Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC

[Rotorhead1026]

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.

It was down current, and looking at the video of the floating airplane I do think there was enough to make a small difference (McGinty, I went back and looked at your post - three or four knots, perhaps?). I think the overriding factor in choice of direction was to get the bird close to rescue personnel (mid-Mahattan), but we'll know for sure once the tapes are publicized (:suspect:) and the pilots start talking (if they want to). Yes, the ideal situation is to land with the current and into the wind. The sea state wasn't a real problem here, fortunately.

[The Sultan]

First all kudos being given to the US Air crew are well deserved. WELL DONE.

I do think this would be a good time to revisit Eastern 853 mid-air in 1965 and the fantastic feat of airmanship by that crew and the ultimate sacrifice by Captain White for those that do not know. Hope this link works:

TWA Flight 42 - The Unexpected - When Experience and Airmanship Really Counts (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/legacytrix.html)

I wonder if this is part of any "how to do it right" courses.

The Sultan

[Whymeworry]

JANUARY 7, 2009, 12:04 A.M. ET
Safety Bid Accelerates For Airbus Jetliners

By ANDY PASZTOR (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=ANDY+PASZTOR&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND)

After nine sudden engine-stalls on Airbus aircraft since last April, U.S. and European aviation regulators are working with engine-maker CFM International SA to develop new safety measures for approximately 1,500 workhorse Airbus jetliners used around the world.
The effort was accelerated by an alarming incident last month, when both engines of an Air France Airbus A321 stalled briefly after takeoff from an airport in Tunisia, according to regulators and industry officials.
Like most of the previous incidents, high-pressure compressors on the engines stopped working when the pilots eased back takeoff power and set the throttles to climb away from the runway. None of the incidents ended in crashes or loss of life because the engines never shut off and recovered normal power after a brief interval.
The pattern, however, has prompted enough concern to warrant development of new software by CFM, a joint venture between General Electric (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=GE) Co.'s engine unit and France's Snecma, which is part of Safran Groupe (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=7327.FR) SA. The software modification is designed to adjust airflow through the engines, particularly older ones with some performance deterioration that haven't gone through a major overhaul for several years, according to a GE spokesman.
More broadly, the latest moves reflect heightened concerns recently by regulators and outside experts about a wide range of engine-reliability and safety issues spanning various passenger-jet makes and models. From computer-control malfunctions to high-altitude engine icing that can temporarily shut down thrust, engine problems in recent years have re-emerged as high-priority safety topics.
The CFM engines at issue have an excellent overall safety record, and only a small number of aircraft are expected to undergo enhanced inspections or engine replacements in the near term. But the stepped-up scrutiny will prompt significantly tighter inspection and monitoring of engine conditions on many more Airbus aircraft over the years. Airbus is a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=5730.fr) Co.
The stalling incidents all occurred on narrow-body Airbus jets using the same engines since around the beginning of the decade, GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said. The software modifications are expected to be installed on some 1,500 A319, A320 and A321 aircraft by the middle of the year, according to GE.

[Obie]

Forget the current, forget the wind, forget the direction of landing, forget the position of safety personnel. In the time it's taking me to write this post would be about the time the crew had from E/F to splashdown! Which means they had no time for anything other than flying the aeroplane onto the water in front of them! ( I am a slow typist! )

[Graybeard]

Boeing spends buckets of money advertising on tv, although their direct customers are few. This is pre-emptive buy of favorable coverage when the inevitable occurs. Ads weren't done by the old McDouglas, so in the 1979 tragedy at KORD, AA got off, while the DC-10 and McDuck were crucified.

GB

[Eboy]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane.xlarge1.jpg

[misd-agin]

It's the speed at touchdown vs. the speed of the water. And don't forget the wind. If the northerly wind is greater than the water current the a/c would be traveling faster than if it had flown into the wind against the current.

Didn't make a difference, they were landing south regardless of river current or wind direction.

[PlatinumFlyer]

US Airways Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III will appear in his first interview since successfully ditching a commercial jetliner on New York's Hudson River Monday on TODAY, NBC News announced

[PJ2]

bonger;
Not any more. It expired last month. US Airline Pilots Association Allows Safety Program to Lapse Citing Carriers Mismanagement of Critical Immunity Provisions (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/081215/20081215005877.html?.v=1)
Yes, I understand the issues with ASAP - sad enough but FOQA is not an ASAP/ASRS Program and as far as I understand it would still be running - the issues which have caused ASAP to fail, not wholly safety-related in my view (and it takes two to tango), will likely not have affected their FOQA program. Given the history of both carriers, (I used to know some of the principles at USAir), I doubt if FOQA would come to such an end. Anyway, I think Rotorhead1026's response is accurate. I hope so, even if these cards themselves don't survive the water - it's too good a program to let other than very serious crew identification issues destroy it.

[Wiley]

Obie, you must be a VERY slow typist. From 3200' to touchdown? Take a look at the time line. I haven't, but I'd be guessing something in excess of three minutes, particularly if he had a bit of 'zoom' potential from 250k back to his green dot speed.

Believe me, as someone who's been in a similar situation, (with a far messier result), I can attest that for the crew, in some ways it would have felt like three seconds - and in others, (the not helpful ways), three hours.

No one's saying the crew planned a down current landing, just that those precious fewer knots between the aircraft and the water on alighting might have made a difference in how the airframe handled the impact. Any bike rider will understand what I mean - try riding without goggles at 80mph and then 90. The difference in the wind force is very significant. In an immediate forced landing, you're stuck with your Mass; but any decrease in the 'V', (thanks to the Vsquared), can make quite a difference in the ergs you need to dissipate. As I mentioned above, General Spurance stressed this point with some passion in his presentation.

[justanotherflyer]

in the New York Times. (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/17/opinion/17lettersspan.jpg)

[scrufflefish]

In an earlier post someone mentioned they landed with about a 10 knot tailwind. I would estimate the current from the video at about 2 knots.
Net result is an 8 knot downwind component on landing, so if you want to argue the irrelevant then going the other way would be better.
I would suggest that they turned left hoping that some power from at least one of the engines would give them a chance of a return to La Guardia. As it turned out that wasn't possible and they made the best of the situation. Full marks to all the crew, and particlarly the ferry crews who displayed exceptional seamanship to maintain station without steerage way in wind and current.

[Eboy]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane4.600.jpg

[visibility3miles]

In terms of the current, I believe the tide was going out at the time, so the downstream current would presumably be even faster (thus "better") for a low impact landing. Not that they planned it that way...

Tide Location Selection for New York (http://www.saltwatertides.com/dynamic.dir/newyorksites.html)

Tides for New York (The Battery) starting with January 15, 2009.

High Tide Height
/Low Time Feet

Low 5:14 AM -0.4
High 11:25 AM 4.8
Low 5:47 PM -0.6

Sunset 4:54 PM

Tides for Coney Island starting with January 15, 2009.

High Tide Height
/Low Time Feet

Low 4:27 AM -0.4
High 10:50 AM 5.0
Low 4:58 PM -0.6
High 11:30 PM 4.9


81% of the moon was visible (although everyone was off before dark.)

[Obie]

We actually agree, Wiley, altho you don't seem to realise that!

120 to 180 secs is the time they had available.

Which is no time at all! ( I did tell you I was slow on the typing! )

Hey, you're an ATPL from Oz, don't get sucked in with the PPL's on this thread! :ok:

[remoak]

Well, so much for all the "experts" who said that the starboard engine couldn't possibly still be on the airframe... what with "vicious" swing to the left towards the end of the landing roll/plane... some of you just crack me up! :ugh:

[Obie]

Remoaks stupid comment has just brought this thread to an end, as far as I'm concerned. Unless the Mods get rid of it!!

[silverelise]

According to the BBC this morning the port engine has been located by sonar, "30 feet down in the Hudson", but they have not said where (ie. how far from the impact position).

And as mentioned previously, FO was PF for the departure, pilots looked up and saw "windscreen full of large brown birds" (BBC) and Captain S. took control with the phrase "my aircraft".

[banana9999]

Remoaks stupid comment has just brought this thread to an end, as far as I'm concerned. Unless the Mods get rid of it!!

No, Remoak was 100% correct. I suppose it is you that has been embarrassed :ok:

[Little_Red_Hat]

The CC role appears largely irrelevant thus far.

Only someone not entrusted with the responsibility of getting those passengers out could even think that!

Whether the landing is as 'successful' as this one or not, there are still things that regular pax, no matter how frequently they fly, just do not know, or can do for themselves, without the crew.

For example, one of the articles linked to earlier quoted from one of the flight attendants saying that it was a pax who tried to open the rear doors, despite the FA being there. So yes, I would say at that point the cabin crew role became very relevant! ;)

[fc101]

...

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

Looking at the pictures, ever tried diving in freezing, ice covered, low visibility, dirty water which happens to be moving (ie: current) AND with the possibility of bits of metal, cable and whatever hanging around AND the proximity of other boats (propellors)...?

Takes time, care, patience and planning ... 24hrs ... that's not bad!

fc101
E145 Driver

[A2QFI]

The Sunday Telegraph reports that, as a part of the Emergency Drill, the Pilot

" Switched off everything except the emergency lighting to stop more fuel going into the engines". Where do the reporters get this drivel? If I wanted to stop fuel going to the engines I'd use the HP/LP cocks.

[vanHorck]

OK, I ll put my hand up.

When i heard the right engine was the one still on the plane, i thought it was nonsense given that the plane veered to the left.

I ll eat humble pie and i stand corrected

I guess i do not yet qualify as an NTSB investigator

[juniour jetset]

Could she ever fly again?

some input from any engineers out there?

or maybe she will be the prized relic in one of those aviation museums .. I bet there would be a few bids for it from around the country

[Romeo India Xray]

Nice to see the mods are hard at work removing posts that contain simple observations and correlations - namely mine. Maybe it is just nautical terms they don't like?

The pie chart omits those of us who have been professional pilots and are now gainfully employed as professionals in other aviation disciplines - God bless the Class 1 :{

I will try again - early pictures show the aircraft on an even keel with a roughly even distributioin of SLF on the wings, the pictures of it being tugged show considerable listing to starboard.

I will refrain from imparting any conjecture on this seeing as the mods appear to be averse to it.

RIX

[captjns]

Could she ever fly again?

Destination for the jet after the investigation should be either Coors for beer cans or Gillette for razor blades… the aluminum parts of course.

[rageye]

Some interesting stuff:

The Wall Street Journal: Pilot Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger: What Role Did Glider Flying Play? (http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/01/16/pilot-chesley-‘sully’-sullenberger-what-role-did-glider-flying-play/)

and

Popular Mechanics: Did the Hudson Plane Crash Pilot's Glider Experience Help Him Land Flight 1549? (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4299754.html)

[reventor]

For example, one of the articles linked to earlier quoted from one of the flight attendants saying that it was a pax who tried to open the rear doors, despite the FA being there. So yes, I would say at that point the cabin crew role became very relevant!

I'm sensing it's difficult to make the point that CC effort was of little importance in this particular incident, without it being interpreted as a broad attack on CC in general. There are incidents where the CC's actions made a huge difference, but this (fortunately) is not one of them. Of course, the picture is far from complete, but the reported actions performed by the CC didn't appear to have mattered much. 1) Brace position reminder called on PA, excellent thinking and action taken, but landing was soft enough to render it irrelevant, maybe risking a couple sore necks at worst. 2) Life vests information, some concern on pax lacking them, but it didn't matter as the ferries were able to scoop up the people in time. Questionable situational awareness on the CC if they did not know they were landing on water until the aircraft had started sinking. 3) Opening of aft doors, this is infact a point I believe very few pax would be aware of. Yet several reports of people trying to open them, halted only by the fact that they did not open, not CC it appears. Reports of water leaking in might be due to the doors being opened (to some degree), but again they all had enough time to get off safely anyway. Opening the over-wing and front doors and wait for the ferries to come, I believe the passengers would have managed that on their own. Again, they are in an aircraft that is sinking on the Hudson. Try to stop them getting out!

Replay the flight without any CC or incapacitated CC, and the outcome should be pretty much the same. That's the definition of irrelevance, isn't it? It's similar to if your house catches fire, and you manage to put it out yourself before the fire trucks arrive. The fire brigade would be completely irrelevant for this particular event, that doesn't change the fact that in other circumstances they can be the difference between life and death.

Of course, there were passengers floating around in rafts, which would have to be filled with the right amount of people and then detached. Perhaps without proper use of the rafts, people would have to swim, and there would probably be some fatalities. However, I would guess that the passengers would be able to organize this rather simple task on their own, especially with the flight crew available to give orders. So I'm stumped in trying to find areas where the CC would have made a difference this event, in different circumstances, sure, but this incident? Hence I claim they were irrelevant to the fortunate outcome. I would be happy to change my mind from new information.

[Beausoleil]

As a passenger, I'm a religious reader of safety booklets and listener to briefings, but the details don't stick beyond the end of the flight. Still, sittiing in the comfort of my living room, it seems to me that "water landing" instruction I remember most is not to use the overwing exits rather than not to use the rear exists.

Either my memory is faulty (could well be) or perhaps it is type dependent? Comments I've read about planes being designed to float nose up suggest the rear doors should never be used in a water landing.

Just curious - not fussed since I'll be reading the booklet again next time.

Wonderful work and a wonderful result in NY this week and by the engineers who designed the plane. Congrats to all involved.

[Starbear]

When I heard the right engine was the one still on the plane, i thought it was nonsense given that the plane veered to the left.On seeing the photos showing this left turn on the water, it did mometarily cross my mind if it might just be possible that the right engine was not only still attached but producing some sort of power until it was literally drowned out and so forcing the turn.

Anyone recall that wonderful clip of a bizjet over-run into a lake and the engines autostarting (after evacuation) and converting it into a motor launch?

[rog747]

this is an amazing story and hello from london,
the crew getting the a/c down and the rescue effort was simply spectacular...

having recently sailed in a 90' schooner down the hudson from 59th st pier with the same outgoing tide i can assure you its very fast,
our skipper on the boat said its maybe a current of 3-4 kts at times depending on the moon etc
we were there for full moon and the current was very fast.
the us air a320 touched down near the uss intrepid and within a few minutes had drifted down to 23rd st,

the ntsb spokeswoman today seems to indicate (to me) that info from the capt seems that ''all'' climb power was inhibited so the capt made a landing where he deemed the safest with his speed and height left...the river, HE KNEW HE WASNT GONNA MAKE A RUNWAY...end of,

i am sure this is NOT a case of 'wrong engines were shutdown' and 'there still was a good engine' and 'why didnt he get it to an airport'.....
as most of you are atpl pilots in large jets then some of the input here is simply silly and just people trying to get reactions...
save that for the vile nasty comments you see on youtube please...
this is a pro aviation site so lets keep it like that or respect that if you are not in the profession.

if you look at the timeline v atlitude/speeds and how these events were bleeding off then im sure you will see the river was his only and best option...and it worked, vessels were close by and rescue was immediate.

to end here i must say now that we have had maybe a half dozen or so recent catastrophic events in the immediate or final phase of flight where the crew, and here i am gonna say very importantly the pax (SLF) were NOT expecting this, and the a/c was badly damaged/destroyed and the evacuations' were immediate and unexpected...
such as..
AIR FRANCE A340 landing over run YYZ
BA 777 LHR crash land, double engine lost power on final
RYANAIR 737 crash land CIA (double engine bird stike on final)
IBERIA A340 UIO landing over run
CONTINENTAL 737 DEN rejected t/o
US AIR NYC A320 ditching after t/o double engine ? bird strike ?
there were NO fatalities in these accidents,

but i could go on and mention others not quite so fortunate,
GARUDA,ONE 2 GO, TACA and more,

lets hope the pax really now do start taking note of the critical phase of flight, and assume maybe it may just happen to me one day and be as prepared as you can.

[BelArgUSA]

to Beausoleil -
xxx
The airplanes I flew in my career - 707-727-747-DC8 - were all supposedly to float somewhat nose-up.
Your opinion about rear exits being unusable after ditching is correct.
Be aware that a few types are devoid of any "overwing exits".
And... 25 years ago, a certain "world favorite airline" suppressed their L3/R3 doors on 747s.
This to put an extra 12 or so seats... Superior thinking, with safety concerns.
xxx
One rule applicable to any airplanes -
You only open a door after assessment of outside conditions (water/fire).
That is the reason why doors have a window...
xxx
:ok:
Happy contrails

[Little_Red_Hat]

reventor, thanks for clarifying your meaning of 'irrelevant'- sure they probably could have done it on their own, but my point was, without a trained, assertive individual who knows what could have happened... in an intact, full cabin such as this it seems that the cc kept things from turning into a panic, had the doors open within seconds (try that when you've never operated a door before, no matter how much you read the cards)

My comment re: the rear doors, to paraphrase the article, basically the pax opened the rear door (however that happened, I don't know- only one FA at the back so could have been just too fast/strong for the FA) water started coming in, FA managed to convince pax to exit via fwd and closed door...

I suppose we shall see once it all comes out. I'd just hazard a guess- wouldn't you feel more comfortable knowing you have a trained, experienced crew rather than Joe Bloggs who flies twice a month on your plane??? It's sort of like saying, oh, maybe we had a commercial lear jet pilot on board- sure they know a thing or two about the aircraft but it doesn't substitute for hands on experience!

Beausoleil- yes, it is type dependent. Even a 737 will differ depending on type
B737-400- main doors (fwd and aft) only
B737-800- overwing exits and fwd doors only

The card is the clue ;)

[r44flyer]

BBC News: "Capt Sullenberger looked up and in an instant his windscreen was filled with big, dark-brown birds.

"His instinct was to duck," said NTSB"

That tickled me a bit. Glad he didn't get in a flap, anyway.

