Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC

[ExSp33db1rd]

There's no point "trying to replicate in a sim", because you do not know what to replicate


Well, you could try 1300 ft. at 191 kts, clean, on the East bank of the Hudson heading South - as per the map we have been shown, try various configurations and see where you end up. Soon get an idea.

Once you've made a decision - stick with it, unless an absolutely cast iron alternative is handed to you on a plate, with a guarantee. What you gonna do now, sue the bloke because you can prove, absolutely, using an electronic gadget, that with hindsight, and 2 weeks to think about it, that he could have made a better decision ? 3-1/2 minutes was all they had.

[Pontius Navigator]

While the poster quoted by StbdD makes some very good points, especially about sensible clothing, two points stand out for me and reinforce what was posted earlier:

After immersion in freezing water your ability to help yourself is virtually NIL. The second, on the sensible clothing front, was the way the rescuers used TROUSER BELTS.

So, help yourself to help your rescuers, wear clothing that can assist in your rescue.

[vanHorck]

Something else that stood out is that no one remembered to take their life vests with them....

It shows how crucial it is for the CC to remind people of this during the evacuation. After initial panic, people settled down. It would have been the ideal time to use the PA to remind people (don't rush to kill me for attacking the CC crew on this, all survived so it was only a blip)

The woman who fell in the water was very lucky. This day all the full cheese bits lined up after the birdstrikes. That's what makes this ditching so special

[Avman]

If you replicate the event on a sim you'd have to include the "what the :mad: " factor which will lose you a few seconds of decision making time. It's another ball game altogether when you're anticipating what is going to happen and you have already made the decision to try for TEB.

[Rocket2]

Not sure if this link has been posted but a very evocative drawing from Rex Babin:

Cartoons from Around the Nation - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/1216/image_media/1556047.html)

[yakker]

I am not an airline pilot, and hopefully I am not contributing to writing stuff that actually only shows the gaps in my knowledge. However I was emailed the following, no doubt any Airbus crew will soon point out the errors. But to me it seems genuine, and shows just how much was done in a short space of time, leaving me to agree with the final comments "a most amazing job done brilliantly". Read on......

The author of the report below is an A340 captain, as you will see from reading right through; do read to the end.

Fascinating info!

Reports state geese were flying at 2900'. This would imply that the A320
would have already cleaned up from its original take off flap setting (most likely config 1 which would have a small amount of flap on the trailing edge and a small amount of slat on the leading edge) to a clean configuration and acceleration to 250 kts indicated airspeed, the maximum permitted speed below 10,000' in the US.

The engines would have been in the 'climb gate' which means that the autothrust system would be engaged with the FMGES (flight management, guidance and envelope system) computers able to automatically set thrust to whatever it requires between idle and approx 90% of the maximum continuous thrust.

The co-pilot was the pilot flying (PF) for this sector with the captain playing the pilot non-flying (PNF) support role (radios, monitoring, system selection, etc). On fly by wire (FBW) Airbuses (Airbii?) the autopilot can be engaged from the later of 100' or 5 seconds after take off but most of us like to play awhile so I don't know if it was engaged or if PF was hand flying at the time.

It would appear that on hitting the birds the power loss on both engines was instantaneous. I would expect that the flight deck would momentarily have gone dark with all the screens blank while the electrical system reconfigured itself onto battery power. During this time a small ram air turbine (RAT) would drop out from the underside of the aircraft with a freewheeling propeller that spins up to 6000ish rpm in the airflow.

Modern Airbus have 3 electrical systems referred to as the Green, Blue and Yellow systems (you can't afford to be colour blind in an Airbus!) with hydraulic dependent systems spread across these 3 providers to allow system redundancy. The engines have pumps attached that normally pressurise the 3 hydraulic systems to 3000 psi however these engines had now stopped so the RAT would supply hydraulic pressure at 2500 psi to the blue hydraulic system only. With only the blue system available the aircraft would have had both elevators but only the left aileron operational (the rudder is electric on the 320 so other redundancy caters for that). The loss of all the engine driven electrical generators would also cause the emergency generator to come on line. This is a small generator that is driven by blue system hydraulic pressure (effectively a windmill in the fluid lines) with enough output to power minimal flight instrumentation, flight control computers, FADEC's (computers governing thrust management), SFCC's (slat/flap control computers), etc, etc. The emergency generator means that the batteries can be saved for any future needs as they are only guaranteed for 30 minutes.

So at this point the aircraft has flight controls and limited electrics. There would then be the most awful buzz of aural warnings and illuminations as the aircraft then reports itself to the pilots as being unfit for use. If the autopilot was engaged it would have dropped out and as the only pilot instrumentation showing would be the captains PFD (primary flight display) and the ISIS (integrated standby instrument system) he would now become the PF while the co-pilot now became the PNF.

In normal circumstances Airbus flight guidance is unlike conventional aircraft as forward and backward movement of the sidestick does not directly control the elevators but does directly control g load demand. Lateral movement of the sidestick does not directly control the ailerons, it sends a request to the flight control computers for a desired roll rate. There are also flight envelope protections in place controlled by the flight control computers that prevent the aircraft exceeding preset pitch and bank angles, min and max speeds, min and max g loadings, etc and when all these are in place the aircraft is referred to as operating in 'Normal Law'. There are another 6 'laws' that the aircraft can fly under (alternate 1, alternate 2, flare, abnormal attitude, mechanical backup) including the reversionary mode the aircraft would have dropped into in this case, 'Direct Law'. In this mode the sidestick movement is effectively directly related to aileron and elevator movement and in effect the aircraft has downgraded itself 3 stages to handle the same as a normal aeroplane. We even have to start trimming!

The aircraft appears to have reached a max alt of 3200' before transitioning to the glide. The Captain is now hand flying and will also have taken over the radios while the FO now has the job of dealing with the systems and failures. The Airbus has a system called ECAM (electronic centralised aircraft monitoring) which not only displays normal aircraft system information on 2 screens in front of the pilots in the middle of the panel but also automatically presents checklists and operation procedures during failures scenarios. The upper ECAM screen would be awash with pages and pages of procedures for him to work through however the aircraft will prioritise the failures and put the engine relight procedures at the top of the list

The ECAM would instruct him to:
1 - Switch on the engine igniters. Jet engines operate with the 'spark plugs' normally switched off as they are a constantly burning fire unlike a piston engine. Relight will not happen without a spark though.
2 - Return the thrust levers to idle for correct fuel delivery during start sequence.
3 - Request PF to fly at 280kts which is the optimum speed for relight. In light of the low altitude I very much doubt they would have wanted to do this. If they had they would have needed a target pitch attitude of approx 2.5 degrees nose down and assuming a
weight of 70 tonnes in still air the glide would have been 2.6nm per 1000'. I suspect the captain would in fact have come back to 'green dot' speed for improved gliding range. Green dot speed is computer generated and displayed as a green dot on the speedtape on the PFD and shows you the exact speed for max lift/drag ratio for that weight in the ambient conditions in the current configuration. I would hazard a guess that on a little Airbus (minibus!?!) this would be just over 200 knots.
4 - Select the emergency generator manually on in case the system has not come on automatically.
5 - Use number 1 VHF or HF radios and Transponder as only those are powered in emergency electrical configuration.
6 - Reset number 1 Flight Augmentation Computer allowing recovery of the electrical rudder trim as the unpowered right aileron would now start to float up hampering control further.
7 - If no engine relight after 30 seconds then engine master switches off for 30 seconds to purge the combustion chambers before restarting the ignition sequence. Below FL200 the APU can be used to assist with engine starting however even if the APU had been running it would not be able to be used within 45 seconds of loss of engine driven generators to prevent interference with emergency generator coupling. At some point the crew would then have to accept their fate that the engines are unlikely to restart and transfer to the Ditching checklist which is not on ECAM but would have to be accessed from the QRH (quick reference handbook) located to the side of each pilot.

Now the FO had a new list of jobs to perform:
1 - Prepare cabin and cockpit. Ensure cabin crew are notified and doing their thing, secure loose items in the cockpit, prepare survival equipment, tighten harness and select harness lock, etc.
2 - Switch GPWS (ground proximity warning systems) and EGPWS (enhanced GPWS) systems off so that the aircraft does not start shouting 'Too Low Gear' or 'Whoop Whoop Pull Up' at you when you are trying to concentrate on a tidy crash.
3 - Seatbelt signs on. Somehow think this one got into the checklist to appease the lawyers at the subsequent board of enquiry!
4 - Turn off cabin and galley electrical power.
5 - Select landing elevation to zero on pressurisation control panel as this would currently be set to the landing elevation at the planned arrival airfield. If the aircraft was still pressurised on ditching it might not be possible to open the doors. The QRH advises the crew to ditch with the gear retracted and the flaps set to the max available setting (normally called Config Full). On the A340 we can achieve Config Full as our RAT supplies the Green hydraulic system. However, looking through the A320 manuals where the RAT supplies the Blue system I can only see a capability to deploy the leading edge slats only. It would be possible to get Config Full by manually switching on the Yellow system electric hydraulic pump to pressurise the Yellow system and then via a PTU (power transfer unit) the Green system would also be powered but this is not SOP so I suspect the aircraft may have ditched with slats deployed and flaps retracted but don't take that as gospel.

