team on board but particularly those who brought this aircraft down safely.

They delivered absolute professionalism when needed:D:D:D:D

[protectthehornet]

I think the engines continued to turn and possibly produced some thrust, though insufficient to maintain level flight or better.

It is something to consider, as the plane appeared to be under control with hydraulic pressure to run the flight controls.

I do have to wonder if somehow the FADEC system tried to protect the engines a bit too much.

I remind people that in addition to all the problems, the plane landed with about a 10 knot tailwind.

[Avman]

ClearfinalsNr1, AWE1549 took off from 04 I believe.

[autothrottle]

Incredible bit of flying. End of story.

[doktor schlickling]

The helicopter that hovered overhead for ages increasing the wind chill factor and whipped up spray and simulated Arctic Blast on passengers dressed in shirt sleeves was doing what? Could part of it have be done downwind?

Pleasure flight Jet Rangers at airshows drowning out the sounds of Merlins are another matter.

[sitigeltfel]

Well done all round, not forgetting the boat crews.

One news report I heard this morning was that the lifejackets being worn were thrown to the pax by the ferryboat crews.
Not enough time for them to get the aircraft ones out?

"Feet Wet" :ok:

[vanHorck]

doktor

There was one helicopter dropping some divers who rescued several women in the water who were already hypothermic

[Avman]

One news report I heard this morning was that the lifejackets being worn were thrown to the pax by the ferryboat crews.
Not enough time for them to get the aircraft ones out?

Already been mentioned. Many US a/c flying domestically are (quite legally) not equipped with lifejackets. Seat cushions have to be used and this is mentioned in the safety briefing.

[Will Hung]

Truly quality airmanship and decision making. Well done to all involved :D

What a contrast on last nights news. Main headline a true hero landing a passenger a/c in a river and all souls surviving. Next headline, moronic shelling of a UN food store.

What a contrast !!!!

[cloudbasezero]

Incredible piloting and superb rescue effort. :D

If this Capt was looking to retire on a high - now would be the ultimate timing. He's sure had his moment !

Tho i guess he still loves his flying.

[foxfly]

:DWell Done Sir.

[forget]

Looks the business. ;) The FO must still be in the bar.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/1_64_pilot_320.jpg

Capt Chelsey B. Sullenberger III

[md-100]

so it reached aprox. 3500 ft.

[vanHorck]

i just cannot wait for Sully's account of the crash, especially given his experience on the safety panel of the Airline Pilots Association as well as his work for the NTSB on other crashes!

The man needs to retire and write a book! I'll buy it!

let's just hope somebody will show up who filmed the ditching itself

[FrequentSLF]

I suppose now that

Any landing you walk away from is a good landing

shall be re-worded

Any landing you walk/swim away from is a good landing

Kudos to the Crew

[Emm4]

Rightly so, the flight crew and rescue services are to be congratulated. But, like the B777 belly flop at Heathrow, the fuselage remained intact, the doors could be opened allowing the plane occupants to survive.

Well done Airbus for bulding a strong plane, and well done the regulators for setting robust crashworthiness and ditching requirements.

[RenegadeMan]

To any of you that have ever flown a bonafide flying boat (Grumman Goose/Mallard, Lake Buccaneer/Renegade) you'll know what porposing is. For those unfamiliar with this phenomenon its the aircraft pitching up and down and getting into an ever worsening oscillation that you can't "chase" with elevator as every attempt to counteract it pretty much results in it getting worse. It can happen both on take off and landing but it's on landing that you can especially induce this problem with little warning or time to react. In a flying boat (floating hull aircraft) with power and the correct technique it's pretty easy to prevent or rectify it if it commences. On landing without power you have to get the attitude correct first time to prevent it from commencing as it's pretty hard to fix it once you're in it if you can't add power. That Capt Sully was able to put his A320 down in the right attitude with the nose high, a 10 knot downwind and have the presence of mind to prevent this sort of oscillation from commencing is a testament to his skill and advanced airmanship. And can you imagine how hard "keeping the wings level" was during the flare considering one or both engines were broken off by the impact and probably at different times during the sequence! I've seen nothing on his resume that would indicate he has seaplane ratings so perhaps this will be his first log book recordable "water landing" as a successfully self taught seaplane pilot!

Congratulations to Capt Sully, the FO, the other 3 crew members and the extraordinary efforts of the rescue boat crews. Great example of professionalism and keeping calm under pressure.

Rene:ok:

[Totally_Bananas]

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=26984

This is on the flight global website.

Well done to the crew!

[Flying Guy]

When I first viewed the airplane in the water from a long distance camera it appeared all the doors were closed. As it turned out, everybody had already made it out but at the time I wondered about the plug type doors and differential pressure.

Most jets on landing will automatically fully open the outflow valve/s. This to avoid differential pressure so the plug type doors can be opened. If the outflow valves automatically open during a water landing (they are on the the bottom of the aircraft) and water is rushing in through them as the plane is sinking under it's own weight, it seems to me that would create a slightly pressurized cabin. It logically follows the plug doors might be difficult or even impossible to open as the plane settles further and further into the water.

Or do the outflow doors close in a ditching of an A320?

If not, it follows that the longer crew waited to open the first door the more difficult it would be to open all the doors. This assumes they are all plug type doors. Would this be true?

Obviously that didn't happen here and the doors were opened immediately but I would be curious to know how that pressurization effect I just described would be avoided.

I haven't heard any description about the FA's and the job they did. The Captain is getting all the credit, but I bet they were instrumental in the successful outcome of this incident.

ps I just hate it when the news media refers to this as a crash - it was a successful, controlled ditching - not a "crash."

[ratarsedagain]

Or do the outflow doors close in a ditching of an A320?

On the Airbus (319/20/21 certainly) there is a 'ditching' guarded switch which when pushed, closes all valves on the fuselage.

[lobsterbisque]

flying guy: there is a ditching pushbutton on the 320 series, it is a "guarded" pushbutton that needs confirmation of both pilots (it is also used during de-icing to prevent fumes getting in) and there are also ditiching checklists in the quick ref handbook

[FlyingTom]

The Waterbus has a ditching pushbutton that closes all the vents/outflow valve etc. Also the bleeds are turned off in the ditching 'with engines' procedure.

Well done everyone :)

oops, we crossed!

[A330AV8R]

From One busboy to another :ok: Hope the A330 is as good in these situations although I never ever wanna find out !!!

:D Capt. superb airmanship !!!!!

[peter we]

His father, James J. Skiles of nearby Verona, said his son's been flying since he was 15-years-old. He's worked almost 26 years for US Airways and prior to that he worked for Midstate Airlines and also flew cargo planes, Barbara Skiles said.

Wisconsin pilot on crew of US Airways jet -- chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-planeinriver-wis,0,1241962.story)

[pappabagge]

For those fellow Gentlemen Of The Air, who know their inspirational literature, in particular that written by that aviator and writer extraordinaire. Richard Bach.

Blow the dust off your paperback copy of "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", turn to page 63 (if you can find it at the back of your study shelf), and refresh your memory as to just who "Sully" is.

Coincidence or what?

:ok:

[tocamak]

there are also ditiching checklists in the quick ref handbook

That will have to have been a very quick reference handbook!

[Gainesy]

Some time you just get lucky and have all the ducks lined up in your favour

Well, I know what you mean but...:)

[racedo]

Louis L'Amour in books about the old west oft used the expression "A man to ride the river with" .....this really meant someone with character, someone you could rely on in a crises and who you could trust your life to when the backed into a corner.

Pardon the Pun but clearly Sully is A man to ride the Hudson river with.

[blueloo]

Aside from 1 article, one would have to assume that the US Airways A320 has been specially designed and modified to be a single pilot jet.

It is absolutely amazing how the press have ignored the co-pilot in nearly 99% of all articles.

I thought it was quite amusing with the BA777 with the dual donk failure - they did the same thing, until they found out it was the co-pilot flying at the time.

Speaking of which does anyone actually know who was PF at the time?

[butair]

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that it was the F/O who was PF. Apparently the captain made the Mayday and the Brace call so was he also flying it? But every news channel would try to make you believe it was a single pilot/one man operation. Makes me somewhat angry :ugh: that one guy is being called a hero when I'm sure the entire crew played an equal part in this.

[euringineer]

Art Stacey AFC was a successful ditcher. He is also a highly experienced Training Captain same as Captain Sullenberger. How lucky for those 2 flights to have brilliant aviators in command.
R.1 XW666 ditched in the Moray Firth on 16th May, when both starboard engines caught fire during a test flight. Captained by Flt Lt Art Stacey, the aircraft was being test-flown from RAF Kinloss following a major inspection. The engine fire began about 30 minutes after takeoff. When the onboard fire suppression system failed to extinguish the fire, Flt Lt Stacey was forced to ditch the aircraft before the wing structure burnt through (the strength of the starboard wing's rear spar had deteriorated by 25% after 4 minutes of the fire). Fortunately conditions for ditching were ideal, and all seven crew members were able to get into dinghies before being picked up by a Sea King HC.3 from Lossiemouth. The wreckage was recovered from 70ft of water. The Board of Inquiry recommended that aluminium alloy hydraulic pipe unions in the engine bays be replaced with steel ones, and also that the Nimrod's Data Acquisition and Recording Unit (DARU) should incorporate recordings of cockpit voice, GPS position and time code, but neither of these recommendations were enacted.

[Leuchars1950]

Just a few weeks ago, I was on a passenger vessel sailing up the Swan River from Fremantle to Perth, WA. The guy who was doing the commentary for we tourists said that where the river opened up to a big basin at Perth the water was only a metre and a half deep and had been designated as an alternatíve landing area for any plane with problems, like undercarriage failure, instead of trying to land at Perth airport. Little did I think something very similar would occur in NY within days.

[Jet II]

As reported:
Sullenberger's co-pilot was Jeff Skiles, 49, of Oregon, Wis., a 23-year US Airways veteran

promotion doesn't seem that quick at US Air. :uhoh:

[bush mechanics]

Awsome flying!!!
Hard to tell from images but the rear doors dont look like they have been opened.If this is the case it probaly stopped the cabin flooding quickly and helping the a/c stay afloat
Well done F/As.