[scottmorris]

Personally i think it is quite obvious that sully's gliding experience played a significant part in the whole process. Not necessarily in terms of handling or ability to judge height/distance but as a glider pilot you are always looking for an escape route and a lace to put down in the event of a loss in lift. Given sully's large experience i think this must have come second nature to him. best man for the job!!

[espenjoh]

ATC comm:

15:24:54 LaGuardia (LGA) tower controller clears Flight 1549 for takeoff from Runway 4, with instructions to turn left after departure and maintain a 360 deg heading. About a minute later, controller instructs crew to contact New York Departure Control.

15:25:51 Pilot contacts departure controller and advises aircraft was passing through at 700 ft. and climbing to 5,000 ft. Controller instructs aircraft to climb to 15,000 ft. Crew acknowledges. Controller instructs flight to turn left to heading 270 deg.

15:27:01 “Ahhh, this is 1549. Hit birds. We lost thrust in both engines. We’re turning back towards LaGuardia.” ATC acknowledges problem and instructs flight to turn left on a 220-deg heading. Crew acknowledges
Radar data from Newark and JFK sites indicate that at 15:27:01-- about 90 sec. after Flight 1549’s departure from LGA--the Airbus A320-200 intersected a “string of primary targets” between 2,900 ft. and 3,000 ft. These targets [interpretation: birds] were not depicted on the departure controller’s radar screen.

15:27:49 Departure controller advises LGA tower to halt further departures because an “emergency airplane is returning to the airport.” When queried which flight was returning, departure control advises, “It’s 1549. Birdstrike. He lost all engines, he lost the thrust in the engines. He is returning immediately.”

15:28.05 Controller asks if pilot wants to land at LaGuardia’s Runway 13. Pilot responds: “We are unable. We may end up in the Hudson.” According to the NTSB, discussion followed as to whether the flight could land at Teterboro (N.J.) airport, located about six mi. off the right side of the aircraft. Pilot responds, “We can’t do it.” When asked on which runway he would like to land, pilot responds: “We’re gonna be in the Hudson”—the last communiqué from the aircraft

15:30:30 Radar data shows aircraft touchdown in the Hudson River. Radar and tower personnel notify U.S. Coast Guard, New York City Police Dept. and other search and rescue groups. Coast Guard replies, “We launched the fleet.”The safety board’s Air Traffic Control Group had completed interviews with seven controllers and air traffic management personnel from New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) and LaGuardia (LGA) tower.

[puddle-jumper2]

There's always the possibility of one going through the screen - therefore it was a good instinct to duck :ok:

Save your sight - you're going to need it in the next few minutes.:eek:

[squib66]

This prescient 2002 report is worth a read:

Large Flocking Birds - An International Conflict Between Conservation and Air Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1437/srg_acp_00018-01-030303.pdf)

[Graybeard]

When the NYFD and NYPD were called out, they were not told type of aircraft, and were expecting a light plane or helo. This came out in tv interviews with them.

GB

[SaturnV]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane.xlarge3.jpg
NY Times

The tip of the right wing had been shorn off, and pieces were missing from it. Strands of steel and wires hung loose from the back portion of the fuselage, and the passenger hatch near the nose of the plane was gaping open, hanging off its hinges.
NY Times

A gash extended from the base of the plane toward the windows. And in places, the skin of the aircraft was simply gone.
AP

[NigelOnDraft]

Before we all become self-appointed NTSB experts looking at the state of the aircraft as recovered, one ought to remember that post ditching this aircraft has been bumped into / pushed / towed by numerous boats. Then been tied up to a pier with the right wing under the pier (stuck in the mud?), for 48hrs+, with a 3-4K reversing tide, then dragged out, and picked up by a crane :ooh:

I think given all that, it looks in remarkable good nick - never mind the ditching :D

NB The Fwd cargo door seems to have been opened in a normal type manner i.e. fairly undamaged?

NoD

[SaturnV]

Graybeard, I had posted more of the rough transcript of FDNY communications earlier in this thread, but these two entries suggest that they knew it was a commercial airliner.

1529hrs- Bronx receiving numerous calls for an explosion from a commercial aircraft over the borough.

1530hrs- Bronx transmitted (2) boxes for an explosion from an aircraft. Bronx CO advising B/C's that Queens CO is in constant contact with Airport Tower and are monitoring the aircraft which is attempting to conduct an emergency landing.

Posting on the Web of the FDNY communications radio traffic began at 1537 hours, so it was quite contemporaneous.

Manhattan- Aircraft Down In River 01-15-09 - EMTBravo.net (http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php?showtopic=29739)

[Diesel Fitter]

Airbrake wrote -
2. On 99% of occassions when you see birds its way to late to do anything about it except duck and hope.

I understand the PF saw the geese ahead in plenty of time - but assumed he would outclimb them.

He had 35 hrs on type.

[remoak]

One more observation to incite the masses...

Everyone is falling over themselves to congratulate the skipper on what he did. And of course he did do a good job...

But I reckon most of us (well, those of us who actually fly commercial aircraft - so I suppose a minority in this discussion!) would achieve a roughly similar result. Once the initial shock is over, the aircraft stabilised and the decisions made, the final part of the flight is a relatively simple evolution. I'd be pretty surprised if any more than say, 10% of USAir pilots would screw it up if faced with a similar situation - clear day, calm water, and so on. As another commentator said, he did well but he was also very lucky.

I'm sure that Capt Sullenburger will be the first to say that he just did what he was trained to do.

I'm getting pretty tired of the instant exaltation to hero status that pilots end up having to endure for simply doing their jobs properly. Most of those who have been there had trouble working out what all the fuss is about.

I'm actually more impressed that the F/O gave up his shirt, but there you go.

Anyway I suppose it is just human nature, and as I'm sure that most of the spotters/SLF here won't get what I'm on about, I'll shut up and go and get my flak jacket!

[Graybeard]

Saturn V: "Graybeard, I had posted more of the rough transcript of FDNY communications earlier in this thread, but these two entries suggest that they knew it was a commercial airliner."

The two NYPD SCUBA guys on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" Friday night said they were expecting a light aircraft. Transcripts should reveal where the comm breakdown occurred. For anyone really interested, the interview transcript should be available by now on LouDobbs.com.

GB

[sthaussiepilot]

remoak, I agree completly earlier today I was bitching about the news only mentioning the skipper, completly leaving the FO out, I'm sure he played his part, aswell as, as you mentioned the other act of handing his shirt to a passenger...

He did do a great job, but he also did what he was trained to do:ok:

[disconnected]

Certainly a great deal of luck involved in this incident regarding position, altitude, time of day, weather, surface conditions etc. But there go a lot of us - who are still alive because of just the right amount of luck at awkward times.

Nonetheless despite this, all the other factors that we are judged on as professionals are also here with full marks awarded. Be it for judgement, handling, management, CRM, systems knowledge etc. There is so much that could have gone wrong despite the circumstances of the day.

This was an exceptional performance by a professional crew who managed a difficult situation to an excellent outcome. They have my admiration.

[E.Z. Flyer]

The NTSB said radar data confirmed that the aircraft intersected a group of "primary targets," almost certainly birds, as the jet climbed over the Bronx. Those targets had not been on the radar screen of the air traffic controller who approved the departure, Higgins said.

Sullenberger takes controls (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28688215/)


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 (http://www.dodpif.org/downloads/articles/specialissue/birdcons.html)). 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.

US Bird Avoidance Model (USBAM) / Newark - NYC Regional NEXRAD Bird Detection Area (http://www.usahas.com/BAM/map/map.asp?Cmd=REFRESH&MinX=2119330.2155362563&MinY=-166837.96535288187&MaxX=2169834.9956064056&MaxY=-111095.65253471715&Layer28=on&Layer25=on&Layer21=on&Layer18=on&Layer17=on&Layer9=on&Layer8=on&Layer3=on&ActiveLayer=25&Biweek=2&Period=Dusk&Type=Cities&Route=Newark,%20NJ)

Harriman State Park NY -- Weather 1/15 (http://www.weather.com/outlook/recreation/outdoors/pastweather/hourly/NYSPHR:13?when=011509&stn=0)

[Airways B]

Is it possible that the starboard engine was still producing some (more than the port engine at least) amount of power on ditching? This would allow the water, on impact, a slightly less restrained passage through the powerplant and hence it could have experienced insufficient force to shear it off. Could this possibly also explain the aircrafts yaw to port once waterborne.

One things for sure, every piece of torn metal under the wings, the sheared port engine and no doubt buckled underbelly all are evidence of the absorbtion of impact energy which was sufficient to protect the integrity of the fuselage and its precious cargo.

Engineering design, great skill and fortune all played a part in this event. To what degree of each we will find out in the fullness of time.

[overthewing]

Was a Mayday called? I haven't heard that it was.

[Rotorhead1026]

Was a Mayday called? I haven't heard that it was

I don't know if we got the complete transcript. In any case nobody can argue with the emergency response. When the Coasties say "We launched the fleet", you can bet they mean business! :ok:

[misd-agin]

Ditching switch? News reports stating that NTSB reports crew did not use it "not enough time". Anyone want to continue proclaiming the positive attributes of the ditching switch and the impact it had on this event?

Left swing on landing might indicate, for whatever reason, that the left side took a slightly higher load on touchdown then the right engine. That could be the difference as to why one engine stayed attached and one different.

As always, we'll need to wait for the investigation to be finished to understand what actions taken were correct, and if any incorrect actions were taken.

[bnt]

Here's (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_GYUHMQY_QDL5v3q0okVIb2mKkQD95PJ8SG0) the AP report that includes the NTSB comment that the Ditch switch was not used. The spokesperson also says that the co-pilot had a visual on geese and hoped they'd miss the plane.

[wybmaditty]

The alleged bird strike occurred over The Bronx, which has more parkland than all the other boroughs. Coincidence maybe, but it also has a bigger density of low-income people.

If a plane departs off RWY 04 (as USAir did) at LGA and flies straight the population flown over is VERY wealthy, so you get a turn left instead. For example, when RWY 22 is in use only the VOR (offset) approach is used. The ILS is allowable but the ceiling has to be below the VOR minimums. Why? The community on approach has a very effective noise-abatement lobby.

USAirways has no luck with LGA, in fact they changed their name from USAir after two fatal incidents at LGA, like changing Windscale to Sellafield. Everyone survived thankfully this time.

[Airbubba]

Was a Mayday called? I haven't heard that it was.

The term 'Mayday' is never used in the U.S. by civilians in my experience. We don't do practice 'Pans' either. The British obsession with published R/T procedures is just not in our culture. We probably could do a little better on the radio at times but we tend not to stand on ceremony in the air.:)

'We've lost both engines' is more than sufficient to alert a New York controller to the urgency of the situation whether or not an emergency was formally delcared.

There are some fine differences in terms like 'minimum fuel' and 'declaring an emergency' when it comes to ATC priority but in general we express ourselves in plain language when we need help from ATC.

[airfoilmod]

It is possible that #1, having taken in more gooseflesh than #2, was more compromised (due to out of balance rotating mass and damaged mounts), and simply departed first. Left loop? easy. without the nacelle for support, the wing may have dragged the water, creating more left turning impetus than the starboard side had, being "supported" by the "intact" nacelle and pylon assmbly. Who's to say?

[Jetjock330]

According to this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/18/new-york-plane-crash-salvage) article, the crew did not use the ditching button.

The descent happened so fast the crew never threw the aircraft's "ditch switch," which seals off vents and holes in the fuselage to make it more seaworthy.

I doubt if this would've made any difference when looking at the pictures of the aircraft being pulled out of the water, as the underneath was ripped open.

[protectthehornet]

In a glider, you start the flight knowing you don't have an engine.

IN a single engine plane, you should always be looking for a place to land. Ergo, I think single engine mindset is quite vital. Having flown airliners (as pilot) out of LGA, I was always looking for a spot to land...dual engine failures do happen for many reasons.

The ditching checklist is too long.

I think a simple memory item checklist for any ""all engines out" failure should be:

trim for best glide/min safe speed for configuration

head towards PRESELECTED emergency landing spot

Radio a distress call

WARN cabin crew

IF landing in water, close outflow valve

attempt engine restart (lotsa luck!)

When I was a captain, I used to ask my copilots where they would go if both quit...virtually none of them were even considering the possibility.

Our training is so concerned with FAA mandates about engine out at V1 that we have forgotten other things that COULD happen.


as we hear more, the fecal matter will certainly impact the oscillating ventilator.

[lomapaseo]

Agree!

Good report worth the read.

From post # 790

This prescient 2002 report is worth a read:

Large Flocking Birds - An International Conflict Between Conservation and Air Safety

A couple of points from my view

the engines on the thread subject flight were probably only certified to continue running with birds up to 1.5 lbs.

The large bird strikes commented on in the referenced report 4 lbs and up left remakable damage to the aircraft as well as the engines.

Bird hazard abatement on the ground is far easier than encountering flocks of birds while they are in flight away from control procedures. See and avoid is also difficult.

[SaturnV]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20090118/capt.photo_1232292430269-15-0.jpg?x=400&y=311&q=85&sig=xfR9lhmPFGWq6zA51Bj6ww--

Photo AFP

I think these pieces were recovered from the river, and before the plane was raised.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20090116/capt.a938015e24b64d1684aea64ced96ffcd.plane_splashdown_njmd1 05.jpg?x=373&y=345&q=85&sig=N.Ol9PWY3hsx86alAVMZpA--

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20090116/capt.1f2ed880a13f45648756f0e0460fb9c4.plane_splashdown_njmd1 08.jpg?x=400&y=340&q=85&sig=rnTonHwlcPKlN7fHXRJzWw--

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20090116/capt.0a9ea37858164cb9a3ff62d067ad8d52.plane_splashdown_njmd1 06.jpg?x=369&y=345&q=85&sig=3GpxrcsOR2Fa5uMJSGEEeg--

Photos AP

[zalt]

lomapaseo

I agree
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1437/srg_acp_00018-01-030303.pdf
Is a great read and certainly highlighted a major problem early.

I wonder if Mayor Bloomberg and all the other local and state officials who were deseprate to be name-checked after the rescue will be as keen to explain what actions they have taken to control the bird population.

[hayessteph]

As SLF only, can I ask a possibly stupid question?

Why don't engine intakes have shields in front of them to prevent or reduce the bird strike risk? Like a household electric cooling fan has a shield in front to stop you putting your fingers into the blades when it is running. The centre of the shield would need to extend further forward than the rim (so the shield would be cone-shaped) to better help deflect the birds.

[wybmaditty]

Airflow disturbance, it was tried initially.

[justanotherflyer]

Competence, savoir-faire and grace have been demonstrated by many of the participants in this drama, both in the air and on the surface. That is a good thing for aviation, and for America.

Many people, from the first officer to members of the flight crew, from the passengers to the civilian and city rescue crews who converged on the craft to save them, earned accolades on Thursday. But Captain Sullenberger’s efforts, like twice checking the soaked cabin for stragglers before fleeing the sinking plane himself, emerged as singularly selfless leadership of a sort that seemed so removed from things like Ponzi schemes and subprime mortgages, corporate bailouts and deflected blame. (New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/nyregion/17pilot.html?))

And far removed from the events of September 11, where aircraft arcing in the New York skies were harbingers of evil, darkness and sorrow, not of goodness, joy and rescue.

[fox niner]

Surprises me that even one engine is still on a wing. I would have expected them both to sheer off as they ate water. And would the minced geese meat be washed off this engine or would evidence be easily obtainable...?
I would expect this to be a sort of "straightforward" investigation.

Easier than the BA 777 at least.:ok:

Kudos to the crew! (including cabin crew that is)

[bnt]

Well, shields in front of the engines have been suggested before, and at least one design has been patented (http://www.google.com/patents?id=4-sdAAAAEBAJ&dq=5411224). That particular one looks as if it could seriously impede airflow and/or create a noise problem.

The material would be a huge problem, I think. That patent suggests titanium, but I don't think even that would survive a goose strike - and you could then have bits of titanium going through the engine (a Very Bad Thing). However, a modern composite material that absorbs energy and disintegrates on impact, like the nose cones on Formula One cars, might be more suitable.

[hin316]

i know various airlines differ but i'm a purser on an a320 and barring obvious conditions such as fire or blockage all exits are useable in a ditching. we used to operate 737-300/700's and the brief was the primary exits in a ditching are the overwings, and if possible the foward doors but not the rear doors i believe it was something to do with the boeing being very tail heavy.

my congratulations to the whole crew though! awsome job guys

[lomapaseo]

One thing to keep in mind while sitting in our armchairs is the crew debrief which appeared to imply that the FO was busy trying to restart engine(s)

This would have required a pitch down beyond an extended glide distance in order to get the N2's up to pressurization. As long as there are no obstacles and you have a chance to flare it works out as a win win. When I tried this in a simulator after a bird strike I got the engines lit but still ploughed into the Ocean at too steep an angle, of course being a simulator I gave all the priority to the engines and never considered the altitude :)

[cats_five]

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.
<snip>.

I agree - and in the situation they were in doing the best for the SLF was also doing the best for themselves and vice versa.

I do have a couple of questions:

1) it looked pretty crowded on the wings. How full was the aircraft?

