Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC

[HarryMann]

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.
Any fully held-off landing is equivalent to stalling at a height of 1 inch. Tosh! This was not a 3-point stall-landing by a tail-dragger.. with or without power, you don't have to 'stall' to land at a sensible angle of attack - it is better to retain directional control than minimise your speed to anywhere near a true 'stall' - which is anyway not a black/white speed. The pilot got it right, by luck, skill & judgement, training or all three, thank goodness... very well done!

Skilfully flown, as would be expected, but brave, heroic being repeated ad nauseam on US media.. Ugh! Very skilfull but bravery is WW, Wrong Word...

Bravery and heroism is running at a machine-gun post on a hill, spouting bullets like raindrops...

Let's use the English language properly!

To the whole crew, congratulations, a demonstration of superb professionalism...

[eaglespar]

One of the Interviewed Pasengers in row 24 stated that they tried to open the rear doors (when the water was only up to the bottom sill) and
could not budge them at all. He went on to say that one of the FC tried to help (still not able to open) then directed them all toward the front of the plane.

Does the ditching switch also disable the rear cabin doors??

Thanks

PS - Would the plane have floated as well with both engines still attached to the wing nacelles??

[E.Z. Flyer]

This is a thread where the brevity shows throughout. The spirit of flight is somewhere within us all no matter where we are or when. The more the sequence of events is studied the more perhaps, the critical timing of acting and reacting is understood. The turn to come about down the Hudson with the loss of altitude (http://www.avweb.com/newspics/usairways-flight1549-flight-path-map_credit-imjustsayin-Flickr_large.jpg), to then enable a glide path, is one interestingly critical aspect to say the least.

The direction the flock of geese are traveling and that they are not able to deviate from course perhaps suggest they were running with the wind?

I have not seen in this thread any such other speculation. It could be, the geese were flying away from the cold air (we are experiencing extreme cold) and that the winds aloft could perhaps shed more upon the actual flight conditions? Right or not, one would have to consider a proper avoidance course to begin with.

If it is purely a physical nature that caused this to happen, then it should be avoided. It is also a probability of a bird-strike and there again, the bird population is likely known for the area. But with cold air forcing its way in, perhaps more should have been done to understand the ecology of the area for flight, that a control center could factor. This is a tough way to become a hero.

The current BAM details the probability of BASH risks (http://www.dodpif.org/downloads/articles/specialissue/bird1-11.html) on a given day using historic trends. However, it cannot show when a large warbler flock actually passes over an airfield. NEXRAD (NEXt generation RADar) provides that capability (see the article on radar ornithology in this issue). In addition to a conservation tool, the DoD PIF BASH Working Group promotes NEXRAD as a safety tool. The BAM is being refined to ultimately provide real-time updates using Doppler radar technology. Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Washington, implemented an aggressive BASH prevention program in the winter of 1996 based on these three strategies. Between 1989 and 1995, NAS Whidbey Island recorded three to four damaging bird strikes each year within the local airfield environment. Since implementing the BASH prevention program, the station has suffered only two damaging bird strikes at the local airfield. Through ongoing communication and awareness programs, the number of non-damaging bird strikes reported actually increased. Exact airfield strike locations and species identification in these reports facilitate significant airfield modifications that reduce the attractiveness of the airfield to "problem" avian species.

[Bighat]

Any chance the aircraft, when lifted, will be taken to the old Floyd Bennett Field?

It's not far, its by the waterside, and, being used for other Federal purposes, is secure.

[vanHorck]

the people around me (non flyers) are all amazed by the fact that everybody survived this ditching.

I've noticed though that virtually all of them remember the ditching of another large jet near a beach, a jet whose pilots were being threatened with a knife during the last minutes of the power off (fuel exhaustion) ditching. This jet banked at the last moment, a wing hit the water first and the plane broke up. It was a very powerful image that stuck in people's minds, which explains the euphoria about this accident and especially it's outcome and the role of the crew therein.

In this thread it has slowly become clear that yesterdays ditching in not unique. I believe at least 8 ditchings took place where most or all survived.

So perhaps a ditching is much more survivable than we all assumed based on this powerful image of several years ago, and indeed the crew did an excellent job without having to be made the heroes they currently are made out to be.

It seems part of the euphoria over the saved lives. I in no way wish to minimize the performance of the crew, understand me right, I just want to take out the emotion out of the situation. I believe the crew did an excellent job and they should be an example to all of us.

1. quality piloting of the plane
2. calm water and free of obstacles
3. good visibility
4. calm winds
5. undamaged fuselage
6. ditch button on this type of plane
7. excellent SLF management by the cabin crew
8. immediate availability of rescue boats as well as helicopters with divers

Where an accident is often a sequence bad fortunes, perhaps this time saving the day was a sequence of good fortunes, not least a quality crew

[Lost in Saigon]

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

No one has factually said that the engines were both dead either.

With the British Airways 777 in LHR, everyone assumed that both engines had stopped running. They were all wrong.

It is reasonable to expect that even a severely damaged engine would still produce partial power. Even at idle power, the generator and hydraulic pump would continue to supply the aircraft systems.

[finfly1]

Speaking of the tail, this from Associated Press, whom I thought knew better:

"One Boeing 737 pilot writing about a strike in a safety report described the smell of burnt feathers and seabird after a gull was sucked into his rear engine during a landing at LaGuardia in 2004."

[HarryMann]

1. quality piloting of the plane
2. calm water and free of obstacles
3. good visibility
4. calm winds
5. undamaged fuselage
6. ditch button on this type of plane
7. excellent SLF management by the cabin crew
8. immediate availability of rescue boats as well as helicopters with divers
9. unlimited runway length

[TonyWilliams]

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?

The captain on the B767 deadstick in Alberta, Canada was also a glider/sailplane pilot.

[nahsuD]

The captain on the B767 deadstick in Alberta, Canada was also a glider/sailplane pilot.
Sometimes, the holes in the cheese line up for good.

[Lost in Saigon]

The captain on the B767 deadstick in Alberta, Canada was also a glider/sailplane pilot.


It was Gimli, Manitoba, Canada, not Alberta.

[DX Wombat]

With the British Airways 777 in LHR, everyone assumed that both engines had stopped running. No they didn't. It was reported that they had lost power and failed to respond, not that they had stopped.

[dublinamg]

Watched the pictures on TV last night and was amazing to see the aircraft remain in tact and the passengers being taken off from the wings.

Reading the entire thread I know that the pilots did an incredible job but also the cabin crew as others have pointed out. I see from the airline website that they are Sheila Dail, 57 with 28 years service; Doreen Welsh, 58 with 30 years service and Donna Dent, 51 with 26 years service.

I have read on here and (seen it on my last flight in the US) comments questioning the suitability of more mature people to be cabin crew but without knowing what happened in the cabin this may suggest that experienced cabin crew are a real asset.

Just a comment from a European piece of SLF.

[Wirelock]

Just some info for ye.

the aircraft would probably been in ditching(landing on water) config meaning that it stayed a float a lot longer than if it had not been.
When the pushbutton switch 13HL is pushed (the ON legend comes on) and the aircraft goes into the ditching configuration. This closes:
.the outflow valve 10HL,
.the pack flow control valves of the flow control units 23HB (24HB),
.the avionics skin air inlet valve 15HQ, if open,
.the avionics skin air outlet valve 22HQ, if open,
.the emergency ram-air inlet, if open,
.the fwd cargo isolation valves 4HN (5HN), if installed.
This basically would have prevented the cabin from flooding through the air conditioning and avionic cooling system

also if APU had been running, assuming the APU generator was good, then all hyd systems would have been available to the crew via electric pumps to blue and yellow systems and green system via PTU

[birrddog]

2. calm water and free of obstacles

9. unlimited runway length

This is not normally the case on the Hudson River.

a) Normally the ferry and shipping traffic, and terrain, make it a pretty choppy, windy place, with a lot of traffic about, particularly where the aircraft reportedly landed.
b) Quite often there are large fuel oil and natural gas barges moored where the aircraft landed, any where south of Battery Park there are even more barges and ships moored (it is NY HARBOUR, after all), and South of that is the Verrazano Bridge.

All in all, a lot of factors came together, on the positive side, in this instance.

The coordination of all the subsequent rescue attempt shows strides of improvement since 9/11. Well done to all.

[airfoilmod]

Domestic is prized in the industry, and awarded by seniority.

[William Boot]

Like a lot of posters on this site you seem to have a negative view of journalists. Your list of your 'pet' journalists suggest that you read a very limited number of aviation sources and your anti-French comments (a consistent theme) is an insult to those at Air et Cosmos.

Yes, I am a journalist. Yes, I am an aviation journalist. No, I am not on your pet list, but to you and the other posters who make comments like 'journalist scum', I would like to point out that I have just as much concern for this industry as others on this site.

In fact, those of us who have this point of view are much less likely to speculate about the cause of an accident than the threads here because we recognise that the best story is a careful analysis of the results, not the immediate knee-jerk reaction that allows people to pontificate and show off their (apparent) knowledge.

[DC-ATE]

protectthehornet -

"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."

I can't speak for all pilots, but I know that I did just that. Learning to fly in small single-engine bug smashers and having my instructor pulling the power off and saying, "Forced landing" on every flight (sometimes more than once on each flight), taught me to be thinking along those lines all the time. Even when I flew to Honolulu, I was always checking out the Primary and Secondary swells to pick a ditch heading. And I had FOUR engines! Fortunately, I never had to ditch.

[James T. Kirk]

The latest info from a source close to US Airways suggests that the airline is considering a New Type (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV1eUeo27tc) as a reaction to this incident.

[airfoilmod]

Journalist, you probably don't write for the public. If you have a boss, he (she) is most likely an editor. Are we understanding the nature of the discussion? Free lance writers are generally the best, John Nance, the best of these, in my opinion. If you are kept, your perspective, knowledge of the industry, and composition are not yours. It is not in the best interests of the media at large to be honest and forthright in the dissemination of "news". Aviation is incredibly safe, and getting safer. This is bad news for the "news".

[BlooMoo]

Airfoilmod, your point was already assumed, but for avoidance of doubt my target was/is the bureaucracy and media bollocks that feed off each other in times of big 'events'.

NTSB: Any fatalities?
NYCPA: Nope.
NTSB: OK, give the press to Higgins, see how she performs...

[Tagron]

The average descent rate from 3200ft down to 300ft (see # 16 & 304) seems to have been no more than 800ft/min. Even allowing for the airspeed decrease of 49 knots over this period, and possible flap deployment (of which we can only guess at this stage) this would seem to indicate there was some residual thrust available. In which case there could well have been adequate hydraulic and electrical power available without recourse to the RAT or Direct Law as some have suggested, so that the crew at least had a reasonably controllable aircraft. But all this will become clear later.

And 4 minutes would have allowed more than adequate time to start the APU. For sure in these circumstances this would have been a priority.

I would say the absolute key to the succesful outcome was the early decision to opt for the river landing, leaving the crew free to concentrate on this task. Any alternative, if indeed there was one, would have been highly fraught, with the risk of catastrophe.

This point needs making because it would appear a number of earlier posters disbelieved a successful ditching could be achieved with a large commercial aircraft, and seemed to perpetrate the myth that underwing engines would cause the aircraft to submarine on touchdown. Let us hope the publicity given to this event will dispel this particular notion.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

[sextonpatrick]

Not sure if anyone else has posted this yet, thread has got quite long.

What do people think of the use of the simulator clips in this short clip?

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

[FinalVectors]

Video - Breaking News Videos from 7ONLINE.COM - New York News and Tri-State News (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=6608624&rss=rss-cs-wabc-video-6608624)

First picture I have seen of the touchdown. (in the "plane crash investigation" video about 2:23 out in the story). They for sure made quite a splash ;)

Im not a pilot but a ATCO...for me it looks like a pretty normal angle up for the touchdown on this long contaminated runway;)

Im full of admiration and proud of beeing part of a industry with such fine and skillfull proffesionals around!

[bubbers44]

This successful ditching once again shows the advantage of sailplane or glider experience to judge a no power descent to a landing. The incredible job these pilots did shows their understanding of energy management and how to make a powerless airliner get down without fatalities. Airlines don't require any training to do what they did but thank God some pilots take it upon themselves to know how to handle this situation. With all the cost cutting of management I don't see any additional training in this area but am happy some pilots take it upon themselves to know how to handle a situation like this.

[Kulwin Park]

IAF-22 wrote around page 10 this ...
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!)

Now that we know everyone is safe & it went as best as it could, I'm wondering more on the aspect of the type of landing that was carried out?

Does anyone have access to the 2D schematic drawings of the A320, maybe compared along-side to the B767 (type that crashed in Africa) or maybe compared to a B737 ??? The type of drawing with measurements, etc. Reason is which type is safer in a "perfect world smooth water landing" ??? ... I'm referring to how low the engines hang below the fuselage line - so when the engine pods hit, is the fuselage already on the waterline, or does it get dragged hard onto the water? If you can understand what i mean. It all depends on the profile of the landing really...

I'm an engineer & pilot, but not on airliners ... Its just a thought of how when the "Big Yank" would have occurred when the engines hit the water & ripped the Gas Guzzlers clean off! ... Lucky Fuel is bouyant too :ok:

Anyone able to help with schematic drawing, 2D front on & side on from their manuals, and insert pics here??

[William Boot]

airfoilmod

You're right, I don't write for the public. You're wrong, I am an editor.

As for: It is not in the best interests of the media at large to be honest and forthright in the dissemination of "news". Aviation is incredibly safe, and getting safer. This is bad news for the "news".