[Sallyann1234]

We'd better brace for the first anti-third-runway campaigner to say "If that had happened at Heathrow..."

[vanHorck]

No problem Sallyann !

Just straighten the Thames!

[mickjoebill]

The report by the rescue diver of the condition of two women in the water is sobering, it is clear the passengers were in greater danger without the provision of life vests.
In this case apparently over three minutes elapsed between the strike and impact. Enough time to don a vest?

I'm interested to learn what tests were done with seat cushions replacing life preservers in cold water.

One assumes 150 passengers would exit the aircraft more slowly if they are each holding a seat cushion! especially if their escape is over the high sill of an over wing exit.

Does the 90 second evacuation rule not apply in a ditching?



Mickjoebill

[arkmark]

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.

Boy those wings appeared buoyant.

[fincastle84]

Great flying but didn't the Cabin crew make a fine job of vacating the pax. I've just listened to a very calm report on Fox from a pax in Row 21 who rightly praised the whole crew. Its worth all the training guys, well done all of you, 5 real heroes.
At last some GOOD news in 2009! :ok:

[forget]

I'm interested to learn what tests were done with seat cushions replacing life preservers in cold water.

This is something of a mystery. Some pax are clearly wearing aircraft life vests; yet a very switched on pax says he left the aircraft but had forgotten his (flotation) seat cushion. Another mentioned life vests being handed out by FAs. :confused:

[iaf_22]

Hi all,
I remember the 767 from Ethiopian as a good start of a ditching... until the engines touched the water and created a huge drag wich then made the aircraft roll over and get destroyed.

So i'm REALLY curious about 3 things :

1°) Since the RAT deploys automatically above 100kts when you loose AC 1 + 2, losing both engines here probably got the RAT out. What was the influence of the RAT being the first thing to touch the water ? Did it create a pitch down moment ?

2°) Are the engines still attached to the aircraft or not ? How come it didn't have the same bad effect on the ditching as the Ethiopian B767 ? Might it be because the rate created a pitch down moment making both engines touching the water and the same time ?? (and then no yaw moment created, thus no roll over!)

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...

Can't wait to know the answers to those 3 questions.
Anyway, good job !!

[buskilzboeing]

"The other successful ditching was the Ethiopian 767 that ran out of fuel." How can you call that a succesfull ditching? look at the video of the ditching.. they were flying fast,the wingtip hit the water first and the plane broke apart...hardly successfull in my opinion..

I think Birds should be banned from airport airspace :}

[peter we]

Everyone is so damn fast to congratulate everyone here.

Great job well done all, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

Well it certainly wasn't the fault of the crew, they deserve congratulations.

[shankark]

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

[Life of Brian]

What a hell of a "ain't life wonderful" day at these times of miserable recession......Right pilot, right crew, right place.....an amazing achievement.......truly a further credit for the Airbus

[arkmark]

Dude -- the RAT isnt that large, and either way it's located on the port fusilage at about the same FS as the engine intake.

[Clandestino]

@ 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.

[coalburner]

Rat has a Shear point as did the 767. Does the 320 revert to direct law flight like the 330?

[Navigator33]

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...
Doesn't look like it.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/15/us/16plane_12a.jpg

[Pilot DAR]

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!

Great job crew!

Pilot DAR

[KeepItTidy]

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

[ALTSEL]

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!)

[mickjoebill]

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

[KeepItTidy]

Yeah i just viewed last 2 pages and the story is there , too many posts to read in my lunch hour :)

[VinnieC]

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?

[junior_man]

That airplane is an EOW A 320 and has life vests and slide rafts installed.

[Exnomad]

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.

[wendyg]

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.

wg

[silverelise]

Keepittidy, as has been mentioned before the pilot who ditched the Nimrod was copilot on the A320.
The copilot is the common denominator!
Mickjoebill

I think you are misreading post #316 ref. the Nimrod. It does not say that the Nimrod pilot was the co-pilot of the A320.

Elsewhere in this thread is a reference to the Chicago Tribune which reports the co-pilot to be Jeffrey Skiles.

[FlexibleResponse]

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.

[forget]

That airplane is an EOW A 320 and has life vests and slide rafts installed.

Well spotted junior man. :ok: Full spec life vests and rafts installed.

Untitled Document (http://www.theraft.com/frames/main/pages/head/table1.htm)

[tombey]

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.

[Flying Guy]

A couple of comments here suggest the crew should have been watching for birds and avoided. One guy claims to have 25 years experience.

He must have been flying a Cessna 150, or a glider those 25 years.

Dodging birds in an A320?

Sheesh - what ridiculous comments, but then - this is PPRUNE, LOL

[Wino]

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...

Cheers
Wino

[Otto Nove Due]

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 :rolleyes:

[mach71]

The age 60 rule is gone.

As for maneuvering to avoid a flock of birds, good luck in an airliner at that slow speed!

Mark

[NutLoose]

Congratulations to all involved, :D:D just goes to show, lifejackets are not carried on board too soley mark the crash site.....

Who would have thought you would ever read this in a newspaper...

8:15 p.m. | Update on the plane: As of early this evening, the plane was tied along the promenade south of Chamber Street and north of Battery Park City, near Warren Street, according to one official.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/15/nyregion/15gray.480.jpg


Updates From Plane Rescue in Hudson River - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/plane-crashes-into-hudson-river/)

[OD100]

Anyone have the link to the ATC feed?

[vanHorck]

Skankark is known for doing a barrel roll in a 380 buss around V formation geese....

Gimmy as break!

[INTERE5TED]

A great day for the aviation world... and a reassuring day for pilots and crew of under wing nacelle aircraft everywhere! Well Done to the entire crew. But especially to Capt Sullenberger a Hero.

[lomapaseo]

In searching for facts leading to prevention strategies, I was drawn to the referenced image a few posts back that illustrated the flight track vs time and altitude. (see post # 303)

While the altitude seems to have reached about 3000 ft before descending it does not necessarily mean that the bird ingestion and left engine failure occurred at that point. There is a possibility that the ingestion event might have been shortly after liftoff (over the airport) and at least one engine continued working until the highest altitude attained.

Perhaps some performance analysis could be made from the chart to suggest whether the climb out was on a single engine.

[FlyingConsultant]

Dodging birds in an A320?

Sheesh - what ridiculous comments, but then - this is PPRUNE, LOL

This might be the case (I am an SLF), but the article about the Ryan Air incident linked earlier specifically stated that the pilots saw the flock of birds, tried to go around to avoid it, and were simply unlucky because the flock rose exactly into the newly adjusted flight path.

Now, these are probably different birds, it was a landing not a take off, it was from "people close to the investigation", not the final report, etc. etc. - each situation is obviously different (something that is totally lost on the press and sometimes here). But that Ryan Air experience suggests that your comment might be a bit too far on the other side of the opinion spectrum and that it is possible to at least to avoid large flock of birds when you see them while landing (which I suspect is at lower speeds than was the case here 1 min. into flight).

[edited last sentence because I was too fast on the submit button]

[misd-agin]

Several years ago a AA F100 ingested birds on takeoff out of LGA. Luckily for them it was runway 13 and then were able to keep the plane flying long enough to reach rwy 13L at JFK.

If it had been a different runway the results would have been different.

[misd-agin]

And the Fox News is expressing amazement that the crew had enough presence of mind to keep the landing gear up and ability to land with the wings level.:ugh:

[vanHorck]

a large flock of birds can be seen, and evasive action can be taken on the descent, although there is no predicting that the flock might not take the same evasive action and so still result in a bird strike.

On take off the attitude of the plane may be such (nose high) that the birds flying level are never seen. Furthermore the plane will likely be slow and heavy.

There are still such things as accidents. Not everything in the world is avoidable

[vanHorck]

"And the Fox News is expressing amazement that the crew had enough presence of mind to keep the landing gear up and ability to land with the wings level."

Fox News must surely get an award for their knowledge of ditching these planes wings level and gear up in cold and hence less viscose water......

[misd-agin]

Folks are talking about adding dead stick landings to training. For years the standard offer from sim instructors if the sim session ended early - "dual flameout landing anyone?"

Folks will complain about 'negative training', etc, etc but other interesting events to see are no flap takeoffs, s/e handflown CAT II or III landings, total loss of hydraulics, and dual engine failure landings. :ok:

[Boomerang_Butt]

Interesting, the pic a few posts back seems to show the off-wing slide deployed... I don't recall seeing it earlier.. .anyone know if it was deployed later on once the a/c was empty of pax??

As for comments that people are 'forgetting the rest of the crew'... plenty of posts early on in this thread praising BOTH of the flight crew and the cabin crew as well! Credit where credit is due, even IF there were mistakes contributing, it was still a damn good job that no one died

[g1344304]

Found this one the BBC website, who comes up with this drivel?

The ditching of an airliner into the Hudson river in New York, in which all 155 passengers and crew escaped alive, has been hailed as a textbook example of landing on water.