2) I only fly gliders, and each time I launch I have a launch failure plan. Does this happen with commercial aviation? (or indeed GA)

[Kingbird87]

This is my first post on this forum. I fly the A320 for another carrier and heard of the miraculous event prior to departure to LGA that same afternoon. I have thought of scarcely anything else since. As we arrived over the Hudson that evening, lights were illuminating the recovery as I stole a glimpse at the aircraft. I thought back many years, to the evening of September 3, 1983. I was the copilot of Air Force Rescue 95822, and we had arrived on scene as the first aircraft to the scene of the shootdown of KAL 007. The lights on the water, the gravity of the situation, took me back to that time, and I realized that Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III had filled me again with the awe and wonder that brought me into this wonderful profession. When I was a young cadet, he was the young Lieutenant flying F-4's that I aspired to be like, every facet of this man's career has been devoted to the refinement of the profession, and I have spent the last few days again filled with awe and wonder. We all know the technical intricacies of our aircraft, the procedures we have been trained in, and the precedents of those events that have been investigated.
This was "The Event", that we all have lived with tucked beneath our facades. And in that moment, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III knew what he had. His altitude and low airspeed, the futility of a restart, and the fact that his energy would not allow him to make Teterboro or return to LaGuardia. It is the very general term "judgement", and his judgement included all of those forty remarkable years flying and accumulating "judgement". He was on the "perch" with a T-38, doing a high key flameout landing with an F-4, computing a visual descent point by instant glance, and using his glider training to finesse the course of events that he chose. And he chose the course, and it was magnificent. And although I am not that much younger than "Sully", I am filled with "Awe and Wonder", and like the young man I was, accept that I still can do a lot more to try to measure up to his standard. Thankyou Captain Sullenberger, for exemplifying my chosen profession in the most shining light. Thankyou for being ready, when the darkest and most private hell that we all keep within us, emerged. And thankyou most of all, for the "Awe and Wonder", that around the world, will inspire another generation of talent to infuse our profession.

[markbyrn]

Best close-up video of landing I've seen so far
Crews hoist ditched plane from Hudson River | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star (http://www.indystar.com/article/20090118/LOCAL/901180420)

[Starbear]

This would have required a pitch down beyond an extended glide distance in order to get the N2's up to pressurization. As long as there are no obstacles and you have a chance to flare it works out as a win win.

Not if the APU was available and if it wasn't I don't believe there would be any chance to reach the required speed with less than 3,500 ft available.

[McGinty]

Terrific post Kingbird - heartfelt and well-written.

Talking about writing, have I spotted the first use of a new phrase to describe this ditching? Today's Daily Telegraph web page in the UK has an article on this accident that describes the US Air ditching as a "splash-landing". Has anyone seen this excellent description before?

The article can be found at New York plane crash Airbus lifted from Hudson River by salvage teams - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4282161/New-York-plane-crash-Airbus-lifted-from-Hudson-River-by-salvage-teams.html)

[G-CPTN]

"splash-landing"Certainly used to be used about 50 years ago in Britain.

[tanimbar]

Sir, A damn fine piece of prose.

Regards, Tanimbar

[NamelessWonder]

First of all, kudos, congratulations and unlimited respect to the entire crew for their obvious professionalism in landing and evacuating this aircraft without loss of life - a truly wondrous achievement that I hope is studied and learned from to enable others to benefit from the exemplary performance of all. Additionally, massive congrats to all at Airbus for the robust airframe that survived this "landing".

However, sadly, I have to express my massive disappointment in the "professional" community here that chooses to speculate and put down the passengers on the aircraft at every opportunity (led, VERY disappointingly by a moderator, no less).

To disparage pax as "SLF" etc and ASSUME that they CHOSE not to put on life vests IF any were available and IF they were instructed to do so, is bad enough. To ASSUME that they had enough warning to do so in the limited time available, is grossly presumptive and utterly irresponsible.

Pax may not be trained or even necessarily properly informed (as per the aft doors argument) but this does not mean they are ignorant or stupid.

Shame on you. At a time when the industry should be justifiably proud of its achievements, your bias is extraordinarily disappointing.

[vanHorck]

SLF is a common tongue in cheek name for passenger on this forum, it is part of the common speak and has been for donkey's years.

PPRUNE is intended for pilots and those associated with the aviation community. Once you have been here a while you will find people from outside our industry struggle with our direct approach to issues. So be it. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Most people read a lot on a forum before they make accusations, especially to avoid gaffes like this one.

Apart from that i don't think SLF were put down in any way. I would suggest the gist is that they did well (not panic) but would do well listening carefully to the CC briefings (which may be improved after this ditching)

[Exnomad]

One aspect I have not seen discussed is the information available from the fuselage structure. My only experience is of old fashioned riveted structures, I have no idea how much of a bus is machined and bonded rather than riveted
This was a near perfect ditching in calm water, the degree of damage to the underside will give a great deal of guidance on the survivability in other circumstances. I would still guess that landing in ocean swells would have lead to less favourable outcomes.

[ribt4t]

It flight attendants could be unaware that the plane had landed in the water it's just as likely that a fair number of passengers wouldn't have realized they needed life jackets before they'd left their seat.

[Centreline747]

Yes quite right vanHorck maybe a few more will pay attention to the Cabin Crew pre-flight brief. Even as flight deck crew I always pay attention to the brief out of respect. I cannot accept the contempt paid by the traveling public who know it all and don't have the respect to put down their newspaper or get off their mobile for a few moments to pay attention to what may save their fat arses.

Rgds

CL747

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I would still guess that landing in ocean swells would have lead to less favourable outcomes.

I can guarantee you it would have been less favorable, and possibly not survivable for some or all, depending on the swell height and distance top to top..

[GroundProxGuy]

US Airways black boxes head to Washington | NECN (http://www.necn.com/Boston/Nation/2009/01/18/US-Airways-black-boxes-head-to/1232281923.html)

Video showing the recorders from the flight. The NTSB grabbed four boxes total. CVR and FDR as standard, plus the EGPWS and one other black box I don't recognize (ACARS or QAR?).

Grabbing the EGPWS is becoming more common for the data it stores about takeoffs, landings, and alerts.

[airfoilmod]

Exonomad, the construction of modern a/c is an amazing feat. Rivets are heavy, compromise the skins strength, and require thicker panels to gain their strength. A/C are an excellent example of form following function. A/C must be light and strong, period. If you like Bonding and machining, you will love what's coming. "Friction-Stir" welding of Aluminum skin and sub structures. Pioneered in Rockets and missiles, it is a superior solution to saving weight and gaining strength.

Had the A320 had a riveted belly, (some of it is), it may have failed in a different, more catastrophic manner. Rueing the disappearance of rivets?
Airplanes are not meant to land on water (except those constructed with that in mind, specifically), all in all, the 320 is a marvel, I think this last accident only serves to polish its reputation, not impugn it.

[BelArgUSA]

NamelessWonder -
xxx
Please be assured that I have always refrained from using the "SLF" slang to designate passengers. In particular, I do not like the "F" in "SLF" (as it denotes freight). For me, old school and education, passengers were always passengers, not even customers. If I refer passengers as "PAX", it is because the airline industry's official code/abbreviation for passengers. If the tower asks "how many on board"...? we could answer 375+15, meaning 375 PAX and 15 CREW... or 390 SOB for "souls on board" (not anything nasty in this SOB)...!
xxx
I know that passengers are not all idiots. Unfortunately, I know from 40 years as pilot with airlines (now retired) and from conversing with the public, or reading Pprune, we crewmembers often deal with passenger misinformation rather than stupidity. Such as "the plane will stall if all engines fail"... or "wow, you are a pilot, it is such a dangerous job"... "heavy jets glide like a brick"...!
xxx
If I consult a surgeon for a surgery, I do not doubt his capacity to take care of a hernia, nor a lawyer to defend me in an ownership litigation. So, please trust those of us who are experienced crewmembers here in Pprune. As to my opinion of "Sully" and crew, I do respect their performance and judgment. As far as I am concerned, I never was a "hero" in my career. My passengers always arrived safely, because as a pilot, I wanted to arrive alive and well, and funny, if I landed safely, so did all the passengers.
xxx
Do not ever ask me "is this airplane safe"...? If say "let's go", is because I am certain it is, I would never have risked my life, as I am not a hero.
xxx
Bien à vous -
:ok:
Happy contrails

[Dysag]

You are so right. The A320 had a very long gestation period. This enabled improvements such as fly-thru-computer to be incorporated, which were not in the predecessor projects.

One might say that some of the best human brains anywhere contributed.

Not surprising therefore that this ahead-of-its-time masterpiece baffled more than one pilot. The early accidents are well documented.

But as the designers of this remarkable machine take their retirement, if they made it that far, let's at least say that their highly ambitious and innovative approach has been vindicated.

[Otto Nove Due]

Here's LGA ATC audio from the time of the crash. Doesn't contain the actual pilot's comms but the controller is asking other crews to look for the ditched plane

LiveATC Recordings | LiveATC.net (http://www.liveatc.net/recordings.php)

[SuctionBoost]

I think that icing maybe an issue.

[PJ2]

GroundProxGuy;

From the limited view underneath the EGPWS box I didn't see a card-mounting slot for a QAR PCMCIA card but I don't know the media that AW/US Airways aircraft use for their FOQA Program - it could be a wireless arrangement with a transmitter, usually cell-phone technology, that sends the stored data at the end of the flight. Regardless, FDIMU's (Flight Data Interface Management Unit) aren't water or shock proof so we'll see what is available. Usually such installations collect far more parameters than the crash recorders do. Even so, with this installation there will be plenty of engine data not to say system and flight data. Nice to see recorders in such pristine condition, not unexpected in this case, another subtle but happy sign of the wonderful outcome.

BelArgUSA;
Superb post, excellent comments - captures my, and likely almost all, professionals' thoughts and feelings about this incident. At one time or another, if we fly long enough, we'll all have been there, not nearly to the same extent but certainly with the potential but for all the good work those who remain unsung, do.

[armchairpilot94116]

5 white-knuckled minutes aboard Flight 1549 - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090118/ap_on_re_us/plane_splashdown_cockpit_drama)

Really was a fortunate turn of events coupled with a fantastic bit of flying.

[courtney]

My but you read lots of rubbish on these forums. 'Aviators' who fly into the ground/sea because they were in a sim, some who think a jet can glide 9mls from 3000' These pax were very lucky in timing location etc but also because the guy in charge had seen it all many times before and will be the first to admit that the flying was pretty straight forward and he was lucky.

[cats_five]

1 statue mile in the UK = 1760 yards, = 1760 * 3 feet.

So 9 UK status miles = 47520 feet. Divide that by 3,000 gives an L:D ration of just under 16 which I gather is well within the bounds for a modern commercial plane such as the A320.

However the arrival height is zero (not good unless there is a runway right ahead) and assumes no significant headwind or sink.

A nautical mile is pretty much 6,000'. If that is what was meant then the L:D goes up to 18 which is (I suspect) a pretty significant increase.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Was a Mayday called? I haven't heard that it was.


Waste of breath and time, better to get on with the job in hand - as they did.


They were already in constant communication with an ATC service, their plight and intentions were known and everyone knew where to go look for them !!

What would have been the point - exactly ?

[Deaf]

Airfoilmod - Probably getting O/T but not quite that simple. Rivets do have the advantage of providing a crack stop. Similarly in composites the strength of the bond resin/fiber is limited (apart from chemistry) to provide crack stopping.

[old-timer]

Top job, I salute the skill of Captain Sullenberger, his crew & everyone involved.

[airfoilmod]

Well they do provide crack stops. All too often, crack starts as well. I'm in composites, so partial, however. Now way O/T.

AF

[bunkrest]

" However, I would guess that the passengers would be able to organize this rather simple task on their own, especially with the flight crew available to give orders. So I'm stumped in trying to find areas where the CC would have made a difference this event "

I see the point that you are trying to make ie: cabin crew had no impact in the outcome of this particular incident however it did make me smile when the succesful utilisation of a slide by an untrained hand was described as a "simple task".

Firstly there is the door mode to consider, (automatic/manual) with a stampded of traumatised pax beating a path behind you are you going to be able to work out what mode does what? Indeed are you going to want to open the door in automatic in the first place ?

So you've opned the door and because the cabin crew has selected manual (for a ditching) there is no slide inflation....what next...? has it failed? is there a manual inflation option? do you try yout luck at another door?

Ok so you've worked out how to inflate the thing, everyone has scuttled onboard...you want to get away from the fuselage...does it come away? how do you detach it....sure there may be instructions printed on the thing but how long is it going take you to read them..?

The pilots might well be around they might not, they might be together on the other slide or have beaten a hasty retrest out of the D.V. window or indeed (as in this case) be checking the cabin.

I just think its grossly unfair to those flight attendants to say that their imput was negligable/non existant without knowing the full facts.

[galaxy flyer]

Always found that curious, screaming "Mayday". The only function would be alert ATC that you need their attention and, perhaps, traffic priority. Beyond that, ATC can do zero to assist. The E-3 crew in Elmendorf was literally screaming "mayday, mayday, mayday" as it sunk into the trees. What good could it possibly do?

GF

[AAKEE]

I´d say 'MayDay' is the opening sentence, first time just to notify others that they shut the f**k up and let me use the frequency.
Most times You´d probably already said something that made all other listening to that freq. that aware of the situation, making it unnecessary to use the phrase.

[Adios]

About the only good reason to say Mayday is to break in to a channel clobbered with other calls, but that is not what I cam here to post.

Here is a link to a slideshow of photos taken as the bird was lifted from the water: Crews hoist ditched plane from Hudson River | IndyStar.com gallery | The Indianapolis Star (http://www2.indystar.com/autofocus/galleries/show/4964/1)

These show a baggage compartment door open. I suspect the divers opened this to expedite water escaping during the lift to the barge. Had this happened at impact, the door probably would have been ripped off, or at least twisted and mangled.

Some photos also show the tail cone is missing. Given the fact that from the videos of the landing, it looks like the tail hit first, I suspect maybe the divers didn't remove it, rather the impact probably did.

I wonder if losing the tail cone would negate the benefits of sealing the plane up with the ditch switch, which according to several reports was not activated in this incident.

[egbt]

I wonder if losing the tail cone would negate the benefits of sealing the plane up with the ditch switch, which according to several reports was not activated in this incident.

Is the tail cone not outside of the pressure hull?

[Pinkman]

I would still like to know what "large brown birds" bought down the aircraft. About the only large brown birds as described are geese, and geese don't flock like starlings, they fly in a 'V' (as noted by pattern_is_full). Ingesting one, fine, but two? You would have to exactly fly to intersect with the V-pair which were the same distance apart as the donks. The odds must be vanishingly small.

[airfoilmod]

Geese CRUISE in the "V". Below their altitude, (which they choose) they
loiter, until the lead takes his position. You would (might ) be surprised where grampa (Bull Goose) flies in the "V". NOT in front, but on the wing, drafting one of his juniors.

[scimart]

I'd say that the fact there is debate, 2 days after the event, from the comfort of a PC in someone's living room as to whether the glide ratio of the A320 would have resulted in an arrival at an airport at the limit of the approximate theoretical range - assuming the pilot knew or could see at 9 miles that there were no obstructions to that marginal approch - more than justifies the decision to take the alternative of an approach involving risk to very few others on the ground. An arrival anywhere on the ground in a built up area other than the airport would have been very likely to have resulted in serious disruption to the airframe and fire. This decision had to be made in a few seconds as the options would be diminishing rapidly.

There has been speculation regarding Captain Sullenberger's experience as a fighter pilot and as a glider pilot. Surely, the former is, rather than concentrating on any counter-productive "gung-ho" aspects, someone who was trained to make life and death decisions in high stress situations and the second, rather than purely giving experience of judging final glides (useful, but I'd imagine that very few ATPLs would be unable to do the sums) - someone who has learnt to fly without the reliance on numbers and procedures which are the norm in powered aviation. Certainly, the common theme in "how I did it" speeches at gliding competitions always seems to involve a successful pilot thinking outside the box...

There's no reason to suppose, at this time, that any situation other than that reported to ATC existed - other than for the posters to be able to claim bragging rights that they "knew all along" that someone had made a mistake. I sincerely hope they are made to look very stupid.

[Marsh Hawk]

The E-3 crew in Elmendorf was literally screaming "mayday, mayday, mayday" as it sunk into the trees. What good could it possibly do?
Literally? Not according to the transcript of the accident, which is on page 6 of this Flight Safety Foundation report. It's an interesting read. I think it's relevant to this thread because bird strike accidents will be a worsening problem as the geese population continues to explode.

https://www.flightsafety.org/ap/ap_nov96.pdf

[scrufflefish]

Pinkman, your post on the small chance of hitting two birds is based on the assumption of a head-on (or tail-on) impact with the flock. Hit the V at an angle from the side and it is easy to postulate a very high number of birds within the engine-span of the aircraft.
In fact you could be unlucky enough fly up one leg of the V and take say 10 birds in one engine and one bird from the other leg in the other!

[armchairpilot94116]

NTSB says both engines out at same time:


NTSB: US Airways jet's engines lost power together - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/plane_splashdown)

[shawk]

An update on the flight recorders from AP.

The flight data recorder of the US Airways jet that landed in the Hudson River shows both engines lost power simultaneously, investigators said Sunday.
Information from the flight recorders on the doomed aircraft was released as investigators worked to remove its fuel. After that is completed, officials hope to move the damaged plane off the river by the end of the day.

Kitty Higgins of the National Transportation Safety Board said at an afternoon briefing on the investigation...[that] the recorders showed that Flight 1549 reached a maximum altitude of 3,200 feet before losing power simultaneously in both engines before its splash-landing Thursday afternoon.

Higgins recounted excerpts from communications captured by the cockpit voice recorder beginning 90 seconds after takeoff, when the captain made a remark to the co-pilot about birds.
One second later, she said, "the sound of thumps and a rapid decrease in engine sounds" could be heard.
"The captain makes a radio call to (Air Traffic Control) calling Mayday, and reports that they hit birds, lost both engines and were returning to LaGuardia" Airport, she said.