At 2000'agl the FO then:
1 - Check that the cabin pressurisation mode selector is in AUTO.
2 - Switch all engine and APU bleed valves off.
3 - Switch on the overhead 'DITCHING' pushbutton. The outflow valve, the emergency ram air inlet, the avionics ventilation inlet and extract valves, the pack flow control valves and the forward cargo outlet isolation valve all close to slow the ingress of water.

At 1000'agl the FO then:
1 - Makes 'Cabin crew seats for landing' PA.

At 200'agl the FO then:
1 - Makes 'Brace for impact' PA.

At touchdown the FO then:
1 - Engine master switches off.
2 - APU master switch off.

After ditching:
1 - Notify ATC.
2 - Press all engine and APU fire pushbuttons to arm fire extinguisher squibs and isolate fuel, hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical couplings.
3 - Discharge all engine and APU fire extinguishers.
4 - Initiate evacuation.

I have left out a lot of the explanatory text from the QRH for brevity but you can see that this is an almighty amount of work to achieve in an ultimate pressure scenario. I have not even touched upon the proper evacuation checklist. I have also done Monsieur Airbus an injustice but drastically simplifying my explanations of the key systems in an attempt to make them more understandable but I hope it is of interest to those that made it to the end of the text!

In my company we do practice this event in the simulator for both ditching and crash on land. In fact I last did a 4 engine inop landing in the simulator just 6 months ago having simulated a departure from Tokyo followed by a volcanic ash ingestion at FL250 in the climb leading to 4 engine flame out with unsuccessful relight attempts.
We ran the exercise twice and both times managed to successfully glide back to Tokyo with the only damaged being burst main wheels from hammering the brakes. We practice many, many other horrendous scenarios (such as flying the aircraft to successful airport landings with the loss of all power to the flight control surfaces) so you can see that the only subjects that we are not prepared for are the ones we haven't thought of yet.

Hats off to the entire crew for a most amazing job done brilliantly and top marks to Airbus for showing all the doubting Thomas's that they were so very wrong about the strength of the aircraft

[protectthehornet]

I just read the very nicely written observations of the A340 captain.

But I am reminded of a similiar class of jetliner and how it would behave in such a situation.

Assuming for a moment that both of its engines were damaged, the plane would still have manual reversion for yaw, pitch and roll. Getting the APU started would power the entire electrical load and hydraulic power *(Ok, the galley should be turned off).

There would be no real need to reconfigure anything. The flight instruments would all be working. The ignition is always ON for takeoff and landing and there would be no real reason to attempt a relight, as it either would or wouldn't work and little if anything would need doing.

The pilot would trim for best glide *min safe speed approximates this, and head for the preselected landing spot. The copilot would manually close the outflow valve by moving a large handle and then flip off two switches to discontinue bleed air.

There would be no RAT, no triple redundent hydraulic system, but the plane would be controllable and NEVER have to ask a computer to maintain a G load or rate of turn.

And the builder of this type of plane had an unplanned ditching in salt water in which tis earlier type of plane was pulled out and easily repaired and flew another 20 years.

The make of course was Douglas and the types are the DC9 and DC8.

We have gone so far towards the use of computers and composites that we have taken a giant leap backwards in simplicity and reliability. KISS...the answer to so many things.


I would even say the tail mounted engines might just have been protected by the leading edge of the wing from the birds, especially at climb attitude. While the underwing engines of the airbus would seem to present their inlet prior to the wing.

Of course it would take some pretty fancy computer modeling to prove the above, and it is only hypothesis.


I also have to wonder if the 727 or L1011 would have had some protection for the center engine due to the S shaped ducting providing air.

Again, the crew did fine. But please KISS *keep it simple stupid.

[Bill G Kerr]

Quote:
"Modern Airbus have 3 electrical systems referred to as the Green, Blue and Yellow systems"

The original poster of this info added a correction to amend 'Electrical' to 'Hydraulic'

(Just for accuracy)

[Graybeard]

Geese fly in the familiar V to draft off the one directly ahead. As the leader tires, it is replaced by another. This should mean they are all at exactly the same altitude, giving further preference to survival of a Tri-Motor's tail mounted engine if the other two are hit.

Banking a twin with wing mounted engines - even a few degrees - would surely lessen the risk of dual engine failure in a goose encounter.

GB

[Lost in Saigon]

Wileydog3 said :



Probably a semantic problem , but my Manual says :

" thrust protection is not provided (...). As a result thrust overboost can occur at (... ) "

Somewhere else:

" avancing the thrust levers full forward provides some overboost (...)

And refering to my old time engine course , on a thrust vs Temp. graph , until the thrust break temp. the graph is flat and means thrust limitation ( case resistance ) then there is EGT limitation ( mettallurgy resistance) )

Both my 767 and 777 manuals also use the word "Overboost"

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/Overboost2.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/Overboost3.jpg


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/Overboost1.jpg

[bubbers44]

Also double the chance of a bird strike in one of the engines. Maybe looking out the window more in VMC conditions would help more than banking when it is too late to avoid them.

[Christodoulidesd]

On a side-note (and i apologize if it was posted before) here's a very interesting set of close-up pictures of the plane during and after the hauling up

LiveLeak.com - Miracle on the Hudson Jpegs (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23f_1233007123)

[Pontius Navigator]

Also double the chance of a bird strike in one of the engines. Maybe looking out the window more in VMC conditions would help more than banking when it is too late to avoid them.

Whilst there is nothing wrong with a good lokout in VMC, when flying IFR it is inevitable that the PF will be looking in for some of the time. It has also been mentioned that objects on a constant line of bearing will be less easily seen than ones with a changing angular displacement.

Then the combination of a climbing aircraft and birds in level flight makes a collision assessment it a difficult judgement.

The aircrat would have been some 1300 feet from collision at the 3 second point. Assume detection had been at 6 seconds it would have been at 2600 feet and possibly at the edge of visual detection range.

Anyway any solution must allow for night and IMC as well and so far radar would appear the best option.

[ChristiaanJ]

I'm frankly baffled by all this "three seconds" nonsense.

Repeat after me: "twenty and one, twenty and two, twenty and three". That's how long three seconds are.

Then BANGBANGBANG.

All the waffle on the subject supposes that the pilots (with a workload, remember) were looking in the right direction at the right moment. Then they identified those stationary dots as birds... since they were on a collision course, they would have been stationary. Then they could take evasive action? All in three seconds?
Try the other one, it's got bells on.

I would even surmise the BANGBANGBANG came first, followed by a "what the :mad: was.... Did you see that?" when the implications of the dots and the UFOs streaking past hit home, and ripped them away from the job they were doing.

Try again: "twenty and one, twenty and two, twenty and three".

If you disagree, tell me why.

CJ

[lomapaseo]

I'm saddened to see we've reverted back to solving the problem by steering around birds. There seems to be a great presumption about bird behaviour.

Forget about computer simulations, you need observations and data first.

The birds have been around a long time because they have learned to avoid most predation. Their response is not to just fly along in a flat plane. In fact they can move out of their flight pattern to esacpe a lot faster than the aircraft can.

Most of the available data is recorded bird strike damage to the aircraft and its engines. In an attempt to understand this statitical data some experiments have been made to confirm bird behaviour. I'll leave it to the data collectors and scientists among us to expand on this. But really folks we ought to stop speculating about birds trying to solve a safety of flight problem.

[robdean]

ChristiaanJ - it's on record that the birds were seen before impact and identified as such... I'm not sure Sully got as far as twenty-and-three before they hit though...

[patrickal]

ChristiaanJ - it's on record that the birds were seen before impact and identified as such... I'm not sure Sully got as far as twenty-and-three before they hit though...

And even if he did get to twenty and three, does snapping the side stick of an A320 into a dive or a roll get you that immediate and dramatic response? What is the computer going to think you are doing, and is it going to allow such a drastic manuever?

[Pugilistic Animus]

I really beleive that I saw all of the prior post, but this thread is now a bit disorienting---

My comment is early on i heard the new people saying " why didn't he go to TEB or back to LGA or, then he was told:= by ATC?

because in a glide configuration a pilot looks ahead toward a stationary spot near the selected landing area---the glide line--- if anything is beyond that spot you wont get there and if there's obstructions in the flight path- you may well end up in the St. John the divine in no time!!!---that's perhaps why---media:ooh:

he and the crew did the best he could ---it's academic to second guess an out of certifiaction scenario such as this incident and unlike at sea where the captain ALWAYS goes down with the ship so it' in their best interest no to crash;)

as an aside L/Dmax on a jet =Vx = V max glide but not necesarily the best speed in a dual---due to excess GS or ROD


and don't drop the gear ---especially for a ditching:)

CJ -I agree

[Pontius Navigator]

ChristiaanJ - it's on record that the birds were seen before impact and identified as such... I'm not sure Sully got as far as twenty-and-three before they hit though...