The plane, an Airbus A320, had been hit by a flock of birds shortly after taking off from the city's La Guardia airport, and then tried to go back before making an emergency landing in the river.
Captain Chesley Sullenberger III has been praised for his "masterful" landing, but how does a pilot attempt such a manoeuvre successfully?
Although the likelihood is remote, all commercial pilots must undergo training for such an eventuality before qualifying. There are taught to follow a procedure -which, in its initial stages is similar to an emergency landing on solid ground, although there may not be time in an emergency situation to follow it rigorously. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

Having made a mayday call and alerted the cabin crew, those in the cockpit must ensure the landing gear - wheels and undercarriage - is turned off to aid a smoother landing and prevent warning sirens sounding as the plane nears the ground. The air conditioning would also be turned off to allow cabin pressure to match that outside.
There is an overriding need to slow down the craft. If there is still power to the engines and a wind over 25 knots, a pilot would be expected to fly into the wind to assist slowing. Wing flaps would also be fully extended. If there is time a pilot would be expected to burn as much fuel as possible, reducing the weight of the plane and so increasing buoyancy when it hits the water. On this occasion, however, the engines had already cut out.
As the aircraft nears the water, the pilot must try to continue slowing while, crucially, ensuring it does not "stall". In avionics the word has a different meaning to that in motoring, for example. Stall is an aerodynamic term which describes when wings lose their lift.
It's a difficult balancing act.
Cartwheel
"You don't want to hit the water too quickly or the plane will break into pieces", says first officer Tom Hanks of DHL, who flies Boeing 757s for the courier company.
At this point, a lot depends on the weather. In the seconds before impact, a pilot must try to ensure the wings are level - a feat clearly achieved by Captain Sullenberger, says David Learmount, operations and safety editor of Flight International magazine.
"[He] landed at precisely the right speed, completely under control, wings totally level. If one wing dips and catches the water, the aeroplane cartwheels, breaks up and some people would definitely have died."
The calmness of the Hudson river was a blessing in this case, compared with a choppy sea, says Mr Hanks.
"He could land anywhere as it wasn't rough water."
While maintaining both wings are equidistant from the nearing surface, the pilot must then lower the tail end. The nose would be higher than in a normal runway landing and at the last minute the pilot would slowly lower it into the water.
Ideally, the aircraft would plane for a while before stopping, after which it would start to sink.
As Eric Moody, a former British Airways pilot, told the BBC, "you have to skim the surface like a pebble. If you go any other way; putting the tail or nose down too quickly, you're either going to break the plane in half or porpoise the thing, into the water and out." Skill is a significant part of the process, observes Mr Hanks, but it's not the only requirement. "In terms of the actual impact on this occasion, [Capt Sullenberger] did a very good job, and he was also very lucky."

yeh its hard to remember to turn the landing gear off!

[protectthehornet]

some wag noticed that the first officer had 23 years with usair....well

USAIR pilots have had the toughest time in the industry (except for those who's airlines no longer exist).

IT is quite llkely that before sept. 11, 2001 FO skiles was a captain. Cutbacks have ruined the careers of many pilots.(me too) FOR ALL practical purposes, the FO alone probably had more experience than the entire front end crew of many of the other airlines front end crews represented here on pprune.

USAIR pilots (east) got screwed again by the air line pilots association and their merger policy which would probably have put a 7 year pilot ahead of the 23 year veteran FO.

and ALPA NO LONGER is the union at USAIR.

The FA's are equally experienced and have now seen it all.

[forget]

Don't knock Skankark too much; he's from India and his idea of a B1-RD is this -

Indian Vulture. You'd see a flock from 30 miles.:)

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

[INNflight]

Glad it wasn't an Air Canada - JAZZ aircraft. Removed the life vests from their flights because "they are not over open water anyways" :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[StudentInDebt]

BBC NEWS | Magazine | How do you land a plane on water? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7833317.stm)

At the bottom they invite comments, words fail me :hmm:

[fc101]

g1344304 (http://www.pprune.org/members/169466-g1344304):

that's not too bad for the BBC....

...but if that wasn't a "textbook" landing, or are near to it (airframe intact, everyone out, everyone alive!) then what is?

fc101
E145 driver

[FlyingConsultant]

On take off the attitude of the plane may be such (nose high) that the birds flying level are never seen. Furthermore the plane will likely be slow and heavy.

I didn't think about the first part, that makes a lot of sense - thanks for the reply


There are still such things as accidents. Not everything in the world is avoidable

I so agree. I wish people realized this in other areas as well, like heart surgery. I am glad that the airline industry/pilots train extensively on prevention and avoidance. Simple things like checklists would help a lot more in surgery, for instance (proven by tests).

Thanks again for the answer

[Graybeard]

The media I watched has ignored that Sully is a qualified glider pilot. The Gimli Glider, Air Canada 767 that landed deadstick, was also Captained by a qualified glider pilot.

Back in 1977, after the Southern Airways DC-9 had a double engine failure due to hail ingestion, they landed on a road, taking out a corner grocery store, with some loss of life. Due to crappy weather radar of the day, and insufficient training, they had flown into the eye of a thunderstorm near Atlanta. They were easily in reach of an airport, but chose a road festooned with power poles.

I talked to a lot of airline pilots back then, and few had any idea of the glide ratio of their birds, and fewer yet were sure of best glide speeds.

Avionics have come a long way since 1977, and training has too. Were I a commercial pilot, I would get some deadstick time. In my case, half my landings were at a field with 1600 feet beyond the displaced threshhold, in which every landing could be realistically deadstick.

GB

[kontrolor]

http://avijacija.net/slike/usa_a320_n106us_us1549_lga_090115_4.jpg

the plane is in upper right corner
Photo: AP/Trela Media)

http://avijacija.net/slike/usa_a320_us1549_lga_090115_map.jpg

[nahsuD]

Simple things like checklists would help a lot more in surgery, for instance (proven by tests).

Thanks again for the answer

Yes, apparently the medical community has come to that conclusion.

Surgery Checklists (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090114/surgery_study_090114/20090114?hub=TopStories)

DUH!

[Graybeard]

The vulture above brings to mind the time I was flying a Cessna 172 with a local at about 2,000 agl in the Venezuelan outback. We came to an area where some of those huge condor relatives were soaring, and tried to pick our way between them. One was in our path, but safely above us. Suddenly, he turned his head and looked at us, pulled in his wings and dove for the ground. Both of us yanked on the wheel as he passed inches from the prop.

Don't ever try to fly under a bird.. They can dive like a bullet.

There was a Rockwell T2 jet trainer at the Venezuelan AF base at the time that had taken one of those vultures into the engine, and done $1 Million damage.

The next technology will be Mode C transponders implanted into geese and other large birds....

GB

[Stinson108]

British Airways Flight Training does (or did) offer Flight Safety Awareness courses covering emergency situations using the cabin simulators used for cabin and flight crew training

[Artificial Horizon]

Don't forget though that the aircraft was always losing altitude, initially it was reported that the pilot requested a return and was half way through the ATC turn vector when he reassessed that the aircraft would not make it back. There are a lot of tall obstructions between the aircraft and the airport, maybe if those building weren't there the aircraft may have made it in a straight out glide, however it would seem that if in any doubt the best thing to do is to turn away from the obstacle and the river is a sure way of ensuring no collateral damage when the aircraft comes down.

[Graybeard]

Oh, Hornet Protector, wasn't the legend that the high RF energy from the Wx radar would repel birds? Those radars were also blamed for attracting lightning strikes, according to the wisdom in some airlines.

The old radars had high power magnetron transmitters, typically 65,000 watts peak power, which is about 700 watts RMS (cooking) power, like in your kitchen nuke.

The digital radars that came out in the 1981 era are on the order of 150 watts peak power, less than 1 watt RMS, so they have no ability to either repel birds, or attract lightning...

GB

[Lost in Saigon]

I'm new in aviation. I think they have done a good job.
But why didn't they return to the airport?
According to the chart above it looks to me that a return
to the airport wasn't longer than the flight they have done.

They WERE trying to return to the airport or maybe another airport. Probably with vectors from ATC. They also probably expected to keep flying with at least one engine producing power.

As was said before, the bird ingestion probably happened early in the flight and they continued to climb while they sorted things out. I expect the damage was to both engines and they did not continue running well enough to make it all the way back.

[McGinty]

This is a truly remarkable ditching, one that defies belief, and which deserves sustained applause for the pilots and crew.

The calm water of the Hudson clearly helped, but elsewhere I have read that the water in that river flows quite fast, although given that it is tidal I have no idea of the speed and direction of the current at the time the plane ditched.

Was the pilot helped or hindered by the current when he ditched? A 10 knot current flowing in the direction of ditching could be part of the reason why the plane remained intact. If there was a 10 knot current flowing against the direction of ditching, then this story is even more extraordinary.

Anyone know?

[vanHorck]

either way, the stall would occur at around 110 knots with a tailwind of another 10 knots, which means hitting the water at around 200 km/h

[Intruder]

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.
That may be the case in Bangalore, but not in the rest of the world!

[tombey]

Aisles, plural, of an A320?

Bear in mind that this elementary error comes from the New York Times, which bills itself as "The Paper of Record", the most authoritative press organ in America. So much for that. Are there any journalists who get their aviation details correct?

No one believes this about the NYTimes any more. They are about to fold, in any case.

[etesting2000]

Would the APU have been running during departure or would they have to initiate start? Been a while since I played with one but remember about 30 seconds to get a small Airesearch on line.

[forget]

I have no idea of the speed and direction of the current at the time the plane ditched.

Tides were on the turn - ish.

Tides for Weehawken, Union city, N.J. starting with January 15, 2009.

Th 15 Low 5:29 AM
15 High 11:38 AM
15 Low 6:02 PM

[vanHorck]

an earlier post suggested the APU may have been on anyway due to de icing before the flight. It would have saved considerable time

[canyonblue737]

Great job! I hope someone managed to capture this on video as it would be an exellent training aid. Touching wingtip and ground looping à la B757 off Kenya was NOT way to go. Obviously his technique, configuration and attitude at touchdown were flawless to keep that airplane in one piece.

With his CV he should be re-writing the SOP's for ditching.

it didn't help that the hijacker was pistol whipping the skull of the pilot at the time of ditching. :(

[ankh]

Plane Crash Hudson River: Jet crashes into Hudson River -- newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/iphone/ny-nyjet0117,0,3854702.story?page=2)

... Intrepid Museum president Bill White said museum staff immediately ran up to the flight deck of the historic aircraft carrier to see the plane, which had come to rest in the river just north of the museum on 46th Street.

"They skillfully ditched the plane in the water so people could get out. Rafts were deployed," White said. He said the strong outbound current quickly carried the plane and the rescue vessels around it from the upper 40s down to streets in the 20s.