[forget]

Nameless wonder, We do not (at this stage) know whether the passengers were instructed to don lifevests (or IF any were even on board)

Had you taken the time to read this thread you'd have seen, several times, that the aircraft in question is certified/operated Extended Over Water, with full life vests and rafts.

[airfoilmod]

Graphic shows bird sanctuaries under the departure track of 1549. That means, well, LOTS of birds, big and brown. A/c congregate @ airfields, birds congregate at uh.... sanctuaries.

[overthewing]

So he did call Mayday.

[barit1]

I wonder if this (http://www.canadageese.org/news12.html) is now subject to revision. Someone should hire Dick Cheney in the front line of this control issue. :ok:

[heliski22]

There is little to add to the many postings on this topic other than to offer congratulations to the crew, ALL the crew of 1549 for a job well done. Despite all the rubbish offered by the armchair experts, it is clear that Capt. Sullenberger got it pretty much down pat as he responded to the developing and potentially catastrophic emergency on his aircraft just after take-off.

Emergencies don't run off exactly by the numbers as they do in training and whether or not he got off a Mayday call, or any debate as to the value of such a call, or questions about the precise value of the response of Cabin Crew are all little more than idle chatter. On the day, the crew got it just about as right as it could have been, they were favoured by training, calm response, advantage of circumstances and a dressing of luck sprinkled across the top. It takes all of those to get the right result in any circumstances and none of those can be used to take the tiniest thing away from the full credit due to the crew - ALL the crew.

Many of us who fly professionally will consider what happened both in the context of relief that it all turned out well but, more importantly, with regard to just how we might have handled that or any other real life emergency in the air. Sullenberger is quoted by his family as saying that most pilots go through their entire career without an incident. In my own case, so far, he's been right and I dearly hope it stays that way. I'm 52 years old and I don't feel either desire or compulsion to test my "cool-clean-hero" ability nor to check my emergency drills in anything other than the simulator. I hope my training has laid up a bank of knowledge and automatic reactions which will stand me in good stead in the event I am faced with a real emergency one day and that's about it.

The finer points of this incident are of no importance at all at this stage.

It is clear there was complete power loss in both engines, it is clear Sullenberger did what he was supposed to do, it is clear the cabin crew did what they too were supposed to do, it is clear there were extremely fortunate circumstances prevailing at the time in terms of available first responders and, most importantly, it is clear everybody survived.

After that, ladies and gentlemen, all this "what if" stuff and "did he do this or that?" stuff is just so much waffle and about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle.

Well done again to the crew, ALL the crew of 1549.

22

[beamender99]

The Associated Press: NTSB: River jet's engines lost power at same time (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipKRkY9XnWmqqvBNAlBju1taRJCQD95PPV400)

More info plus interview with capt Sullenberger had been delayed ( again)

[Jim59]

Glide angle estimates of 16/18:1 are presumably for a 'clean' airframe. The pictures, after removal from river, show LE slats out and some flap out on sbd wing (but not obviously on port wing so could be post splash damage) and wheels up.

What would glide angles be in various 'dirty' configurations?

[mickjoebill]

Excellent report of passenger accounts, that will surely lead to changes in SOP....

Cabin crew report they were unaware they were landing on water.
Passengers took seat cushions when they realised they were on water.
Very few life vests taken and worn.
Most passengers went to wing exits (just as well as there was inadequate space on forward slides)
A passenger opened one of the rear doors "a crack" which let in water.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/nyregion/17flight.html?hp&pagewanted=all



Mickjoebill

[Kingbird87]

The examination of the many aspects of this event are both useful, and distracting. The results of US Airways Flight 1549 are 155 people waking up on the 17th of January, 2009. They weren't in Charlotte, and US Airways was missing one A320, but all things considered, I will always consider this a positive outcome.
The next day, I looked out the window going through 3000 feet departing runway 31 from LGA. I assume the birdstrike occurred about the time he crossed the East River over Manhattan. I looked back at LaGuardia, too many turns, and over the Hudson at Teterboro. I used the judgment I've gained and determined I might make it, but I could not align with the runway and configure for landing with the altitude I had. Captain Sullenberger nailed it. He took the stick, he decided it was the Hudson, and delegated duties. The FO configured for an Emergency Landing, and it happened. He missed all obstacles, and performed a terrific landing. The evacuation, and the crew's actions afterwards are exemplary. I don't have any second guessing to add to this. I do have these personal observations.
I would probably have chosen to ditch. I also would have probably turned up the river toward West Point. This would have been most likely a decision with fatal consequences. The ferries and the emergency response teams were all in the vicinity of the harbor. My judgement, at that time, would have been to avoid populated areas, and if that plane went down several miles up the river, I doubt the outcome would have been without fatalities. I cannot fathom second guessing this man's decisions. I'm convinced. He did it right.
I've seen the other end of this spectrum. As an HC-130 Rescue Pilot, I responded to a number of crashes, sinkings, Typhoons, and a shootdown. That is why I feel such elation with the events of Flight 1549. I know what the other outcome looks like, and it in no way resembles what we have witnessed.
That flight I flew the next day, two of the survivors of Flight 1549 were aboard, along with a US Airways Representative. I watched them get off to meet friends and family, and I felt good. We should all feel good. Captain Sullenberger, you got 155 saves the other day. "These Things We Do, That Others May Live".

[NigelOnDraft]

Flocks of Geese v Airliners - including looking at probabilities of Geese into both engines of Twin Airliners: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500040.pdf

So:I would still like to know what "large brown birds" bought down the aircraft. About the only large brown birds as described are geese, and geese don't flock like starlings, they fly in a 'V' (as noted by pattern_is_full). Ingesting one, fine, but two? You would have to exactly fly to intersect with the V-pair which were the same distance apart as the donks. The odds must be vanishingly small. it would seem the answer is in fact significantly large :ooh:

A rather prophetic report :D

NoD

[galaxy flyer]

Marsh Hawk

i humbly stand corrected, i was going from memory of the accident brief I attended years ago. However, I "literally" was incorrect, however, there was a lot of radio transmissions that did nothing to aid aircraft handling. To my point, what help did declaring an emergency do?

GF

[zalt]

May have been prothetic but not widely read:

WWT London Wetland Centre - Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT) (http://www.wwt.org.uk/text/496/wwt_london_wetland_centre.html)

How close is Barnes resevoir to LHR?

The centre was awarded the 2002 British Airways 'Tourism for Tomorrow' Global Award for Sustainable Tourism

[Airbubba]

So he did call Mayday.

Perhaps but I would be surprised if he used the word itself. Ms. Higgins was a controversial NTSB political appointee over the objection of ALPA and other groups and has little operational aviation experience. Some of the terms she's used in earlier press conferences show this.

At least Debbie Hersman has a commerical school bus driver's license.:)

[zalt]

They are all political appointees just some are OK.
John Goglia was the last aviation expert with any integrity.

[Zulu01]

Glide angle estimates of 16/18:1 are presumably for a 'clean' airframe. The pictures, after removal from river, show LE slats out and some flap out on sbd wing (but not obviously on port wing so could be post splash damage) and wheels up.

What would glide angles be in various 'dirty' configurations? As a glider pilot, ...... clean makes a hell of a big difference to best distance, but so does speed, and I would be prepared to bet that an A320 would need to be much faster than climb out speed to have best glide distance/ratio and no way these guys would have traded height for speed .

Also - As a pilot that does regular "off field landings" - you obviously try to be as slow as you can over the ground when landing, so once the decision has been made to land , you use whatever slow down devices you have (airbrakes and flaps on most gliders) - thus the most likely deployment of slats/ flaps here, and they were probably only deployed at last possible moment.

I think we all would like to know if the APU was still running as that would have made a big difference during the emergency.

[bubbers44]

So he did call Mayday.

In the US, who cares, saying you lost both engines and were landing in the Hudson doesn't require a mayday call. Even answering ATC if they can't help you is a waste of time in an emergency. Notice on the transcripts ATC did not ask for those annoying reports on souls on board, fuel, etc, but left them alone to deal with the ditching, probably required if you declared an emergency, or Mayday for the brits.

[fr8tmastr]

Not surprising therefore that this ahead-of-its-time masterpiece baffled more than one pilot. The early accidents are well documented.

But as the designers of this remarkable machine take their retirement, if they made it that far, let's at least say that their highly ambitious and innovative approach has been vindicated.

I dont think anyone has questioned the build quality of the Airbus, What was, and is questioned is the pilots voting member only status of the aircrafts design. I dont think that was a factor in this accident, unless of course the FP tried to climb rapidly to avoid birds and the Airbus decided that climb rate would be too much and overruled said pilot.
Again I have no idea what so ever what happened, I am merely stating that the build quality of the AB would not have been a factor. Obviously the build quality of this bird was good enough to stay together for this landing, and what more could anyone ask.

[Marsh Hawk]

galaxy flier

Point taken, declaring an emergency was no help whatsoever in the Elmendorf accident. It may have even been a fatal distraction at a time when full attention was needed for the crisis at hand.

MH

[Jakarta Jock]

Whilst not wishing to take anything away from the excellent performance by the crew of this Airbus I am getting more than a little tired of Fox News declaring that this was the "first" successful ditching of a commercial airliner.

A Garuda 737 suffered a flame out of both engines ccaused by extreme water injestion during a major tropical storm in East Java in Indonesia in 2002. The crew ditched the aircraft in the Solo river and all passengers survived but a flight attendant who jumped from the plane died. This ditching was all the more laudable as the aircraft clipped the trees on top of a ridge on the approach and one wing hit the river bank. :D
Sources (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/reference.htm) Garuda plane crash-lands in river | The Jakarta Post (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/01/17/garuda-plane-crashlands-river.html)

[PJ2]

Ms. Higgins was a controversial NTSB political appointee over the objection of ALPA and other groups and has little operational aviation experience. Some of the terms she's used in earlier press conferences show this.
Well, I can sure understand why. Perhaps she's a very nice person but she doesn't provide the stature and knowledge or the confidence in same, that a person in such a high place should instill in the flying public. Her briefings are stammered nonsense and one can plainly tell she is in way over her head. The NTSB should have listened to ALPA on this one. Nothing personal...

[jportzer]

In the US, who cares, saying you lost both engines and were landing in the Hudson doesn't require a mayday call. Even answering ATC if they can't help you is a waste of time in an emergency. Notice on the transcripts ATC did not ask for those annoying reports on souls on board, fuel, etc, but left them alone to deal with the ditching, probably required if you declared an emergency, or Mayday for the brits.I've read in the forums on liveatc.net that ATC can in effect "declare an emergency" for you, if they decide conditions warrant, in terms of their internal procedures. There are a number of emergencies recorded there where ATC is asking for the souls on board and fuel - which is important information for the rescuers - even when no "mayday" or "declaring an emergency" call was made.

All in all, relatively unimportant here... as are the 911 calls that were played in the media. It's not like all those ferryboat crews were waiting for a call from ATC to go rescue anyone...

[FoxHunter]

DC-9 Ditches in Atlantic Ocean (http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Disasters/70-05-02(Antillean).asp)

[HarryMann]

thus the most likely deployment of slats/ flaps here, and they were probably only deployed at last possible moment.

They were probably deployed ASA flippin P :ok:

[RatherBeFlying]

Old Hands on the River Didn’t Have to Be Told What to Do (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/nyregion/17about.html?fta=y)Around 3:30 on Thursday afternoon, Capt. Carl Lucas fired up the engines on the Athenia...

Then he spotted a plane in the water.

“We just threw off the lines and went out there,” said Captain Lucas, 34.

At the same pier, Capt. John Winiarski, 52, and a deckhand, Frank Illuzzi, 62, were on board the catamaran the Admiral Richard E. Bennis. They noticed the Athenia speeding away.

“We seen them scurrying out into the river, so we turned around and saw the plane in the river,” Captain Winiarski said. “We made a beeline.”

And so it went: a flotilla of rescuers, created by people who caught glimpses of something going wrong and did not have to be told to help. The Athenia, the Admiral Bennis and 12 other boats — all operated or chartered by New York Waterway — picked 135 people out of the river. The crews stopped their work and changed the world.

“You don’t look nowhere,” said Cosmo Mezzina, 62, a deckhand on the ferry the Governor Thomas H. Kean. “You don’t look right or left. You just look right in front of you, just to save, to rescue those people.”

One of the ferry captains, Manuel Liba, ticked off the strokes of fortune: the pilot brought the plane down smoothly, the Hudson was calm, it was daylight and it was 45 minutes before the evening rush on the river.

There was more than luck. On a bitter, frigid afternoon, the plane had come down minutes from people who regularly practice helping. The first ferry to reach it was the Thomas Jefferson, which pulled out of Pier 79 on the Hudson River at 39th Street in Manhattan. “As we turned around, we noticed the plane in the water,” said Vincent Lombardi, captain of the Thomas Jefferson. “We thought it was an odd-looking vessel.”

He radioed the Coast Guard, then headed for the plane. The arrival of the Thomas Jefferson can be seen on a Coast Guard video at 3:34 p.m., about four or five minutes after the plane hit the water. Other videos show more ferries nestled around the jet, drifting alongside as it was pulled south by the current.

“I’ve been on the water since I was 2 years old,” said Brittany Catanzaro, 20, the captain of the Thomas Kean and a ferry pilot for five months.

“I pulled out of Pier 79, I looked for any kind of southbound traffic, and I saw the plane there,” Captain Catanzaro said. “It was hard to stay next to it, but you practice that by throwing life rings in the water and trying to stay alongside them.

“One of the people got on board, turned around and hugged my deckhand. We’re just working as if we’re training and drilling.”

Each of the captains hailed the ferry deckhands — as well a ticket agent and bus driver — for hoisting people from the water.

The last person to leave a life raft was Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the captain of the US Airways flight. He climbed aboard the Athenia after everyone else had been lifted to safety. “Very calm,” Captain Lucas reported. “He had a metal clipboard with the passenger manifest. He came up into the wheelhouse, and we tried to organize a count of who was recovered from the water. I asked him if he thought there was anyone left on the plane. He said no, that he had checked twice himself.”...

“You train so much, you don’t have to think about it,” Captain Lucas said. “I didn’t have to give any orders to the crew.” ...

“We were getting the boat ready, and we saw the plane going down,” said Captain Liba, 52, who pilots the ferry Moira Smith. “We called management, we said, ‘We got to go.’ We just took off for the airplane. Right away, the doors flew out from the plane, and people came out... Thank you Carl Lucas, John Winiarski, Frank Illuzzi, Cosmo Mezzina, Manuel Liba, Vincent Lombardi, Brittany Catanzaro and all the others whose names we do not have.

[FrequentSLF]

Little_Rad_Hat
The card is the clue

Picasa Web Albums - joyceastifanfotos - WST #10 - Goo... (http://picasaweb.google.com/joyceastifanfotos/WST10GoodbyeLondon12312007#5153994249743627746)

Not correct.
I cannot recall any card which shows two different evacuation paths in case of ground landing or water landing. Just checked Ryanair one and does not give any clue about which doors use in case of water landing. Check the link.

Maybe some cards have this information. I cannot recall any safety briefing that in case of water lading the rear doors shall not be used to evac the plane.

[rcav8r]

According to Higgins here NY1 | 24 Hour Local News | Top Stories | Jet Slowly Lifted From Icy Hudson River (http://www.ny1.com/Default.aspx?ArID=92435)

"The crew selected Flaps 2....."

As I understand it, in order to have flap operation, the Y or G system would have to be pressurized. As others have said, this can still occur in a double out situation where the engines continue to windmill.

What a great triple-redundant RAT system :}

[Intruder]

Not correct.
I cannot recall any card which shows two different evacuation paths in case of ground landing or water landing.
Your recollection may not be very good, then...

I have never flown Ryanair, but I fly extensively on many airlines. When I get on an airplane, the FIRST thing I check is the exits available for a water landing. I have found that is the MOST varying factor among airplane emergency procedures. On US airlines, the information is on the card on ALL airplanes.

[Feathered]

I've seen numerous posts about the plane landing downwind. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure what KTEB was reporting, but there is an official weather station nearby in central park, KNYC. It showed westerly winds of about 8 knots a few minutes before the time of the accident. Also at that time, planes were of course departing runway 4 at LGA, however they were arriving on runway 31 at LGA. So, the A320 likely had a very mild crosswind and a few knots of current in his favor. Not terrible conditions, and certainly not enough to cause much of a chop on the water. Sea plane pilots are most afraid of a clear glass surface because it is the most difficult to sense height, and that certainly wasn't the case either. Being winter was actually a stroke of luck as there is a lot more river traffic across from mid-town in the summer that could have gotten in the way of the runway.

I don't think it is known publicly if the APU was running or not. US Airways seems to have an aggressive APU off policy to save every drop of fuel, so I doubt it was running on takeoff. Was the crew able to start the APU in the air? This likely would have been more useful than starting the engines. Assuming no APU, I've heard that the turbofans might provide useful hydraulic pressure above 200 knots (and that's assuming the turbofans can still spin around after the catastrophic failure) and the RAT can work above 140 knots. How much control would they have had of the airplane below 140 knots?

Another point, the flight was AWE1549. Note that AWE is the American West 'Cactus' callsign, rather than USA 'US AIR.' Since the merger, the airline has been operating internally as two separate airlines, with old Am West crews and old US Airways crews. The captain's bio shows that he flew for PSA which was later absorbed by the old US AIR. So has the post-America West US AIRWAYS finally merged its flight crews? Furthermore, it is nice to see that US AIRWAYS is finally providing a free drink to passengers after their new policy began on August 1 2008. A little too much though, I'd say. I'm curious if the safety briefing was conducted by the crew or by video. I've noticed that some US Airways A319s at least that previously used a video for the briefing have reverted to crew announcements. Maybe they haven't bothered to keep the video system in service.