Those of us who are inside the industry would totally agree with this. All I'm asking for is a little respect for those of us who do a professional job on behalf of aviation. What I object to is the general assumption that ALL journalists are looking for a negative story.

[airfoilmod]

And now you have mine. You may not (you may) know what is involved in being at the mercy (sic) of the ill-informed who have a microphone or a masthead. You sound like a fair person. With a livelihood in the balance, fairness and forthrightness is to be honored, not neglected.

AF

[RatherBeFlying]

The pictures show the two forward slide / rafts with people upon them plus an apparently similar number of people on the wings.

We now know that the rear slide / rafts may be unavailable in case of an A-320 ditching -- quite possibly in other a/c.

Were the two forward slide / rafts adequate to accommodate all SLF or do the certification authorities need to look deeper into this?

[William Boot]

Thank you on behalf of all my fellow aviation journalists. I hope that other readers of this site will take your comments on board. We are friends of the industry, not enemies. - if you want to criticise the media, be specific, don't generalise.

[Consol]

A fantastic job done and congratulations to all. One thing though, I am delighted to see that all the passengers on the wing of the A320 had full life jackets on. On many US carriers you are told that your seat cushion can be used as flotation device, that seems a cheap way out to me. Perhaps its time for all US carriers to install full lifejackets on all domestic operating aircraft?

[mlog]

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?



I know that some helicopter engines have intake screens.

[protectthehornet]

energy management in any form is a good practice for a power off approach and landing.

I like bubber's posts in general, but disagree on this one. Gliding is not the end all to a power off approach in an airliner.

AS most of you know, most descents are at idle thrust...while not the same as power off, it can approximate gliding. Now, we don't fly power off or at idle to a landing (being unspooled is a no no for a go around), we always gauge our energy in one form or another.

After all, sully hadn't taken up the A320 and practiced gliding it...he flew gliders. I advise every pilot to reread "stick and rudder'' and how to gauge the approach.

[PJ2]

Higgins
She did not inspire confidence, didn't know aeronautics basics, didn't know proper terms for aircraft parts and controls, clearly doesn't understand accident dynamics or physics or if she does she can't explain them to the public at all. It was a decidedly unnerving and disappointing viewing of a first press conference on this accident. I hope she's replaced by someone who knows the language of aviation.

If I've got this wrong and she had a bad first day, someone please tell me 'cause that briefing was a mess.

[Rollingthunder]

William Boot

Perhaps if you post your credentials for qualifying as an aviation journalist you will get more serious attention. CV please.

[MSAW_CFIT]

Turbo fans are quite different to turbojets found on other a/c types.

They rely on a proportion of the air passing by the engine compressors and and mixing with the hot gasses at the jet cone.

Covers would not work on turbofans

[bernardd173]

eaglespar

I don't know where the CoG's of the engines are relative to the CoG of the full aircraft, but I would hazard a guess that they're forward. If that's correct, the engines and pylons in place would have tended to make the aircraft float less nose up, tail down, but lower in the water because of the higher mass and therefore displacement.

All that is assuming the aircraft wasn't more severely damaged and possibly holed because the engines didn't detach. A hole at one or other end of the tube, a cargo door being forced open, even holes from external fittings being ripped off and all bets are off - it becomes a lottery.

[TonyWilliams]

It was Gimli, Manitoba, Canada, not Alberta.

Maybe I remembered wrong. Or they were headed to Calgary, or departed there. Honestly don't remember exactly. Thanks for correcting.

[OntarioCopper]

Gimli Glider - July 23 1983 - Montreal to Edmonton - C-GAUN (http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/activepages/ccarcs/en/CurrentSearch_E.asp?x_Mark=GAUN&x_lang=E&x_flag=Y&x_sort=1&x_start=0&x_searchtype=2) - Fuel starvation to both engines - made an emergency landing at Gimli Airpark.

As for this incident, as written in the Toronto Star....

"One by one, the passengers were plucked to safety from the rafts, Hood and Sullenberger the last ones left. The passenger insisted the pilot get off first, but Sullenberger refused. He had been the last off the plane, and he would be the last off the raft."

Maybe professionalism to you pilot guys, but downright heroic to us common folk.

[thcrozier]

Perhaps in addition to Captain Sullenberger's "Commercial Privileges Glider" and "A320" stamps on his ticket, he should receive an honorary "A320 - Unpowered Sea" certification. :cool:

The F/O should also get one. Neither his outstanding work nor that of the rest of the crew is receiving enough accolades, in my humble opinion. I bow to them. :D

[bugdriver]

Or they were headed to Calgary, or departed there.

In the Gimli incident the flight was enroute to Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

See Gimli Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider)

There is also a well written book on the incident as well, although I forget the name and author.

[bugdriver]

The book is: "Freefall: A True Story", by William Hoffer.

Try Amazon if interested.

BD

[mickjoebill]

Study of still pictures reveals that almost all passengers on the wing did not have life vests.

However, of total of just 8 passengers pictured in (what looks like) one of the forward slides have four different types of life vests, including a solid foam type used in boats.

I wonder if this is because the forward doors are closer to the stash of ancillary emergency kit and so these were dished out by crew to the nearest passengers and the foam vest was thrown by a rescue boat (who have been reported as doing such).

One victim who jumped into the water and swam to a rescue boat said that his arms and legs were numb by the time he reached the boat.

Any one of a several "what ifs" would have had passenegrs in the water and many drowning due to not wearing life vests.


Mickjoebill

[airfoilmod]

An a/c has one center of gravity. More than one center would confuse me.

[thcrozier]

What would the stall speed (IAS, I imagine very close to sea level on a 20 degree F day) of the A320, as configured in the few pre-impact pictures of his "final approach", and assuming holding off in ground effect be?

Of course that wouldn't be the impact speed because of both water current and wind speeds, but it would give us an idea.

Also, has someone posted the ditching procedure for the 320, or did I miss it? I would be very interested to read it.

[mocoman]

many drowning due to not wearing life vests

Drowning without a life-preserver would be the least of your problems!

In those kind of water temperatures survival is measured in minutes, with or without a life-jacket. Thermal shock, resulting in water inhalation and possible cardiac arrest, is the biggest killer when the body is immersed in very cold water.

Nice job Sir; hats off to you and your crew.

:ok:

[bernardd173]

airfoilmod

I was careful to say the CoG of the engine & pylon assembly relative to the CoG of the aircraft when the engines are mounted. In other words, if you take the engines off an A320 does the CoG move backwards? By looking at the profile my guess is it does, in which case the aircraft would lie back in the water.

[junior_man]

The aircraft was an EOW A 320 and had life vests. The people who are not wearing theirs, are the people who did not watch the flight attendant demo.
The rear slide rafts are useable in a ditching, you detach them and move them to the fwd exits. May be done before a planned ditching.
Very unlikely the APU was running as at the weights and temp involved still would not have been needed for TO performance.
RAT would have deployed if you lost both engines, giving you Electrics, Normal Law and flight controls. Poss hydraulic power still available for flaps with engines turning even if not producing power.
You ditch gear UP in an A 320 and everything else I have ever heard of with retractable gear. The gear was UP in the ditching. Flown both the 320 and the 737 and pretty similar worries to having to ditch either. Maybe plastic floats better though??

[junior_man]

Both engines are no longer on the airplane.
The are designed to separate in a ditching and under other conditions.
The NTSB is looking in the river for them.

[birrddog]

Photo shortly after touchdown, From the NY1 Website (http://legacy.ny1.com/shared/gallery/default.asp?GalleryID=14&ImageID=286&PageMult=1&page=4)

http://media.ny1.com/media/gallery/2009/1/16/Jet_Lands_In_Hudson_River_8.JPG

I did not see this image posted earlier, apologies if I overlooked

[mickjoebill]

Drowning without a life-preserver would be the least of your problems!

In those kind of water temperatures survival is measured in minutes, with or without a life-jacket. Thermal shock, resulting in water inhalation and possible cardiac arrest, is the biggest killer when the body is immersed in very cold water.

Yes, you drown because your head is not held above the water and the gasp reaction sends you under in 30 seconds or if you survive the first minute you drown due to inability to move your limbs to keep your self afloat.
So the life vest is the most of your worries as it keeps your head above water when your limbs give up! Cardiac arrest on entry is rare and lifejacket gives you many minutes more survival time as you are not dissipating your body heat by moving your extremities. Survival at sea 101!

The aircraft was an EOW A 320 and had life vests. The people who are not wearing theirs, are the people who did not watch the flight attendant demo.
You are probably wrong. I've yet to hear any passenger account that mentions they were warned by the pilot that they were going to ditch ("brace for impact" has been reported) or any account that cabin crew told them to don life vests.

It hasn't been confirmed that life vests were available on this aircraft.

Mickjoebill

[thcrozier]

Wow, looks like he yawed 180 degrees.

[airfoilmod]

Smart little ground loop, that.:D

[Pablo26]

OK, WTF does SLF mean? Google didn't help.

[junior_man]

I have flown this aircraft and it had life vests and slide rafts

[Overdrive]

SLF = self loading freight... people in this case.


What does "WTF" mean?




(edit:- no need to answer!)

[McGinty]

The prior photo in that series shows the position of the plane a few seconds later. It did apparently turn about 110 - 120 degrees to port on ditching. Utterly amazing that the airframe stayed intact.

[just.n.av8r]

You are probably wrong. I've yet to hear any passenger account that mentions they were warned by the pilot that they were going to ditch or any account that cabin crew told them to don life vests.

It hasn't been confirmed that life vests were available on this aircraft.mickjoebill,

You are probably wrong,

check that you are wrong.

Life vests installed and their proper use in the unlikely event of a water landing demonstrated by the flight attendants.

[junior_man]

Mickeyjoe, this aircraft DID have life vests and slide rafts.
I have flown it, so I can vouch for that fact

[Boomerang_Butt]

I was also interested to note that slide looks awfully full with only 9 pob... or is it just he angle of the water???

With regard to passengers possibly 'not being told'... I can assure you the first command in a ditching (either prepared or unprepared) which is taught is something along the lines of: (Im not US Air but would guess it'd be similar)

Fit your lifejackets
They are (location)
High heels off

Said while opening useable doors and waiting for slide inflation, gives pax time to get vests on, soon as a raft is useable the crew member at that door will order evac and get things moving. Hence from reports that doors were opened fairly quickly (slides only take 3-5 secondsto deploy) that by the time the FAs ordered evac many pax well could have still been trying to get lifejackets on and decided they just wanted out and weren't waiting around!

I'd be interested to know if different terminology was used than 'Brace for impact'- some airlines use different phrases for land and water so FAs know as soon as possible that it's a water impact.

Knowing they were taking off over water, FAs could well have given the lifejacket command early, if so then good work on their part. I myself taking off over water think to myself 'If I were to get a brace command now, we'll likely be on water.... what are my ditch commands..." If you;re not on water, well it's easy to amend your commands once you see where you are ;)

Good job by all, can anyone confirm the procedure mentioned earlier for detatching a slide raft? I was under the impression they can only be detached once inflated OUTSIDE the aircraft... or are these 'slide only' devices... interesting, as my airline uses 'slide-raft' type setups....

(I mean, given the way slides/rafts are stowed in a slide pack, wouldn't it be nearly impossible to remove a slide from a closed door or is there some mechanism (access hatch) to take the pack out... I would think this would be a bad idea as imagine it inflating in the cabin... or did you indeed mean detatching the slide/raft once inflated and moving it to the front of the aircraft???

[Blogsey]

Well, looks like there were life vests on board.
I'm not sure the guy on the right watched the safety deomonstration....poor buggar!
Australian's survival a 'miracle' - National - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/can-you-believe-i-survived-a-plane-crash/2009/01/17/1231609030929.html)

[Wiley]

Sorry, haven't waded through the whole 28 pages, so apologies if this question's been asked and answered already, but is there anyone out there who could tell me the expected time of useful consciousness in water of that temperature? I'd be guessing ten to fifteen minutes, or not much more than that.

Re the wearling/not wearing of life jackets: I believe if rescue had not been immediately to hand, in water of that temperature, for those who didn't make it onto the escape slides anf remain dry, the only use the life jackets would have been after 20 minutes or so would have been to make it easier for rescue services to find the dead bodies.

On another point, I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but I find myself really hoping with all my heart that subsequent investigations (by people, including bottom-feeding lawyers, who will have three weeks to pore over information the crew had to digest and deal with in a matter of seconds) do not find that they can pin some blame on the Captain and his crew for the failures that led them to needing to ditch. Previous similar events, (the A330 in the Azores, the BOAC 'cabbage patch' 707 in [I think] Heathrow in the '70s) where the crew have been loudly lauded by the press in the immediate aftermath of the incident only to be pilloried later, make me hope this will be the exception.

[junior_man]

To use a slide raft at a different exit, ie rear slide raft at front door. Remove the slide bustle from the door, detach the girt bar and carry the slide to the other exit. Inflate outside that door. They are removable uninflated from where they are fitted. Inflating inside the airplane is bad form :-)

[Boomerang_Butt]

Thanks junior man, I thought that's what you were getting at... it's just not something I've ever seen in an EP manual for ditching... I guess the manual was assuming a quickly sinking aircraft, as opposed to one which floated for as long as this one did...