"We saw a rescue swimmer jump from a helicopter into the water," White said. "We could see almost a dozen people up on the left wing, which was pretty much above water when it went past the Intrepid."
...
... Before it was moored, the current had been carrying the plane downriver at almost 2 mph, the Coast Guard said. A fuel spill was "an imminent threat," said Petty Officer Barbara Patton. The plane can carry 7,885 gallons of fuel, but probably had less for the relatively short flight from New York to North Carolina....

[Phil Hudson]

A few pics:

http://i39.tinypic.com/dloyz5.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/25sopxh.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/1t4lyp.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/351za82.jpg

[Oilandgasman]

Press Conference in NY just ended, crew have been awardeded the "Key to New York" Other emergency services honoured as well. Some of the response times were amazing. First vessel alongside the aircraft in 4 minutes, first divers in the water 7 minutes after impact. Mayor also announced that both engines failed.
Pilots and crew will not meet the press until the NTSB have completed their interviews.
First class effort by everyone.

[ormonde]

I can recall that ALM ,who were based in Curacao,ditched a DC9 off St Maarten 1970 more than 50% survived. The aircraft sank far too deep for it to be recovered

[finfly1]

On another website it was noted that US Airways has now made water landings from three of the four runways at LGA. I actually remember the flight with the somewhat dubious identifier as 5050.

Has anyone linked the atc tapes yet? The tape for JFK departure for the same time has nothing relating to the landing on it.

[Maybug]

Well done a brilliant bit of flying

[TimV]

Fox News correspondent talking on Sky News stated that one of the engines has come off the aircraft on ditching. Divers set to retrieve the black boxes as soon as possible.

[vanHorck]

i would be surprised if only one engine had come off. The twisting forces would have been enormous.

for now i m assuming both came off at about the same time.

There were no reports of survivors of extreme twisting of the plane during ditching

[captjns]

On another website it was noted that US Airways has now made water landings from three of the four runways at LGA. I actually remember the flight with the somewhat dubious identifier as 5050

LGA has two strips... 13/31 and 04/22.

An F28 taking off from RWY 13 became airborne, and crashed in the water... suspected ice contamination.

DCA92MA025 (http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X14270&key=1)


A Boeing 737 taking off on runway 31 attempted a high speed rejected takeoff and over ran the runway. A jumpseat rider in advertantly trimmed the rudder full left out with his foot on the pedestal.

DCA89MA074 (http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X29335&key=1)

[Airbubba]

The man needs to retire and write a book! I'll buy it!

And, since the accident was in New York, there will probably be a movie as well.

Avionics have come a long way since 1977, and training has too. Were I a commercial pilot, I would get some deadstick time. In my case, half my landings were at a field with 1600 feet beyond the displaced threshhold, in which every landing could be realistically deadstick.


Folks are talking about adding dead stick landings to training. For years the standard offer from sim instructors if the sim session ended early - "dual flameout landing anyone?"

Folks will complain about 'negative training', etc, etc but other interesting events to see are no flap takeoffs, s/e handflown CAT II or III landings, total loss of hydraulics, and dual engine failure landings.

Unfortunately, the latest version of FAA AQP training has so many checkboxes that you might have to pencil whip a few items just to get done in the alloted sim time. What was once real training has morphed into a continuous checkride with so much crammed into each session that there is little time to practice technique or become proficient. The feds seem to acknowlege this and have recently proposed changes to get back to basics.

I've sure practiced dead stick landings and ditchings in the sim in years past but lately, if it's not part of the AQP profile, it doesn't get done. In the real world, there is a vast array of potential scenarios, all of them thankfully very improbable.

On another website it was noted that US Airways has now made water landings from three of the four runways at LGA. I actually remember the flight with the somewhat dubious identifier as 5050.

True, this one was much better that the previous two. Captain Sullenberger helped develop a CRM training program in the wake of US Air's deadly five crashes in five years from 1989 to 1994.

Press Conference in NY just ended, crew have been awardeded the "Key to New York" Other emergency services honoured as well. Some of the response times were amazing.

And did you catch that one of the first boat captains on the scene was Vince Lombardi? I'm mixing the football metaphor a bit but I can hear the 'Notre Dame Fight Song' (more formally the 'Notre Dame Victory March') from the movie Airplane! playing now. "Good luck, we're all counting on you!"

[j_davey]

well it looks like an amazing bit of airmanship by the crew :-)

Could anyone comment on the condition of the airframe and whether it is likely to be salvaged? any of the high res pics I have seen indicate no damage above the water line except from the tugboats that pushed it to its current location.

-jd

[captjns]

Bear in mind that this elementary error comes from the New York Times, which bills itself as "The Paper of Record"

The New York Times slogan is "All The News Thas Fit to Print".


All news fit to print NY Times I Herman (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/AllNewsFit_Herman.html)

I guess we all prefer accuracy in the meda:E.

[Droopy]

crew have been awarded the "Key to New York"
It always used to be the keys to the city, must be something to do with the credit crisis. Will they have to share it?

[broadreach]

The Battery, New York Harbor, NY
15 January 2009 - 16 January 2009

40.7000° N, 74.0150° W

2009-01-15 05:14 EST -0.35 feet Low Tide
2009-01-15 07:17 EST Sunrise
2009-01-15 09:46 EST Moonset
2009-01-15 11:25 EST 4.82 feet High Tide
2009-01-15 16:53 EST Sunset
2009-01-15 17:46 EST -0.57 feet Low Tide
2009-01-15 22:35 EST Moonrise
2009-01-16 00:05 EST 4.72 feet High Tide
2009-01-16 06:09 EST 0.01 feet Low Tide
2009-01-16 07:17 EST Sunrise
2009-01-16 10:09 EST Moonset
2009-01-16 12:17 EST 4.43 feet High Tide
2009-01-16 16:54 EST Sunset
2009-01-16 18:37 EST -0.21 feet Low Tide
2009-01-16 23:41 EST Moonrise

[Setpoint99]

Re:
"I heard an eyewitness observing from an office window (next to the river) say the landing gear was down, 'just like a normal landing' " but the photo from Navigator33 shows wheels-up (at least at that altitude).

Accordingly, some questions from this non-pilot:

1. Is wheels-up or wheels-down generally advised for ditching airliners?

2. If wheels-down is indicated, is that intended to help absorb impact energy and (incrementally) reduce forward inertia upon the aircraft's contact with water, via wheels/gear shear-off?

3. Nonetheless, could there conceivably be a negative effect from ditching wheels-down? That is, would the wheels/gear tend to "hook in" to the water, pulling the nose down and under water, increasing deceleration rate (and injuries) and risk of fuselage breakup? Or could wheels/gear shear-off cause troublesome (sic) damage if the separated pieces then impact the aircraft elsewhere?

4. Conversely, if wheels-up is indicated, could ditching in such a clean configuration increase the probability of a smoother landing, assuming proper AOA being maintained? (I presume that there are no interlocks that would preclude deploying flaps/slats without gear-down.)

5. Of course, either way, the deceleration vector could be twisted by lack of bilateral symmetry in engine shear off, possibly causing fuselage breakup.)

6. Also, swell and wave height, and cross-wind gusting (if the PIC could not land into the wind), also would be factors, either way.

[BelArgUSA]

Ditching definitely performed gear UP for 707-727-747-DC8s...
Would be surprised to be any different for A320 or other airplanes.
xxx
:*
Happy contrails

[Double Zero]

Unless selecting gear down affects landing configuration such as flaps or throttle response, I'd be a lot more concerned about the underwing engine pods than the wheels - this one must be award winning material.

Remember what happened to the relatively clean, engines internal Nimrod R1 which ditched a while ago ? Broke in half, though I think everyone got out, and a Nimrod pilot I know reckoned that was a miracle !

[Super VC-10]

It was asked way back (about page 14) what type of geese they were. I don't know exactly what type they were, but can categorically state that they weren't Grumman Geese! :)

[DeDoyler]

Congrats to all the crew on board. :D As a frequent flyer I want to thank all crews for the magnificient job you do. It's only at times like these that we appreciate what you folks face each time you check-in for a flight. Hopefully lessons learned will be implemented and something can be done to mininise bird strikes. :ok:

[Ranger 1]

Great job all round, it appears the cabin crew held the last vital link to a safe outcome by making sure the correct doors were opened and not allowing the water in. :D

I wonder how many pax today decided to take serious look at the safety card & listen to the briefing today for a change?

[Double Zero]

Both unlucky & major nuisance variety ?

Major efforts are already made to keep birds away, ranging from 'bird vans' with loudspeakers & a variety of taped bird of prey sounds ( feathered type, not Klingon ) to shotguns.

Maybe something fancy & ultrasonic can be arranged, but knowing sod's law it would probably knobble fly-by-wire sooner than fly-by-evolution !

[in my last airline]

Brilliant job, can't wait to find out what flap he used and AoA (or pitch attitude) for touchdown, just to add to my databank! Would FBW have helped keep stability in this situation? Would it have been fully FBW on Standby power or APU GEN? I only ask as I heard a VA340 narrowly missed the sea in Hong Kong during a windshear GA and the airline attributed a lot of the recovery to the FBW getting max lift off the wings; also the Habsheim crash mentioned the FBW flying corrections throughout the crash! Flown 73's for nearly 20 years so could be talking crap!! Any offers?

PS I would have bought a Lotto ticket that day if I were the crew.

[Otto Nove Due]

I think we should rename this model the Airboat 320

[Raas767]

That captain is going to pick up every aviation award in the book and deservedly so! Fantastic airmanship! We will be reviewing this in recurrent ground school for years to come.
To bad the poor bugger had his pension stolen by greedy management...

[captjns]

To bad the poor bugger had his pension stolen by greedy management...

He won't need the pension from his greedy SOB execs.