Congratulations to the crew, CRM, the passengers, the rescuers, the aeronautical engineers, and those who supported all of the above. Even a restaurant in New Jersey shut down and provided hot soup and clean table clothes for triage. There was a report that one passenger didn't bother to wait and catch a ferry, but swam to shore. (YIKES!) He was treated for hypothermia but will be ok. Not the move I would have taken on the Hudson, even in the summer! Lucky he found a ladder or someone to pull him out.

[FrequentSLF]

Your recollection may not be very good, then...

I have never flown Ryanair, but I fly extensively on many airlines. When I get on an airplane, the FIRST thing I check is the exits available for a water landing. I have found that is the MOST varying factor among airplane emergency procedures. On US airlines, the information is on the card on ALL airplanes.

I do not fly US airlines...therefore my recollection is still good...
The link in my previous posts shows clearly that there is not a plan for water landing.
The issue is why is not on all cards on all airlines? If so the bashing of the pax would be correct...

[SLF3b]

I have seen 'don't open the rear door after a landing on water' on the safety card for the MD-80 like planes with the door in the tail, 'don't open the rear door after a landing on water' on some A320 series cards (I think drawn cartoon style) and at least one (cannot recall the type) that said ony use the over wing exit after a ditching. Some SLF do read the cards.

I am 'VOB' when sailing (Voice Activated Ballast), SLF on a plane. I don't find either term derogatory.

Compare the performance of Higgins (who had lots of information to give but didn't understand her brief) with the guy in Denver (who had very little information to give but came over as understanding much more than his brief). Not hard to spot the 'B' team.

Sullenberger is an even smarter guy than I thought if he has taken advise not to give media interviews. Much more mature than 'didn't I do well?' in front of a fawning press.

[DickyPearse]

In the US, who cares, saying you lost both engines and were landing in the Hudson doesn't require a mayday call. Even answering ATC if they can't help you is a waste of time in an emergency. Notice on the transcripts ATC did not ask for those annoying reports on souls on board, fuel, etc, but left them alone to deal with the ditching, probably required if you declared an emergency, or Mayday for the brits.


This may be the case for 99% of emergencies, but the lack of a clear and unambiguous declaration contributed to the Avianca B707 incident near New York on the 25th of January 1990 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19900125-0) with 73 fatalities. It is the 1% (or 0.0001% of cases where this formality is a life saver.

[Little_Red_Hat]

Frequent SLF, if this is the case (that all airlines do not show this on cards) perhaps it is something that will be changed as an outcome from this event.

Here is an example of what I mean:
EasyJet Boeing 737-700 All Safety Cards: Collection of aircraft safety cards (http://allsafetycards.com/2008/08/10/easyjet-boeing-737-700/)

They clearly show two different evacuation paths- just sayin, studying the card prior to such an event would immensely help the recall to the pax of that information in a high-stress situation. Perhaps it's not a requirement in the US to have certain information on the cards- I'm sure in Australia all airlines show this info- I know the ones I have worked for all showed land vs water evac.

My comments earlier were in no way 'having a go' at the pax- of course if you don't know better you want to go for the nearest exit- but I was trying to say, as someone trained for this situation, given the fact the doors were opened so quickly, and the pax thinking they had landed on-airport- means many may in fact have been out of their seats (from knowing impact had occured or from F/As calling 'evacuate'- by the time the need for lifejackets was known.

In a couple of the photos seat cushions can plainly be seen- I was suggesting the possibility that seeing boats, many of the pax may have decided they didn't want to hang arround to collect a life jacket as they felt they were in danger- air crew are taught- if you feel your life is in danger, get the hell out. So, each pax would have done what they thought was best.

(However, I believe taking a rollaboard bag onto the wing isn't the wisest thing, but we all do strange things under pressure! ;)

Interestingly, this particular A320 card shows use of rear doors,
Hellas Jet Airbus A320 All Safety Cards: Collection of aircraft safety cards (http://allsafetycards.com/2008/09/01/hellas-jet-airbus-a320/)
so if the procedure is the same for USAir, this fits in with the FA stating that she 'decided not to use rear doors'- well within the scope of her training & role.

Details aside, well done to all involved- crew, those who offered assistance, and the pax for not losing their cool.

[lakedude]

DickyPearse

http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19900125-0

Your link does not seem to work?

Good job to all involved BTW. :D

My answer to the CC question is that I'd rather have a young flirty female FA right up until minute something goes wrong...

[chris11]

Where can i find credible info on ditching A320 ??? In my airline we dont condemn an exit during emergency evacuation but allways use caution before opening. In ditching scenario we are trained to use overwing exits without being giiven reason...
In the Hudson case, after reading some threads it seems that some airlines do condemn the rear exits, as the a/c will float tail heavy - so DONT OPEN rear doors !! Makes sense to me... and there is clear evidense in the US Air pics.
Any info from manufacturers or authorities is what i need so i may pass it on and up through my superiors... maybe get a policy change.

[FrequentSLF]

Little_Red_Hat

The fact is that not all airlines safety cards mention that rear doors (for certain type) shall not be used in case of water landing.
I agree with you that perhaps one of the positive outcome of this event will be reflected in the safety cards.

Also maybe some of the people here will stop calling the SFL dumb, fools, etc...being proven that not all the safety cards are clearly stating that rear doors shall not be used.

[Dysag]

Look at the bottom of this SAS 737 card (box 9):

http://safety.mania.ru/img/sas_boeing737-600_1.jpg

[cats_five]

Glide angle estimates of 16/18:1 are presumably for a 'clean' airframe.

<snip>

If you are refering to my earlier post, it is nothing at all to do with the configuration. I worked out what the L/D would have to be to achieve a glide of 9 UK statue miles, and 9 nautical miles from 3,000'.

[Golf_Seirra]

From various posts :

Point 1 - 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

Point 2 - OK, I ll put my hand up.

When i heard the right engine was the one still on the plane, i thought it was nonsense given that the plane veered to the left.

I ll eat humble pie and i stand corrected

I guess i do not yet qualify as an NTSB investigator

Point 3 -On seeing the photos showing this left turn on the water, it did mometarily cross my mind if it might just be possible that the right engine was not only still attached but producing some sort of power until it was literally drowned out and so forcing the turn.

Point 4 - Is it possible that the starboard engine was still producing some (more than the port engine at least) amount of power on ditching? This would allow the water, on impact, a slightly less restrained passage through the powerplant and hence it could have experienced insufficient force to shear it off. Could this possibly also explain the aircrafts yaw to port once waterborne

Point 5 - It is possible that #1, having taken in more gooseflesh than #2, was more compromised (due to out of balance rotating mass and damaged mounts), and simply departed first. Left loop? easy. without the nacelle for support, the wing may have dragged the water, creating more left turning impetus than the starboard side had, being "supported" by the "intact" nacelle and pylon assmbly. Who's to say?

Nice to know the points of view change as more info comes to light....shows we can adapt as a species....

I reckon the aircraft should have yawed right due to the drag but did not. Maybe it is because most pilots subconsciously drop their wing on landing / hold-off / flair......i.e P1 left down and P2 right down.....or maybe the engine only departed from the airframe once drifting or when one of the rescue boats arrived....earlier pics did show her "balanced" post crash.

Maybe the taildragger guys could remind us of the reasoning behind a ground loop....or is that a moot point because there are no props ? :zzz:

[ExSp33db1rd]

Who said they didn't send a " Mayday " ?

"The captain makes radio call to ATC (air traffic control) calling mayday and reports that they hit birds, lost both engines and were returning to LaGuardia" airport, said Kitty Higgins, a National Transportation Safety Board member, releasing cockpit transmissions captured on flight data and voice recorders."

[gruntie]

Or maybe just a bootful of left rudder as the speed decayed to try and bring the aircraft closer to the nearest shoreline?

[puddle-jumper2]

There are a few reasons I can think of as to why it appears slats/flaps were selected late.

One could be that in the short moment of deciding where to go the Crew wanted to keep the A/C clean so to keep the best angle of glide until assured of clearing bridges ETC.

The other is simply the lack of time. Not sure about the A320 but on my type it takes a good 20 seconds to select/run the first stage of Slat/Flaps - there are 5 stages in total.

Thinking about the incident in general, those few seconds after dual engine failure, after the Capt. took control and turned south were the most important seconds of this short flight.
He had 2 choices - go for an airfield or go for the Hudson.

Landing on a runway from that height - even if you had enough glide performance, would have been incredibly difficult, (the ever changing glide angle with lowering of gear/flaps). Obviously if you get it right the rewards are an undamaged A/C and unhurt passengers. If you get it wrong though there is a high chance that none of the crew/passengers will survive :=

The Hudson presents a different option. It's relatively an easy target to land on but there is a chance of some of the passengers drowning after impact if the hull sustains sufficient damage. The fact that they all survived is testimony to the well executed touchdown, a strong A/C, and quick rescue. Plus of course some luck.

The overriding point though is that I have had the luxury of days to think about all this - he had seconds. A gambling man would have gone for broke and tried for an airfield - luckily for the passengers 'Sully', it appears, did not want to gamble with ALL their lives.

He made the right decision. :D

[forget]

FO surfaces at last. Jeff Skiles.

Skiles' wife Barbara said her husband needed clean clothes but was otherwise unruffled by the mishap. "Someone was kind enough to give him clean underwear,"

I expect Jeff will be speaking with his wife on her choice of words.:).

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

[MrApproach]

jportzer and others; ATC declares emergencies all the time without calls from pilots. Often they are for missed position reports and the like which are later resolved but more often at airports where Tower sees something is wrong and hits the crash alarm. By the way these are not declared emergencies involving rescue coordination centres,they are airport emergency procedures.You can always send the firies back but there is no excuse for them being late at the crash site.

Likewise if you see an airplane in the circuit trailing smoke but not talking, or an A320 that stops climbing and starts (and keeps) descending after take off without calling. An airport emergency will be declared, no-one is waiting for a Mayday or Pan call to be the trigger though it does help with information. Towers worldwide typically have the ability to access the public emergency system, ie, Police Fire Ambulance normally without an intermediary.

By the way this would not occur if the aircraft is out of sight and pilot is talking but not making it clear what his problem might be; that's when you might hear the question "Are you declaring an emergency?"

[F4F]

and counting :ugh:

And a couple of open questions:
- What about awaiting the investigation report and then see what really happened (hopefully maybe...)?
- Was ALL the THRUST lost (difficult to believe)?
- Considering the height and speed reached, was there no way for an early return to the departure field?
- Other options available?
- Prime and never to be answered, was there any way to maneuver and avoid the flock in the first place (great pity, for there would be no hero in this scenario...)


live 2 fly 2 live

[HarryMann]

Am I right in concluding that there were nothing like enough rafts for 155 people available, or at least in good reach of the overwing and front exits (I have read the posts and understand that the rears could 'possibly' be brought forward)... ?

A surfeit of rafts would seem necessary, as if something 'can' go wrong, it will...

A mile out to sea and a very different story standing on that wing for even 30 minutes!

Remember the Titanic ?

[HarryMann]

- Was ALL the THRUST lost (difficult to believe)?Unlikely but how long does it take to discover what is and what isn't available, and when it will be back on-line (answering a question with a question)

- Considering the height and speed reached, was there no way for an early return to the departure field?Quick mental computation and quick decision making at this height saved the day... not farting about. Even if it was theoretically within range, you do not know that the flaps, u/c and other complications will make it the wrong decision down the line... e.g. #1 at 3,000 and descending fast, minimise turns (esp. near the ground), minimise complexity (of everything), minimise out of cockpit distractions.
You go for what is 100% doable, not 89% likely.. The Hudson was doable, and he did it - Bravo!
It's that thinking in the first 30 seconds or so, that characterised the glider pilot/light a/c pilot thinking, familar with low, slow, and having to go with the flow. (the alignment, approach speed and final flare need be little different than a normal landing, certainly no slower, you do NOT want to drop a wing!)

- Other options available?You mean the auxiliary jet-pack, or parachutes ;)




Sorry, couldn't resist...

[Wader2]

possibly stupid . . . . pax into the river with a water temp of about 5 degrees C . Everyone involved would already be going into shock, some probably can't even swim. For a fit person the 'exhaustion time' is about 20mins at that temp and expected survival time of 30-90 mins.

Having done it these times are very generous.

We were in a moderate sea with a water temp of about 2 deg C. I was wearing immersion gloves and some 5 - 10 yards from the life raft. The copilot had to re-enter the water and 'rescue' me. we both wore buoyancy aids. He reached me and was then hauled back with a rope. I was boarded inthe liferaft and he was hauled in second.

He was in the water for no more than a minute or two having previously been in the water about 2 minutes. his hands were locked like claws and he was in hypothermic shock. After about 20-30 minutes he had recovered sufficiently to be very sick. Had he not been in the liferaft he would not have lasted 5 minutes let alone 20.

[JayEmKay]

And a couple of open questions:
- What about awaiting the investigation report and then see what really happened (hopefully maybe...)?
- Was ALL the THRUST lost (difficult to believe)?
- Considering the height and speed reached, was there no way for an early return to the departure field?
- Other options available?
- Prime and never to be answered, was there any way to maneuver and avoid the flock in the first place (great pity, for there would be no hero in this scenario...)I think your first question answered the remaining ones...:rolleyes:

[Bighat]

Not wishing to detract from you well reasoned and informative comments, but I would observe that the bird-strike was more likely to have occured over Bronx Park whilst on a heading of 360, having made the normal left after take off from 04 at LGA. It was here, when N106US reached it maximum height of 3,000 ft that the incident took place.

The 180 to align with the Hudson river then took place.

[captainspeaking]

Current copy of Air Transport World mag has a two-page ad from CFM for ther CFM56 family with the tagline:
"The recipe for a genuine CFM engine
Five large birds [picture of two chicken in a roasting tin]
500 lbs of hailstones
3 slabs of ice
and lots of water"

... which they fire into the donc as part of their ingestion tests. I guess they'll be looking to pull the ad until they've tried it again with geese.

[Eboy]

I read the 1) flight data recorder and 2) cockpit voice recorder were pulled from the plane, but this article shows three boxes. Which is which?

The Associated Press: NTSB: River jet's engines lost power at same time (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipKRkY9XnWmqqvBNAlBju1taRJCQD95PPV400)

[Wader2]

Passengers took seat cushions when they realised they were on water.

Very few life vests taken and worn.

Just a speculative thought, but in UK all flights are 'overwater' so passengers are routinely briefed on the use of life vests.

In the US it would seem that many flights do not carry life vests and passengers are briefed to use seat cushions.

Is it possible that many of these passengers were regular internal US air passengers who were habitutated to the concept of a floation cushion rather than a life vest? In other words they recerted to pre-learnt knowledge and not the specific flight brief?

[ward]

Just a curiosity, will any of the parts of this A/C ever likely be reused ? Can somebody tell me what the policy would be in this case. Thanks, Ward

[Airbubba]

Just a curiosity, will any of the parts of this A/C ever likely be reused ? Can somebody tell me what the policy would be in this case. Thanks, Ward

Well, solidly in the urban legend category, there is airline folklore about reused parts salvaged from an Eastern L-1011 after a water crash with fatalities in 1972.

From Wikipedia:

Over the following months and years, employees of Eastern Air Lines began reporting sightings of the dead crew members on board another L-1011 (N318EA). The story was that parts of Flight 401 were salvaged after the crash investigation and refitted into the other L-1011. "Sightings" of the spirits of Don Repo and Bob Loft spread throughout Eastern Air Lines to the point where Eastern's management warned employees that they could face dismissal if caught spreading ghost stories.

Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401)

[Huck]

The blue one says "EGPWS" on the side. I guess it must have some stored data as well.

[silverelise]

SLF question about ditching in the Airbus (mods feel free to move somewhere more apt if needs be).

Do you have to override any of the flight management systems or change to one of the different "laws" in order to get the aircraft near the ground without being in a landing configuration (eg. gear still up etc).

[Wader2]

I would observe that the bird-strike was more likely to have occured over Bronx Park whilst on a heading of 360, having made the normal left after take off from 04 at LGA. It was here, when N106US reached it maximum height of 3,000 ft that the incident took place.

Are you observing that the bird strike was more likely to occur over Bronx Park or that the heading was likely to be 360 over Bronx Park/

If you rae suggesting that Bronx Park increased the risk of bird strike I would suggest that it may not have had an increased risk as far as geese are concerned.

At 3000 feet geese are more likely to be in transit between roosting and feeding areas. They are unlikely to be as high as 3000 feet should they have been disturbed on the ground nor would I expect them to be as high if they had just taken off or if they were intending to land at BP.

Where I am (clue in the name) our geese geneally use a stepped descent 1500 feet at 10 km out and stepping down every 5 k or so. True this is over marshes so in the BP case maybe over the river. They do not adopt a circling descent.

If alarmed they generally climb to 200-250 feet and make a circling descent back to the roosting area. In the Elmdorf case the geese had returned to roost within 2 minutes so I suggest in this case the geese had not been alarmed.

[scareobat]

The only law you'd need to change after two donks have quit is that of gravity.

[Graybeard]

"I am getting more than a little tired of Fox News declaring that this was the "first" successful ditching of a commercial airliner."

I can't imagine why anyone would watch Faux News.
---

The Southern Airways DC-9 that hit a hailstorm near Atlanta back in 1977 - the era of Boeing Tri-motors - told ATC they had lost both engines, and ATC replied understanding they had lost two of their engines, and continued working other traffic on the frequency.

Although within gliding distance of at least one airport, they landed on a rural road, hitting a corner grocery store, with some loss of life.