Rob, this may be true but it is also a physiological fact that while the brain my place the birds to the front of the observer the observers motion in the time between the image striking the retina and the brain decoding that image could put the birds behind the observer.

This delay loop is all part and parcel of 'thinking distance' when applied to a car breaking. Now the 'thinking distance' has been accepted as 0.67 seconds - 300 feet? - but

<<Those of us who have the misfortune of having to investigate and analyse road crashes have long realised through numerous studies that an approximate thinking time for driver's is about 1.5 seconds not the 0.67 seconds you are suggesting.

The 1.5 seconds quote is an estimation only as many factors do come into play as pointed out be 'Joe'. >>

Applying 1.5 seconds to your 250 k example will give a distance of about 700 feet.

Now consider the correct as opposed to instrinctive reaction.

[vanHorck]

YouTube - bird hits 180mph car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSFggmz49Pk)

Bird hits car driving at 180 mph. Not much time to evade....

[ChristiaanJ]

ChristiaanJ - it's on record that the birds were seen before impact and identified as such... I'm not sure Sully got as far as twenty-and-three before they hit though...Thanks, my point entirely.
Now think about it.
They SAW them before impact, which is how they 'remembered' (sorry, there may be another better term for it) them seconds after impact and became fully aware of what happened.

Again, assuming you're even looking in the right direction (you know about peripheral vision, no?) try to go through how long your brain would take through "what's that" and "oh ****, looks like birds" and calling on all your 19,000 hours to devise a manoeuvre to avoid them .... give us a break, it's not three seconds.

CJ

PS: I'm not a physiologist or opthamologist, just an aeronautical engineer. But I have learned how to count on my fingers, or how to go "twenty and one, twenty and two, twenty and three" to assess time....

[NigelOnDraft]

ChristiaanJ

Sorry - not quite following your post above? Are you seriously suggesting that you'd expect airliner crews to dodge birds :ugh: I really hope not... ;)

NoD

[protectthehornet]

JUST FOR FUN, let's assume that instead of a bird, it was a plane, without a transponder that the crew saw. what avoidance maneuver would you use if the bogey was one o'clock level?

I would pull up, hard.

Earlier I mentioned a bird avoidance maneuver and now I will tell you what I developed over the last 34 years. One advantage I had was learning to fly at an airport next to a bird sanctuary, with every approach over ''the duck pond''.

Birds seem to dive when approached by a plane, at least that is what I have personally observed. (if they are on the runway, they seem to takeoff, but I am speaking of an airborne encounter).

My maneuver is: simultaneously pull up, slightly bank and cover your face.

I know a guy who was hit in the face by a bird through the windscreen...he is ok now.

Pulling up changes the altitude of course, it also changes the pitch and the angle at which the bird might hit the engine or windscreen...banking may save one of the two engines if pulling up doesn't help. remember, all we have to do is miss by an inch! also pulling up slightly slows the plane giving just a slight change to the intercept solution.

My first instructor told me birds dive...I told my students the same thing and it seems to have worked...again from learning to fly near a bird sancturary, near the bay of san francisco.

remember too that the copilot has reported that he felt the plane would outclimb the birds...pulling up would have enhanced that.

[NigelOnDraft]

protectthehornet

I would pull up, hard. :ugh: How many passengers / Cabin Crew are you willing to injure, or even kill, to possibly avoid a (possible) birdstrike (that even if it occurs, results in no damage 90%+ of the time)?

NoD

[bubbers44]

Actually over the years flying into Tegucigalpa, Honduras we got quite good at evading turkey buzzards by the thousands in huge flocks sometimes and individually. With a few seconds notice we have avoided multiple flocks and been pretty successful at missing them. Pointing them out to the pilot flying in time to to avoid them is the key. If you wait until they are filling up your windscreen it is too late. At 200 knots which was about our initial speed entering the valley we had the best maneuverability but even down below 150 knots dirty in the B757 we did a pretty good job of missing them. Every once in a while we would get a bird strike on one of our aircraft but most were prevented by maneuvering clear of them. True story. We were totally VMC then so attention was concentrated on staying clear of them starting when they were small dots, not when they were big birds in the windscreen. After about 600 approaches into that valley of birds the only one we hit was on departure at 500 ft when we turned right to avoid and the bird followed us into my windscreen brow.

[bubbers44]

As far as hitting the buzzard at 500 feet, we both agreed since the bird turned with our right turn that they always dive so we climbed. Guess what? This buzzard climbed. He must have not gone to bird school.

[protectthehornet]

in my first example I said you were avoiding a plane. so you would avoid a possible injury to someone in back and accept a mid air collision?

ALSO nigel, at about 3000' after takeoff, a plane under my command would still have the seat belt sign illuminated (all passengers seated). It is the custom in my airline to advise the flight attendants when it is safe to serve...and I wait till well above 3000'.

sorry nigel, you seem to be off base here.

when do you allow cabin service? when do you turn off the seatbelt sign?

tell me nigel, if you got a TCAS RA, would you not maneuver as needed?

[BEagle]

Some years ago, some poor army chap in a plastic bubble helicopter collided with rather a large vulture.

Unfortunately it wasn't killed by the impact, but was lodged in the structure of the cockpit. From whence it proceded to peck the chaps legs very aggressively.

Being in a helicopter, he wasn't able to take his feet off the pedals and kick $hit out of his feathered assailant immediately. Or let go of the controls for long enough to find something to clout it with.

Eventually, after several painful minutes, he managed to wedge the pedals for long enough to despatch it with a well aimed kick. By which time the helicopter cockpit was drenched in blood, some of it was the vulture's and some of it the pilots.

Most aircraft are tested for flight deck window impact resistance with a chicken gun. A (dead) hen is fired at the window and the effects noted. Legend has it that one day a manufacturer had no chicken to hand, so sent an apprentice off to the supermarket. He came back with a frozen chicken....

This error was spotted before the gun was fired; otherwise its target would have been totally destroyed. So the chicken was allowed to thaw out; to prevent it making a mess, it was left in the gun tube for a few hours.

When the gun was finally fired, the resulting damage to the windscreen was considerably worse than predicted. Which puzzled the engineers somewhat - but even more puzzling was the ginger coloured material splattered all over the remains of the windscreen.

Then the truth dawned. It seemed that the 'hangar cat', a crotchety old ginger tom, had smelled the thawing chicken and hopped into the gun for a free lunch. Before coming out backwards at 250 knots plus, closely pursued by the remains of a supermarket chicken, then becoming briefly sandwiched between windscreen and chicken.

Probably an urban myth, but one can only wonder at the surprised expression on the cat's face as it hurtled backwards towards the test item!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

[ChristiaanJ]

ChristiaanJ
Sorry - not quite following your post above? Are you seriously suggesting that you'd expect airliner crews to dodge birds I really hope not...
You must have misread. That was NOT what I was suggesting, rather the contrary! Read again.

But... latest posts seem to suggest things aren't always as simple.

CJ

[NigelOnDraft]

CJ You must have misread. That was NOT what I was suggesting, rather the contrary! Read againThanks for clarifying... As I suggested, I could not quite understand if you were, or were not, advocating avoiding action?

protectthehornetwhen do you allow cabin service?Our airline's policy is unless otherwise instructed, they are free to move when they wish... Passenger's should of course be strapped in at 3000', but then 3000' is when the USAir plane had a birdstrike, but recent posts have not specified we only discussing 3000'.

tell me nigel, if you got a TCAS RA, would you not maneuver as needed?I would... but as the training emphasises, the manoeuvre required for an RA is usually fairly gentle, and most Sim debriefs concern "overcontrol", not under... ;)

My concern was your comment over Pull Up Hard... although as you state it was an aircraft... I would not necessarily pull up "Hard" for an aicraft, pull up as required...

However, for birds, I have tended to find, both by experience and training:

As you say, they tend to break down
You see them far later than aircraft
They tend to be far better than we are at avoiding things
Even when it seem inevitable you are going to hit them, you often do not...
Very few Birdstrikes, as a %, result in (serious) damage

NoD

[ZQA297/30]

I'm with Nigel on this.
I have done a fair proportion of my flying in "turkey buzzard" country. They usually fold everything and dive-even if they are above you. When you are slowed below 200kts there is often a chance to make some (token?) evasive action, but above that speed by the time you see them, even if you react immediately, the inertia of the aircraft and "radius of turn effect" means that the effective trajectory of the aircraft is little changed.
Anything smaller than a buzzard is usually an "oh sh*t what was that??!" event.
My company had a landing lights on below FL100 "be seen" policy with mainly birds as the objective.