Motivational speeches, book, and movie.:ok:

The man deserves all the rewards. In sense he is a true preserver of life... just like Al Haynes.:ok::D

[Machaca]

Branta canadensis (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Canada_Goose_dtl.html)

The most familiar and widespread goose in North America, the Canada Goose can be found in all kinds of water all across the continent, from the tundra to the Gulf Coast. Some populations have become resident in urban areas, and are now coming into conflict with people.
Size: 76-110 cm (30-43 in)
Wingspan: 127-170 cm (50-67 in)
Weight: 3000-9000 g (105.9-317.7 ounces)http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/800px-Canada_goose_flight_cropped_a.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_goose_flight_cropped_and_NR.jpg

[OlaM]

This kid did his part.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2wdulbr.jpg

ARE YOU DOING YOURS?

[V2-OMG!]

The powers that be keep booting my posts from this thread. I guess they didn't like my TIC comments. (Sorry, but after it became clear that there was no loss of life, I do like to make people laugh. Obviously, that is a crime in this "professional" forum.)

I will never be anything more than a weekend pilot, but I am a frequent passenger on many carriers. This year's assignments will take me to Alaska, Vietnam, Thailand, and Washington, D.C.

No doubt I have been sitting behind many of the pilots who have replied to this forum and will continue to do so.

If your so-very-serious input here will embolden your professionalism...more power to you. I am not offended by the moderator's propensity to boot my comments.

I will just sit by and watch while accumulating those air miles....on and off the ground, so to speak.

[aguadalte]

This is really a great piece of airmanship work and although cabin crew deserve a word of gratitude (their work was also so important to evacuate all passengers alive!) I must tell you that, I am fascinated by the great job, done on the cockpit.
Yesterday I went to bed still frilled by the outcome of that accident and I have tried to make the exercise of positioning myself in the seat of that captain...it wasn't easy, I must concede. Those who are not pilots and are not familiar with flying a powerless A320 have no idea of the complexity of handling that "glider" (together with the completion of check-lists and the handling of the situation with the chief purser, ATC and Pax.). In the flight Simulator, at Green Dot Speed, one gets a rate of descent of approximately 1800/2200' per minute and the the simple fact of trying to "recover" about five Knots, for instance, will result in the increase of that rate to 2500/2800' sometimes 3000' per minute! Further, as far as I remember, one would be receiving partial hydraulic power trough windmilling and the RAT (minimum speed for power 140Kts) so Slats/Flaps selection would have to be done with parsimony, (at the right altitude, to allow for profile upsets) would come slowly and would influence not only the profile itself, but the Flight Controls behavior also...
Flight Simulators seem to be not prepared for the training of ditching maneuvers, therefore we usually train double engine failures (sometimes with ditching preparation) and subsequent landing on a field witch require planning for touching down on the first segment of the runway. In the present Hudson River case, the "runway" was long, but time was short. No time for mistakes, no second chance for a perfect landing.
They have done well. More than that, they have restored faith on our profession!
Congratulations on a Job Well Done.

Fly Safe
Água d'Alte

[Ranger 1]

Only a few options for taking care of this character and other Wildfowl.

1. Habitat Management, stop the lovies building ponds & lakes within you Bird Circle, also at your airport to keep planners happy.

2. Avoid building airports near lakes rivers and the sea. (recent new London airport proposal :ugh:

3. Biological control of the population removing eggs treating eggs with chemicals, etc.

4. Plot movement of flocks, roosting sites, warn aircraft via BIRDTAM / NOTAM.

5. If encountered on your airfield and they won't move Shoot the :mad: things.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Unfortunately our Head of Training doesn't believe in multiple failures even after out double flamout at CIA in November. All TRI/E's scared to give any 'extra' training as it would result in instant dismissal from the training department. Bollox ha?

It has nothing to do with your HoT, or any other HoT for that matter. No aviaition authority accounts for multiple failures otherwise there would be no ETOPs!

They work on statistical probability and the likelihood of a multiple failure and accept that the probability is so low that multiples are discounted.

The fact that 2 occur in 2 months does not necessarily mean that another will happen, or not happen, in N years.

Maybe they will re - examine the probabilities though and suddenly 3 and 4 jets will become popular as ETOPs restrictions build up.

[choppercopper 99]

Well :mad: me, it’s been proved it can be done.
I take my hat off to the crew, VERY well done!!!!! I hope you enjoy the beers tonight.
My congratulations goes to all the crew, Captain, First Officer & Cabin crew. NOT just the Captain as the media have done. It was a great team effort!!
:D:D:D:D:D

WELL DONE:ok:

[snowfalcon2]

From NTSB home page:

The National Transportation Safety Board will hold a press briefing today at 4:00 p.m., (EST) on its investigation into the crash of a US Airways Airbus A-320 into the Hudson River in New York City. NTSB Member Kitty Higgins will conduct the briefing.

That would be 9:00PM UTC time, if I'm not completely wrong.

[dicksorchard]

Some good passenger interviews to be found on CNN .This one was recorded within 20 minutes of incident .

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=int&vid=/video/us/2009/01/15/bpr.ny.plane.passenger.panero.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>


pretty good description of landing by witness

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=int&vid=/video/us/2009/01/15/bpr.ny.plane.passenger.weiner.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

How to survive a crash ?

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=int&vid=/video/us/2009/01/16/am.feyerick.crash.survival.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

[londonmet]

I thought that is was just the captain and the captain alone that saved the day? To be honest the captain is going to take control as he has the most experience. He should get all the credit IMHO.

Glad it wasn't at night or onto a busier river.

L Met

[drdino]

kudos to everyone who made it possible to talk cheerfully about an accident :cool:

A small idea for Airbus' new promotional campaign:
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4567/asdpo7.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=asdpo7.jpg)

[fireflybob]

Just watched the TV news - the bit I really liked was the passenger relating that one of the flight crew gave him his shirt off his back so he could stay warm - that's what I call devotion to duty. It's amazing what human beings can do when faced with adversity.

I think everyone involved can hold their heads up high - let's also bear in mind the emergency services who were on the scene within minutes. Watching the diver jump in from the chopper in record time was fantastic. All the boats that rushed to help - also the air traffic controllers who were onto it within seconds.

[Robert Campbell]

NYC Mayor Bloomberg was passing out medals and commendations this morning and mentioned that airliners are NOT gliders. Then he stated that they had a glide ratio of about 1:1 and that the pilot did a remarkable job considering...

Someone should clue him in.:ugh:

[Bondgirl78]

i think it is amazing that the pilot landed the plane so perfectly! Well done to him and his crew!:D

On another note its a bit worrying that so many of you pilots are shocked that his attempt was sucessful. I am just a normal girl from the uk who has a facination with plane crashes as i am so shat scared of the dam things!! I fly but i HATE IT! I am obsessed with air crash investigation and am aware that this is one of the only succesful landings in water. The ethiopian plane broke up in the sea and yes there were survivors, but also many fatalities. So my fears are correct cause not even you guys are convinced that if you had to land in the water , that you would make it!! I hope this has given you some faith!:rolleyes:

Hell will i ever get over this fear! No friggin way!:}

[choppercopper 99]

So the FO was sat there twiddling his thumbs then? He wasn't part of the multi crew cockpit? Like I said, TEAM effort!!!:ok:

[Tonka Toy]

Do we know who was pilot handling? As with the BA 777 we may well end up with a great captain running the show and a great F/O doing his skipper and everyone else proud.

And the cabin crew, -well they're always superstars!

Difference with the ethiopian crew was that they had a nut in the flight deck with them trying to kill them all as I recall.

Bondgirl78, whatever you do, don't take up quantitative methods!!!!!! - You'll never go out again!!

Ditching - keep it clean save for flap if you need it and land along the crest of the swell. those are the two fundamentals!

[er340790]

Well, IF it was multiple birdstrikes esp our old Canada Goose friends, don't forget that these creatures weight in at up to 20-24 lbs and fly in formations numbering hundreds. Even allowing for some over-engineering, an engine certified to survive an impact with a 4 lb bird (frozen or unfrozen!) is going to stand no chance.

Statistically, such strikes always have been and always will be just a matter of time....

I take my hat off to all concerned. Let this be a lesson in 'what went right'. :D

[Halfnut]

Off another board -

Air Fare to Caribbean resort during the coldest day of the year $10
1st bag fee $25
2nd bag fee $50
Pretzels and a soda on board $10

Pilot that just saved your @$$ so you could live to enjoy another day!!!!!!!!!!!!! Priceless

A message from you local airline pilot union. :ok:

[fireflybob]

I believe I am correct in saying that a reason for many of the fatalities on the Ethiopian ditching is that passengers inflated their life jackets before they attempted to exit the aircraft contrary to all safety briefings.

I thought these comments on facebook were very apt:-

Original Thought (http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=50021500839&page=13&hash=ac4fc85a7acfa3dea96d6474a4089321#/topic.php?uid=50021500839&topic=6783)

[dicksorchard]

Sorry about previous post - cannot embed links to videos so that they work correctly .

Just go to CNN and look for these tiltles on the list of videos .

Witness describes rescue (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/16/passenger.accounts/index.html#) Adam Weiner office worker speaks to Wolf Blitzer good description of landing

Passenger heard a 'loud bang' (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/16/passenger.accounts/index.html#) Interview with Albert Panero passenger recorded within 15 minutes of incident

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/video/us/2009/01/16/am.feyerick.crash.survival.cnn.88x49.jpg (http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/01/16/am.feyerick.crash.survival.cnn?iref=videosearch)
Surviving a plane crash (http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/01/16/am.feyerick.crash.survival.cnn?iref=videosearch) CNN's Deborah Feyerick looks at how to survive a plane crash.

[Kileleni]

Haven't read every reply on this thread, but I'm a bit fed up with every news bulletin praising "The Pilot".

Excuse my ignorance, but perhaps you aviators can elighten me; Does this aircraft type not have two pilots, and in such an emergency, would they not both be working as hard / skillfully as each other to deliver the result ?

[Greek God]

The details will eventually emerge and undoubtedly the whole crew deserves the plaudits. It would have been a complicated and busy time for the crew but if in a double engine failure and no apu the aircraft would have on emerg elec config power (RAT) and only the LHS instrumentation would have been working so I would expect the LHS to have been flying. The RHS would have been equally busy and in this case was integral in the successful outcome of any pilots worst scenario, as were the cabin crew in the aftermath.
My respect and compliments
GG

[Flightlevel001]

Yes, the Captain's a hero...