Just wondering though is the process you mentioned speaking from an engineer's perspective.. I mean I know it's POSSIBLE to do it... but is it taught that way? I'm pretty sure no airline in Aus teaches it that way... though it would make sense in open water... don't think you could do it on a 737 unless of course the bustle lifts up- actually I think it does, but as I've never been advised to do it I wasn't sure if it was possible- I suppose anything that gives one extra options in the water is a good thing!! ;)

Also I can't see it in the pic (maybe not looking hard enough! :p) but for the person asking about capacity, usually the slideraft has a grab line along both sides which could be used by people in the water to hold onto if the raft is full/at overload capacity... not ideal in water of the temps on that day though!

[ACMS]

What??????????? detatch a slide raft and carry it to another door?

Are you serious?

1/ the risk of it accidentally inflating in the aircraft must be too high
2/ how heavy is the slide raft? must be too heavy to carry down a narrow aisle I would think.

[Boomerang_Butt]

ACMS, that was my thought- which is why I was asking- is this something taught as an actual ditch procedure (at my airline it sure as heck isn't, probably for the reasons you mention) or is it something from engineering experience with replacing used/unserviceable slides?

I asked because I would be very surprised if any airline taught that method as a procedure to be used in an actual ditching- e.g B737-800, block rear doors and redirect pax to overwing and forward exits. (No mention of taking slide packs to fwd doors for use there)

[B747-800]

kudos to sully for a job well done but also kudos to the FO and the cabin crew. i think the press is forgetting them. without the cabin crews reaction and actions the plane could not have been evacuated in such a manner.

KUDOS to all the crew!

[Wiley]

Detatching a slide from an unuseable door and taking it to another is certainly an option on Boeing aircraft as far as I know. (I was certainly taught the procedure.) Airbus too, if I my memory serves me correctly, but it's been a few years since I flew one of the Dark Side's products, so I stand ready to be corrected.

[Boomerang_Butt]

Wiley, would you mind telling us when you were taught this procedure? I just ask as I'm curious if maybe it's something which used to be taught, but is no longer reccommended by the aircraft manufacturers- just because this is the first mention of it I've ever heard!! Quite interesting...

[LanFranc]

I am at my 6th A320 operator and at every one of them we recieved instruction on how to move a slide raft from one door to another. I was at my current airlines safety recurrent the day before the event and our class did the whole bit into the pool.

[Dream Land]

Just watched a BBC clip of one of the passengers in the hospital, the First Officer took the shirt off his back and gave it to one of the passengers! :eek:

Wow :D

[misd-agin]

"engine failure" might mean some engine power (a la BA 038). It might also mean turning at idle power only. It also could mean shutdown, but windmilling.

All three scenarios will produce hydraulic pressure.

At 3000'+ the aircraft would probably have been in a 'clean' configuration.

[misd-agin]

Oh, local northern N.J. newspaper stating that the landing was a miracle and quoted pprune.org as the proof -

"My flight instructor used to laugh about ditchings, no one's going to survive" post.

It was posted on pprune that ditichings should not be survivable, so that is now a fact. :sad::yuk:

[Mahatma Kote]

Coast Guard Camera from initial impact till mid rescue.

from LiveLeak.com - Hudson Crash from Coast Guard Camera (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e6_1232166872)

All we are missing now is the phone camera shots from the passengers.

[TonyWilliams]

Coast Guard Camera from initial impact till mid rescue.


That was some roll out.... 100 feet ?

[mickjoebill]

ife vests installed and their proper use in the unlikely event of a water landing demonstrated by the flight attendants.

I didnt say that if vests were carried and not worn that it was due to no briefing by cabin crew!
What i am saying is that (if they were onboard) they were not being worn when the aircraft hit the water when perhaps there was enough time for them to be donned had the crew given a warning. It seems pilot knew they were ditching for over 2 minutes before they touched down.

Now if life vests were on board it is interesting that since the plane was floating and stable more life vests were not retrieved from under seats and passed out to the wing walkers.

If there were no life vests on board as some have suggested then egress through the overwing carrying a seat cushion is a compromise.

Anyway I look at this there is room for improvement in this minor detail:)

Mickjoebill

[Raredata]

Where's the video?

[Goffee]

try liveleak.com

[Sauter]

Amen to that, brother!!

What a truly amazing piece of airmanship and combined crew/rescue effort - Absolutely amazing!!! I cannot get over it!! Hope we can get some scenarios like these latest accidents (CIA, LHR, LGA) in our simulator in the future - We need to practice this. I doubt everyone could do such a thing after "Sully" and his crew. Good to know that it CAN be done though...
My utmost respect to all involved!! :ok:
God Bless America!!!

[tonker]

Coast gaurd vudeo of crash and rescue. Check out frame 4.17 and see what you can see on the shore!


LiveLeak.com - Hudson Crash from Coast Guard Camera (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e6_1232166872)

[Cyclone733]

Wiley,

Here is a link to cold water survival times, table at the bottom of the page.

Cold Water Survival (http://www.ussartf.org/cold_water_survival.htm)

The main point to take away is that survival time is greater than the time to exhaustion or unconsciousness, which is where the life jacket comes in. It should keep the head above water, make it easier to locate the person in the water and also gives something to grab hold of.

Another interesting point from the site
Swimming or treading water will greatly increase heat loss and can shorten survival time by more than 50%.

Gotta love Google

[vorticity]

So much has been written, but after the News yesterday I would like to add the following.

The News showed a passenger in the hospital with a pilot's shirt (with three stripes, ergo from the FO) who said: He gave it to me and said 'Stay warm' or anything like that.

There was a famous British explorer Ernest Henry Shackleton, who with all his men survived a tremendous Antarctic expedition (1914-1917) with their ship Endurance being crushed by the ice. And there was a situation in an earlier expedition between him and his Captain Frank Wild suffering from hunger, as they all did. Let me paste a short extract found with Google 'Shackleton biscuit Wild'

"Early in his career, Shackleton became known as a leader who put his men first. This inspired unshakable confidence in his decisions, as well as tenacious loyalty (In an earlier expedition) Frank Wild, who had not begun the expedition as a great admirer of Shackleton, recorded in his diary an incident that changed his mind forever. Following an inadequate meal, Shackleton privately forced upon Wild one of his own biscuits from the four that he was rationed daily. "I do not suppose that anyone else in the world can thoroughly realize how much generosity and sympathy was shown by this," Wild wrote, underlining the words. "I DO by GOD I shall never forget it. Thousands of pounds would not have bought that one biscuit."

The US-Air crew continuous such a tradition. This is where CRM meets humanity at its basics.

I just can repeat and confirm all the compliments that have been made to the Crew ! Chapeau!

Regards, Bernd.

[Jet II]

Detatching a slide from an unuseable door and taking it to another is certainly an option on Boeing aircraft as far as I know. (I was certainly taught the procedure.) Airbus too, if I my memory serves me correctly, but it's been a few years since I flew one of the Dark Side's products, so I stand ready to be corrected.

Unless you carry a toolkit around and a copy of the Maintenance Manual then removing escape slides is not the sort of job you attempt whilst in a sinking aircraft...;)

[UFGBOY]

As Wiley says, this is trained on Boeings (knife installed on side of slide for cutting lanyard I seem to remember after pulling ditching release handle ?) so maintenance manula.tool kit may not be needed :\

[vanHorck]

Jet II

Sorry to disprove you. The Liveleak video clearly shows a chute deployed behind the right wing little time after the crash.....

[Smithm]

As a public relations officer I am often asked during training sessions why the media don't like good news stories and my reply is 'Planes landing safely don't make front page news' - I am pleased to say that I may now have to change this!

[renfrew]

That video is amazing,everyone please have a look.
The immediate response from the ferries must surely have saved lives.
To keep station while boarding the passengers must have taken great skill.

[pinehill]

some audio seems to be available at liveatc.net, need to register,havent listened yet

[Jet II]

Jet II

Sorry to disprove you. The Liveleak video clearly shows a chute deployed behind the right wing little time after the crash.....

Thats because it was supposed to deploy there - I'm talking about Wiley's idea that you remove a slide from one door and take it to another which is a non-starter.

[Jet II]

As Wiley says, this is trained on Boeings (knife installed on side of slide for cutting lanyard I seem to remember after pulling ditching release handle ?) so maintenance manula.tool kit may not be needed :\

yes - after it has deployed from the door it was installed on. :ugh:

[Boomerang_Butt]

Amazing video.

Sorry, I think there's confusion between detatching the slide (using the detatchment point on the door sill after inflation) as opposed to taking the actual (uninflated) slide pack out of its bustle from inside the aircraft with the door closed. That discussion branched off as I had never heard of this being taught before...

With regard to pax in the water- had they been IN the water, or fo a long period of time, cabin crew are taught to get survivors into a huddle, using the heat escape lessening position (HELP) which involves bringing the extremeties up to contain body heat, also having everyone facing inwards with the legs up means that the group can support injured/unconscious pax or those without lifejackets...

Jet II- I was under the impression the rear doors weren't opened, I'm more familiar with the big sister of the 320- does the 320 indeed have off-wing slides? The one pictured seem to have orange markers as do the Boeing off-wing slides...

[fatboy slim]

Age:

Ditching pb Closes the following (if open):

Ram Air inlet valve
Outflow valve
Pack flow control valves
Extract and inlet valves for avionics ventilation

We also use it for preparing the aircrsft for de-icing.

[taxydual]

Amazing video. The de-acceleration must have been quite something though. The aircraft appears to come to a virtual stop within a second or two.

Hats off to the sightseeing boat skippers too.

[Jet II]

Jet II- I was under the impression the rear doors weren't opened, I'm more familiar with the big sister of the 320- does the 320 indeed have off-wing slides?

Yes - slide pack is in the wing-to-body fairing.

[espenjoh]

B737 DITCHING Checklist. Massive workload in a few minutes...

•Send Distress Signal
On Captain's command, First Officer will transmit MAYDAY, establish
position, course, speed, altitude, situation, intention, time and position of
intended touchdown, type of aircraft, and request “SAR” intercept using
prevailing air to ground frequency. Set transponder code 7700 and, if
practical, advise Captain of course to nearest ship or landfall.

•Advise Crew And Passengers
Alert crew and passengers to prepare for ditching. If possible, move
passengers away from the rear exits towards overwing and forward exits.
Assign life raft positions and order all loose equipment in aircraft secured.
Put on life vest, shoulder harness, and seat belts.
WARNING: Do not inflate life vest until after exiting the aircraft.
WARNING: Do not open aft entry or aft service door(s) as they may be
partially submerged.

•Burn Off Fuel As Required
Consider burning fuel prior to ditching if emergency permits. This will
provide greater buoyancy and a lower VREF. However, do not reduce the
fuel to a critical amount, since ditching with thrust available improves the
ability to properly control touchdown.

•The terrain awareness alerting and terrain display functions (if installed)
should be inhibited by selecting the TERR INHIBIT switch to INHIBIT.

•Accomplish IN RANGE and APPROACH checklists.

•Plan a flap 40 landing unless other configuration is required.

- - - - - BELOW 5,000 FEET - - - - -

Aural Warning C/B (P6-3, D-18) .......................................................... PULL
Prevents warning horn with gear retracted and landing flaps selected.

Ground Proximity Warn C/B……………………................................ PULL

Ground Proximity Terrain Inhibit Switch (If Installed) ...................OVRD

Pack Switches.................................................... ..........................................OFF

Engine Bleed Air Switches.................................................... .....................OFF
Permits depressurizing the aircraft with outflow valve closed .

Pressurization Mode Selector ............................................. MAN DC / MAN
Enables manual control of outflow valve.

Outflow Valve Switch...................................................... ..................... CLOSE
Closed to prevent water from entering the aircraft.

APU Switch...................................................... ............................................OFF
Closes the fuel valve and air inlet door.

Flight Deck Loose Gear ............................................................ .........SECURE

Flight Deck Door........................................................ ............ SECURE OPEN

Life Vests ............................................................ ...........................................ON
Don life vests, but do not inflate until after exit from aircraft.

Shoulder Harnesses & Seatbelts................................................... ..............ON
Put on shoulder harnesses and seatbelts and adjust for snug, comfortable fit.

Passenger Cabin Preparation ....................................................COMPLETE
Verify passenger cabin preparations for ditching are complete. All
available food, fluids, flashlights, first aid kits, and other emergency
equipment confirmed ready for evacuation.
When ditching without life rafts on board, ascertain that Flight Attendants
are prepared to use the evacuation slides as life raft substitutes.
Seat passengers with life vests on and seat belts fastened.

Radio ...........................................................T RANSMIT FINAL POSITION
Transmit all pertinent information pertaining to: final ditching position,
weather and sea conditions, rescue instructions, and information if ship or
other available rescue unit is standing by and any other necessary
information.

Emergency Exit Lights...................................................... ...........................ON
Insures lighting is available after electrical power is lost.

- - - - - BEFORE LANDING - - - - -

Landing Gear........................................................ ........................... UP & OFF
Check all landing gear lights extinguished and landing gear lever in OFF
position.

Flaps ............................................................ ...................____ GREEN LIGHT
Extend flaps to 40 or appropriate landing flap for an existing emergency or
non-normal conditions.

•Advise crew and passengers “BRACE FOR IMPACT” when within
30 seconds of touchdown.

•Maintain airspeed at bug (VREF + Wind Additive) and 200 - 300 fpm
descent rate.

•Plan to touch down on upwind side and parallel to waves or swells if
possible.

•To accomplish flare, rotate smoothly to touchdown attitude of 4 - 5,
maintaining airspeed and rate of descent with thrust. After touchdown,
reduce thrust to idle.