[Molokai]

ThienShanTaSia (http://www.pprune.org/members/289320-thienshantasia)
Probationary PPRuNer

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Urumqi
Age: 41
Posts: 1


USAir Captain of flight 1549 hailed a hero!!
Oh puhleeze! A HERO he certainly wasn't!!!

The heroes in this incident were the ferry crew members who came to the rescue of the stricken plane. THEY WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO IMMEDIATELY ASSIST IN SOMETHING WHICH WAS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. THEY SACRIFICED THEIR PERSONAL WELLBEING TO RESCUE THE CREW AND PASSENGERS.

As for the pilots and crew, they performed superbly and are certainly VALUE FOR MONEY. However to call them heroes is stretching really it rich and fat. The captain and copilot are certainly the best professionals and are really a great credit to the pilot profession.........they signed up for a mission on accepting to operate that flight and THEY CERTAINLY PROVED they deserve the greatest respect and gratitude of USAir and the general public. THEYA ARE NOT INCIDENTAL HEROES, but superbly valuable professionals who the public and aviation industry MUST TRULY VALUE, period.


I totally agree with this post. Capt. " Sully " is indeed a great pilot with great flying and quick crisis management skills besides superb presence of mind. These are very much valued assets and US Airways is indeed blessed to have a professional pilot of such caliber. Making him an accidental hero diminishes the great value of such a true professional; airlines and lay people alike do not value the professionalism and unique situational skills ingrained in pilots to deal with all the ever changing and dynamic challenges involved in flight operations.

[bubbers44]

"As for the pilots and crew, they performed superbly and are certainly VALUE FOR MONEY. However to call them heroes is stretching really it rich and fat."

I think you are alone on this statement. I just looked up the definition of hero and I think they made the list. Driving a ferryboat over to pick up the passengers is expected of any boat captain, it is not an option. He would be prosecuted and lose his license if he did not. Yes they were just doing their job but their judgement saved 155 people that day because they did it right.

[airfoilmod]

Verbiage at any Hero ceremony: "Actions above and beyond the call of duty..." I think Captain Sullenberger, given his recent statement, would be the first to point that out. "Did the jobs we were trained to do..."

I don't get the argument. Making a Hero of a Pilot doing a great job actually paints other pilots as run of the mill, or less than "doing the jobs they were trained to do." Can we move on?

AF

[barit1]

BEagle quotes an old tale:
...Probably an urban myth, but one can only wonder at the surprised expression on the cat's face as it hurtled backwards towards the test item!


I heard the same story prolly 15 years ago, told of an engine test that scattered bits of blades over half the county. I had always regarded it as largely true, but a recent check of snopes.com: Urban Legends Reference Pages (http://www.snopes.com) says it is apocryphal at best.

But still a good tale! :}

[DC-ATE]

Airfoilmod -

"Verbiage at any Hero ceremony: 'Actions above and beyond the call of duty..." I think Captain Sullenberger, given his recent statement, would be the first to point that out. "Did the jobs we were trained to do...'

I don't get the argument. Making a Hero of a Pilot doing a great job actually paints other pilots as run of the mill, or less than 'doing the jobs they were trained to do.' Can we move on?"


Gotta go with you on that 'airfoilmod'. I would NEVER take anything away from Captain Sullenberger and his crew, but I made thousands of successfull landings myself and no one got hurt. I'm just thankful I never had to be put to a test as demanding as the one he went through during my career.

[sharksandwich]

English case law 1809, Stilk v Meyrick jugement.
The captain of a ship offered the remaining crew extra wages after two men deserted. The captain refused to honour the payment once the ship was safely home.

"But the desertion of a part of the crew is to be considered an emergency of the voyage as much as their death; and those who remain are bound by the terms of their original contract to exert themselves to the utmost to bring the ship in safety to her destined port. Therefore, without looking to the policy of this agreement, I think it is void for want of consideration, and that the plaintiff can only recover at the rate of £5 a month".

[herkman]

No this is not the first large airliner ditching, just that it was so long ago, mid 50's I recal.

Pan American lost a stratocruiser in the Pacific, I cannot remember why but in the back of my mind, they had time to plan the ditching, and again I believe there were no serious injuries.

Someone will post the full story in due course.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[rmac]

I have heard it suggested that as the birds have more chance of avoiding us, it doesn't pay to change direction for fear of confusing the birds first reaction.

If the birds can't avoid us with their high manoevrability its unlikely that we would be in any position to avoid them at that moment.

[Airbubba]

Pan American lost a stratocruiser in the Pacific, I cannot remember why but in the back of my mind, they had time to plan the ditching, and again I believe there were no serious injuries.

Looks like it was Clipper 943, Sovereign of the Skies, N90943, operating PAA 6 on October 16, 1956.

Here's a recent remembrance from the SFO Chronicle:

Danville pilot has historical predecessor (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/23/MN7L15E4IC.DTL&tsp=1)

More here:

Pan Am Flight 943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_943)

[capt.cynical]

Sorry for the deviation,

Does anyone know the circumstance or reason regarding one of the flight attendants breaking a leg.
This has been widely reported,however having followed this thread from the start,I can find little referance to their imput in the evacuation of the aircraft.

No flames please, just a informed opinion. :D:)

[Sawbones]

My brother, Andrew, is the Editor for Financial Director .. a London-based magazine with an obvious circulation base. His editorial draws an interesting parallel between the US Air incident and the handling of the global banking/financial crisis by industry "Captains."

PPrune readers might find this very interesting.

Editor's letter: Fear of flying - Financial Director (http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/financial-director/comment/2235023/fear-flying)

Sawbones
B767 Captain

[barit1]

Sawbones - excellent!

[CDRW]

Sawbones - thanks for that link - great reading and the comment about the " golden parachute " is priceless ( excuse the pun).

[SASless]

I would suggest the entire US Air Crew and the others that participated in the rescue of passengers and crew all qualify.

As to the rest of the us being less than Heroes....Will Rogers once said "We cannot all be Heroes...someone has to stand on the side and applaud as they march by."


he⋅ro
   /ˈhɪəroʊ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [heer-oh] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -roes; for 5 also -ros.
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.
4. Classical Mythology.
a. a being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity.
b. (in the Homeric period) a warrior-chieftain of special strength, courage, or ability.
c. (in later antiquity) an immortal being; demigod.

[Agaricus bisporus]

an immortal being; demigod.

Aha! Now we're getting there!:D

[GHOTI]

NWA also ditched a 377, in Puget Sound, sometime back in the late 1950s as well, I recall, and there were no fatalities there, either. Something to do with deploying cowl flaps; the FE thought he was retracting them. Very hazy, I was just a kid then but it was a big story in Seattle.

[GANNET FAN]

I have a very good compliation of photos of the whole episode which is in pps format and I have no idea how to upload it. Can anyone help. The whole selection is well put together.

GF

[ChristiaanJ]

... regarding one of the flight attendants breaking a leg....IIRC, none did break a leg. However the F/A at the back of the aircraft (aft galley?) got a deep gash in her leg from loose bits and pieces flying around during the ditching.

CJ

[DC-ATE]

All Stratocruisers had Cowl Flap controls (toggle switches) on the FE Panel. Almost all were rigged to be toggled 'UP' to open and 'DN' to close, while there were a few that were rigged just the opposite! The aircraft in question was one of the odd balls, so when the FE thought he was closing the cowl flaps on take-off, he was actually running them full open. Cowl plaps on those engines were like barn doors. All that horsepower at that high gross weight was not enough to overcome the drag, and down they went. Sad.

[Pugilistic Animus]

What can this incident be classified as?
1. A crash? ---in my mind usually bloodier:( although the plane seems totalled
2. A landing?--because they all walked away
3. An Arrival because the landing could be that good due to the non- standard TDZ:}

PA

[cwatters]

An incident.

[oxenos]

They alighted.

[galaxy flyer]

Good Landing def. any landing you can use the plane again.

Great Landing def. any landing you can walk away from and, by extension, the passengers.

Sounds like a "great landing".

GF

[Brian Abraham]

An item I picked up from a aviation news bulletin (forget which)

Robert Dolbeer, Ph.D., a recently retired USDA ornithologist who has studied aircraft bird strikes for more than three decades, predicts the recent bird strike that forced the US Airways A320 ditching in the Hudson River may portend an increased rate of such mishaps.

"The US Airways crash was an accident waiting to happen," Dolbeer explained last Tuesday. "In 1990, the population of Canada geese was estimated to be about one million. In 2008, the estimated population was four million." Dolbeer also said there have been large increases in the populations of bald eagles, ospreys, sandhill cranes, black and turkey vultures, plus white pelicans during the same period -- pointing out that there has been a corresponding increase in the number of aircraft bird strikes.

FAA statistics indicate that there were 1,738 reported bird strikes in 1990. There were 7,439 reported bird strikes in 2007.