First Officer had a day off did he? They were a CREW and no-one in the media seems to recognise this!

Not only that but the Cabin Crew must be praised for managing the evacuation in those conditions!

They are ALL heros, not just him. :ugh:

[Cretan Airbus]

Another factor in the Ethiopian ditching incident was that the hijackers were in the cockpit and grabbed the yoke just prior to splashdown. The result was that a wing caught the water first, which greatly worsened the impact and undoubtedly prevented many of the passengers from evacuating. And as we know, it didn't help that many of them inflated their life jackets before exiting the aircraft as the cabin filled with water.

Cretan

[kontrolor]

as some idiots are proposing here - yes, let's nuke the damn things flying into our habitat! let's kill all the animals, and put an asphalt to their sanctuaries, so nothing of this sort happens again.
:ugh:

[kontrolor]

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5248/crashmainxf1.jpg

someone didn't pay attention to flight attendant's preflight safety mumbo-jumbo...

[Pugilistic Animus]

Excellent Job :ok:

the punters also got a real NY welcome;)

also this was a great learning experience for all-planes are cute:}

ETOPS:ouch:

edited to say: I put on ashes and sackcloth in regards to some of my prior comments about Airbus that ditching switch is ingenious

PA

[RobertS975]

ACARS wrote: "PPRUNE has just over 7000 people logged on. Looks like highest ever."

I don't know... I know that after BA 038 landed short at LHR, there were many times that one could not even log on to PPRUNE.

There were many blessings with this incident... first, that it occurred during daylight hours. (Do geese even fly at night?) Second, the weather (wind, visibility etc.) was relatively benign. And third, if one HAD to ditch an airliner into 40 degree F water, there probably is not a better place in the world than New York Harbor... the site was crawling with boats, both civilian as well as FDNY, NYPD and USCG within minutes.

[ACCP]

I agree with the above: it's the whole crew that's involved and they all deserve full credit for doing a superb job, especially the cabin crew for the evacuation.

As regards all the hype about "the pilot" savings so many lives... I'm sorry to say that if something similar were to happen to me, the motivating force as far as I'm concerned, would be to save my own skin. It so happens that in performing such a skillful trick as a successful ditching, everyone else has a chance to get out alive too. But as I would be trying to keep the wings level in the middle of the river watching the speed bleed off, I wouldn't be thinking "I've got 155 people sitting in the back, I'd better get this one right..." I would be trying just as hard if I were on my own.

So, forget the hero pilot thing, but praise the skill and be thankful for good luck.

[kayger12]

Anybody see this pick yet?

It's on the good Captain's fan page on Facebook. Not sure of authenticity.

Photos from Fans of Sully Sullenberger! | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1765597&id=577537095&op=1&view=all&subj=56710389492&aid=-1&oid=56710389492)

[RobertS975]

There is no 10 knot current in the Hudson... that is about as fast as the rapids on a rafting river! The Hudson River by NYC is a tidal estuary, current a couple of knots as most.

[2engop]

Fogive me if this has all ready been asked, but does anyone know if the gear was up or down? I would assume the flaps were fully extended.
It would be very interesting to know exactly how they accomplished such a perfect ditching.

[Rananim]

Seems this ditching switch was quite a life-saver.Saved the crew from securing aircraft by memory and allowed them to concentrate on flying the thing.In a more conventional aircraft,they would have had to flip a few switches from memory.Forget one(outflow valve or aural warn cb) and the outcome may have been quite different.I dont normally say this,but Airbus score a point here.Nice design feature.

[gasbag1]

ACCP,

I suspect you are not a professional pilot given your post. I think the last one to think he was a hero were any of the pilots or the Flight Attendants.

Pilots make extremely important decisions every flight, some as in this , life and death. Quite obviously the Captain and F/O made the best decision given their situation.

It's not about saving ones rear....

[flyin_phil]

there was a pic on tv earlier that someone took from an office or somewhere i guess just before it ditched where it looks like the gear was up. can i ask the pilots, would that be a standard procedure if 1) you had time and 2) you knew u would have to make a ditching? maybe that helped the flotation? congratulations to all the crew on board, wether its the flight deck, or in the cabin, they all did their jobs in great professionalism and thats what we are here to do.
im currently training for cabin crew at easyjet, and just the day before we were learning about emergency senarios including ditching. i can look at this, and learn what can be done. well done to all crew.

[Dysag]

Your post raises the touchy subject of how brainy the A320 is compared with brand B.

Two elements have already been mentioned: stall protection and the ditching button.

Whilst the 737 is a robust old dear, the thousands of best-brain manhours that went into making the A320 a "better mousetrap" appear to be showing.

[RJM]

SLF and non-engineer, but I recall seeing photos showing hemispherical (anti-bird?) grilles fitted over the intakes of the fragile jet engines of Me 262 fighters. Any application to modern jets?

Also, pilot of Air Canada 143 B767-200 who made a deadstick landing with no fuel was a glider pilot as in this case.

[con-pilot]

In every aircraft that I have ever flown (and trust me, that is a lot) that had a retractable landing gear, all water landings, ditching, is with gear up. Flaps and leading edge devices down, degrees depends on type of aircraft, but gear up, always.

[Bondgirl78]

i wont give up my fight!! LOL! :=:E If i dont fly how rubbish would life be!

However!! IT ONLY TAKES A FEW BIRDS! I MEAN BIRDS CAN BRING A PLANE DOWN LIKE THAT! THATS SCARY SHAT MAN! I HATE IT I HATE IT!:\:sad:

Ok enough of my irrational brain... i think that pilot is awesome!:ok:

[pls8xx]

Getting that plane down in one piece demonstrated the exceptional skills of the pilots. But that was all it was; some damn good flying.

A hero is one that knowingly places himself at risk to come to the aid of others. Captain Sullenberger stayed on the plane after the others exited and waded through ice water one more time to insure everyone was off. Surely he knew that the danger of hypothermia, and the chance that the plane might go down, put him at great risk. That made him a hero.

[David Roberts]

Apologies to start - I am not an ATPL. I haven't read all this thread but there seems to be little reference to the Captain's experience as a glider pilot / instructor, reported (from FAA records) on the NY Times website and elsewhere.

Whilst of course a professional ATPL would have the training and procedures for a ditching, maybe that added experience of flying 'sans moteur' helped him to be less fazed? Most (private) power pilots I know think it a real challenge if the fan stops. We glider pilots consider there is less to go wrong without an engine!

But maybe the Captain drew on his gliding experience, not least in having an intuitive sense of the glide slope enabling him to assess rapidly his options, the hold off at the right speed etc. And particularly keeping wings absolutely level without loooking at the panel (what was left working!). Interesting, the Gimli episode pilot was also a glider pilot, as was the guy who got to the Azores (? I think) when out of fuel en route from Canada, spotting a dead stick landing at an island military base after a glide from some 35,000 ft or so over the Atlantic

Just my penniesworth.

Oh, and I hear the CAA is considering compulsoary gliding courses for ATPLs. Should solve the recession problem for gliding clubs.:)

Anyway, as others say, brilliant piloting.

[White Knight]

Dysag - in Direct Law (which it would be with both engines flamed out) you CAN STALL AN AIRBUS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[White Knight]

David Roberts - it's actually quite easy for us 'Avec moteur' pilots to fly wings level without looking at the panel, and the speed to fly (not bothering to refer to my QRH) would be green dot clean and whatever (generally) the bug is on the PFD... Also a 'birdy' told me what flightpath angle to fly...Et voila..

Not just the Airbus that has 'ditching' Pb, I seem to recall having one on the venerable Avro RJ...

[normally right blank]

Why are you knocking the mayor? (apart from the 1:1 gliding ratio). He mentions the whole crew, when he offers the "keys". One of the passengers interviewed: We went faster and faster. I'm pretty sure they went slower and slower.

[flying macaco]

Apologies if this has already been posted:

BBC NEWS | World | A pilot's eye view of NY crash flight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7834499.stm)

A computer generated simulation of the flight.

Well done all crew. Maybe those whistles on the life jackets will come in handy one day after all.

[lomapaseo]

CNN just ran a video clip of the aircraft making what appear to be a turn to line up with the river.

Might add something to the discussion.

Also see thread in this forum about Hero pilots "why is that?" more comments from CNN with questions

[nahsuD]

Why are you knocking the mayor? (apart from the 1:1 gliding ratio). He mentions the whole crew, when he offers the "keys". One of the passengers interviewed: We went faster and faster. I'm pretty sure they went slower and slower.

The closer to the ground (OK, water in this case) you are, the faster it seems....

[White Knight]

Referring to post 404 - the engine pods are designed to shear off during ditching.. At least that's the plan..

[Coyote44]

No ditching button/s on any Boeing up to 747-400 as far as I know, dunno about the later kites like the 777, etc.

[snowfalcon2]

Is it sent live on Internet somewhere?

[adhc2]

Those pilots did a hellva job if those guys don,t have float endorsments I,d personally sign them off.

[alexmcfire]

Dysag


Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 63
Posts: 94 Rananim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post raises the touchy subject of how brainy the A320 is compared with brand B.

Two elements have already been mentioned: stall protection and the ditching button.

Whilst the 737 is a robust old dear, the thousands of best-brain manhours that went into making the A320 a "better mousetrap" appear to be showing.
[Quote]
Well, one thing I miss on both the B737 and A320 is the ability to fueldump,
so it´s surely room for improvements.

[captainkangaroo]

They probably started the APU, so they would have had all systems including all the flight computers so it would have been in Normal Law (if the APU was running).

[Dairyground]

Frequent SLF here, with a few comments in response to several earlier posts.

I recall from a few years ago travelling on some US domestic flights where the safety card said that the seat cushions were the only personal flotation devices, and that they were designed with straps through which one should insert ones arms. Perhaps USAir takes this approach.

I am fairly sure that BA safety cards, on some types at least, warn against attempting to open doors that are not clear of the water.