- - - - - ON THE WATER - - - - -

Start Levers...................................................... .................................. CUTOFF
Provides positive shutdown of engines.

Engine Fire Handles..................................................... ........................... PULL
Closes fuel shutoff valves to prevent discharge of fuel from ruptured fuel
lines.

Initiate Evacuation ............................................................ ....PA COMMAND

Post Landing Duties ............................................................ ...ACCOMPLISH

•Captain Proceed to forward cabin area. Evaluate escape potential.
Supervise and assist cabin crew in evacuation of aircraft. Board and
take command of any raft, if available.

•First Officer Assist Captain and cabin crew in evacuation of
aircraft. Board and take command of any raft, if available.

•Observer Occupy a seat in the cabin if available. If qualified, assist
flight attendant in customer evacuation.
The aircraft may remain afloat indefinitely if fuel load is minimal and no serious
damage was sustained during landing.

* * * *

[Profit Max]

Not sure the deceleration was quite as strong as it appears. Before the aeroplane comes into view, it may well have had its tail in the water for a few more seconds already.

[Obie]

It's great to read in the world media and on Prune, the accolades being afforded the crew re this ditching.

Accolades that are well warranted and that bring to the attention of the general public the skill and training of all airline pilots and cabin crew, the world over, that are too often ignored.

It's just a pity that when the shouting dies down and a group of pilots, somewhere in the world, takes industrial action over a safety issue that the general public, Prune and the media, will once again attempt to crucify airline pilots as a mercenary bunch of overpaid glorified bus drivers!

[snowfalcon2]

The Coast Guard video offers a truly unique document of an aircraft evacuation "in earnest".

Let me first say the following armchair observations from the video should in no way bear on the crew and passengers, who suddenly found themselves in probably the scariest situation of their lives.

But I'm struck by the fact that so many passengers went out on the wings, when both overwing slides/rafts were clearly deployed. Standing on the wings the risk of falling into the water is probably much higher than in the raft. Had there been larger waves, or darkness, the risk would have been even higher.
The passenger safety sheet probably includes an instruction to turn aft towards the slide after exiting. But this did not seem to work for everyone in this event. I also seem to recall that the A320 wing has a nicely marked anti-slip service walkway painted on its top surface all the way out to the wing tip. This might have seemed the obvious choice to go for some passengers.
Should there therefore be a big red lighted blinking sign ten feet out on the wing which pops up in an evacuation, saying: "-> -> TURN AFT TO THE EVACUATION SLIDE -> ->" ?

Let's see if NTSB will address this point. I have a feeling next ditching may not happen in similar benign conditions, therefore this suggestion.

[Return to base]

Just a thought, has anyone thought of the unsung heros', those designers who built a structure that survived the water impact and allowed the overwing exits to open without jamming as well as the electrical engineers whose emergency lighting probably came on to give the 10 minutes of illumination as required.

Normally the first indication whether our design functioned as required is during a survivable incdent rather than a fatal one.

Although I was not involved in the design of the A320 I feel proud that my fellow collegues produced a successful design.:ok:


rtb

[BelArgUSA]

Hola espenjoh -
xxx
Great check-list...
I guess, when all engines flame-out at 3,000 AGL, you got time for all that.
Do you press the FREEZE button too...?
And when ck-list completed, continue the descent...?
xxx
I do not criticize any CK-LIST... but circumstances at times, do not permit.
As an example, in 1978, a National 727-200 ditched at sea in Pensacola, FL.
Pitch dark night, pilots screwed-up their approach (VOR-DME).
They were 1,000 ft TOO LOW, hit the water at some 500 FPM...
No preparation, as approach appeared normal - some 50 SOB - 3 fatalities.
xxx
:*
Happy contrails

[Dani]

Return to base, very true. And the biggest contribution to the success was most probably not the structure but the fly-by-wire flight guidance, which allowed the captain to fly as slow and as low as possible to the water without risking a stall.

Dani

[MyTH]

Very unlikely the APU was running as at the weights and temp involved still would not have been needed for TO performance.
RAT would have deployed if you lost both engines, giving you Electrics, Normal Law and flight controls. Poss hydraulic power still available for flaps with engines turning even if not producing power.


How would APU improve takeoff performance?

With two hydraulic systems lost (green and yellow, RAT powering the blue system) and in emergency elec configuration the aircraft certainly wasn't in normal law.

[Chippie Chappie]

Not sure I understand that one Dani. How does FBW enable the aircraft to fly at a slower speed than a non-FBW aircraft? I don't fly Airbus so it's a genuine question.

Well done to all the crew - front and back :ok:

[liccy1]

Dani

With probably the APU in use + the RAT, the ac would not have been in normal law. Having lost both AC main Busses, direct fly by wire laws disables all flight envelope protection, you fly too slow and she WILL stall, Hats off to BOTH pilots!!!!! excellent job!!!

[Charles Darwin]

MyTh
How would APU improve takeoff performance?

I'm not familiar with Airbus, but with many aircraft, such as B-737, one pack is operated from APU bleed during t/o and engine bleeds remain off. Does indeed improve takeoff performance somewhat.

[Boomerang_Butt]

It would seem reasonable that the cabin crew directed pax to stay on the wing rather than enter the water. If you look carefully at the pictures there are actually people in the slides as well as on the wing.

Perhaps at that point the pax felt safer on a more 'solid' surface such as the wing.

Usually arrows are painted on the wing surface to direct pax to the off-wing slide, as per other similar aircraft. I did have a photo somewhere but can't find it at the moment.

Edit: the arrows can clearly been seen in this link: Photos: Airbus A320-211 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Canada/Airbus-A320-211/1040252/M/)

[racedo]

Amazing video but what is also pretty obvious is the speed of the river as that plane is moving fast

[Charles Darwin]

Has the aircraft been lifted out of the Hudson? Anybody know if the engines are still there? I'd presume they'd snap off upon water contact.

[Guava Tree]

Huge congratulations to the technical crew for allowing themselves to think out of the box.
Computerised flight deck is coming but is not ready for this kind of scenario. In fact computer by definition can never think outside of its box.
But when it comes to humans, how about the Air Mauritius Cargo flight crew who rejected the option to alight at sea and tried to continue in a burning aircraft to their distant airport, and so, all no more.
Lets hear it from,so called, third world pilots. Would you have dared to think outside the box like Captain Sullenberger and his very able first officer, or would you only follow the FMC ?

But we might ask what the FMC say, can make it to Teterboro or no ? That might come out later but I suspect the answer is "no info because no engines".It becomes matter for human judgement.
Lucky no-one say "We are doomed. It is the will of Allah."

[Fargoo]

Charles Darwin Has the aircraft been lifted out of the Hudson? Anybody know if the engines are still there? I'd presume they'd snap off upon water contact.

It's due to be lifted free of the water today, they're still searching for the engines using sonar. Can't imagine they'll take too long to find though.

[MyTH]

I'm not familiar with Airbus, but with many aircraft, such as B-737, one pack is operated from APU bleed during t/o and engine bleeds remain off. Does indeed improve takeoff performance somewhat.

OK, I think that most Airbus operators just switch the packs off for takeoff if they need that extra performance.

[Lost in Saigon]

Reading and watching all the news reports of this incident I was just wondering if there was a First Officer on the flight?

No where have I seen or read anything about who's leg it was, or who was actually flying the aircraft. There is even a possibility that it was the First officer who actually landed the aircraft.

[Der_Fischmeister]

Should be the Captains (Hero) decision to mention that it was teamwork which made this "miracle" happening.

I bet you can find on the Tapes of the CVR that someone on the Right hand side was "busy"running Checklists ...callouts(Altitude) and so on,to support the PF.

So please,pay tribute to the First Officer on this Flight.

[Lost in Saigon]

The Coast Guard video offers a truly unique document of an aircraft evacuation "in earnest"........

.......But I'm struck by the fact that so many passengers went out on the wings, when both overwing slides/rafts were clearly deployed. Standing on the wings the risk of falling into the water is probably much higher than in the raft. Had there been larger waves, or darkness, the risk would have been even higher........

LiveLeak.com - Hudson Crash from Coast Guard Camera (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e6_1232166872)

At 3:12 in the video a passenger with no life jacket slips off the right wing, disappears below the water, and is then helped back up by another passenger. (also not wearing a life jacket)

It truly was a miracle that they didn't lose some one.

[Guava Tree]

No matter who made the "landing", Captain or First Officer,
The actual act of "landing" was not the big thing.
The big thing was to think outside the box and agree together that the "landing" was to be made on the river.

[bakerpictures]

I'm interested in what the NTSC will be able to do with the aircraft after she's been salvaged and taken to safe storage?

Might I assume the airframe has been filled with fresh rather than salty water which can be pumped out and then dried? And could it be possible (and necessary?) to power it up once again to determine the sequence of events prior to the ditching and subsequent flooding?

This incident must a rare one for airframe specialists: A fully intact aircraft with unprecedented water stress data available which Airbus and possibly Boeing would want to get their hands on.

Insights welcome!

[Mahatma Kote]

Based on the Washington Post report washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011602252.html?hpid=topnews)
The currents were exceptionally strong
Kitty Higgins, the NTSB member in charge of the on-scene investigation, said both engines are believed to have detached as the plane was pulled along by the river's strong currents.
Somewhat astounding that a water landing at 100 knots plus didn't rip the engines off, but the flow in the river did...

[bakerpictures]

I do apologise. I meant the NTSB.:8

[captplaystation]

Lost in Saigon (& to tonker who originally posted it, I now see)
Thanks for the link, that must be one of the most inspirational videos I have seen in a long time. Human spirit will sometimes manage to triumph no matter the adversity.
As a footnote, perhaps the insurance company could donate the airframe to the museum housing the Concorde, that it drifts so gracefully by @8min45 on the video.
A lasting tribute to all involved in this magnificent landing & rescue :ok:

[Load Toad]

Should be the Captains (Hero) decision to mention that it was teamwork which made this "miracle" happening.

Erm...isn't for the moment the captain (maybe the whole crew I don't know) restricted from speaking to the media until they've made a full account to accident investigation? As it should be.

[A37575]

and agree together that the "landing" was to be made on the river

For heaven's sake the the cockpit is not a democracy nor is it a committee decision. In such a time critical situation the captain is empowered by law to be in sole command. "Agreeing together" before the captain ditches the aircraft is not CRM or TEM and the time is well overdue for some first officers to realise that their task is to give support where the captain requires it - not to demand a committe approach to every action or decision the captain may choose to make.

[Profit Max]

At 3:12 in the video a passenger with no life jacket slips off the right wing, disappears below the water, and is then helped back up by another passenger. (also not wearing a life jacket)I think the person actually jumped of the wing on purpose, then realised how cold the water was and came back quickly.

Also amazing is that the first passengers are on the slide/raft just 30 seconds after the plane came to a halt.

[vanHorck]

"Kitty Higgins, the NTSB member in charge of the on-scene investigation, said both engines are believed to have detached as the plane was pulled along by the river's strong currents."

Either the Washington Post is misquoting or the NTSB member in charge needs to be replaced.

No way the current would exert stronger force than the ditching itself!

[md80fanatic]

That was nearly the equivalent of a carrier landing in a passenger aircraft, quite a sight. :eek:

[Dysag]

You're right. FBW on its own doesn't help anyone. It's the flight control computers that provide the protection.

Here's a highly journalistic but nevertheless instructive intro to Airbus "fly through computer".

YouTube - airbus-a320-stall-test-airshow-jet-airliner (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7i6TejuR4)

[Mr @ Spotty M]

I think you will find that no passengers had lifejackets as they are not carried, they use the flotation cushion and the slides are just slides, not rafts.
I am sure l read earlier in this thread that the life jackets worn when pax landed ashore were from the rescue boats.

[Lost in Saigon]

For heaven's sake the the cockpit is not a democracy nor is it a committee decision. In such a time critical situation the captain is empowered by law to be in sole command. "Agreeing together" before the captain ditches the aircraft is not CRM or TEM and the time is well overdue for some first officers to realise that their task is to give support where the captain requires it - not to demand a committe approach to every action or decision the captain may choose to make.

I don't agree with your comments. A time critical situation also needs good crew coordination.

I know of a situation where the an aircraft in the Caribbean experienced a wheel well fire warning about an hour after take off. The Captain decided he needed to ditch the aircraft. The First Officer had to threaten physical violence in order to persuade to Captain not to ditch the aircraft. The flight continued on and landed at destination.

[Lost in Saigon]

I think you will find that no passengers had lifejackets as they are not carried, they use the flotation cushion and the slides are just slides, not rafts.
I am sure l read earlier in this thread that the life jackets worn when pax landed ashore were from the rescue boats.


No that is wrong. It was posted that the aircraft did indeed carry life jackets. Also, the life jackets that some of the passengers can be seen wearing are clearly inflatable airline type life jackets.

Here is one of the first photos taken as the first recuse boat arrived:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/IMG_0001f_800.jpg

[Guava Tree]

Quote from A37575:
"For heaven's sake the the cockpit is not a democracy nor is it a committee decision. In such a time critical situation the captain is empowered by law to be in sole command. "Agreeing together" before the captain ditches the aircraft is not CRM or TEM and the time is well overdue for some first officers to realise that their task is to give support where the captain requires it - not to demand a committee approach to every action or decision the captain may choose to make"

Ageegeah! This hardly comes under the umbrella of "every action or decision the captain may choose to make"

Are you divorced from your wife ?

[Fargoo]

Can someone confirm if this webcam is pointing towards the area of the recovery?