Nesting sites and wildlife refuges near airports that attract waterfowl species put the flying public at risk, says Dolbeer. A Canada goose can weigh 15 pounds to 20 pounds, far in excess of the four- to eight-pound bird test requirements for typical aircraft airframes and engines. Other species also are substantially larger than FAA standard size birds used for certification testing. Fred George

[corsair]

All this is very fine and interesting. But I do think in all the hoo ha, something has been missed. In recent months two airliners have been brought down by birds causing double engine failures. By means of the skill of the pilots and a bit of luck, no one died despite both aircraft being written off.

That can't always be the case. The next time someone loses two engines at low altitude. It might not be over a suitable landing place or have a highly experienced pilot at the controls. People will die. It seems to me that birds at airports need to be taken a lot more seriously than they have been hithertoo.

To the point perhaps where aircraft are held overhead or on the ground when large flocks are detected near airports. The Rome incident in particular might have bee avoided. Perhaps not so much in NY. Although large flocks are detectable on primary radar.

It all very well people saying the crew should dodge around the birds like a fighter pilot in Flak alley. That isn't realistic.

Hopefully both reports when published will address this issue.

[protectthehornet]

Corsair

why isn't it realistic to attempt to dodge birds? I've done it. I've also dodged thunderstorms, dust devils, toy balloons, other airplanes.

While it would be better NOT to have to deal with birds, until such time that things are different, I'll dodge.

And I'll keep my FA's in their seats a little longer after takeoff.

And, from the world of the "Twilight Zone", I had a bird strike on my car today. Hit my front left tire. Of course I couldn't pull up! Cue Twilight Zone music, or the theme from "The Birds"(which had no music)

[misd-agin]

Any landing that you can walk away from is a great landing.

In this case they couldn't walk away from the landing. Sooooooo, how do you classify it?;)

[cactusbusdrvr]

A great landing is a landing at the right airport with the airplane reusable.

This was a good arrival.

[barit1]

"Incident", from Merriam-Webster:

1: something dependent on or subordinate to something else of greater or principal importance
2 a: an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience : happening b: an accompanying minor occurrence or condition : concomitant
3: an action likely to lead to grave consequences especially in diplomatic matters <a serious border incident>

I lean toward #3, symptomatic of a grave problem that has not been fully recognized.

But per the regulatory definition, it's an accident.

[protectthehornet]

the passengers and crew walked off the plane onto the wings or into life rafts...ergo a good landing.

[Old Engineer]

Capt Cynical--

The New York times had some accounts of the scene in the rear of the AC that decribe some of the actions of the flight attendant in that area. These appeared 2 or 3 days after the event; I'm not sure I still have the paper. They were not printed in the Washington Post. The gist was:

A passenger said that another passenger attempted to open the rear door (I believe left rear), but that the flight attendant suceeded in stopping this passenger, but not before the door opened "a crack". It was not possible to reclose the door.

A tall male passenger reported that he realized that the flooding in the tail area of the cabin would become too deep for shorter passengers, and he grasped a woman and her child and bulled his way to the head of the line (I believe this would have been to the overwing exits.)

The woman who went forward over the seatbacks had a small child with her. (I infer her actions were for the same reason; it was not clear from the reports whether this made other passengers see the problem for the smaller passengers, or whether there were just a very few women and children, and these two actions sufficed.)

The Times also had a brief report from this flight attendant, who said that she found herself in water up to her chest, and so thought it would be a good idea if she found and put on a life vest. (On thinking about this brief comment, I have to think that she must have realized that otherwise the water might get over her head. I assume she felt she must be the last off from that area and could not herself go forward ahead of others.)

The last Times report of these that I recall was from a passenger who concluded after exiting that there were not enough life rafts. (Two at the front doors appeared to me from pictures to be serviceable, at a reported capacity of 50 to 55 people but not filled to this number. The two at the rear door would have been non-deployable without opening the rear doors. It is unclear to me if the left rear slide/raft later deployed with equalization of pressure on the door, or if it deployed as the door opened "a crack", or as part of the retrieval dewatering; some pictures seemed to show something back there. The situation with rafts/slides in the overwing area is unclear to me. From reports on the effect of immersion on one woman who slipped off the wing, it seems to me that passengers could not in general have gotten from the wing into the forward rafts-- although this woman may have spent some time in deep water inside the plane as well.)

The Times also published on Saturday a picture of an inflated life vest in the water, in b/w, that clearly was marked "US Air". On Sunday they published a color picture of the same vest, with only US A clearly visible.

OE

[two green one prayer]

The River Thames is close to Heathrow Airport. A few years ago the river had been taken over by Canada geese to the extent that the geese were a threat to the river's ecology. Canadas are attractive looking, tame birds, so there is an uninformed but strong resistance to culling them. Driving along the riverbank very early one morning I spotted a group of people from the Environment Agency, who manage the Thames, conducting a scientific experiment. They were finding out how many geese you can herd into a panel van. The answer in layman's terms is lots. Since then the goose population has stabilised at an acceptable figure, at least from an ecological point of view. No doubt by repeating the experiment more frequently I see no reason why the population could not be further reduced if necessary. The underlying difficulty of course is that airports are usually sited in places that are equally attractive to small feathered birds and big aluminium ones.

Congratulations to Halfnut. The advertising world's loss has been aviation's gain.

[Intruder]

why isn't it realistic to attempt to dodge birds? I've done it. I've also dodged thunderstorms, dust devils, toy balloons, other airplanes.
While it might be realistic in a small, slow airplane while flying with a good buffet margin, it is normally impractical in a large, fast airplane or when flying without a large maneuvering margin. When you "dodged" the birds, it is likely you would have missed them even without any action.

[Torquelink]

So when will engine bird ingestion requirements be upped to goose weights? Presumably no current or planned engine could pass such a test and a redesign could never be economic in terms of increased weight and reduced efficiency.

[protectthehornet]

when one maneuvers any kind of plane, one should realize safety margins. my dodging has happened in small planes and B737's out of LGA.

You and I will never know if I would have missed the birds without evasive action.

Perhaps an FAA sponsored bird encounter of the third kind might be a useful project for bailout funding.

you just have to miss the intakes by an inch to have been successful (windshield too)

Of course, if you are not looking out the window, you have other problems. Sadly, most airliners require looking at the instruments more than outside. We may have to retrain ourselves to realize there are hazards in the sky NOT under ATC control

[Wader2]

I have just been observing a number of grazing brent geese. When an aircraft passed about 200 feet above and 200 yards horiziontally the geese lifted off.

They rose to a height of 20 feet and then settled within 5 seconds.

All an audible alert would have done in this case was ensure they lifted before the aircraft passed over head.

As for an audible alert for airborne geese, have you listened to a skein of geese. They might be brilliant flyers but in human terms they have lousy RT discipline. If they heard an audible alert, at best, they might scatter and increase the chances of a bird strike.

See, be seen, and avoid is one approach (lights on) and a bird detection system is probably the best. Our surface search radar only detects skeins of 1000 or more geese.

[corsair]

Slightly puzzled as to why my last post was moderated away? One anecdote too many?:confused:

Anyway, to answer torquelink's bird ingestion comment. An engine could probably tolerate a goose size strike. But it's doubtful you can make an engine that would survive several geese. You have to remember too that the Ryanair in Rome was brought down by starlings, lots of them. It's quantity not size. In any case a hit in the right place can stop an engine. I've seen the results of a birdstrike on the innards of an engine. It's not pretty.

Protecthehornet, in the now lost post, I made the point that to avoid birds you have to see them and anything on a collision course will be in a fixed position on the windscreen with no relative movement. Plus being a bird, it's a lot smaller than an airliner or a balloon or a thunderstorm. Which just adds to the difficulty.

I'll leave it at that.

[lomapaseo]

Anyway, to answer torquelink's bird ingestion comment. An engine could probably tolerate a goose size strike. But it's doubtful you can make an engine that would survive several geese

Well it depends on the size of the engine vs the size of the bird and precisely where it hits the fan.

If you hit near the center then the fan blades fare pretty well, while a hit near the tip will often mess things up in the fan enough to disable the engine.

As the bird size starts to fill the inlet then the odds of getting a whole bird in without breaking it into small pieces off the inlet lip increase. So multiple whole 8 lb birds into a CFM56 would be improbable. Fortunately mother nature provides clearance between the wing tips of flying birds so the areal density of the really large birds in a startled flock spread out far enough to make it unlikely that you can get more than one whole bird into an inlet.

Like most environmental threats the regulation can not consider all what-ifs as combinations since no engine could be tested to cover all possibilities. Instead for environmental threats, birds, rain, hail, the regulations consider past encounter statistics and set a threshold (in a single ingestion test) that has to be met that is intended to provide a level of safety (factors better than your average flight risk for all causes)

[BOAC]

make it unlikely that you can get more than one whole bird into an inlet. - unless, of couse, you take 'em from ahead or astern?

[corsair]

I suppose we can assume more than one bird went into each of the engines. Although it isn't absolutely neccessary. But the flock was obviously big enough to hit two engines. The report will no doubt clarify how many went in to each engine.