From fairly recent experience of ferry trips round New York and Victoria, Canada, and watching float planes taking off and landing in Victoria, it seems probable that water conditions on the Hudson would have been well withing limits for float plane operation. Perhaps this was a positive factor in the USAir success.

Is sea state taken into account designing (land) aircraft hulls for ditching survivability? If so, what limits are used?

[Boeing Junkie]

Probe Into New York Plane Crash In Hudson River Begins: Hero Pilot Chesley Sullenberger Yet To Talk | World News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Probe-Into-New-York-Plane-Crash-In-Hudson-River-Begins-Hero-Pilot-Chesley-Sullenberger-Yet-To-Talk/Article/200901315204604?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15204604_Probe_Into_New_York_Plane_Crash_In_Huds on_River_Begins%3A_Hero_Pilot_Chesley_Sullenberger_Yet_To_Ta lk)

SLF here. I have nothing but admiration for the guys up front and I really don't think that Sky need to be sensationalising the story tabloid fashion, just because they've exhausted all the other angles. :=

The crew did a great job, end of story. :D

If alternatives were rejected, then IMO they were probably rejected to avoid crashing into densely populated areas and minimising any loss of life or collateral damage.

I look forward to the NTSB report and no doubt the ensuing episode of Air Crash Investigation explaining what happened.

[alexmcfire]

Bondgirl78


Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: LONDON . UK.
Posts: 3 wow

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i think it is amazing that the pilot landed the plane so perfectly! Well done to him and his crew!

On another note its a bit worrying that so many of you pilots are shocked that his attempt was sucessful. I am just a normal girl from the uk who has a facination with plane crashes as i am so shat scared of the dam things!! I fly but i HATE IT! I am obsessed with air crash investigation and am aware that this is one of the only succesful landings in water. The ethiopian plane broke up in the sea and yes there were survivors, but also many fatalities. So my fears are correct cause not even you guys are convinced that if you had to land in the water , that you would make it!! I hope this has given you some faith!

Hell will i ever get over this fear! No friggin way!
[Quote]
You´re wrong, there been plenty of ditchings that ended up like this one.

[etesting2000]

Both engines gone, lift tomorrow 1000 EST

[foxcharliep2]

Saw the news this morning 0100 UTC/0900 Local in Beijing while putting on the uniform for the return flight to Europe.

Couldn't believe what I saw - gave me goosebumps.

Have seen details and interviews and more details today after landing home. Still unbeliveable. Compares to the AF A-340 accident & evacuation in YYZ.

Great airmanship and professionalism by the crew. My respect goes out to the crew of the US Airways A-320, especially Cpt. Sullenberger, PIC.

Very well done.

My "after landing" cigar today was smoked in honour of that fine crew.

fcp2

[PBY]

I am not sure, if anybody mentioned it yet, as I did not read the whole thread. I used to fly and teach floats in Canada. The best and smoothiest landings on the river were the ones with the current and into the wind. Both reduce your water speed at touchdown. Lets say that your current is 20 knots running with you and your headwind is 10 knots against you, your water speed at touchdown is going to be 30 knots less, than it would be under no current and no wind conditions. I think that they mentioned, that the aircraft was drifting south during the rescue operation. But that river is tidal, mind you, so it could have been running the other way or be stationary at the time of the ditching. I am not sure about the tidal conditions around New York. I am also not sure of the wind conditions, but judging by takeoffs from La Guardia to the north, the winds would be favourable. Extra 30 knots slow down is very valuable in landings on the water. If you double the speed in the air, you have 4 times the drag. But if you double the speed on the water, you have 8 times the drag.
Anyway, excellent job! I would be happy to sign the guy off!

[Halfnut]

NTSB press conference going on right now and the spokeswoman says neither engine is attached to the aircraft. They are currently using side scanning sonar in the Hudson River looking for the wayward power plants.

[PBY]

Sorry, I made one mistake. The winds would probably not be favourable, as they most likely had little bit of tailwind.

[Blink182]

Excellent job by the whole crew .............on another subject altogether..............How long before the Port of New York Authority get around to charging USairways with pollution of the Hudson River ??? something like 10 tonnes fuel must have been onboard ........

[smith]

Being pedantic here and the outcome was good but was it wise for the pax to stand on the wings? Remember the plane had just taken off so there was a whole lot of fuel in there and there must have been some structural damage to the tanks after the ditching. I guess it was the best of two evils really, stay with the chance of being fireballed or jump with the chance of hypothermia and/or drowning.

Also once the hull had been secured, would it not have been prudent to enter the cabin and strategically place some large inflation bags ensuring the hull wouldn't sink?

Just a few points I have mooted with myself and p.s. my previous post about landing closer to the embankment was just an example of black humour us pilots revel in.

[PJ2]

RobertS975
(Do geese even fly at night?)
Yes, they do.

Also, there is a myth which persists still, that turning on the radar will somehow help prevent a birdstrike. This is false. The landing lights may be of limited use for bird avoidance at night0 and in cloud. which birds will fly in at departure and arrival altitudes.

A very good source for wide information this can be found at:

TP 13549 - Sharing the Skies (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/AerodromeAirNav/Standards/WildlifeControl/tp13549/menu.htm)

A good reason to obey the 250kt speed limit below 10k ASL and 200 kts within 5nm, (it's below 3k and within 10nm in Canada). The "per-squared law" works in perhaps unexpected ways unless one really thinks about it...a 10lb bird at 180kts has some "give" in terms of "splat-ness" - in other words, the impact loads will be "distributed" over a slightly wider area, (obviously limited to the bird's frontal print presented to the impact area to the aircraft), but at higher speeds, the pliability/plasticity of flesh is much tinier simply because it can't catch up to the speed of impact and is therefore a very hard, pointy source of energy with extremely high loads concentrated in a much smaller area of the airframe/windshield/engine, etc.

There is indeed a very good argument for obeying the speed limits below 10 and below 3.

Wonderful airmanship demonstrated in the decision-making and the controlled ditching not to mention the energy-management and timing to reduce speed, keeping in mind pitch attitude and (again) the "frontal presentation" of the airplane to an (initially) very hard water surface - tail not too low, wings level etc.

A fine lesson by a fine professional.

PJ2

[captainkangaroo]

I wonder what else they will find at the bottom of the Hudson?

[ExSp33db1rd]

p.s. my previous post about landing closer to the embankment was just an example of black humour us pilots revel in.


I'll believe you.

[xxgunnerxx]

Actually the aircraft did not have a lot of fuel and most likely in the wings only. Since the wings were mostly in the water with exactly would the fuel react in order to start a fire? Even if there was a fire it wouldn't last long - lots of water.

[White Knight]

captainkangaroo - a quote from 330 FCOM3 (similar I would think to 320)

Direct Law - The sidestick is directly coupled to the controls via the COMPUTERS, but without any of the stabilization feedbacks. In effect, this turns the aircraft into a conventional aircraft, but is compensated for configuration and CG...

Turning the APU on does not give you normal law when you have a dual engine flame-out.. You'll have one of the Alternate Laws at best (and Alternate Law does not offer the same protections as Normal Law - it's also possible to stall the aircraft in Alternate Law), and when you push the Land Recovery it goes to Direct Law (with the gear selected down - although being a ditching case it's a little different)..Remember you will be lacking hydraulic power except for the feeble output of the RAT.. I could delve deeper but I really don't see the point.

Even at Emergency Electrical Config you'll still have Prim1 and both Secs (again I'm assuming a similarity with 330/340)

[river7]

From what we hear and see:
the pilots: what can one say?
the cabin crew: getting the pax out in an orderly fashion
the pax: keeping their cool
and those ferries: on scene in under 2 min, and apparently efficient and well organized
(just keeping station in currents and not creating a big marine pile-up must take considerable skill...)
And I always liked the A320 anyway.Thank you all!


PS. I am possibly one, but what is an SLF?

[framer]

Being pedantic here and the outcome was good but was it wise for the pax to stand on the wings?
In my opinion it was very wise. It would be a brave and possibly stupid Captain/First Officer/ Cabin Crew member who ordered pax into the river with a water temp of about 5 degrees C . Everyone involved would already be going into shock, some probably can't even swim. For a fit person the 'exhaustion time' is about 20mins at that temp and expected survival time of 30-90 mins. For a mix of ages, health levels, possibly injured pax it would have risked turning a very successful ditching into a tragedy.

[OneDotLow]

and those ferries: on scene in under 2 min, and apparently efficient and well organized

This just absolutely, positively, could not conceivably be anything else other than another Yank conspiracy, just like 9/11 and the shooting of JFK, yeah? :hmm:


Seriously though, well done to the crew for such an amazing job under the most difficult of conditions!

[Selfloading]

PS. I am possibly one, but what is an SLF?Self Loading Freight, passengers in other words :ok:

[mercurydancer]

The captain's perception to ditch somewhere the chances of immediate recovery are high is to be applauded.

I'm not a pilot but the ditching appears to have taken considerable skill - getting rid of the energy whilst not stalling takes real airmanship.

Cabin crew orgainsing an orderly and panic-free disembarkation is risky conditions is no mean feat. I would imagine that the immersion survival time in the Hudson in this time of year is not much more than a very few minutes.

Trebles all round!

[lomapaseo]

Referring to post 404 - the engine pods are designed to shear off during ditching.. At least that's the plan..

Not necessarily true

They are designed to shear off below the wing box under any circumstances of excessive loading.

Under some ditchings they may survive while under others they will shear off, just like for catastrophies of any kind.

[uncle_maxwell]

In response to The Real Slim Shady's post, a little excursion into probability theory. Assume the risk of one engine failure is x (say 1 basis point or 1 in 10,000 flights). If the events of engine number 1 failing *and* engine no. 2 failing are independent, then the probability of 2 engine failures at the same time is 1bp x 1bp which is 10^(-8) or 1 in 100 million.