GB

[Prangster]

Capt Sullenberger followed the first principle of airmanship to the letter. 'When all goes pear shaped the first second third and last priority is to fly the bloody aeroplane'. (As clearly enunciated/bellowed/screamed by numerous instructors to any number of trainees/gradees dependent upon the potential cock up factor heading towards them. Given the height/speed/relative distances involved he did absolutley the right things in the right order. Also as everyones moaning about the cost of training how about going back to very basic basics ie make eveyone start on gliders. Afterall it never did the 1930's Luftwaffe any harm did it? As I was constantly told when learning to glide 'Lack of motive power do tendeth to concentrate the mind laddie' I still think that the glider pilots ability to plan and execute what to most pilots would be considered a dead stick landing is a skill that should be taught more widely. Yes I know folks execute EF training ad nauseum but never for very obvious reasons carry the approach to a logical conclusion' Airspeed/height/airspeed/rate of descent/airspeed every damn thing else but above all AIRSPEED. Lose that and you buy the farm. And Sully knew it it spades

[barit1]

Reused parts?

I should think the landing gear struts, being massive and not directly involved, are potentially reusable after a good shop visit.

...but other than that, perhaps some training aids. :}

[Huck]

Also as everyones moaning about the cost of training how about going back to very basic basics ie make eveyone start on gliders.


You missed the memo. MMPL is the future. These new aircraft fly themselves, you know....

[galaxy flyer]

Prangster

I agree but would add that gliding accustomed Capt Sullenberger to the idea of an off-airport landing was survivable. Many pilots might have bit off on trying for TEB or return to LGA. He seems to have decidedly quickly that no other outcome than a water landing was survivable, so set to the task of doing it right. MPL-licensed crews may never experience even the basic single-engine training event called, "engine stopped, where are you going to land?" Forty years on, I still remember that from my third lesson in a C-150.

GF

[Rapid D]

hate to be a party pooper, http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wibble.gif BUT..... I can't help but wonder how it is that BOTH engines were so badly damaged by bird ingestion that they could not continue to fly. I don't believe this has ever happened before. Has it?

Does anyone else besides me consider that maybe this crew screwed up? Maybe they actually shut down the good engine during a severe damage engine shutdown while attempting to return to the airport.

At low altitude there would have been no time to restart it.

Lost,

What are your thoughts today?

[Super VC-10]

Re post #916,

Have you not read "The Ghost of Flight 401 by John G Fuller? :hmm:

[Graybeard]

Serious errors, apparently: reportedly the PNF had not selected the Ditch switch, nor notified the cabin crew of ditching.

Hat it been on UAL, with their channel 9, some of the pax would have been aware of the upcoming ditching and warned the rest, at which point the cards would have been read, and life vests brought to mind.

The possibility of ditching in a river or harbor, rather than in open ocean, may not have been seriously considered in the past, and may require some re-thinking.

GB

[forget]

One additional element of 'luck' here, which I don't think has been mentioned, was the constitution (no pun) of the pax. It seems that the great majority were young fit guys. No little old ladies and only one infant. (And can I say, not one of the pax appears overweight. What are the chances of that?) The FAA's perfect complement for an evacuation trial.

[NigelOnDraft]

Serious errors, apparently: reportedly the PNF had not selected the Ditch switch, nor notified the cabin crew of ditching. Would disagree with your highly unfair and accusatory conclusion :ooh:

If USAir use the Airbus QRH, and lost the engines (as they seem to) the drill is not a Memory drill, and runs to 4 pages. One of the actions you mention is halfway down p4 :ugh:

Unprepared ditching is, this side of the pond, dealt with in the cabin. The normal prep for ditching takes 10+minutes... If any "Brace" PA was made (seem it was) well done the FC :D

I trust your post is seen as sufficiently uninformed as to be deleted by the Mods, rendering my reply a waste of time... ;)

NoD

[simfly]

Do UAL allow pax to listen to the audio (re channel9) during take off and landing? Every flight I have been on, having earphones on during these periods is a big no no.

As has already been mentioned, priority for the pilots is to fly the plane whilst making the correct decisions under immense pressure, when they know their life is in serious s&!t. I think anyone who has not been in that situation should not criticise this crew, or any other who miss a couple of things (and nothing to say yet that the US air crew did...) I believe the pilots of the BA 777 last year did not get a PA out before the impact short of the runway, and no wonder, they had their priorities right, just unfortunate for the pax!

[Lost in Saigon]

hate to be a party pooper, BUT..... I can't help but wonder how it is that BOTH engines were so badly damaged by bird ingestion that they could not continue to fly. I don't believe this has ever happened before. Has it?

Does anyone else besides me consider that maybe this crew screwed up? Maybe they actually shut down the good engine during a severe damage engine shutdown while attempting to return to the airport.

At low altitude there would have been no time to restart it.



Lost,

What are your thoughts today?

Well, speaking of bird ingestion, I guess I'll be "Eating Crow" :hmm:

[bsieker]

SLF question about ditching in the Airbus (mods feel free to move somewhere more apt if needs be).

Do you have to override any of the flight management systems or change to one of the different "laws" in order to get the aircraft near the ground without being in a landing configuration (eg. gear still up etc).

Well, if you've heard about Airbus' "Flight Control Laws", you might have read at a bit more on it. Some of the basics ideas are certainly available on-line.

The difference between conventionally controlled and Airbus fly-by-wire could be summarized (somewhat simplified) thus:

- In a conventionally controlled aircraft the flight controls deflect the control surfaces with a fixed ratio, and aerodynamic forces move and turn the aircraft. It is the pilot's responsibility to compensate for varying conditions.

- in an Airbus FBW aircraft the flight controls tell the computer how the pilot wants the plane to move and turn, and the computers deflect the control surfaces in such a way that it moves and turns exactly as requested, with the computer(s) compensating for varying conditions.

That said, any aircraft will fly wherever the pilot tells it to fly, including straight into a mountain or smoothly down onto the Hudson.

It will give you a warning when you get too low to the ground with the gear and/or flaps retracted, or approach terrain too fast, but all modern airliners will do that, it's part of the EGPWS, and not Airbus-specific. For a forced landing/ditching some or all of these warnings can be disabled to avoid distractions.

What someone has pointed out, the ability of the Airbus to maintain the bank angle (even automatically return it to 0 if it is below 5 degrees) may have helped a bit with the ditching, but in relatively calm conditions the differences to, say, a 737 shouldn't be dramatic.


Cheers,
Bernd

[Homer_J]

Don't know if this has been mentioned but....

Has anyone noticed that the news outlets seem to be of the opinion that there was only one pilot on board. No mention is made of the the other crew.

apart from here on PPRUNE.

Don't get me wrong THEY did a great job, and if I ever met them I'd buy them a beer.

However, I think that the papers have got it wrong, and that thanks to a good captain, and some great CRM with the FO in what was probably a busy few minutes that they survived.

From the times today, and I can't remember the exact wording but it went something like this

"Captain S took control of the plane (from the FO woh was PF), went throught the checklist and talked to ATC."

The paper gave the impression that he did everything.

Could all papers read this and print that, "thanks to some excellent teamwork, and crm which has been developed over the last few decades all the pax and crew survived."

I'm a captain and I'm well aware that the FO is important as I am, and could the papers please reflect that.

thankyou, rant over.

[MarkD]

given the state of the underside, one wonders if the selection of ditch switch was all that important... :E

[patrickal]

"I am getting more than a little tired of Fox News declaring that this was the "first" successful ditching of a commercial airliner."

I can't imagine why anyone would watch Faux News.
---

The Southern Airways DC-9 that hit a hailstorm near Atlanta back in 1977 - the era of Boeing Tri-motors - told ATC they had lost both engines, and ATC replied understanding they had lost two of their engines, and continued working other traffic on the frequency.

Although within gliding distance of at least one airport, they landed on a rural road, hitting a corner grocery store, with some loss of life.


Everyone seems to have forgotten this little gem from 1988. A TAC 737 put down on a levee south of New Orleans after loosing power from both engines in a severe thunderstorm. There were no injuries and no loss of life. The aircraft was actually flown out of the location several days later. I would say his accomplishments were on par with what happened last week, given the choices he had and having little knowledge of the area he was putting down in. The details can be found here:
Taca 737 On New Orleans Levee (pic) — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3606153/)

Patrick

[nnc0]

For A320 Crew - Would you have worked your way through the ENG DUAL FAILURE (fuel remaining) checklist or would you switch/jump at some point to the DITCHING procedure.

[fireflybob]

On the a/c I fly (B 737 - 800) the Ditching Checklist seems to be very much for a premeditated ditching - a throwback one suspects from the days of large piston engine a/c flying across the pond where you might have to shut down 2 of the 4 engines on the way across and then not be able to maintain height. You then had 20/30 minutes, maybe more, to prepare the cabin (brief pax, don lifejackets, get the dinghies out) and on the flight deck do all the necessary items.

I would suggest (as this incident proves) that most ditching these days are unpremeditated or virtually so. Maybe we need a much shorter checklist for this eventuality just listing the essentials. (The Boeing checklist says burn off fuel to minimum - hardly applicable in the Hudson incident).

[NigelOnDraft]

For A320 Crew - Would you have worked your way through the ENG DUAL FAILURE (fuel remaining) checklist or would you switch/jump at some point to the DITCHING procedureTo a degree - neither :ooh: Given the (lack of) time, and more important things like flying the aircraft, one quick PA and getting the aircraft configured, whilst trying to relight one of the engines... If it had been me, I doubt the QRH would have made it out, let alone found the right page...

NoD

[aguadalte]

I'd like to answer this question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverelise
SLF question about ditching in the Airbus (mods feel free to move somewhere more apt if needs be).

Do you have to override any of the flight management systems or change to one of the different "laws" in order to get the aircraft near the ground without being in a landing configuration (eg. gear still up etc).

Well, if you've heard about Airbus' "Flight Control Laws", you might have read at a bit more on it. Some of the basics ideas are certainly available on-line.

The difference between conventionally controlled and Airbus fly-by-wire could be summarized (somewhat simplified) thus:

- In a conventionally controlled aircraft the flight controls deflect the control surfaces with a fixed ratio, and aerodynamic forces move and turn the aircraft. It is the pilot's responsibility to compensate for varying conditions.

- in an Airbus FBW aircraft the flight controls tell the computer how the pilot wants the plane to move and turn, and the computers deflect the control surfaces in such a way that it moves and turns exactly as requested, with the computer(s) compensating for varying conditions.

That said, any aircraft will fly wherever the pilot tells it to fly, including straight into a mountain or smoothly down onto the Hudson.

It will give you a warning when you get too low to the ground with the gear and/or flaps retracted, or approach terrain too fast, but all modern airliners will do that, it's part of the EGPWS, and not Airbus-specific. For a forced landing/ditching some or all of these warnings can be disabled to avoid distractions.

What someone has pointed out, the ability of the Airbus to maintain the bank angle (even automatically return it to 0 if it is below 5 degrees) may have helped a bit with the ditching, but in relatively calm conditions the differences to, say, a 737 shouldn't be dramatic.


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

Fly Safe
Água d'Alte
...and would like to add, that:

One can always look for mistakes, bad decisions, alternatives and "luck", with all the time of the world, behind our desks, with a glass of good wine in our hands...

When a once in a lifetime occasion like this, happens to a Pilot, he/she has to take a decision that may turn to be a good or a bad one. I do think that Captain Chesley Sullenberg 's early and prompt decision is the key for his success. Could he have done more? Could his First Officer have done more? Maybe. As far as I am concerned I do think they have done great!

And NO. Those computers "don't fly for you" in a double engine failure! You have to fly the aircraft "the old fashion way"! A320's (generally) go to a "direct law" mode in case of dual engine failure, which includes now, manual trimming of the aircraft (throughout the trim-wheel) and direct input control of the flight control surfaces of the aircraft. That's why we all should encourage Airline Pilots to fly general aviation, single engine and gliders as a hobby. But that's another story...
Fly Safe:ok:
Água d'Alte

[Stearperson]

It appears that Southern and Taca experienced forced landings as they landed on LAND. While both are impressive displays of airmanship they are not ditchings.
To be a Ditching the touchdown must be in WATER.
From what I know this is the first completely successful ditching of a jet airliner ever.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.


Quotes:

"I am getting more than a little tired of Fox News declaring that this was the "first" successful ditching of a commercial airliner."


The Southern Airways DC-9 that hit a hailstorm near Atlanta back in 1977 - the era of Boeing Tri-motors - told ATC they had lost both engines, and ATC replied understanding they had lost two of their engines, and continued working other traffic on the frequency.

Although within gliding distance of at least one airport, they landed on a rural road, hitting a corner grocery store, with some loss of life.


Everyone seems to have forgotten this little gem from 1988. A TAC 737 put down on a levee south of New Orleans after loosing power from both engines in a severe thunderstorm. There were no injuries and no loss of life. The aircraft was actually flown out of the location several days later. I would say his accomplishments were on par with what happened last week, given the choices he had and having little knowledge of the area he was putting down in. The details can be found here:
Taca 737 On New Orleans Levee

[Graybeard]

Patrickal: "Everyone seems to have forgotten this little gem from 1988. A TAC 737 put down on a levee south of New Orleans after losing power from both engines in a severe thunderstorm. There were no injuries and no loss of life. The aircraft was actually flown out of the location several days later. I would say his accomplishments were on par with what happened last week, given the choices he had and having little knowledge of the area he was putting down in. The details can be found here:
Taca 737 On New Orleans Levee (pic) — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3606153/) "

Funny, I had forgot that one, too, and I was closely involved with maintenance of the weather radar on that plane at KLAX a few days later. The plane was only 3 weeks old. Shortly after that, I believe the flight idle thrust was raised on the CFM, and continuous ignition was required.

I met Capt. Dardano about ten years later, when he was Capt. on their 767, and he was quite modest about the landing. He said he was unfamiliar with the new digital radar, so didn't use it as he could have.
He owned a crop dusting and aerial advertising business in El Salvador, and hence, was quite familiar with low and slow flying.

The fact that he wore a pirate patch over his left eye, accentuated his skill at landing on the levee. I believe he lost the eye from an attack by rebels on the hiway between the airport and San Salvador. Of course, binocular vision is useful only out to about a meter.

GB

[lomapaseo]

To the discussion about ditching history (for what little its worth) :)

I'm sure that IGH will add a page or two here, but my initial coments are:

From a CRM standpoint even ditchings on the ground are worth considering since a lot of decision making needs to go on. Just listening to the CVR's tells you that.

So just some more examples from my dim memory are

The UAL DC8 fuel startvation at PDX
Avianca fuel starvation at JFK
B737 fuel starvation over Brazil
SK MD80 Multiple engine out ARN
Austrian Fokker Multiple engine out due to ice
ET B37 Dual Bird Ingestion Ethiopia


I didn't include the JAL DC8 at SFO simply because I don't believe that they knew that they were ditching in the bay.

[Dysag]

Maybe this was the closest to the US accident in the sense that it suffered a double engine failure on climb-out and flew for only about 3 miles.

A PanInternational BAC 1-11 ex-HAM attempted a landing on an autobahn in 1971 after both engines were cooked by kerosene in the water injection system.

22 fatalities out of 121 on board after it hit a bridge pillar. So it was a hero-free event, long since forgotten.

[All-Ex]

Stearperson: From what I know this is the first completely successful ditching of a jet airliner ever.Successfull ditchings with large jets have been done before:
A B707 cargo aircraft landed 5 km short and ditched in a lake in 2000. It floated at least until the next day.
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/taat.jpg

Full story: B707 Takes a Swim (http://www.avweb.com/news/news/182363-1.html)

[Tjosan]

I didn't include the JAL DC8 at SFO simply because I don't believe that they knew that they were ditching in the bay.

I think you're refering to the SAS DC8 with all three crewmembers investigating
a stuck nosegear during approach to LAX.

[airfoilmod]

JAL DC8 is correct, was there, saw it.

[Vee1Kut]

I find it somewhat ironic that many of our standard airline op type posters are suspiciously quiet on this thread.

Many many threads dealing with the possibility of a dual engine failure were responded to in kind with responses like....'never happen' 'so rare as to not think about'....of course that crowd is of the feeling that holding V2 and some prescribed deck angle is thier only option...vs high speed aborts, ditchings, aborting into the weeds at the end of the runway....

Well this should give them something to think about...sometimes, oh my gosh....planes don't want to fly, no matter what your airspeed indicator says.

I will say this...the capt, he made a decision, and everyone walked away...and while not in my opinion, parking a plane in the middle of the river is the pinnacle of pilot skill, it's much better then those guys that would have continued on the departure, while going down...put it into some buildings, ect....with both engines out, he made the right decision.

Now how both engines came to flame out to begin with...is another story...

[Graybeard]

Ditching on the Hudson leaves a lot more leeway in energy management than landing almost anywhere else in the state New York. It gives you a runway hundreds or thousands of feet wide and miles long. It's just the touchdown that's really tricky, huh? Compared to attempting a landing deadstick at an airport or on a levee, it leaves lots more accommodation of variables that might occur on the way down, such as flap/slat deployment. It certainly had to be the correct decision in this instance.

Fact as reported: Flight crew did not hit the ditch switch.
Fact as reported: FA did not know they were ditching until they were on the water.

Those are lessons learned, to be added to training curriculum, no doubt, and possibly addition of circuitry to the Ditch Switch, to automatically warn CC of impending ditching. Or, seeing the belly damage, they might just do away with the Ditch Switch.

GB

[Alanwsg]

Scott Adams Blog: The Avatar 01/19/2009 (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_avatar/)

[ZQA297/30]

Wasn't there an ALM leased-in ONA DC-9 that ditched at night off Puerto Rico?