EarthCam - USS Intrepid Cam (http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/intrepid/index.php?cam=libertysp)

[beamender99]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr @ Spotty M http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/358238-plane-down-hudson-river-nyc-post4655641.html#post4655641)
I think you will find that no passengers had lifejackets as they are not carried, they use the flotation cushion and the slides are just slides, not rafts.
I am sure l read earlier in this thread that the life jackets worn when pax landed ashore were from the rescue boats.


No that is wrong. It was posted that the aircraft did indeed carry life jackets. Also, the life jackets that some of the passengers can be seen wearing are clearly inflatable airline type life jackets.

Mr @ Spotty M
Several posters have stated that life jackets were on board and had info to support their statement.
One news video shot clearly showed the word AIR in a large familiar font on the left front of a lifejacket worn by a pax
Perhaps the captain / FO donated his?

Based on the above I was very surprised how few pax had a USAIR life jacket on.

Well done to ALL involved. I was surprised that the mayor did not mention the 19 year old lady skipper of the second ferry on the scene ( mentioned on an earlier posting).

I was impressed that all the river traffic left the landing area clear.
Seriously - what a stroke of luck that the river in that area was not full of craft .

[rabidstoat]

SLF here, and having read through the thread I see where the 'Brace for impact' warning was given, and have heard several passengers talk about having heard that command. What I don't see, though, is anything about the passengers being advised at some point that there would be a ditching, and that life vests should be donned. Does anyone know if that happened, as per the very-busy checklist that someone posted a few pages back?

I'm just trying to sort out the lack of life vests on most people. Seems like there would have been time to dig them out and put them on prior to bracing to impact. However, I have luckily never been in such a situation to know the timing of these things.

[Eboy]

Has the aircraft been lifted out of the Hudson? Anybody know if the engines are still there? I'd presume they'd snap off upon water contact.

According to the New York Times, an attempt will be made to lift the aircraft from the water today. One concern is 4,000 gallons of fuel still in the aircraft that they want to keep from leaking.

The engines are presumed to have detached on impact and are being searched for by the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers using sonar.

[ferrydude]

"It will be scrapped. When they get it out of the water serious structural damage to the lower 48 section will be apparent. In past such events the skin is torn open and frames trashed."

Highly likely that it will be scrapped, however reuse of aircraft involved in similar ditchings is not without precedent. JAL DC-8 ditched in SFO bay was salvaged, flown for years by United and continues in service today

[Eboy]

Cell phone photo of the landing from the New York Times:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/16/nyregion/reader_1.jpg

[X13CDX]

rabidstoat (http://www.pprune.org/members/214890-rabidstoat)
Probationary PPRuNer

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: U.S.
Age: 37
Posts: 1


SLF here, and having read through the thread I see where the 'Brace for impact' warning was given, and have heard several passengers talk about having heard that command. What I don't see, though, is anything about the passengers being advised at some point that there would be a ditching, and that life vests should be donned. Does anyone know if that happened, as per the very-busy checklist that someone posted a few pages back?

I'm just trying to sort out the lack of life vests on most people. Seems like there would have been time to dig them out and put them on prior to bracing to impact. However, I have luckily never been in such a situation to know the timing of these things.


.. in responce to this post.. I would say that the lack of life vests on the pax would be due to them not listening properly to the saftey demo before takeoff.. as it all happened so quickly i would have thought there wasnt enough time for any announcements to be made regarding life jackets etc.. there certainly wouldnt have been enough time for any cabin crew to run about making sure people had their life jackets on. In that situation there really would have only been time to say what needed to be said and that was "brace for impact". If people listened to the saftey demo before every takeoff then they would know that if a plane is going down, especially over water, you are meant to put on your life jackets.. but again with how fast everything happened, panic etc, its no wonder if there were a few life jackets missing.

[Wiley]

Lost in Saigon, you ask: There is even a possibility that it was the First officer who actually landed the aircraft.The BA38 incident notwithstanding, (where the captain apparently did leave the FO to land the aircraft after the double engine failure on short finals at Heathrow), I think you'd be looking for a very long time for a captain who's leave the FO to land the aircraft in a situation like the one this crew faced. I'm standing by to be contradicted, (there might be one out there), but suffice to say, I certainly wouldn't.

From the moment the crew saw the first ECAM warning, the FO would have been one busy, busy individual, working his butt off right up to impact to complete multiple checklists that would have included repeated attempts to get at least one engine going again.

For those who seem to be offended that the media are concentrating their accolades upon the captain, I think it would be a safe assumption that the captain, when cleared to make a statement to the world's media, will heap much praise upon all his crew.

Hey, let's all be thankful the media have for once got it right and are acknowledging that we are in fact something more than "glorified bus drivers". If this had happened in Australia, it's an almost dead certainty the bastards would have got the story completly wrong and spun it such a way as to make the crew appear to have screwed up - or accused them of "murdering" poor defenceless geese.

Edited to add: I wonder if this incident will have any impact upon the minds of the management of certain airlines who insist that maximum automation be used at all times? With such policies, in a few years, there won't be any of us left who know how to fly the aeroplane (sorry, cousins - airplane) 'by the seat of our pants'.

[theron]

is the pilot a hero? did he deliberately put himself on this specific plane knowing the troubles he would face?

if this pilot is a hero then all pilots are heroes because they all made the choice to put their lives on the line and potentially face dangerous events like this every time they get in the cockpit.

for me the pilot was just the right guy, wrong place, wrong time.

incredible airmanship and should be recognised as such.

surely there is a more appropriate noun?

MHO

[X13CDX]

".. theron..

hero?
is the pilot a hero? did he deliberately put himself on this specific plane knowing the troubles he would face?

if this pilot is a hero then all pilots are heroes because they all made the choice to put their lives on the line and potentially face dangerous events like this every time they get in the cockpit.

for me the pilot was just the right guy, wrong place, wrong time.

incredible airmanship and should be recognised as such.

surely there is a more appropriate noun?

MHO"


.. as Hemmingway once described a hero to be someone who shows great grace under pressure.. and that is exactly what captain Sullenberger did yesterday.. a first class hero!

[misd-agin]

Different issues -

1. It's not guaranteed that the Captain was in fact the pilot flying.

2. There are situations in which the Captain would allow the FO to keep the a/c. That is a decision left up to the Captain via his emergency authority. FO had 23 yrs experience with the airline. He had several years experience prior to getting hired at USAIR. Some(many) U.S. airlines have very, very experienced crews. Last FO I flew with had 31 yrs experience.

3. The report stated the engines fell off while the plane was in the river's current. It did not say the river's current caused the engines to detach.

4. "I doubt many pilots could do what the CA did". Next time you're in the sim do an idle power descent and then the same thing with dual engine failure. It's not a 'night and day' difference.

5. "Kudos to the crew for thinking outside the box". Please explain. You're at 3000', with built up areas around you, very congested highways, many twisty, narrow, and all having numerous overpasses, unable to reach any airport, and the only open space is a river of perhaps the marsh area just to the west. What was the 'out of the box' thinking?

6. Check out actual touchdown location vs. flying distance to Teterboro.
They'd have had to do a right 150 degree turn but the distance would have been very, very close. Factor in NW winds (increased distance down the Hudson, decreased distance towards Teterboro) and it's a risky decision. Quick decision had to be made, IMO he made the right choice.

[Graybeard]

After a full day and night of idol worship of Capt. Sullenberger in the US media, CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" last night did a skillful job of praising the rest of the crew. IIRC, F/O Skiles has 26 years flying, and was no doubt a Captain in better prior years. His father was interviewed, as was Sully's wife.

The lack of life vests is puzzling.

Did the Fright Deck not tell the cabin crew they were going to ditch?
Had AWE (America West, owner of USAir) removed the life vests to save weight, depending instead on the seat cushions?

All I heard from SLF interviews was BRACE BRACE BRACE.

Lou also had in his studio the two SCUBA police who rescued a woman in the water clinging to the ropes of a ferry.

Would you rather have the union mandated senior Fright Attendants, or like the bankrupt airline in Mexico: reach age 26 and fired?

GB

[ferrydude]

"Would you rather have the union mandated senior Fright Attendants, or like the bankrupt airline in Mexico: reach age 26 and fired?"

I prefer the ones most likely to perform their duties in an emergency. Unfortunately, union membership, nor being senior is any guarantor of anything

[dicksorchard]

I am very curious as to how much would an engine on this type of Airbus weigh and what difference in weight there would be between an aircraft with engines attached and an aircraft minus its engines ?

Also do people know if Airbus or Boeing ever floated aircraft during testing & development to try & guage aproxmimate floating times with or without engines ?

And was the reason that aircraft engines where designed & fitted so that they shear off during an impact due to the fact that an aircraft would sink much faster with them attached ?

I just can't help thinking that if those engines stayed attached that the aircraft would have sunk imediatly ?

So i guess buoyancy was definatly a factor in the survivability of this incident .

[alph2z]

CNN is playing a new good video of the "landing". Link ?
.

[Captain Bob]

Originally Posted by A37575
For heaven's sake the the cockpit is not a democracy nor is it a committee decision. In such a time critical situation the captain is empowered by law to be in sole command. "Agreeing together" before the captain ditches the aircraft is not CRM or TEM and the time is well overdue for some first officers to realise that their task is to give support where the captain requires it - not to demand a committe approach to every action or decision the captain may choose to make.

I am going to agree with A37575, The Cockpit is not a Democracy, it is a Benevolent Dictatorship. It belongs to the Captain and he alone.

[Conan The Barber]

Does the responsibilty for your passengers end when they have exited the aircraft? What impact will the physical condition and ability, or lack thereof, of the crew have on the final outcome?

Something to think about when seeing the charge of the not-so-light-brigade at some carriers.

Rhetorically he asked.

[repariit]

Fox News just reported that No. 2 is still attached. Pretty amazing considering that the pylons are designed to let go before the wing breaks open.

[normally right blank]

"Air Disaster vol. 1, Macarthur Job", ISBN 1 875671 11 0. (It's a book!) Chapter 8: "I may have to ditch this aircraft". DC-9, May 2, 1970. "At the time of the ditching the cloudbase was low, it was raining heavily, and visibility was only a little over half a kilometre. ... Levelling off Capt. DeWitt positioned the aircraft directly over the crest of a swell, laying off a small amount of crosswind drift to fly along the crest as he progressively reduced speed and height. ... he raised the nose about 6 degrees and flew the DC-9 onto the swell at about 90 knots." It can also be done in bad weather and rough water. Highly recommended - all 4 volumes.

[BFLIGHT]

About five years ago,I flew with a U.S. low-cost carrier (B737) from Reno to San Francisco and noticed that there was no mention of life-jackets during the Safety Briefing. I couldn't locate "my" life-vest under the seat so politely asked a crew member where they were and was told, "You got it right under your butt honey. It's the seat cushion that you take with you if we all gotta take a swim."
Obviously it saves weight,hence fuel burn etc not carrying jackets. Please nobody tell Mr. O'Leary, it's a money-saving wheeze!! I ain't gonna swim with no life-jacket on!

A thousand times "well done" to Captain, First Officer and Cabin Crew.

[snowfalcon2]

MSNBC has a new video of the landing at msnbc.com Video Player (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28705681#28705681).

It's a combination from two cameras on the Manhattan side.
Nice smooth touchdown I'd say.

I timed the "landing" run to be about 16 seconds from first touchdown to when the plane had slowed to a point when passengers presumably could get up from their seats. So the deceleration was probably substantial but not schocking.

[Fargoo]

dicksorchard

The engine weighs 5147 lbs (2335 kg) for one unit.

I guess a lot of bouyancy came from the air in the centre tank and unused space in the wings (if any). Not sure how much fuel they had on board.

[foxcharliep2]

Quote:
"Can someone confirm if this webcam is pointing towards the area of the recovery?
EarthCam - USS Intrepid Cam (http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/intrepid/index.php?cam=libertysp)"


Should the camera be indeed located on the USS Intrepid, then it's improbable, as the ship is located on 38th Street and Liberty State Park is further downstream by the Statue of Liberty.

fcp2

[Fargoo]

It's in Liberty State park looking across the Hudson. I'm not sure where that is in relation to the aircraft now hence the question.

[Machaca]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Federal investigators said Saturday that the right engine of US Airways Flight 1549 is still attached to the plane, contradicting their earlier statements that it broke off after the aircraft hit the water.

National Transportation Safety Board spokesman Peter Knudson said the water was so murky earlier that authorities couldn't see the engine. "We're now looking for one engine, not two," Knudson said Saturday.

[forget]

NTSB says right engine attached to US Airways jet

Not so. NTSB lady said both are missing - at press conference. Confirmed by divers.

[thcrozier]

Looks like 5 to 6 seconds from initial contact with the water to full stop.

[Centreline747]

Ladies and Gents

Lets not knock the CRM in this case. When you consider the timescale involved I can only imagine the Captain said some thing along the lines of 'lets go for the river' Is the F/O going to start arguing the case with only seconds remaining in the air? I think not.
At the end of the day it turned out to be the right decision and everyone survived albeit most with wet feet!
Whoever 'landed' the A/C is also not really an issue (IMHO) so well done to both of the flight crew.
Also huge respect to the Captains of the ferry boats for reacting as quickly as thay did to attend the scene and recover all on board :ok:

Rgds

CL747

[espenjoh]

The only ATC record i have found:

USA1549-1.flv - Video - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting (http://s19.photobucket.com/albums/b168/espenjoh/?action=view&current=USA1549-1.flv)

[ChristiaanJ]

Re the earlier 'cell phone' photo and the still-attached engine :

You start wondering if the PF has flown seaplanes in his career as well...
He obviously put the "butt" of the 'plane in the water while holding the nose high for so long that one of the engines did not even come off, when they finally dug in.