It is true that where it hits is an important factor. I saw a bird strike engine where a single fan blade was snapped. It wasn't a CFM56 though. That blade did most of the damage as it or parts of it made it's way into the engine.

It is fair to say you cannot cover all the risks. You cannot design an engine impervious to all kinds of birds, not economically anyway. In many cases a bird strike means an engine shut down even if it doesn't fail. What was unique about both the Rome and NY incidents is that both engines failed or at least were developing insufficent thrust to keep them in the air. How unlikely is that? You might reasonably expect one engine, though damaged to keep running. Yet in two separate incidents, both engines were sufficiently damaged causing them to fail. That is quite a coincidence.

[repariit]

The A320 ditch switch . . . er ditch button as it actually is . . . may have little effect on the outcome of alighting on water.

Examination of the underside of 1549 shows large leak paths in the 48 Section. The holes are bigger than the combined size of the outflow valve and inlets that would have been closed if the button had been pressed. I hope that the NTSB report concludes that the ditch switch (it does sound better than button) disuse in this incident had no impact on survivability.

Others have thought that its primary benefit is to prevent deicing material from entering the cabin.

Should a crew in work overload conditions be expected to use it?

[YRP]

Regarding damage in fuselage vs the ditch switch...

Is it possible that not using the ditch switch caused some of this damage? Ie water entering unplugged holes might have been violent enough to cause the damage and rip the skin as it were.

Just a thought...

[protectthehornet]

if we can't stop the birds, if we can't design an economical engine that will withstand birdstrikes...

HOW ABOUT clearing more land for emergency landing spots near huge metro areas.

They could use this land for a lovely park, devise a detection system for airplanes within 1000' of the ground over the park's approaches to turn on a siren to warn the park goers to CLEAR THE AREA for emergency landing.

Imagine if the polo grounds were still open? When the polo grounds were open in San Francisco many years ago, I got the impression I could set something down there in one piece...might not takeoff, but down in one piece!

[CreteHurricane]

Sawbones thank you for this link, this has to be the most balanced and well written article on the incident by a non professional pilot that I have read so far. The comparisons between managed risk as practiced by a professional aviator, and the only too evident lack of risk management in the banking industry as perceived by a Finance Director (a species not always held in high regard on prune) was in my humble opinion absolutely spot on. Is this guy just very well informed or was he a Pilot in a previous life?

[keith smith]

I wouldn't expect to see a final well thought-out report from NTSB on this complex accident for some time. However,as quite often happens in the case of AAIB, there are some appropiate actions that can be recommended quite early on ( in the case of the Hatton Cross 777 there was some revised shutdown proceedures following a crash). In this case I would imagine that FAA should be asked to study the habits of relatively large and high flying migrating birds and methods of detecting them.
Keith

[rmiller774]

In Sawbones link I see the old saying "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old, bold pilots". The Captain's remarkable performance in putting down on the Hudson would seem to me to be an exception to that adage. There is at least one old bold pilot around.

[Fizix]

Misd-agin said: -
Any landing that you can walk away from is a great landing.

In this case they couldn't walk away from the landing. Sooooooo, how do you classify it?http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gifThey couldn't swim either, so it's left to the rescuers to help you get away ...
This is a "ferry great landing"!

Alternatively, since no land was involved, this could be a "great watering down".

Or maybe, we should just call them Sullenbergers.

[Graybeard]

I thought I read also that the aft cargo door was caved in, making the ditch switch redundant. Study of the belly will be valuable, to see if the touchdown load was greater than design, or whether external load and pressure was even considered in the design. It's certainly out of the ordinary.

According to a few who have seen them up close, the Ilyushin is built like a battle ship, and may well survive a water impact intact.

GB

[pax2908]

To me it seems that this event is exceptional in many aspects. It would be more interested in the survival aspects, after the landing. I agree that there was almost no time to let c/c or passengers know that a ditching will be performed (and even if they knew, would that have helped, or on the contrary, create more confusion?). But apart from the aircraft having sustained the impact rather well, the key factor in the happy outcome was really the immediate assistance by the Hudson boats/ferries. The ideal place to go!

[babasinkeh]

Right, the Hudson boats/ferries were the keys to the happy outcome. The crew members of these watercraft were the real heroes. Tienshantasia and Molokai are absolutely right...the pilot and copilot were great aviators and superb professionals. To classify them as heroes diminishes their valuable contribution to safety and wellbeing of the travelling public everytime they fly unless we call them heroes everytime they fly. Think of the countless times their skills and professionalism save the day as they make every vital decisions every time they operate as flight crew in flights that do not have to end in such dramatic fashion, times when their professional pre emptive actions prevented the Swiss cheeseholes from lining up.

[belloldtimer]

From this foto it appears as if someones made off with the apu.. a nice trophy for someone:ugh::ugh:


Hudson River Plane Crash: Jet goes down in Hudson River in NYC -- Newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyjet0117-pg,0,176050.photogallery)

[Walkerdel]

I noticed these on a photo site I monitor and thought they might be of interest here...

http://barkow.net/nikon/file000.jpg
.
http://barkow.net/nikon/file001.jpg
.
http://barkow.net/nikon/file002.jpg
.
http://barkow.net/nikon/file003.jpg

[belloldtimer]

Amazing fotos of a truly amazing flight, you have to hand it to the crew to have this kind of positive outcome, truly amazing!:D:D

[belloldtimer]

Just had a chance to review the fotos, the last one on the left shows Stalactites or stalagmites (dont remember which is which)growing from the boats hull. Quick response time surely saved lots of lives, don't know how long a human can last in cold water like that, but it can't be long.:D:D This has got to be a once in a lifetime landing, my hat off to the crew and all those wonderful boat crews for a timely response. Almost restores ones faity in humanity.

Best regards to one and all.

[broadreach]

Plain old icicles, belloldtimer :)

[lomapaseo]

When are they going to announce that it wasn't those big birds from canada that brought the plane down?

They have been strangely quiet about the feather identification at the Smithsonian

[belloldtimer]

Either way it looks bloody cold to me sitting here in sunny California!

[weasil]

I apologise if this has been already posted on here.

The following is an exclusive account for our members from one of our pilots who was onboard US Airways Flight 1549 when the pilots made a successful emergency ditching into New York’s Hudson River. First Officer Susan O’Donnell is a LGA-based 767 pilot. She resides with her family in Winnsboro, South Carolina. Susan is a former Navy pilot, hired at AA in February 1990. She has flown the 727, F100, A300 and now the 767.

The following is her account of the flight, the rescue and recovery response, as well as the support she experienced afterward. This is intended to give each of you a unique insight into the event. We also hope that the crew’s tremendous effort to take care of each other and the nearly instantaneous support of USAPA and APA responders become “takeaways” for our pilots to use when faced with an emergency.