[wileydog3]

Greybeard said Serious errors, apparently: reportedly the PNF had not selected the Ditch switch, nor notified the cabin crew of ditching.

The ditching checklist is a full page and designed for a planned ditching, not something evolving from a dual engine failure at low altitude.

Second, the USAir procedures recommend that the Capt go to the checklist and the F/O fly the airplane using the autopilot. In this circumstance, the Capt took the airplane and worked on finding a suitable place to put it down while the F/O worked on the engine relight checklist.

And yes, there was apparently no time to tell the FAs it would be a ditching but the time line suggests it was about three minutes from bird strike to touchdown, little time to do little other than 1) fly and 2) try to relight the engines.

Still, this is an example of a team effort. The FAs are all senior and experienced and this was the last leg of a 4 day trip. The group of individuals had become a functioning team and although comm was not perfect, it didn't have to be. Preferred? Yes. Required? No.

If you have been in and out of KLGA and KTEB you will know that they sit amid densely populated areas, runways are only 7000ft long and at LGA 3 runways end near or going into the water. You have one shot at getting it down, on the runway and stopped and it is not a good one.. thus the Hudson.

No doubt by now some -320 sim team has duplicated this and tried to make it into LGA or TEB. Like post United 232 simulations, I doubt most initial efforts were successful. I could be wrong.

[wileydog3]

NNCO saidFor A320 Crew - Would you have worked your way through the ENG DUAL FAILURE (fuel remaining) checklist or would you switch/jump at some point to the DITCHING procedure.

Fly the airplane first and try to get the engines started.

In this case, the Capt resorted to the old maxim 'fly the airplane'. From what I have read, the F/O worked on the engine restart checklist. The ditching checklist is designed for a planned ditching, not for this type of event.

Second, no one listens to the pre-takeoff briefing, especially the part about the life jackets and even less so when departing from inland cities such as LGA or CLT. One can imagine that at least for the next few weeks, anyone with a sense of geography will study the cards a bit more when departing cities near large bodies of water (lakes, gulf, etc) or rivers.

[Robert Campbell]

I was there also. I was flying freight in DC-3s out of SFO to LAX, PHX, SLC, PDX and SEA. It was a strange site seeing the DC-8 sitting in the water while I was flying approaches to the 28s at SFO.

I don't know if it's just a rumor, but a story was going around that the FO was aware of the situation but didn't tell the Captain that he was low because he didn't want the Captain to lose face.

I believe the Captain committed suicide.

[wileydog3]

The Southern 242 accident was, like all other accidents, unique. The crew penetrated what they thought was the area with least activity when in fact it was the area of the MOST activity in the line of thunderstorms. The initial penetration smashed the cockpit windows and filled the intakes with hail. When the throttles were moved reportedly the engines were immediately burned out. The crew advised ATC of their problem and ATC, not fully understanding the problem, gave them a frequency change. During this time the crew made a few turns and eventually tried to land on a road. As noted, they clipped a few telephone poles and the aircraft broke up with fatalities. The airports mentioned, Dobbins AFB was out of range and Cartersville is a gen av airport with runways too short for a -9.

On a second point, much is being made of the glider. The USAir Capt has his glider rating and so do I but every pilot is somewhat experienced in gliding when they pull the throttle to idle and descend. You maintain speed with pitch when there is fixed (or lack of) thrust. The main thing is to not get distracted with procedures and fly the airplane which this Capt did. Again, an extraordinary feat by the entire crew.

[wileydog3]

The JAL DC-8 Captain confused the command bars which were in a pitch mode with a capture mode on the ILS. He flew a stabilzed approach into the water.

National airlines had a 727 which went into Pensacola Bay, unplanned.

[OD100]

No Harryman, you would be incorrect.

I believe the A-320 in question was an EOW (extended overwater) ship. In which case it met the requirements of 121.339.

I think it was mentioned earlier that this ship had the detachable slide/rafts which meet the requirements of the above mentioned FAR.

[DC-ATE]

'airfoilmod'
"JAL DC8 is correct, was there, saw it."

There's a case where the aircraft (after a ditching) returned to service. I've flown it! It was a one-of-a-kind in our fleet as it had the modified glareshield. We called it the "Rice Rocket".

[TonyWilliams]

Another point, the flight was AWE1549. Note that AWE is the American West 'Cactus' callsign, rather than USA 'US AIR.'


The company, based in the Phoenix, Arizona area, within the past several months ordered all crews (USA and AWE) crews to use the Cactus call sign, not just the AWE crews. I guess that's part of the multi-year merging process.

But, this lead to HUGE confusion amongst air traffic controllers. They asked that if the USA crewed flights were going to use the Cactus call sign, that they also use the AWE identifier on their flight plans.

I doubt that Capt Sully ever has flown for the former AWE, since he flew for PSA, which was bought by USA in the 1980's. Same for the other crew members who came from Allegheny and Piedmont. I think the FO was the only crew member potentially hired directly by USA.

None of the crew members appear to have ever served as America West crew members.

[galaxy flyer]

With regards to the CC. While there was no announcement of ditching, they certainly were aware of the situation and their surroundings. One stopped a passenger from opening the aft door, for instance. One was injured, but the evac went well and quickly-a real kudo for a situationally aware team.

Reading the NY blogs, apparently a number of pax refused to leave without carry-on bags. Some are seen on the wing with baggage. One lady refused to leave without her bags then blocked the exit with the bags after falling the water-those inside threw the bags over. She was pulled into a "raft". One wonders how well it would have worked had pax played by the rules.

With ditching switches relatively new and the F/O just out of of IOE, I suspect he didn't even think of it or get to the checklist.
GF

[lomapaseo]

wileydog

The Southern 242 accident was, like all other accidents, unique. The crew penetrated what they thought was the area with least activity when in fact it was the area of the MOST activity in the line of thunderstorms. The initial penetration smashed the cockpit windows and filled the intakes with hail. When the throttles were moved reportedly the engines were immediately burned out.

Just a minor correction but indeed a lesson learned.

When the throttles were moved the engines began to surge. Without any abatement to the throttles the surging continued until the compressor baldes failed on one engine after the other "we got the other engine going too damn it". It is presumed that continued restart attempts with no compressor led to completely burned out turbines. But the real lesson learned about the engines was to throttle back just out of the engine stalling bucket and cross your fingers that you can keep it in the air that way.

[TonyWilliams]

Even answering ATC if they can't help you is a waste of time in an emergency. Notice on the transcripts ATC did not ask for those annoying reports on souls on board, fuel, etc, but left them alone to deal with the ditching, probably required if you declared an emergency, or Mayday for the brits.


Mayday is the correct call worldwide. ICAO.

And if ATC did not ask for souls, fuel, etc, then they will no doubt be given a tongue lashing by some brain dead FAA manager who would sh*t his drawers if a bird hit his office window.

[misd-agin]

courtney (post 842) - You think it's stupid to believe an airline can glide 9 nm miles from 3000'?

Map out the distance flown from engine failure to landing. Without knowing the exact touchdown point and flight path, but reasonable estimates available from flightracking websites and photos, it looks like they flew almost exactly 9 n.m.

Peak altitude was 3400', glide distance about 10.5 st. miles. Sorry, but "9 miles from 3000' " is a fine estimate.

[snowfalcon2]

Fact as reported: Flight crew did not hit the ditch switch.
Fact as reported: FA did not know they were ditching until they were on the water.

Could be addressed in training if the investigation deems it worthwhile.

More generally the learnings from this accident are IMO that passenger evacuation procedures never play out exactly as designed because, generally, no passenger has previous training or experience. I.e. there will always be those people going the wrong way and who do not listen to or react to commands from anyone. The challenge when designing future emergency procedures is to be able to handle also these "disturbances" and still ensure everyone survives.

It will be interesting to hear how real accident experts will judge the outcome of this emergency situation. Obviously it's an excellent benchmark of an accident where everyone survived despite some, let's say minor, imperfections in the execution of the evacuation procedures. The next challenge will be to see what can be done to achieve the same survivability also in more challenging external circumstances than was the case on the Hudson river.

[Chinookflyer]

On Jan. 16, 2002 a Garuda 737-300 made a successful ditching in the Benjawang Solo River after suffering a double flame-out in a cloudburst. Unfortunately there was a fatality - a flight attendent drowned during evacuation.
Apparently the current prevalent airliner configuration - low wing with large diameter engines on pylons under the wing - is capable of controlled ditchings, at least in moderate wave conditions.

Chinookflyer

[ZQA297/30]

lomapaseo
Just a minor correction but indeed a lesson learned.

When the throttles were moved the engines began to surge. Without any abatement to the throttles the surging continued until the compressor baldes failed on one engine after the other "we got the other engine going too damn it". It is presumed that continued restart attempts with no compressor led to completely burned out turbines. But the real lesson learned about the engines was to throttle back just out of the engine stalling bucket and cross your fingers that you can keep it in the air that way.

This was a valuable guide to me some years later (early 1990s)
On a cool damp night in an MD-83 halfway through the rotate I ploughed through a flock of ducks that had been warming their feet on the runway, and just appeared in the lights as we crested the slight rise in the runway.
I was amazed as they rose straight up like helicopters, and in an instant "boom", both engines surged violently. A series of bangs followed, and to cut a long story short the starboard engine was surging, but the port was running OK with unknown level of damage. I instructed the F/O to slowly reduce the power on the stbd engine until it stopped surging, but NOT to let it unspool, as it would never come back up. (Thanks Southern!) It stabilised at about 1.3 EPR which might have been all we had left if the port one quit.
Luckily the port engine continued to run well, and we completed a tight circuit to get back on the ground before it might think of failing.

Ironically, during the landing roll, 3 ducks impacted the nose/windshield, presumably they had been flying around looking for the rest of the decimated flock.

On examination, the stbd engine first stage had 32 blades out of 36 either missing or badly damaged. The port had feathers from 3 or 4 ducks wrapped around intake area, but no mechanical damage. It speaks volumes of the toughness of P&W engines that neither hot section was seriously damaged.

P.S.
Needless to say, whenever duck is on the menu I go for it!

[PEI_3721]

snowfalcon2, Re “Could be addressed in training…” (#962)
An alternative is to consider the human aspects of the crew’s task in a relatively short timescale, vis:-
Identify the nature of the problem; probably the initial focus was on starting one engine. Then, with two engines malfunctioning there could have been many other alerts. If the generators were off line then an electrical checklist might have been considered – after attempting to recover engines.
Next consider a return to airport with abnormal landing; then an emergency landing … not at an airport … then ‘we going for the Hudson’.
Add to this inter crew / cabin communication, ATC, selecting the landing configuration, then it could be quite explainable that the crew never got beyond the QRH index. We don’t know of any distracting vibrations, or possible airframe damage; many things might flash through the mind during the surprise of such a severe event.

However, apparently what the crew did do exceptionally well, was (rule 1) fly the aircraft. This is better than having the ditching valve closed and arriving in the water in a tangled mess of aluminium!
We shall see from the investigation the exact sequence of events, but I suspect that this accident will be the basis for future training of what went well; the Captain flew and monitored, the First Officer managed and monitored, each with their own priorities and sufficient skill (airmanship) without the need for lengthy briefings and drills - mainly because there wasn’t time.

[misd-agin]

Fly the airplane - rule number one of flying.

There are times when "checklist discipline" sounds great in the rooms where training protocol is established but it isn't necessarily the best plan in real life situations. Experience, skill, and technical knowledge helps in these circumstances. ZQA297/30's event might be one example.

[eu_dbx]

CNN is reporting passengers on an earlier flight 1549 (Jan 13) with the same incident plane contacting them about an engine event on climb out from La Guardia ... A couple of very loud bangs, announcement that emergency landing may be necessary, but flight then continued after pilots resolved the issue to satisfaction.

Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549 - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hudson.plane.folo/)

What do people think? Potentially relevant?

John Hodock, another passenger on the Tuesday flight, said in an e-mail to CNN: "About 20 minutes after take-off, the plane had a series of compressor stalls on the right engine. There were several very loud bangs and fire coming out of the engine. The pilot at first told us that we were going to make an emergency landing, but after about five minutes, continued the flight to Charlotte." "EAC confirms that US Airways ship number N106US flew on January 13, 2009, and January 15, 2009, with the same flight number of AWE 1549 from New York's LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte Douglas [International] Airport in North Carolina," Expert Aviation said in a statement to CNN.

[nnc0]

but would the NTSB be as reasonable in their consideration?

[MountainSnake]

Successfull ditchings with large jets have been done before:
A B707 cargo aircraft landed 5 km short and ditched in a lake in 2000. It floated at least until the next day.


Yes, but the fact that they were empty, low on fuel, with no cargo, final approach, all engines available, was a major contributor to that successful ditching. US Air was "dead stick", heavy and at a much higher sink rate. The stressing forces applied were much higher as the plane "sunk" at the first impact.

[ChristiaanJ]

an earlier flight 1549 (Jan 13) with the same incident plane
Made me wonder ...

Remember the heron at MAN (I think it was MAN)?

Was this earlier 1549 "surge" also an unfortunate encounter with a (maybe smaller) bird?

Are engines systematically checked for possible bird strike damage after a "surge" report at low altitude?

Maybe it's now really high time to get rid of anomalies such as bird sanctuaries close to major airports?

Read the earlier reports such as quoted in post #790.

CJ

[DingerX]

There will always be passengers who pay attention to the briefings and know where the life vests are. There will always be passengers who ignore everything and try assemble their carry on bags and drag them out of the plane while everything and everyone around them burns.

On UA flights, when enabled, Channel 9 can be monitored gate-to-gate. It's not always enabled. Capt. Haynes turned off channel 9 sometime after they blew their engine but before they realized how bad things were.

Okay, for the journalists reading the thread, and unsure how to call the authors of these posts, here's a cheat sheet:

Frequent Fliers praise the heroism of the crew.
Flight Crew claim it's "professionalism"
First Officers remind people that there was more than one person on the flight deck.
Captains state that the authority has to rest with one person (they also silently suspect it'll all turn out to be the "co-pilot's" fault)
Flight Attendants point to the speedy and orderly evacuation of far too many people in far too little time.
Europeans wonder why US senior flight attendants would be on a domestic route.
US Senior Flight Attendants would correct them, but today's youth just wouldn't understand anyway. Heck, sometimes not even the whippersnappers on the domestic routes understand.
Journalist Trolls suggest that flight attendants, ferry drivers, a full flight crew was unnecessary, in the hope of drawing out a choice quote.
Boeing Fanatics marvel at why Airbus would build such a tough plane only to prevent pilots from actually flying it.
Airbus Pilots argue over whether the aircraft was in Normal, Alternate or Direct Law.
Airbus Test Pilots claim to have the answer.
Marketing wants to move USAirways' into the Marine Air Terminal at LGA.
Sky Gods are quiet. Lockheed's looking into developing a seaplane just to clear up all this fuss about water landings.
Right-place, right-time, left-seat pilots with a consulting company on the side specializing in teaching CRM to the corporate world emphasize the teamwork and coordination that functioned flawlessly from Ops until the NTSB debrief.
Attorneys are too busy scrambling for "needlessly terrified" clients.

my apologies to all involved.

[lomapaseo]

CNN is reporting passengers on an earlier flight 1549 (Jan 13) with the same incident plane contacting them about an engine event on climb out from La Guardia ... A couple of very loud bangs, announcement that emergency landing may be necessary, but flight then continued after pilots resolved the issue to satisfaction.

Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549 - CNN.com

What do people think? Potentially relevant?


Yes, relevant.

Pay attention to any photos or stated evidences of bird strikes across the whole frontal area of the aircraft. Flock encounters leave this kind of evidence.

Examine the DFDR engine parameters in the event. There is a difference between only a surge encounter and one where the bird damage causes it.

Also look at the crew actions between the initial event and the time that they actually begin a restart action. The crew knows what the engine symptoms were and whether they actually shut down engines for exceedances or simply attempted restarts from flamed out engines.

[Jimmy Hoffa Rocks]

" Maybe it's now really high time to get rid of anomalies such as bird sanctuaries close to major airports? "

Chirstiaan J

What do you propose to do nuke em ?

The birds have been there before the airports

We have had discussions on bird strikes before on pprune, perhaps you have read them. There's a lot of info on it

What about the Pulselite landing light system ?

Hasn't been proven but what has ? The old wx radar systems back.

As it stands there will be more bird strikes and we have to deal with it.

[Robert Campbell]

Any way of finding out who was flying the 1549 flight that is mentioned in the CNN article.

The reason I ask is that there is speculation on the web by non-pilots trying to blame the pilots for the situation.

Some people are intent on smearing success.

Here's US Airway's Web page about N106US:

Aircraft (http://www.usairways.com/awa/Content/en-US/information/aircraft.html)

How much time is considered high time on these engines?

Thanks

[ankh]

this may suggest some simple surface treatment to change the reflection of polarized light would greatly discourage birds from flocking to airports.
Smooth "objects look more like water than water" to birds as they come into the area!

So smooth runways and glass are -- for birds -- what the ethologists call a "supernormal stimulus" -- more attractive than the real thing.

You can imagine what this is like. Classic examples are, for a herring gull, a red dot on the beak; for a human male, consider a strapless evening gown.
(The classic engineering paper is here: A Stress Analysis (http://gendertree.com/a_stress_analysis_of_a_strapless.htm) )

Now you know how the birds feel as they head toward the airport!

Excerpt from New Scientist -- Wildlife confused by polarised light pollution
12:40 08 January 2009

Bruce Robertson of Michigan State University (KBS - Research Associates (http://www.kbs.msu.edu/postdocs/#Robertson)) says ... When light bounces off smooth, dark surfaces it becomes polarised – meaning the light wave is aligned in one plane.