CJ

[hangten]

Is there any good information as to exactly what time they intend to remove the aircraft from the river? I may like to have a look-see...

(UK ATCO who just happens to be on holiday in New York...:8)

[MilktrayUK]

It's in Liberty State park looking across the Hudson. I'm not sure where that is in relation to the aircraft now hence the question.


Well, I have been watching for the past couple of hours. Seems that they have a couple of crane barges preparing to lift something quite substantial. :8

Actually, if you look at the Hall of Fame there are screen captures of the landing and recovery.

[finfly1]

Three points. Will any effort be made to offload and save the fuel on board?

Second, it has been mentioned that there is audio of the tower tapes available. Has anyone linked it here yet?

Finally, it is somewhat distressing that the press cannot get correct a major fact such as whether an engine is or is not attached to the plane.

[reventor]

"Would you rather have the union mandated senior Fright Attendants, or like the bankrupt airline in Mexico: reach age 26 and fired?

In this case, I don't see how it would have mattered one bit of there were no CC at all. The plane was ditched on the Hudson river and it was sinking. At this point it should occur as a good idea, to even the densest of passengers, to get the hell out and as a secondary objective: grabbing a floatation devide on the way. They even had plenty of time (relatively speaking), thanks to excellent piloting, a well designed aircraft and of course the many ferries that combined for a tripple whammy saving the day. The CC role appears largely irrelevant thus far.

I would however expect the CC to rehash the RELEVANT parts of the safety briefing, as it became clear they were landing on water, even I would pay attention at that point. This should include brace technique, floatation devices and procedure for doors and evacuation. If the passengers don't listen at this point, just imagine how utterly useless the pre-flight briefing really is (in terms of actual safety that is, psychology and establishing an authoritive cabin leader has obvious benefits.) I believe one of the passenger accounts included that water was leaking in quite early in the back and "they" (don't know who) tried to open the aft doors without much success. Some posts here indicate those doors are best left closed on a ditching, so it may appear, to my untrained eye, as if everything didn't go 100% by the book on the evacuation?

[Rick Studder]

You start wondering if the PF has flown seaplanes in his career as well...
He obviously put the "butt" of the 'plane in the water while holding the nose high for so long that one of the engines did not even come off, when they finally dug in.

Yes, but isn't that what you'd "naturally" do? You'd want as much aeordynamical braking as possible, regardless of any knowledge of seaplane technique.

Regarding the CRM-discussion here, "captain's cockpit" etc: This discussion is nonsensical, for all we know the ditching was the FO's suggestion. Yes, the captain has final say and responsibility, which is as it should -- but I certainly hope the FO had his say and that there was a discussion of possibilities and an agreement in the cockpit. According to one news article (don't recall where) the possiblity of landing at nearby airports was even discussed with ATC.

[wideman]

The CC role appears largely irrelevant thus far.

According to at least one passenger, an FA provided important info to passengers before the crash-landing. After the "BRACE" call from the flight deck, the passenger reported that an FA yelled out: "Put your head down, put your feet flat on the floor."

Professional work and clear thinking to supply that tremendously important info, and hardly irrelevant to the outcome.

----

On another subject, I imagine that most would agree that a dead stick to an airfield, height and distance (at the time of engine-loss) permitting, carries less risk than a dead stick to a river. That said, one distinct advantage of the Hudson compared to Teterboro is the "runway" length: with the Hudson, you can set up for best/slowest glide, with no real worries about landing short or long.

[Super VC-10]

Looks like Chesley Sullenberger has been given what is possibly the ultimate honour - an article on Wikipedia! :ok:

Chesley Sullenberger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger)

[NiteKos]

ARE ALLTHE CREW HEROES?

The Captain decides to ditch in the Hudson.

The Cabin Crew are strapped in at their crew stations and probably as they run through their ditching drills in their mind they reflect that this could be the last few seconds of their life.

The First Officer agrees with the Captains decision and starts feeding the Captain relevant information with the same thought that this could be the last few seconds of his life.

The Captain prepares for ditching and it does not cross his mind that this is the last few seconds of his life; his mind is so focussed on the task ahead and is confident in his own ability to land the aircraft.

Just before impact the Cabin Crew are still mentally running through their drills with an impending feeling of doom.

The First Officer head down just before impact is coolly reading off the radio alt heights, airspeed, wind speed and drift to help the Captain decide when to flare and ditch.

On impact after so much tension the Cabin Crew now spring to work, doing what they are trained to do and evacuate all the passengers safely.

Nobody panicked; they all went about their duties in a most professional manner despite the possible horrifying outcome.

Are all the crew heroes? You bet your life they are, they all set a standard that many of us can only dream of.

[misd-agin]

ChristaanJ - held the nose off? Typically touchdown attitude is about 5 degrees NU.

Watch a landing aircraft and visualize it with no landing gear. The accident aircraft touchdown attitude was the same.


Folks asked and landing gear up or down? Landing gear down would only increase deacceleration and is not SOP.

[Still Wee Jock]

I controlled a Royal Squadron BAe146 (the one with the missing oil seals post servicing) with two engines shut down, one at idle and one going flat out in 1997 - it landed safely at Stansted, and the last engine conked just before the stand. Horrible emergency, thankfully resolved without loss of life but it was the worst emergency I ever dealt with in nearly thirty years. The pilots got the Air Force Cross. Having read about this incident all I can say is Captain Sullenberger, you are the master.

[Graybeard]

#3 engine on an Aviacsa BAe-146 blew apart at altitude, at night, out of Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, a dozen years ago. The shrapnel took out #4 engine, which cut fuel to #1 & #2. They landed deadstick in Campeche, an airport not served by airlines.

I wonder how The Bee would do in a water landing? Would be kinda' tough to walk out on the wing.

GB

[scottmorris]

mentions earlier in this thread that SOP for A320 ditch is to land with 11 degrees aoa? looks less on the video clip. presumably on the tail touching the water at that point pic applies full elevator and essentially stalls exactly on contact with the surface in order to reduce groundspeed to a minimum and assuming on emerg gen and tail in the water he has any controll authority left. either way its a hell of a put down!

[hetfield]

AOA is'n ot equal to pitch of course...

[MadDog Driver]

Captain Bob

I am going to agree with A37575, The Cockpit is not a Democracy, it is a Benevolent Dictatorship. It belongs to the Captain and he alone.

You're absolutely correct! If the Captain so wishes,he runs his cockpit that way,and he won't get in any trouble for that! You're telling us what the law has told us for a hundred years!
BUT... the GOOD Captain takes a good look at the person next to him,(Well,I'm sure he's done that when reporting for the flight) and considers the FO's experience level.
If that person is a 23 year veteran with the airline,as Mr Skiles is..and the Captain has taught CRM and Crisis management as Mr Sullenberger has....well knowing those facts, I am pretty sure that the cockpit of USAir 1549 was NOT run as a Benevolent Dictatorship!

I personally don't care who the media calls a hero. Capt. Sullenberger will I'm sure, let everybody know that this was a beautiful piece of TEAMWORK, ala UA 232.

Fantastic show, crew (all 5 of you) of USAir 1549! Congratulations!

[GP7280-POC]

Live on CNN - CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News (http://www.cnn.com/)

[Cee of Gee]

As has been mentioned in a previous post:

Do the qualified posters feel that this event (and the recent Ryanair one) require the operators, manufacturers and the regulators, to work together, to amend any previous related SOPs?

Just a thought .

C o' G

[precept]

ACTIVE WEB CAMS FROM ACROSS THE RIVER

EarthCam - USS Intrepid Cam (http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/intrepid/index.php?cam=libertysp)

[rmac]

If this had happened in IMC (do birds fly in clouds ?) or above a cloud layer, would options be reduced to following the FMC or vectors to the nearest airport with the attendant risks of an all or nothing result.

Would this be a good outline case as an example of where an EVS would have helped to arrive at the same outcome in IMC and/or low visibility ?

[Hugh Spencer]

It all reminds me of the small amount of practice in 'ditching procedures' we had as a crew preparing us in case we had to ditch a Lancaster. Designated positions were allocated to each member of the crew, and landing on calm water must have made an enormous difference to landing on the sea, each crew member had a duty. I think the flight engineer had to pull the release to expose the rubber dinghy stowed in the starboard wing, crew jumped into the sea on that side, each scrambled in and helped others, wop took over the manually operated radio which transmitted the distress message and the rope was cut to detach the dinghy from the aircraft. One or two practices were carried out in nearby swimming pools.

[rageye]

Capt. Sullenberger will I'm sure, let everybody know that this was a beautiful piece of TEAMWORK
But above all, as a glider pilot, he obviously had a better feel for a situation like this.
Great job :ok: I take off my glider pilots hat for him :D

[RatherBeFlying]

I suspect that there will be a number of attempts in various sims to see if Teterboro could have been made with the limited hydraulics available. Mind you that first turn where 1200' was lost likely extinguished interest in any more turns. From 2000' you've got about 6 nautical miles; so, there's a chance they could have got to the runway.

The failure:success ratio will be interesting.

Face it: landing short or not stopping within the runway (how much hydraulics available for the brakes after the glide?) risk significant fatalities.

I don't know what powers the spoilers on the A-320, but if that's hydraulics, there's not much glide path control. Cross controlling for a sideslip with limited hydraulics is test pilot stuff.

Without much in the way of glide path control you want the longest field you can see.

Looks to me like a conservative choice between a high risk attempt for Teterboro and a super long runway that you already have got made:ok:

[PBY]

1 middle spoiler is controlled by blue hydraulics, but you can also sideslip the aircraft. I have done few double engine failures in the sim and it did feel exactly like a glider. Also, if the engines are still windmilling, you have all 3 hydraulics, but you will loose them as soon as you slow down to about 230 knots, so they would not have it in this case. I have once in the sim even been able to put the autopilot on during the double engine failure, because of the residual windmilling gave me green and yellow hydraulics. The only bad thin is, that you only have slats and no flaps.
But if the real airplane behaves the same way as the sim, than for an ex glider pilot the airplane feels very predictable.

[Roy Bouchier]

Teterborough was not an option in reality as neither runway would have allowed a straight in approach. Ther would have benn insufficient height to allow a turn onto finals I would have thought.
(Flew out of both LG and TB many times, I should add)

[lomapaseo]

Do the qualified posters feel that this event (and the recent Ryanair one) require the operators, manufacturers and the regulators, to work together, to amend any previous related SOPs?

Just a thought .


They haven't recovered or examined the engines nor the black boxes yet so we have no idea what the commonality is between these two accidents.

[Intruder]

AOA is'n ot equal to pitch of course...
Pitch ~~ AoA +/- Flight path angle (disregarding any angle of incidence between the wing and fuselage). At the moment of touchdown, late in the flare, when there is little rate of descent, AoA is essentially equal to pitch for practical purposes.

[MadDog Driver]

rageye

As much as I like taking an occasional trip in a glider, it is funny how the glider pilot community can't resist the chance to blow their trompet. They have done the same in my country regarding this accident,and it is ridiculous reading. In 1991 an MD80 lost both engines due to ice and dead sticked to a "landing" in Sweden. All 129 on board survived, and none of the pilots were Glider pilots. Come on now. A pilot of an airliner doesn't need glider experience to know how to fly best glide speed and hit the surface without too much speed,or without stalling!
This was two good professional airline pilots and 3 professional FA's doing their job very very professionally!

[zalt]

WTF??

But even though he has been celebrated as a hero, Sullenberger still faces the prospect of a National Transportation Safety Board investigation that will critique his every action on the day of the flight.

That is one of the reasons, union officials say, why he has stayed quiet as his star has risen.

"Until the NTSB says, 'He's a hero,' he's under investigation," said James Ray, a spokesman for the US Airline Pilots Association. "The NTSB usually discourages people from calling anyone a hero until facts are in."

A national hero but nowhere near the spotlight -- Newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--planesplashdown-p0117jan17,0,6029473.story)

[barit1]

Lifting a waterlogged plane is a mite delicate. I note WCBS-TV says they have load cells in the lift rig - they lift a foot or two, let that much water drain, then lift a bit more, always keeping the lift forces under control. Lifting too fast will cause the structure to break up, and then they have to start over - this time lifting the separated bits.

Boeing sent their recovery crew to the B-307 ditching (several years ago) in Puget Sound to validate their recovery procedures - and the priceless 307 was then restored (again!) and flown to IAD to the NASM annex there. :ok:

[G-CPTN]

Just heard that they've found one of the engines - still attached to the starboard wing . . .

[md80fanatic]

I find it hard to believe that a diver could miss an attached engine, even if that diver were blind.

[ChristiaanJ]

I find it hard to believe that a diver could miss an attached engine, even if that diver were blind.Did you watch any of the videos?
Did you see how much current there is?
Did you read the story about trying to move the Intrepid from years of accumulated sludge?
If yes, you should have realised visibility under such circumstances is not even measured in inches, but in centimetres, and not many of those....

CJ

[birrddog]

The footage of the recovery operation shows considerable ice around where the aircraft is currently "parked".

According to the NTSB press statement at 4pm EST today: "the aircraft weights about 1,000,000 lbs in its current state" and that its right wing was wedged under the sea wall in mud. They are going to "move the aircraft to the left" and gradually lift it 1ft at a time to allow the water to drain. One engine is still attached (they did not state which one). FDR and CVR's not yet retrieved.