I was a jumpseat rider seated in First Class on Flight 1549 from LGA to CLT, which successfully ditched in the Hudson River. I’ve been asked to share a few of my experiences on that day. Although it was a stressful incident, the successful outcome and the assistance and support I received afterwards have been truly humbling and inspirational.
After introducing myself to and being welcomed aboard by Captain Sullenberger and FO Skiles, I was offered seat 3D, an aisle seat in the last row of First Class. I was in my uniform. Another jumpseat rider took a seat in row 6. These were the last empty seats on the airplane. I wasn’t paying much attention to the flight until, climbing out, there were several loud thumps occurring roughly simultaneously along both sides of the aircraft. “Bird strikes,” I thought. A few seconds later, there was a bit of smoke and the stench of burning bird that seemed to confirm my guess. There was a turn to the left, and I assumed we were returning to LGA.
The passengers were concerned but calm. I couldn’t see any part of the aircraft out the window from my aisle seat. Although I didn’t hear much that sounded encouraging from the engines, I expected we would have at least partial thrust with which to limp back to LGA. We rolled out of the turn, and I could tell we were not maintaining altitude. Then we heard the PA: “This is the Captain. Brace for impact.”
Obviously we weren’t returning to LGA, and I could see enough out the window to realize we’d be landing in the river. The flight attendants began shouting their “brace” litanies and kept it up until touchdown. The descent seemed very controlled, and the sink rate reasonably low. I believed the impact would be violent but survivable, although I did consider the alternative. The passengers remained calm and almost completely quiet. As we approached the water, I braced by folding my arms against the seat back in front of me, then putting my head against my arms. There was a brief hard jolt, a rapid decel and we were stopped. It was much milder than I had anticipated. If the jolt had been turbulence, I would have described it as moderate. Thinking about it later on, I realized it was no worse than a carrier landing.
After landing, the attitude of the aircraft was slightly nose high, but not far off a normal parked attitude, and there was no obvious damage to the cabin or water intrusion where I was. No one was hurt or panicked. We all stood up. I could hear the doors open and the sound of slide inflation. There was a verbal command “Evacuate;” people were already moving towards the doors. I exited through the forward right door and entered the raft. The evacuation up front was orderly and swift, and we were not in the water long before being picked up by various boats, which were extremely quick to the scene. Many passengers were standing on the wing, going from feet dry to nearly waist deep as the rescue progressed. They were of course the first to be picked up by the arriving boats. I was picked up by a large ferry boat, climbing a ladder hanging from the bow. It didn’t take long to get all passengers into the boats and to the ferry terminals.
Once at the terminal, we were met by police, firemen, paramedics, FBI, Homeland Security, the Red Cross, Mayor Bloomberg, and more. Captain Sullenberger continued in a leadership role in the aftermath, talking with the passengers, assembling his crew and including myself and the other jumpseat rider as members of his crew. I was impressed to note that he had the aircraft logbook tucked under his arm. When the Captain asked me if I wanted to join the crew at the hotel, I told him I would really appreciate it as I had lost my wallet. He immediately pulled out his wallet and gave me $20. His concern for me when he had so much else to worry about was amazing.
The USAPA representative was on the scene very quickly, and again included the other jumpseat rider and myself with the rest of the crew. I didn’t see a flight attendant representative; USAPA took care of the FAs as well. The USAPA representative escorted the entire crew to the hospital (we rode in a NYFD fire truck), where we were joined by other USAPA reps and the USAPA lawyer, all of whom continued to consider me as one of the crew. At the hospital, I had finally called the APA “in case of accident” number on the back of my ID badge for APA. I had not initially thought of that as applying to my situation, as a jumpseater on another airline, but I called anyway. I spoke with APA LGA Vice Chairman Captain Glenn Schafer, who departed immediately to come assist me.
After a routine evaluation, they transported us by police car to a hotel, where rooms were waiting. The USAPA version of our Flight Assist was also there, and they spoke to me and offered me whatever assistance I needed, again as if I was one of their own. The USAPA reps also brought all of us some clothing and toiletries that they had purchased. Captain Schafer arrived at the hotel, bringing me some necessary items. He stayed overnight at the hotel, making flight arrangements for me to go home the next day and escorting me to the airport. Captain Mark Cronin from the AA NY Flight Office met me at the departure gate, again offering assistance and support.
I am grateful for the many calls of concern and offers of help I have received, from fellow pilots, union representatives and the company, and I am grateful for and proud of the response and assistance of both USAPA and APA. I would hope that our union would treat another airline’s crewmember as kindly as I was treated. USAirways has also been superb, treating me as if I was a paying passenger. I am also thankful for the professionalism and capabilities of Captain Sullenberger, FO Skiles and FAs Dent, Dail and Welsh. They certainly did our profession proud, and they saved my life.

[rmiller774]

Third picture from the top - Is that a huge suitcase that a woman seems to be bracing against the aircraft? I read elsewhere that someone insisted in getting her suitcase down from the overhead bin and carrying it off of the plane.

More importantly, thanks "weasil" for posting the marvelous account written by First Officer Susan O'Donnell.

[Sawbones]

Miller 774,

"In Sawbones link I see the old saying "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old, bold pilots". The Captain's remarkable performance in putting down on the Hudson would seem to me to be an exception to that adage. There is at least one old bold pilot around."

... then again, those of us well into our fifties don't like to consider ourselves as old!

Sawbones

[Smilin_Ed]

Is that a huge suitcase that a woman seems to be bracing against the aircraft?

I think it's a seat cushion.

[Sawbones]

CreteHurricane,

Will relay your kind words to my brother, Andrew, whose "Fear of Flying" Editorial was posted on page 65.

Although he is not a pilot, he once worked as a Dispatcher at a busy flying school in Montreal. He keeps himself very informed of developing stories within the airline industry. I only take partial credit for that, as our pub lunches together during my London layovers hardly qualify as offical briefing sessions!

Nice to know that there are good journalists out there.

[forget]

Is that a huge suitcase that a woman seems to be bracing against the aircraft?

I think it's a seat cushion.

It is..

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

[sharksandwich]

the infamous game:
Hero on the Hudson - Free Arcade & Classic Game from AddictingGames (http://www.addictinggames.com/heroonthehudson.html)

[skadi]

the last one on the left shows Stalactites or stalagmites (dont remember which is which)growing from the boats hull.


Belloldtimer, its easy to remember, which are the ones hanging down ;););)

skadi

[Airbubba]

I was impressed to note that he had the aircraft logbook tucked under his arm.

That should make the Feds happy.:) I had a coworker who crash landed a piston twin years ago on a road at night after an engine failure. The plane was leaking fuel so he beat feet a safe distance away. He realized that he hadn't yet signed the logbook so he climbed back in wreckage to make the autograph. Sounds funny but these days it almost seems that the FAA is more concerned with documenting the crash than preventing it.

[HotDog]

the last one on the left shows Stalactites or stalagmites (dont remember which is which)growing from the boats hull.

The Mites go up and the Tites come down.:ok:

[pax2908]

Few life vests and some seat cushions... I wonder if during evacuation, the passengers were instructed to remove the seat cushions? Why not the vests, then? I could imagine that for a person in very cold water, the vest has an advantage (dont have to hold on to it, so one has a better chance of survival ONLY of course if medical assistance is eventually provided)?

[Pontius Navigator]

I could imagine that for a person in very cold water, the vest has an advantage (dont have to hold on to it, so one has a better chance of survival

No, not really. Once you have hold of that cushion you have it in a death grip. You can't grab or hold anything else but the original grab will never be released. Trust me, been there.

[smith]

An email I recieved, apologies if it has been posted previously, I haven't read every page

Received this from a Retired AF/Airline friend. Can't verify. JP

BEING A OLD BOEING, McDONALD, DOUGLAS, LTV, & LOCKHEED, STICK AND THROTTLE GUY, THIS CONFIRMS A LOT OF THE " POOP " THAT WAS AROUND ABOUT AIRBUS AIRPLANES-------DICK

A different slant on 1459, and likely the closest to the truth. An opinion about the A320 from one unidentified pilot!
I didn't know Sully the A320 pilot who landed in the Hudson River . I've seen him in the crew room and around the system but never met him. He was former PSA and I was former Piedmont and we never had the occasion to fly together.

The dumb **** press just won't leave this alone. Most airliner ditchings aren't very successful since they take place on the open ocean with wind, rough seas, swells and rescue boats are hours or days away. This one happened in fresh smooth water, landing with the current and the rescue boats were there picking people up while they were still climbing out of the airplane. It also happened on a cold winter day when all the pleasure boats were parked. Had this happened in July it would be pretty hard not to whack a couple of little boats. Sully did a nice job but so would 95% of the other pilots in the industry. You would have done a nice job.

Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water. In a older generation airplane like the 727 or 737 300/400 the throttles are hooked to the fuel controllers on the engine by a steel throttle cable just like a TBM or a Comanche. On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real. Everything is electronic. The throttles, rudder and brake pedals and the side stick are hooked to rheostats who talk to a computer who talks to a electric hydraulic servo valve which in turn hopefully moves something.

In a older generation airplane when you hit birds the engines keep screaming or they blow up but they don't both roll back to idle simultaneously like happened to Flt. 1549. All it would take is for bird guts to plug a pressure sensor or knock the pitot probe off or plug it and the computers would roll the engines back to idle thinking they were over boosting because the computers were getting bad data. The Airbus is a real pile of ****. I don't like riding on them. Google Airbus A320 Crash at the Paris Airshow in 1998. Watch the video of an airbus A320 crash into a forest because the computers wouldn't allow a power increase following a low pass. The computers wouldn't allow a power increase because they determined that the airspeed was too low for the increase requested so the computers didn't give them any. Pushing the throttles forward in a Airbus does nothing more than request a power increase from the computer. If the computer doesn't like all the airplane and engine parameters you don't get a power increase. Airbus blamed the dead crew since they couldn't defend themselves. A Boeing would still be flying.

[Dysag]

The above garbage is doing the rounds on the internet.

Where has this fictitious old timer been these last 20 years? He has not realised that all modern engines are FADEC controlled: on Airbus, Boeing, Embraer.. you name it.

And he has the nerve to rake up the Habsheim story again. That pilot "Rambo" didn't know what he was doing, and some pax paid for it with their lives.

I'm sure glad this old fart is retired, if he exists, so he can only kill himself.

P.S. it goes without saying that it wasn't at the Paris Air Show and it wasn't in 1998. It was in 1988 at Habsheim. There were no dead crew.

[AVR4000]

This is my first post here on PPruNE.

If I remember the Habsheim accident correctly the A320 performed perfectly. The engines actually spooled up faster than the official specifications and was running on full power when the aircraft was plowing it´s way through the trees.

It´s a modern myth all the discussions about "computer who not let the pilot increase the power from the engines".

In my opinion the luckily outcome of the Hudson ditching was a combination of a good crew and a good aircraft. The A320 performed very good in this case.

[lomapaseo]

A reminder as this thread goes off again.

There is no viable information yet released that has explained why the engines apparently stabilized near idle.

I wouldn't bet on the FADECs, the Birds or Airbus at this point with so little information.