In natural environments, this most commonly happens around water, but humans excel at making smooth surfaces. "Cars, asphalt, oil pools, and windows polarise light more strongly than water," says Robertson.

To animals tuned to distinguish polarised light and use it as an environmental cue, "these objects look more like water than water," he says. ...

[barit1]

Engine #2 has slightly more hours than the airframe - It's obviously a replaced engine.

26,466.08 hours is by no means high time, and anyway hours mean very little in engine maintenance. The reason? There are two typical limitations that will require an engine swap: operating cycles (= number of flights), and performance deterioration (can't deliver hot day performance within EGT limits). Of course FOD or other physical damage can do an engine in.

I don't know exactly what the current on-wing time record is before removal, but 20 years ago turbofan engines were regularly exceeding 20,000 hours, with far greater reliability than recips at 2000-3000 hour TBO's.

[anartificialhorizon]

The total time (as stated) is not really important.

Time since overhaul /last shop visit possibly relevant.

As for reported surging on a previous flight, a red herring me thinks, and not relevant to this incident.

Flight 1549 encountered a flock of large birds which caused enough damage to the engines to cause them to lose power /stop completely.

A not uncommon outcome for one engine although rare for both to encounter bird strikes.....

[Mark in CA]

All five crew members invited by Obama to tomorrow's inauguration. No word on the crew's intentions.

[HotDog]

On climb out from Calcutta to Bangkok in a CV880M in 1968, we suffered a bird strike in No.2 Engine. Our deprture track took us in the vicinity of The Tower of Silence, the burial place of the Parsi (Zoroastrian) faith. There were several large Vutures in the area. No.2 Engine sufered a stall which imediately recovered. We inspected the engine intake from the cabin windows and although there was a large blood stain, no vibration was evident. A slightly higher RPM was showing for the same power setting and we continued to Bangkok. On inspection on the ground, severe intake blade damage was evident. The aircraft was 3 engine ferried to Hong Kong the next day. Quite remarkable really for the CJ805 engine to keep operating under the cicumstances. A Vulture is much bigger than a Goose!

[misd-agin]

Pan Am 727 hit a flock of geese in Berlin in the early 1970's. They typically flew at 350-380 KIAS, so they were moving.

Holes in fuselage around cockpit(instant depressurization) and leading edges of wings. Luckily no engine damage.

[Airbubba]

Pan Am 727 hit a flock of geese in Berlin in the early 1970's. They typically flew at 350-380 KIAS, so they were moving.

Those were some fast geese...:)

Yep, no speed limit in the corridors.

[Boomerang_Butt]

Didn't see this mentioned in the last 5 or so pages, for anyone who missed it:

New security camera footage

YouTube - NEW Jan 17 Latest Plane Crash Hudson River New York City Water (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=6VOicUsKWOQ)

Well I'm assuming this is the real thing as CNN posted the same video!

[subsonic69]

I agree boomerang.... there are times that accidents cannot be avoided at all. The chances can be minimized, but very hard to avoid.. as for some people here saying that there's some mistakes committed by the pilots. since theres a lot of pilots reading these forum then this is is my opinion as a passenger if ever you're the pilot flying the plane...

land the plane safely first.. don't give a s**t to other people telling you that you should do this and that. procedures are meant to be followed, true. but the safety of the people on board is your first priority. A lot of people or even pilots will even point out your mistakes. but not even half of them can do what the pilots did in the accident that happened.

kudos to the pilots who did in my opinion a great job!!!

:ok:

[BelArgUSA]

My engines digested a few B1RDs during my career. But one I will not forget.
xxx
On takeoff at Lagos, route Luxembourg-Lagos-Johannesburg, cargo flight, type 747-246F (ex JAL), engines JT9D-7Q, registry 9G-MKI, operator MK Cargo, date NOV 2000, late morning.
xxx
I was on a 3 months 747 pilot training contract with MK as this was their first 747. All trainees were experienced DC8 pilots. Aircraft T/O weight was somewhat heavy, probably about 350 tonnes. The trainee was FP for this sector. Good guy, we had flown 2 or 3 sectors together.
xxx
We lined-up on the runway, takeoff South, to proceed overwater straight-out, no obstacles to clear. On the West side of the runway, a wooded area. I had noticed a "bird shooter" walking near the runway, with an old 12-gage on the shoulder.
xxx
Cleared for takeoff, F/O advanced the power, "making noise" probably gave the "Nigerian Air Force B1RDs" a takeoff clearance as well. When we were at some 100-120 knots, I noticed a flock of big birds coming from the trees and crossing our runway. Too late, and by then too fast and too heavy to consider to reject takeoff. F/O rotated at VR, called GEAR UP and at same time, some 30 ft AGL, we hit the B1RD Nig.AF Squadron, they were mostly on our RH side. Boom, bang, feathers, vibrations, fire bell, red light...!
xxx
As the F/O was flying perfectly and by the book, I did all PNF duties with the assistance of the F/E. Engine fire, then severe damage check-list, just telling the F/O "go straight, continue". I feared we lost 2 of the RH engines, but soon realized it was nº4 only. We discharged one fire bottle, N1 was very low, EGT rapidly decreasing... maybe some N2 windmilling indications.
xxx
Initially, I considered continuing on 3 motors to Jo'Burg... good maintenance and probably spare engines there. F/O was busy increasing speed, calling flaps retraction step by step. We wanted V2+80 to get flaps up, but right around 200/220 knots the vibration got worse, shaking the plane.
xxx
F/O looked through the window, he told me the nº4 engine was shaking up/down on the pylon, as well as the outer wing section flapping up/down as well. We had a ground engineer and loadmaster on board as well. So, going to Jo'Burg appeared impossible, and under any circumstances would I go back to Lagos. So we got MK's boss Mike Kruger on the phone through STO Radio. Bottom line was "proceed to Accra", about 45 minutes or so West...
xxx
We flew there with Flaps 1, at about 200 KIAS, below FL200 as it is max FL with flaps not up. Engine and wing vibrated the entire time. I took the airplane for approach and landing into Accra. No further events.
xxx
One thing I learned, in the bad damage of bird ingestion, the fan was seriously "out of balance" and caused the vibration when windmilling, making it impossible to reach flaps retraction speed, which was about 240 for us at that weight. End of story, we did a 3 engine ferry some 2 days later to Luxembourg to get another engine, with the fan "caged" to prevent windmilling (and vibrations) by cargo pallet straps attached through the blades. And I got a few beers to the F/O and F/E, they performed an excellent job.
xxx
I have no bird casualty list, maybe got printed in the Lagos Times.
:E
Happy contrails

[Super VC-10]

Wikipedia has articles of the following ditchings:-

US Airways Flight 1549 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549)
Tuninter Flight 1153 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuninter_Flight_1153)
Garuda Indonesia Flight 421 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_421)
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961)
ALM Flight 980 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALM_Flight_980)
Japan Airlines Flight 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_2)
Tupolev 124 ditching in Neva River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_124_ditching_in_Neva_River)
Pan Am Flight 943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_943)
Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Orient_Airlines_Flight_2)

I can add two more to the list. the Boeing 307 ditching at Seattle in 2002 and the Dutch Dakota Association's loss of PH-DDA off Texel in 1996.

[BelArgUSA]

Super VC-10 -
xxx
There were others, athough your Wikipedia list is quite well documented.
One I recall also is a SAS DC8 ditching on approach to LAX... in the 1960s?
One other JAL, a DC8 captain going "banzai" in Tokyo Bay, mental reasons.
I recall also a Sudan Air 707 dipping in the Nile South of Khartoum.
The National 727 landing in Pensacola (I mentioned that one earlier here).
And there probably are many others.
xxx
Notoriously, often, many, when not all passengers got out ok.
But we know, US Air 1549 will become a textbook example in classrooms.
xxx
:D
Happy contrails

[BelArgUSA]

I recall a Pan Am Academy big meeting of instructors and pilots, late 1980s.
Subject was bird strikes, probably we had scored a few in preceeding weeks.
A few things we discussed was birds avoidance.
And yes, there was a bird expert, maybe a zoologist or ornithologist.
My only interest in birds is when they are in my dish.
xxx
First thing, is our weather radar.
Some say "put WX Radar ON" for takeoff, as it scares the birds.
But our question was (we dumb pilots), what do they do when scared...?
Do they decide to takeoff, as you scare them with your microwaves.
Or do they digest their last worm in the grass, until you are gone.
So, WX Radar, there was no consensus as to what was better.
xxx
Then we learned about the birds, and how they get their licence to fly.
The chicken expert ornithologist, told us that birds have a wind sock.
Our feathered friends went to a FTO to learn to takeoff AGAINST the wind.
Just like our aeroplanes and Skygods do.
Bird tailwind limitations unknown to me, sorry.
xxx
So, our turkey expert told us, they will takeoff upwind.
Flock of birds RH of runway, and wind coming from your LH, they will cross your path.
Apparently, birds use existing wind to improve their second segment gradient.
They forgot to disregard the wind factor in their theory classes.
And radar or not, your engine noise will scare them = bird takeoff clearance.
xxx
Sorry if I upset the UK Audubon Society, for me, my bird interest is KFC...
And in any case, I prefer an Argentina filet cube, medium rare.
And this 3 hours PanAm meeting was for the birds, anyway.
xxx
:rolleyes:
Happy contrails

[jet_737ng]

media reports that one of the engines had a compressor failure couple of days before the incident.... did this aggravate the incident???

[ORAC]

Only a matter of days before the first lawsuits are filed... There doesn't seem to be much of a case.

WSJ LawBlog: Can the Passengers of Flight 1549 Sue for Emotional Distress? (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/16/can-the-passengers-of-flight-1549-sue-for-emotional-distress/)

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Quote:
Only a matter of days before the first lawsuits are filed...
There doesn't seem to be much of a case.

WSJ LawBlog: Can the Passengers of Flight 1549 Sue for Emotional Distress?
More likely to sue the Port of New York for the mucky water they had to land in/on than sue the heroes that just saved their life.
Be lucky
David

[Cytherea]

All,
The person who asked the question whether any parts would be re-used opens a can of worms. There is a movement in the industry to eradicate this practice - and in most major airlines and aviation communities, particularly the USA there is an acceptance that components will be supplied with "trace and a non-incident statement". Trace is defined as a paperwork trail usually to the last operator and sometimes (depending on the life and overhaul intervals of the component) back to birth. A key element of this trace is a step by step log of each company's hands the component has passed through. Along with this each company will certify, either using form ATA106 or by a signed and stamped letter that the part identified by Part Number and Serial number has not been involved in an incident or accident and has not been immersed in salt water or subjected to stress or heat exposure.
Some people even consider that the use of a component on a simulator can expose the component to "stress" and therefore will not complete the ATA106 form.
In the UK the CAA released AWN17 which covered the guidance of how to treat these parts. It has now been replaced by an EASA notice - I'm not sure which one.
The key to all this is what should be considered a reportable incident or accident...This I would suggest is a total write off. However parts from the BA 777 at LHR could well be salvageable:ugh:. In this case however I know that BA are adamant that these parts will be destroyed - an honourable position that cost them a great deal.
My company has an absolute policy of not touching incident related parts - I would encourage all airlines to adopt this stance.

Hope this helps and doesn't confuse the issue even more.

[flipster]

Birdstrikes (one or multiple) are so diverse in their nature, that actaually planning for every scenario is difficult and in similar circumstances, replication of the actions may not be appropriate.

For example, in Alaska in the 1990's, a USAF E3 'Sentry' took major multiple birdstrikes (geese) just at Vr and losing 2 engines; eventually the ac crashed, killing all aboard. No long after, a NATO E3 suffered a multiple birdstrike (hawks and starlings) on take-off in Greece (at high speed, before Vr and, I think, just after V1) but they carried out an RTO/abort and not suprisingly, the ac over-ran the end of the runway. This time, however, as the birds had caused little damage to ac and engines, the crew were heavily criticised.... but at least they were all alive!

What would you have done in those circumstances - without the benefit of hindsight?

Having hit a number of birds in my time (all at different phases of flight), I feel that manufacturers and trainers probably do not give enough thought or open guidance about 'actions on'. In fairness, it may be because of my opening line - every birdstrike can be different. However, it may be because of the potential litigation in case the advice is inappropriate?
Whatever the reason, it should NOT preclude individual pilots taking some time to consider the what if's of birdstrikes (not to mention unplanned ditching).

This accident has reminded me that it is time to give birdstrikes some more thought. Here's my list for starters.

eg Birdstrike occurs @

- before 80/100kts on T/O.
- just before V1.
- just after Vr.
- before flap retraction.
- in climb, cruise or descent.
- during approach and configurating.
- on finals.
- during the flare.
- after T/D.

Contributing factors;

Big birds/small birds?
How many?
Seen/not seen/heard/not heard?
Tell ATC?
Engine indications ok/degraded/recovered/power avail?
Change configuration or not?
Fire/severe damage/eng shut down - checklists v fly the ac?
Visual inspection possible from inside/outside ac?
Low speed handling check possible/appropriate?
Airfield facilities - rwy length/xwind/fire services/engineering/commercial etc?
Cabin crew aware?

and, or course if things are really bad, maybe to select suitable area for crash or ditching + handling techniques thereof!

I for one think that 'Sully' and his crew did a fantastic job - bravos all round!


flipster

[Wader2]

Bird sanctuaries - here is an extract from Game and Fish:

<<http://www.midatlanticgameandfish.com/logo_a.gif





NEW JERSEY
. . . populations of resident Canada geese have continued an upward trend, . . .


The Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) has done a good job at protecting the state's marshes and wetlands. Even with continued development, waterfowl habitat has remained fairly stable, especially in the central and southern portions of the state.

. . . New Jersey has both freshwater and saltwater marshes. With extensive bays, small rivers and streams along its 100-plus mile coastline, along with the tea-stained water of the Pine Barrens, it's easy to understand why New Jersey is a major stopover along the Atlantic Flyway for ducks and geese.



When you combine these numerous wetlands with the plethora of small parks, golf courses, corporate centers and other areas off-limits to hunters, it's easy to see why the resident Canada goose population is estimated at over 100,000 birds.



. . . Garden State water- fowlers have between 350,000 and 450,000 big birds to shoot at every year.>>

and intellectual approach to the problem from another site:

<<with all the talk about illegal immigration from mexico an building a security fence, we should be doing the same, made of cyclone fencing and topped with razor wire to a height of 5 miles to keep those friggin' geese out. let 'em go through the regular check points all along the border, walking in gaggles, where they can be tagged, two poind lead weights chained to each ankle and an electronic beeper harnessed around their neck. oh, yeh, considering how much they **** all over our pristing green lawns, parks and wetlands, we should crazy-glue their assholes shut>>

More seriously here is a map of the Atlantic flyway Migration Flyways (http://www.birdnature.com/allupperflyways.html)

It is perhaps likely that the geese were overwintering in the Bronx area from October to May.

October 1May 21Canada GooseBranta canadensis

[Mr Pax]

As a simple pax it is with trepidation that I ask this question,
Is it not possable to have some sort of mesh screen in front of the engine intakes to stop large objects from being sucked in, large enough mesh to allow airflow and small birds but small enough to stop large objects like geese, swans and maintenance engineers ect.?



Should I get my coat?

MP

[Flintstone]

Should I get my coat?


Coat not necessary. Stay indoors with a nice cup of tea and read the whole thread, the question has already been asked (and answered).


;)

[pappabagge]

BBC Radio 2 online playing an oldie "January" by..... "Pilot".

Time for a valium methinks

[Prangster]

Huck, thanks for the prompt. Damn I missed it. You sent me flying to the filing cabinet. You're quite correct about MMPL it's all there, but you do have to search:

Appendix G sub section D para 9.17. (G ii)

Hang on ! Damn. No wrong again, that's the check list for when the crap and fan collide and all you've got left is experience. See Capt Sullenber for that

[markbingo]

http://www.luftfahrt.net/unfall/pixel/PK-GWA_1.jpg

This the Jan. 16, 2002 a Garuda 737-300 that Chinookflyer #962 mentions.

Its not exactly floating.... more like beached !

[Telstar]

[QUOTE]So, our turkey expert told us, they will takeoff upwind.
Flock of birds RH of runway, and wind coming from your LH, they will cross your path.
/QUOTE]

Had never considered that BelArgUSA. Useful nugget of information.

[airfoilmod]

True enough, but incomplete. Birds fly for a living too, and though an UW takeoff is the preference, will turn to their assigned heading when able.

[Wader2]

True enough, but incomplete. Birds fly for a living too, and though an UW takeoff is the preference, will turn to their assigned heading when able.

But only after v2 when safetly established in the climb.

Behind our house is a small lake. There was a strong northerly and two geese made a landing on the ling, into wind, runway. They had (or rather the gander had) neglected to conduct a proper airfield recce before landing.

Immediately beyond the lift off point was an earth bank and then a strand of trees rising to 60 feet. Needless to say they did not make it and came through the trees at about 40 feet with him honking left abit, right abit, and her no half giving him a wigging.

Geese are good endurance fliers at high speeds and heights up to 18k, manoeuvrable and capable of low speed flight they are not.

[markbingo]

Mr Pax: Quote: "As a simple pax it is with trepidation that I ask this question,
Is it not possable to have some sort of mesh screen in front of the engine intakes to stop large objects from being sucked in, large enough mesh to allow airflow and small birds but small enough to stop large objects like geese, swans and maintenance engineers ect.?"

Birds can do a lot of damage. Would a wiremesh have stopped this ?
http://www.aero-farm.com/safety/birdstrike.jpg

Get your coat Mr Pax ;)

[galaxy flyer]

BelARgUSA:

And your best bit of judgement was in NOT returning to Lagos :ok: :}

GF