NY1, a local television news agency has pretty reasonable coverage

NY1 | 24 Hour Local News | Top Stories | Crews Are Close To Lifting Fallen Jet (http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/92419/investigators-prepare-cranes-to-lift-fallen-jet/Default.aspx)

[forget]

Just heard that they've found one of the engines - still attached to the starboard wing . . .

I've just heard it on BBC. Anyone like to take a small wager on this being wrong?

[ferrydude]

I'll take the wager. How much?

[Eboy]

Latest on the salvage from the New York Times (generally more reliable than CNN, Fox, etc.):

Divers working to secure the plane, an Airbus A320, with rigging in preparation for its removal from the water discovered that its right engine was still attached to the submerged wing. Investigators initially thought both engines were sheared off on impact, as divers were fooled by the dark mud and murky waters that surrounded the submerged right wing.

The latest plan called for lifting the plane a foot or so at a time so water can drain; if it does not do so on its own, Ms. Higgins said, workers will bring in bilge pumps. “There’s so much ice out there now,” said Joe Sedor, an investigator. The plane will have to be moved sideways before it can be lifted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane.html?hp

[drivez]

I remember watching an episode of air accident investigation on national geographic a year or so ago. It was covering the Ethiopean 767 that ditched. They then had a very experienced expert saying that under any circumstances ditching in a commercial jet will always end with the aircraft disintergrating, as the engines will scoop the water up decelerate and maybe tear the wing off.

Well fairplay lads, many americans take the mick out of USAirways for their poor time keeping, but you can sure fly your aircraft.

[ferrydude]

You done lost already Son

[md80fanatic]

If yes, you should have realised visibility under such circumstances is not even measured in inches, but in centimetres, and not many of those....

True, but there was a good deal of time when the wing was full of witnessess, the airframe floating with a nose up attitude, the top of an engine should be as visible as the top of the wing surface (this prior to any churning produced by rescue craft). And I can't see the difficulty locating an engine while it is apparently attached. It's only a matter of swimming along the wing leading edge until you bump your head. Strange that it takes over 24 hours to accomplish this?

Not saying conspiracy.....just wondering why something so pathetically simple to ascertain requires such a great amount of time to accomplish.

[Dunbar]

The water landing was a fantastically skilled piece of mitigation, of that there can be no doubt. But...

...Why is it that when the flight crew are criticised, everyone says " Wait for the report", and yet when they are praised as heroes, posters accept immediately that this is the case, with flowery speculation about what might have been happening on the flight deck...

We do not yet know what happened, other than the fact that the situation was well mitigated.

Wait for the report.

[ferrydude]

Excuse me sir/mam, have this blanket. Now then, after you stop shivering, we have some questions. How many engines did you count whilst awaiting rescue?

[Shamrock 602]

There's an update on the lifting process on the site of this NY-based 24-hour news channel, NY1 | 24 Hour Local News | Top Stories | Jet Slowly Lifted From Icy Hudson River (http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/92435/jet-slowly-lifted-from-icy-hudson-river/Default.aspx)

The report also says there's to be a further NTSB presser on Saturday night at 8 pm EST, with "descriptions of testimony" from the captain. There are also some details of the very brief exchange with ATC, and some comments on the crash from the flight attendents. (Perhaps these were published elsewhere - I hadn't seen them.) I'm not familiar with this media outlet, so I'm not vouching for its accuracy.

To answer an earlier poster's question about why the press can't get it right about whether one or both engines had detached: apart from the usual inaccuracies which mar many media reports (and which annoy us all), the reason for the discrepancy is that accounts given by the NTSB and other salvage workers have changed. Some media outlets attribute almost everything to a spokesperson, which can be slow and clumsy. Others will take apparently uncontested statements and report them as a fact - if the statements are wrong, it is the outlet's reputation which suffers.

One version reported during the day was that the second engine was still attached after the ditching, but had later separated. This could easily have been misinterpretated later - just as posters here "simplify" what they have heard, and get it wrong.

I'm curious about the effect which one engine remaining attached would have on the way the aircraft floated after impact. Would it not make it "list", as it is now doing? Yet it was level in the water at first, allowing people to stand on both wings. Could the "list" be caused by partly-empty fuel tanks filling up on one side? Could water get in through the venting system, or would ruptured fuel lines allow it in?

[Eboy]

I think what is happening is two things:

1. The name. Air BUS. A bus, get it? A type of conveyance. Boeing does not have that same ring to it. If people think of an aircraft as an Airbus, that is a great branding accomplishment. Like calling a photocopy a Xerox or a tissue Kleenex.

2. Airbus makes aircraft. Boeing is involved in aircraft, satellites, defense systems, missiles, space launch vehicles. So, I do not know what a Boeing is.

[Capt Kremin]

The debate over whether pilots who save an aircraft in this fashion are heroes, is a little silly in my opinion.

A hero is someone who makes a conscious choice to put someone else's life ahead of their own.

Captain Sully and his crew were put in a critical situation by fate. Through exemplary skill by the cockpit crew, both of them; and a well trained and disciplined cabin crew who had the passengers out of the aircraft in very short order, everyone did what they were trained to do and all the passengers got out alive.

Brilliant flying and decision making?-Yes.
Fantastic work by the cabin crew?-Undoubtedly.

Heroic? I think the crew themselves would deny it.

In Australia this week we had our first Victoria Cross awarded in 40 years. The recipient, time and time made himself a target for Taliban machine gunners in order to give Coalition troops time to gather wounded soldiers after an ambush. Then he sprinted 80 metres over open ground to rescue a wounded Afghan interpreter and carry him on his shoulders back to safety. That guy is a true hero because he made the conscious choice to risk his own life to save others.

Funnily enough, he even denies the hero tag as he says anyone would have done the same. I don't think so.

Nevertheless, Capt Sully and crew, I salute you all for the great credit you give to your respective professions. Well done.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

This in Flightblogger...

The Airbus Ditching Button - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/01/the-airbus-ditching-button.html)

[forget]

the airframe floating with a nose up attitude, the top of an engine should be as visible as the top of the wing surface

Quite so. My prediction, given the conditions below, a diver has groped along the right wing, bumped into a bit of pylon and surfaced with the news "The engine is still there". And remember the violent swing to the left after landing - with the right engine still attached - hardly likely.:hmm:

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

[Vee1Kut]

I wonder if they will find bird strike evidence in the latter running engine...the time on that engine, and the weight and balance of the aircraft at the time.

[hellsbrink]

Just a silly question.

The NTSB want to look at the engines to see the damage in regard to it being a birdstrike on each of them. That's fair enough, but would there have been any (more) damage to the engines due to the ditching? I mean, if you hit water at that sort of speed something would surely break so how would the NTSB figure out if both engines had been "goosed" when the pressure of the water has had to have broken something and also would have washed the blood and guts out?



(I'm not doubting it was a double birdstrike, I just can't figure out what the NTSB is talking about, apart from it being the usual beaurocrat talk)

[1800ed]

Forensic technology and techniques is used to figure out what went wrong. So it's a bit more than poking around the engine with a magnifying glass and a torch...

[framer]

I imagine that water impact causes one type of damage and goose imapct causes another. Is there anyone on here who can shed light on how a pro would determine the difference?

[Shamrock 602]

What could the engines reveal?, a poster asks.

Well, DNA evidence could identify the species, and might even tell you the number of unfortunate birds to have been ingested. All useful information, in the wake of the second power-off (or limited power) landing of an airliner in just over two months.:ok:

[Vee1Kut]

Well here's a scenario...one engine dies, who knows why...your flying an aircraft that is overgross..you not very high up....you panic, and firewall your last good engine, an engine that is being trend monitored, and has 30,000 hours on it...so it dies...your really low, because your doing a reduced thrust, Flex type of departure, with a lower then max climb rate...you see some bldgs...so you go for that big expanse of water...glide along over the water as long as you can, getting as slow as you can, splash, probably about about 100 kts.

So maybe they got bad fuel, maybe some fuel tank switching stupidity, starvation scenario, maybe some fuel pump thing...maybe ice in the inlets came into the engines...

I thought all the birds flew South in the middle of winter....

Double engine failure? At the same time? Anyone want to calcuate those odds, without the hand of human intervention?

Not meant to incite, but rather I am really going to be curious when the engines get pulled, and the flight data recorder info is made available...which I doubt...

[G-CPTN]

So if one of the engines is still attached, should 'we' not ask the question . . . why?

Should it not have come off?

(as designed . . . )

[lakerman]

In reply re why did the rh eng not come off, look again at the landing and see how hard the a/c veared to the left at the end of its landing run. I would have said that the LH eng was the braking force at that point with the RH Eng and wing being higher as in any hard turn and as such with not enough force on it to break the shear pins.

Lakerman

[etesting2000]

A birdstrike will cause localized damage to a few compressor blades followed by further damage. Water impact will be more homoginized.

[barit1]

I imagine that water impact causes one type of damage and goose imapct causes another. Is there anyone on here who can shed light on how a pro would determine the difference?

Bird strike damage at high RPM results in blade fragments released outboard at high velocity, causing damage to shrouds etc.

Water ingestion at low RPM, if it causes any damage, will likely drive blades downstream into stator vanes.

[hellsbrink]

Glad Rag

As I said, it was a silly question, because my brain went "Whaaa?" at the comment from the NTSB in the news report posted earlier with the comments from the flight attendants.

Now, to the damage, if you hit water at over 100mph it's seemingly like hitting concrete. I'm guessing they hit above that speed so the pressure of the water is bound to have caused more damage to the engines. Also, the sudden flow trough the engines would probably wash any debris from the birds out. So what is there to be gained by the NTSB wanting to look at the engines when there is, no doubt, more damage caused by the ditching? They have the statements from the flight attendants saying it was a double strike, they have the captain saying the same, why not get the data recorders and look at them to show what happened (two engines going "POP" at the same time would be pretty clear)?

It just makes no sense to hold a Sword of Damacles over people when everything is pointing to it being a very unfortunate accident, as the NTSB seem to be doing.


Oh, and the fact that everyone lived is surely a reason to discuss things more, instead of being ghouls discussing dead bodies.





(PS.. Thanks to those who came out with sensible answers)

[vanHorck]

"U.S. radar data and witness accounts support early reports that bird strikes may have forced a US Airways Group Inc. plane’s “miracle on the Hudson” splashdown this week in which all 155 people on board survived.

The plane intersected “a string of primary targets” that may have been birds at an altitude of 2,900 to 3,000 feet, 90 seconds after takeoff from New York’s LaGuardia Airport, said Kitty Higgins, a National Transportation Safety Board member."

Considering the max altitude of the plane was aprox 3200 ft it therefore sounds like the power loss must have been almost immediate and almost total

[OD100]

Are you serious hellsbrink????

[Pom Pax]

Aircraft appears to be breaking up, read earlier that tide had loosend the mooring ropes. A picture NY1 | 24 Hour Local News | Top Stories | Divers Search For Plane's Missing Engines In River (http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/92388/left-engine-missing-from-plane-downed-in-hudson-river/Default.aspx) from NY1 shows Port wing and Starboard tailplane out of the water.

[hellsbrink]

Why do you ask, OD?

As I say, I'm just thinking about things because I've seen certain things and the NTSB comment doesn't really make sense, going by the evidence, apart from it being the usual beaurocratic malebovinefaeces you can expect from official bodies until they have looked at things.

[barit1]

So if one of the engines is still attached, should 'we' not ask the question . . . why?

Should it not have come off?

(as designed . . . )

One possibility - If the birdstrike were more severe on #1, the mounts or pylon may have been stressed near failure, and the water impact finished the job.

[KeepItTidy]

kontrolor (http://www.pprune.org/members/123739-kontrolor)


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

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



heheheh that tickled me that did Kontrolor , nice one lol.

serious side though so many people get on civvy aircraft these days and ignore the cabin crew.This occasion may make people listen a little bit more in the future.

[hellsbrink]

KeepItTidy,

I doubt it, most will still think "it'll never happen to me"

[Searider]

Does anyone know if the where they able to retrieve the plane from the River or is it going to spend another night in deep-freeze?

[Eboy]

From abcnews.com:

The removal of the plane originally was to have begun at 10 a.m. this morning, but as evening approached there were no signs that the craft would be leaving the water anytime soon.

[PJ2]

barit1;
Water ingestion at low RPM, if it causes any damage, will likely drive blades downstream into stator vanes.
From a friend who is an engineer and a retired 30-year airline pilot:
The entire thing is a "tail-wheel" three-point landing using the lower/aft surface of the engine nacelles as the "main-gear" and the aft-fuselage as his tail skid (a la the antique Spad)----beautiful water-skiing until, inevitably, the speed decay demanded an ever-increasing surface-area to sustain the hydrodynamic lift and, at this lower speed, water topped the nacelle-lip and entered the diffusers.

The engine pylons, severely damaged (modular titanium) by the catastrophic lateral vibration resulting from the dynamic imbalance of the N1 and MP compressor blades which, when driven into the guide vanes and down stream stators by the geese, would have sheared off and passed through the engine to say nothing of the captive remains of the geese themselves (average weight about twelve pounds) compacted into the axial compressors and rotated with the engine spool's mass possibly as long as flight was sustained. As soon as river water entered the diffusers the enormous drag load would lead to an unsustainable load on the pylon mount and the engines were torn from the mounts.