The assumptions of both events being independent is incorrect IMHO for several reasons:
1. Birdstrikes: self explanatory really. Flock of birds has high likelihood of damaging both engines, confirmed by NY and Ryanair Ciampino incident.
2. Fuel system: BA038 comes to mind. Let there be a central systemic failure in the fuel supply and the probability of both engines being affected is again quite high.
3. Pilot error / human performance: If one thing goes wrong and you have systems failing, the probability of further errors down the line increases dramatically. (Stress, shock, unknown or rarely practiced situation, sudden loss of instruments etc.) Example here is pilots shutting down the good engine after engine fire and letting the other one burn. They say it has happened...
4. Volcanic ash - another sweet piece of anecdotal evidence (and excellent airmanship).

To make a long story short, you have to use *conditional* probability, i.e. the probability of you losing engine no.2 *given* that you have lost engine no. 1. I would argue that when using the concept of conditional probability, the chance of having multiple engine failure is suddenly much higher in quantitative terms.

For example, I would estimate that given you have lost one engine due to a flock of birds, the probability of losing the other engine as well is somewhere between 10 and 50%. (Which would be astronomical dimensions greater than the chance of having a birdstrike in the first place.)

Three events of multiple engine failures in less than two years (BA, Ryanair and US Airways) - those are only the ones I am aware of - *is* statistically significant. Especially given that all of them were in critical phases of flight and rather close to disaster...

I would suggest every airline and aviation authority and sim instructor should include multiple engine failure (especially at low altitude, after t/o and before landing) into their standard training program.

I think the different air forces around the world have done so for decades already...

[theamrad]

Yet again the b vs. a has popped up - with at least two posts suggesting it wouldn't have happened so with a Boeing - BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

Without a hint or suggestion from any official source yet, and despite the logic presented much earlier in the thread - it seems the (so far) unfounded singular hero worship of the captain alone has resurfaced here, as well as being continually regurgitated in the media. Despite the fact that no-one here yet knows WHO was the handling pilot??? I'm thinking 'so much for CRM'!

Another occurance of power off glide on a transport category jet:
Garuda Indonesia, Jan 16 2002. Descending in wx, dual flameout, unsuccesful relight attempts, clear below 8,000 feet and glide to a succesful ditch in the Bengawan Solo river (which is a tadd narrower than the Hudson Rv). One fatality - seemingly not related to the forced landing itself...............Oh for the benefit of the a vs. b proponents - it was a B733 ...... and it didn't disintegrate.

[MSAW_CFIT]

Both engines missing according to BBC 10pm news.

Makes it a bit more tricky for the NTSB.

Probably contributed to the buoyancy of the aircraft.

[reventor]

As a SLF, I find it hard to get an understanding of exactly how "miraculous" this accident was. I can certainly appreciate the relief and admiration expressed in this thread, but it would be highly interesting to get a sense of the probability of a happy ending such as this one.

Repeating the incident (from engine failure), how many times out of a hundred would the plane come down with no fatalities?
Would the numbers be very different with an "average" flight crew, assuming Sully & FO pulled off something quite out of the ordinary?


The nature of the questions obviously implies ballpark estimates at best, but that easily beats my unfounded stabs in the dark.

[Cloth Ears]

:sad:Where are you Doug Parker and all the US Airways board .. bestowing the wonders of your crew ????????


Utter Shambles .. cos we have not heard from you yet !!!!

:= :ugh::sad:

[egbt]

Fogive me if this has all ready been asked, but does anyone know if the gear was up or down? I would assume the flaps were fully extended.

I am reliably informed that after a dual engine failure flaps will not be fully extended due to loss of engine driven hydraulic pumps.

[airfoilmod]

That the Brass at US err is patiently deferring all attention to the crew.

egbt: to paraphrase the Press, I think the crew left LG "off".....

[precept]

NTSB spokesperson gave extensive briefing this afternoon. Next briefing tomorrow afternoon. From memory, items I picked up from briefing (criticize as you like, it is only my memory)

* Aircraft is docked along the shore. It has been inspected by divers. Conditions are very difficult for inspection.

* Cabin crew being interviewed by NTSB today. Air controllers also being interviewed today. Interview of witnesses and passengers has begun. Search of photographic and other data from government and other sources is in process.

* Flight crew to be interviewed from tomorrow morning.

* Recorders could not be recovered today. NTSB plan is to have contractors lift aircraft onto a barge before 1000 local tomorrow morning.

* Once secured on barge, data recorders will be recovered.

* Aircraft will then be taken to 'undisclosed' secure location for further investigation.

* Both engines are not attached to the aircraft. Both engines were attached prior to imact with Hudson river. Side looking sonar searches being conducted in the Hudson river by authorities.

* Once engines are found and recovered, they will be taken to an as yet undisclosed secure location for further investigation. NTSB believes that should bird strike evidence exist, it can be extracted from residual DNA.

Much other preliminaries discussed during the televised news conference this afternoon. Again, I am only reporting what I heard. It may already be available on other internet sources.

One thing is clear though. The NTSB is heavily focused on this accident to learn from what went right. They stated that often they have to focus on what went wrong. This is an opportunity for them to learn. Much more information available but will stop here.

[broadreach]

Cloth Ears, I wouldn't read too much into that. He did give a brief declaration yesterday and he's probably wise to stay low profile and let the crew take the glory on behalf of crews everywhere. Had there been fatalities I'm sure the profile would have been more visible.

[stadedelafougere]

Engine loss seemed to have happened during climb so flaps were propably partially extended.

I am relieved to see that the engine pylon pins sheared off; looks like for once reality matches with the theory.

The conditions for ditching were probably good and that's why everyone on board got out of this plane alive.

The press seams to emphasize on pilot's behaviour (and thumbs up for him); he asked passengers to "brace for a hard impact" but if i'm right, that's part of the ditching proc...

[golfyankeesierra]

On the link below a photo of a succesfull ditching that happened to a Dutch Navy Breguet Atlantique in the North Sea in the 70's.
Look at the bent props; some indication of the stress on the plane during a ditching:

Ditched Breguet Atlantique (http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/heron/209/breguetk.jpg)

[racedo]

Cloth ears - Senior management have to be very careful how they react after a crash even when, as it appears here the flight crew are the heroes.

IF when the NTSB / Airbus / Airline conduct their preliminary work into an accident and find that it was pilot error then the same senior management get lambasted for praising and honouring the crew too early.

Better to be careful and find the real story rather than relying on TV and provide the medical and other support immediately after the crash.

I expect the Crew to get sufficiently lauded in the weeks to come BUT in the post crash euphoria better for them to be careful, praise them for a job well done But do nothing that damages the airline.

[Lost in Saigon]

Engine loss seemed to have happened during climb so flaps were probably partially extended.


I don't think so.

Yes, the engine damage most likely occurred during the climb, BUT they continued to climb all the way to approximately 3400 feet.

I would expect that proper Standard Operating procedures would have had them clean up and retract the flaps long before reaching 3400 feet. This would have been done even if one or both engines were damaged.

I also expect that at least one engine had at least partial power all the way down to the flare and that it was not a "dead Stick" landing. In that situation, most aircraft systems would have been operational.

[vanHorck]

lost in saigon

why do you think there was still partial power in one of the engines?

I cannot remember any fact to this effect having been published

Earlier on in this thread there was a request, based on known altitudes and speeds as published on this thread for a 320 bus pilot to evaluate at what point power was apparently known to have been lost but unfortunately no one replied.

It seems clear that at 3200 ft there was at least insufficient power to sustain level flight and descent commenced.

There has been (an unsubstantiated) suggestion the plane's APU would have been on during take off because of de-icing prior to take off. I understand this delivers (some) hydraulic pressure to allow flap deployment.

perhaps a bus pilot can see from the pics if flaps were deployed. I remember at least one poster claiming they were in the TO position but I do not know if he was a bus flyer

[Minimbah]

In other threads there is often an argument that people who build near airports should not complain about the noise as the airport was there first. In this particular case, the geese were there before the aircraft so maybe we should look a bit harder at how to detect large flocks of birds on the wing.

[protectthehornet]

I would think that walking through the cabin to verify all had exited would be done by any captain and not just a hero.

I would think that anyone who had ever flown(as a pilot) into any airport near a huge city with waterways/rivers/lakes/bays/oceans had at least considered the possibility of ditching on takeoff or landing there. In the USA, I've flown out of SFO, BOS, DCA, LGA and many other near water airports....its in the back of my head always. I am sure 90percent of the airline pilots out there could have done as good a job as the crew which actually did the job. I would have been more worried out of Midway!!! (MDW)

Getting out and onto the wings was the best possible course of action. I am very puzzled why anyone would attempt to open the aft doors...but panic can make mistakes happen.

I encourage everyone to actually read the little briefing cards in the seat pocket ahead of you. They tell you , in picture form, almost everything you need to know about ditching.

USAIR's planes are all equiped with life vests beneath the seats.

The life raft *(slide) has a lanyard (rope)to anchor the raft to the plane or something else and a knife to cut it loose!

Ditching switch...great idea...but in the time it took me to type this sentance I could have : closed the outflow valve, turned off the bleeds, and the other things that would help you stay afloat...on douglas or boeing aircraft. and on the douglas, it would be closed by a direct cable, not electronics. I do wonder if the outflow valve really closed...we shall see.

The pilot and copilot as well as the FA's were probably very interested in getting a head count to make sure everyone was off the plane.

The skill set for landing on the water and a normal landing is very similiar...so, in effect, we are always practicing for a water landing with every normal landing. Of course there are some differences, but keeping the nose up and the wings level...come on.

Someone actually is concerned about the port authority tagging USAIR for a fuel spill...well the counter suit might blame the port authority for not getting rid of birds. we shall see.

I am a fan of the JT8D (no pun) and wonder how it would have held up compared to the CFM56.

[Vertico]

Very well put - a balanced and fair comment. Whilst everyone involved (especially the SLF!) must be delighted to have been able to walk away from a potentially disastrous situation, we all need to wait for the enquiry to tell us what actually went wrong - and that should not be read as the slightest implied criticism of the flight deck crew.