Without this "preconditioning-damage" of the pylon/wing mount the aircraft might well have "stood on its nose" rotating around the mid-pylon attach point (About the MAC?). When they locate the engines this theory may well be born out.

The only correction would be that one engine remained. He also adds,
A wonderful outcome marred only by the bleating of the media about "Miracles". The landing of this aircraft on the Hudson River is a testimonial to calm competence. The pilots having guiding the machine onto the river's surface, the cabin crew preparing the passengers properly for a ditching, the automatic deployment and inflation of the Airbus's escape slides (used effectively as floatation dinghies, their intended secondary use) and the orderly egress of everyone. Quite remarkable but completely in keeping with the known efficacy of standardized training in competent, dedicated people.

[protectthehornet]

You are right about the left engine digging in and turning the plane. One of the few posts on this thread that makes sense.

WIth the nose high climbout attitude of any airliner, one must consider; a tailmounted engine like the DC9 or 727 would probably have been protected by the wing from bird ingestion in this phase of flight.

The underwing mounted engines would take the brunt of any bird strike. I've flown both types and prefer the tailmounted engine types.

[G-CPTN]

because I've seen certain things and the NTSB comment doesn't really make sense, going by the evidence, apart from it being the usual beaurocratic malebovinefaeces you can expect from official bodies until they have looked at things.
There is a stipulated procedure, and if the authorities didn't follow it to the letter it would leave them open to criticism afterwards. Think of the conspiracy theories surrounding recent major events.
I recently discovered that a pathologist doing a post mortem (autopsy) must carry out the complete procedure, even if the cause of death is blatantly obvious.
Of course the blackbox data will confirm any failures (assuming it is intact), but what if they discover that some aspect of an engine had been incorrectly assembled or was metallurgically defective?

[Adios]

I was with an outfit once that had a bizjet hit a deer that ran across the runway just as it was landing. When they dismantled the nose gear, which was the point of direct impact, they found deer hair inside that had entered through the grease fittings. There will be plenty of goose DNA in the engines when they find them. Not even the fish and crabs will clean all of it out if fuel and oil residues don't scare them away.

Engines running at high RPM when the bird/s entered will produce distinct damage patterns, which are easily verified by comparing them to the damage done to test engines during bird strike certification.

If the engines were dead (still freewheeling) or not producing much power, they would be at low RPM and water would cause a different sort of damage. The black box will reveal a lot about engine state and RPM up to impact.

Water is not as hard as concrete at landing speeds and not nearly as hard as a goose at nearly 200 knots. It will produce a different sort of damage, but this debate will all be moot soon since the odds of not finding DNA if they hit a goose are lower than the odds of the 155 people surviving this would be.

[PJ2]

The black box will reveal a lot about engine state and RPM up to impact.
As will the FOQA QAR, perhaps even more, if the card or media survive the water and cold - I believe both AW and US Airways run thorough FOQA Programs.

[kappa]

Higgins in 8 PM EST interview says:
Both pilots saw birds at at time of impact. They covered the windscreen.
FO was flying; Pilot said "My Plane"; FO said "Your Plane".
FO used checklist to try restart.
Pilot radioed LGA, "too far, too low, too many buildings".
TEB, 'not familiar, too far, congested area' "Its the Hudson"

[lomapaseo]

Like someone said earlier the examination of the engines would be done using forensics.

The people doing the examination have certainly seen all kinds of bird ingestion damage before vs damage from other causes. In addition there are well documented historical evidence of high RPM and low RPM water ingestion assuming of course that the water got into the engines and wasn't shielded by the inlet lip

There also are techniques for examining for bird debris (if present) even after crash landings. So with all the possible evidences and techniques available lets at least wait until we can see an engine before speculating on what can't be done.

[kappa]

Higgins, in addition to above report on interviews with CA and FO, also reported on interviews with three FA, all with over 20 years with US (including time of 2 from Piedmont and 1 from Alleghany - merged to form USAir).

From what was said, I gather that "Brace for Impact" was the PA from the FD; and there was no verbal indication of a water landing. Of course, anyone with experience flying in and out of NYC would know by looking out the window that the plane was over the Hudson. That might be a factor in the lack of life jackets.

[thcrozier]

As an avid recreational diver (also trained as a rescue diver, but never used it) with 30 years experience exploring caves on the north side of California's Santa Cruz Island (100's of caves, the deepest goes more than 1/4 mile into the island) I can easily see why the divers initially on scene would not notice the presence of the right engine. Entering the water, their primary mission would be a search of likely places survivors might be found. To me that would mean first of all scanning the water surface for potential hypothermia victims, then entering the fuselage, and finally an expanding perimiter around the plane. They would have to be extremely careful to stay close to the surface to maintain spacial orientaion with all of the surrounding boats, which could easily crush them between either the airplane or each other, or worse suck them through a prop.

In low vis, the only thing you have is a compass, and in a swirling current all you would have as a spacial reference to objects on the surface is your last visual check on the surface vs. your current heading, and your experience. Visibility can go as low as inches - which may or may not have been the case here - but once you find a tactile point of reference you tend to proceed from it trailing a string a line you attach to it. In the best case the line is rigged with little fletches that tell you which way you came from just by feel. Many cave diving accidents have occurred because of divers following their lines in the wrong direction.

I believe that the airplane was secured in part by running a cable through a front door and out the overwing window. If that is the case, and once all of the passengers and crew were accounted for, there would be no reason to risk the divers' lives by asking them to perform an inspection of the outboard sections of the aircraft, a task which even if they could accomplish would probably provide little information useful to the investigation.

The rescue divers did a fantastic job, and to fault them for initially failing correctly assess the extent of the damage to the aircraft is just plain wrong.

[Approaching Mins]

I've seen several posts saying the aircraft didnt have live vests. I'd like to clear that up about this particular aircraft. All of the CFM powered USAirways A320's, including the accident aircraft have provisions for extended overwater (EOW) flights, greater than 50NM from land This includes door slide/raft combos as well we additional rafts carried in the cabin. Had it been an aircraft from one of the non EOW subfleet. The outcome could have been not so good.

Additionally each pax seat had inflatable life vests (located under the seat bottom ) as well as the seat bottom cushon itself which floats.

[barit1]

Does anyone know if the where they able to retrieve the plane from the River or is it going to spend another night in deep-freeze?

See my post #693.

WCBS AM 880 reported an estimate that the waterlogged A320 weighed a million pounds - as much as an A380! It's lifted very slowly to try to prevent anything from breaking.

[kappa]

The aircraft has still not been lifted. It's damn cold here! There seem to be complications caused by ice, tide and current at this spot where the plane is tethered at a pier at the lower tip of Manhattan in what is known as Battery Park City.

It has been as low as 13°F today in Central Park. I'm sure it was lower there and the chill factor exposed to wind from every direction would be around 0°F.

I gather that getting the entire aircraft body in a position so the submerged starboard wing (the one with the engine still attached) is clear of the embankment, and keeping it clear while the plane is being slowly hoisted (and drained) in these conditions, is causing the delays in raising it.

There is the human fatigue factor (that I'm sure all PPRuNer's) will quickly acknowledge. The salvage boat/crane and the ancillary support crews have been on the job for over 12 hours. I doubt the metal will suffer from another night in the freezer.

[Rotorhead1026]

PJ2:
I believe both AW and US Airways run thorough FOQA Programs.

Bonger:
Not any more. It expired last month


Bonger:

I don't work there anymore, but I remember the FOQA program was separate from ASAP. ASAP is sort of an in-house ASRS, and is the program that ended (ASRS is of course alive and well). FOQA is a monitoring of FDR data for "exceedances". The latter data pass through a gatekeeper to assure anonimity (we hope), then published for its "educational" value. AFAIK, the FOQA program is still running.

[kappa]

I'm not a weight lifter who knows 'snatch' or an engineer who knows weight displacement. I'm just someone who has lifted objects out of the water. I would not argue that if the AB320 were full of water (instead of SLF, crew, baggage and air) on dry land it would weigh as much or more than a AB380.

However it is floating; and that means it is buoyant - equating to zero weight. But it is full of water; and thus it could not be hoisted (snatched) from the water by any device. Instead it must be s-l-o-w-l-y raised inch/cm-by-inch/cm, or as rapidly as the hoist can handle the weight, to allow the water to drain from the aircraft.

None of the few posts I have made on this board have involved speculation, so I will wait to see what happens.

[Kubarque]

Fuselage surfaced to cabin floor levelpix at Stevo's Bits and Pieces | Kontain (http://kontain.com/stevo/#entries/entry/11450)

[Robert Campbell]

Anne, one helicopter crew needs to rethink their method of help.

One of the passengers said he was standing on the wing and had no problem
until a helicopter hovered overhead. That splashed water onto the wing and
the water immediately froze. Several then lost their footing. A lady next
to him started to slip into the water because of this new ice. He and
another man grabbed her, but almost followed.

I saw one video shot where prop wash from a helicopter was causing some of
the folks in boats and ferries to get wet. I only heard of one helicopter
dropping divers, so I don't know what assistance the others were providing,
that close in. I hope they critique their activities.

Valid thought considering the OAT.

[kappa]

The NYT reports much of what I have posted above from my actual hearing and seeing the Higgins interview.

"The landing in the Hudson ... was so relatively smooth to the flight attendants, according to the safety agency, that they were not aware they had touched down in water until they got out of their seats and began organizing the evacuation."

This is the link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion) as of this post.

[jburke]

lomapaseo, I heard the below on NPR's "All Things Considered" Friday 01/16/2009 "Team Works to Identify Birds Hit By Planes". Interview with Carla Bird of the Feather Identification Lab in the Smithsonian Institute of Natural History. Bird remains from aircraft wind up at the Smithsonian. About 4,000 bird strikes occured in 2008 (most with no damage). Bird pureed bird goo on aircraft is called 'SNARGE' (our word for the day). And at the end she describes the smallest bird that has damaged an aircraft golden crowned kinglet at 4 grams caused $74,000 to a US Air Force aircraft. In the second interview, Carla Bird describes how deer DNA from a 1,500 foot bird strike occurred.

There are two audio stories here. Its illuminating to listen to both.

Team Works To Identify Birds Hit By Planes : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99474333)

Best wishes,
Jim

[finfly1]

Further to the point made in post # 754, it has become so common these days to have accident scenes attrack a half dozen or more news and/or law enforcement helicopters, that often operations and particularly communication on the ground are made much more difficult.

If common sense does not dictate that the helicopters should keep far enough away to not impede operations, perhaps statutes should do so.

[Wiley]

Have I got it right in thinking they (fortuitously) landed ‘down current’ (for want of a better term)? If so, that ‘n’ knots less relative ground speed on touchdown might have been significant.

I recall a USAF pilot who was horribly burned in an F80 (T33?) crash back in the 60’s who used to lecture in military circles on forced landings. One of his major points for landing on an unprepared field was: “Lighten the aircraft s much as possible to get your speed as low as possible on touchdown. The energy formula is ‘ MV squared’, so every knot you can reduce your landing speed by can have a major effect on your chances of survival.”

In this case, with a strong following current, the aircraft’s relative touchdown speed with the water would have been somewhat less than it would have been in still water. (Anyone know if they [again fortuitously] landed into wind, even further lowering their relative touchdown speed?) I bring this up only to suggest that maybe the outcome in any future similar incident might not be so benign.

Of course, if the current was against them, I’m talking utter bollocks.

[Ditchdigger]

But it is full of water; and thus it could not be hoisted (snatched) from the water by any device. Instead it must be s-l-o-w-l-y raised inch/cm-by-inch/cm, or as rapidly as the hoist can handle the weight, to allow the water to drain from the aircraft.

Agreed.

There is also the consideration that all of that weight is going to be concentrated on several relatvely small points where the lifting devices are set. Chances are that the structural strength of the aircraft is not sufficient to withstand that, unless the water is allowed to drain out as it is lifted.

(Me=not a pilot at all, but sometimes a professional crane operator.)

[Eboy]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane03-600.jpg

[nahsuD]

From previously posted tidal charts the river was ebbing, so indeed they landed with the current, however I don't think that it was intentional. First of all if they thought/knew that they could not make Teterboro (sp?) surely a 180 wasn't an option. Also the river goes both ways, so it just happened to be flowing out at that moment. It just as easily could have been going the other way. There is no way that they had time or means to find out.

IIRC - the river runs about 4-5 kts. Someone said earlier about 10, but I think that is too high.

Someone posted earlier that there was about 10 kts of tail wind.

[galaxy flyer]

wiley

General Spruance was the in T33 crash at Scott AFB in the early '60s. He gave a presentation to my OTS class, still on AD in 1976.

GF

[Eboy]

Filed at 11:39 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- Salvage crews have used a big crane to lift a downed US Airways jet from the Hudson River.

The jetliner looked battle-scarred as it inched up from the water late Saturday, carried by five large slings.

The metal on the bottom of the plane appears shredded and torn. In some places it looks like it was sheared off.

Chunks dropped in the water as it was maneuvered in the darkness.

The jet is to be put down on a waiting barge.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/17/us/AP-Plane-Splashdown-Salvage.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1232255453-CtjWw7yZzuNuirOclVIzYg

[McGinty]

In response to Wiley, who has just commented on the current in the Hudson as an aid to the safe ditching, I did mention this back in post #380.

No one seemed to notice my comment back then, except for one poster who said that the current was too slow to have any effect.

The videos that have been released today show that there was a terrific current in favour of a safe ditching. The force was with the pilot that day.

It must have been a downwind ditching as the plane took off in the opposite direction to the direction of ditching.