[golfyankeesierra]

here is no viable information yet released that has explained why the engines apparently stabilized near idle.
Where does it say they "stabilized near idle"? Did they produce some power?
Sorry if I missed this, probably buried between stalag-jokes.

[J.O.]

The NTSB has stated that they beleve that one of the engines managed to keep running just enough to continue powering hydraulics, hence they were able to deploy flaps and slats which aided in making a slower speed landing on the water. Had both engines been dead, the RAT would have only allowed them to get some slats extended.

[Airbubba]

Captain Sullenberger and the flight 1549 crew were just introduced and featured at the playing of the National Anthem at the start of the Superbowl in TPA.

[Airbubba]

After all, the Laudair accident was - in fact, not opinion - a FADEC accident so the theory of steel cables and the dumb Boeing vs. Airbus argument went out the window decades ago.

I think the 1991 Lauda air crash in Thailand was the result of an uncommanded inflight reverser deployment. The EEC on the left engine went to idle as designed with the T/R deployment. Not sure how you would call it a FADEC accident.

There was some controversy about the electrical control of the T/R's on the PW4060 engines compared to the earlier JT9D's with hydromechanical control. Is this perhaps what you are referencing?

[protectthehornet]

Whether a pilot is currently employed or not should make little difference to this forum. It used to be a badge of honor to have been furloughed at one time or another.

I've worked for 3 small airlines and one big one. Two of the small ones went out of business. That didn't make a bit of difference to my skills as a pilot. I was within 14 numbers of being furloughed at the big airline.

I know the post we are talking about is flawed. But, don't for a minute think that everything is known about every aspect of aviation. Cables or wires...heck, even NASA is looking at fly by light to overcome the problems with fly by wire.

There are plenty of flawed posts on this thread. I can't even believe that someone is thinking that the pilot went back for the logbook of the plane...it was his personal clipboard, most likely with the headcount. I kept the headcount somewhere else, including the number of ''babes in arms'' (not to be confused with the mickey rooney film of the same name).

So, let's leave that post where it is. Sure the accident he spoke about was confused with something else, but the question about controlling the engine is interesting, if unanswered at this time. So, I won't answer it and maybe you shouldn't answer it yet...let the NTSB and even then I hope a new series of tests is done on this type of engine...and all engines.

Glad to see PIT won the superbowl.

[Airbubba]

I can't even believe that someone is thinking that the pilot went back for the logbook of the plane...

Well, this was reported by jumpseat rider Susan O'Donnell, a former Naval Aviator and AA B-767 FO. I kinda think she would know what an aircraft logbook looks like.:)

The feds have had the heat on logbooks the past couple of years, I'd probably swim back to the plane to get it too!

Great game, too bad about the score for the PHX fans.

[protectthehornet]

she might have been wrong...naval aviators do make mistakes now don't they?

if you have a picture of the alleged logbook, please post it...I am VERY familiar with USAIR logbooks.

[Haaatschi]

First post by SLF who stumbled across a few pictures that were posted today and is curious if the pros here can make anything out of the dings and what appears to be circle marks by spray paint.

ABC News: Jet Hauled Through Jersey Streets (http://abcnews.go.com/US/popup?id=6657874&contentIndex=1&page=1&start=false)

[PJ2]

lomapaseo;

I've deleted the post as you are right - my thanks for correcting my recollection.

protectthehornet;

The statements of the writer regarding the Airbus accident at Habsheim are demonstrably incorrect. The opinions regarding the A320 indicate an almost total lack of understanding of the airplane and it's design. While one can agree that a steel cable to a fuel control unit works, the industry has come a long, long way since the DC8, 707 and early 747 were designed. Regarding fbw, one can make the same comment on hydraulic systems, where a pilot never has a solid connection with the controls, the connection obviously being done through fluid rather than electrons. The last truly manual jet transport was the DC8, designed in 1955 - the elevators were pure cable and very heavy in some regimes and the ailerons as well, were run by boost tabs. Even the 707 was hydraulically, not cable controlled. I thought the comment, if truly made, was a very long way behind the times, and that is what I meant. Yes, at that we'll leave the point alone as engine control is indeed an interesting subject. All the same, it's just hard to get by some of the wilder understandings being posted.

And here I thought Arizona was gonna take it...

[forget]

Avweb. Today. :confused:

US Airways Ditching Fallout Hits American With Rafts

American Airlines has decided that its possible failure to equip aircraft with enough emergency life rafts means that it will limit the number of passengers it carries on those aircraft until it knows exactly how many rafts it might need. That means American's Boeing 767-300 aircraft, which are configured to hold 236 people (including crew) and fly mostly trans-Atlantic routes, will hold no more than 228 people until the situation is resolved, probably by February. The FAA requires carriers to provide enough rafts to accommodate everyone on the aircraft even if one raft fails, and following a recent review of its own 737 aircraft American decided to investigate other aircraft in the its fleet. The airline added seats to certain 767s when it increased business-class capacity beginning in 2005. American told its employees in a note Tuesday that the safety of passengers had never been in danger, thanks to other available flotation devices available on the aircraft. Of course, survivability for ditching survivors may be improved for those who find themselves rafts when compared to those immersed in cold waters, clutching a seat cushion.

Boeing 767-300s make up almost 10 percent of American's 625 aircraft and crew will need training for the new rafts when they arrive -- they're expected at the end of the month. American's raft review comes just weeks after the Jan. 15 crash of US Airways Flight 1549 that successfully ditched in the Hudson River with no fatalities.

[Graybeard]

The pic in the newspaper link shows awful damage to the aft belly. Looks like the water entered farther forward, and blasted its way out just forward of the empennage connection. It's a wonder the thing floated as long as it did.

Does the A320 have blowout plugs between cabin and cargo like required after the 1973(?) THY DC-10 accident, so a lower area depressurization doesn't collapse the floor? In other words, might the plane have floated longer if the aft cabin door hadn't been partially opened by a passenger? Or would plugs have given way and flooded the cabin anyhow?

Although designed to withstand only cabin pressure, the plane itself should have the potential to be a flotation device.

GB

[lomapaseo]

Pictures from Jet Transfer through New Jersey Streets

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

First post by SLF who stumbled across a few pictures that were posted today and is curious if the pros here can make anything out of the dings and what appears to be circle marks by spray paint.

ABC News: Jet Hauled Through Jersey Streets

From my take of all the pictures posted on the net to date (not just the ones referenced in the quote). There are three types of damage, birds, water impact, and recovery.

It is a relatively easy job for the investigators up close to tell the difference and document. it is speculative for the rest of us to attempt this from news file pictures posted at low resolutions.

[Uncle_Jay]

'Disassembly for hauling through the streets of Noo Joisey'. The severe tail damage was probably just that, plus a lot of the dings on the fuselage. Or, being Noo JOisey, the Crips and Bloods maybe stole the tail bling.

[jugofpropwash]

Re: the American Airlines # of SLF vs # of rafts -

As I stated earlier in this thread, if they are counting the capacity of the rear slides (which cannot be used without opening the rear doors and flooding the aircraft), then they've got an even larger discrepancy.

[thx1169]

The Mail Man just delivered this week's New York Magazine.

“My Aircraft”

Why Sully may be the last of his kind.



Why US Airways Pilot Chesley Sullenberger III May Be the Last of His Kind -- New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/news/features/53788/)

[protectthehornet]

The innauguration, super bowl and now...ta ta da: David Letterman, Feb 10.

Also 60 minutes on Feb 8, CBS morning show on FEB 9.

It seems that USAIR likes CBS. Now, let's all think of a top ten list for the show!

[lomapaseo]

Regardless what we think as professionals in this business about the effort, superhuman or not, that a specfic crew made, it is equally if not more important to reinforce with the flying public that we have the stuff to make flying safe.

Day after day I run into John Q either as my barber, on the golf course or even in doctor's offices who are mightly impressed about the outcome and truly want to believe that in time of need they also wil have a crew with the same skill as displayed in this near disaster.

All the hoop-la that we are commenting on is the marketing of this message, so let it continue. The public needs to remember some good rather than all bad about flying.

[Dysag]

How right you are. When this great human flying adventure is over, for whatever reason, I hope someone will be left to write its history.

One great disappointment will be: why didn't the flying community bother to explain to the public how much effort goes into securing safety, from the design of the rivets through production through training through operations.

There are public heroes, sure, but far more unsung designers and regulators who forged our safety record. Nevertheless, well done Sully and Airbus, for keeping the wings level this time.

[Super VC-10]

The history is being written already. :)

US Airways Flight 1549 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549)

[lomapaseo]

One great disappointment will be: why didn't the flying community bother to explain to the public how much effort goes into securing safety, from the design of the rivets through production through training through operations.


Because the public is easily bored unless something spectacularly breaks or a real disaster is narrowly avoided.

we've got to wait for a near disaster before even attempting to get that message across and even then the gloom and doom attention getters among us will win everytime.

It sems that the only PR guys among us are obvious stooges in the direct employ of big business.

I'm sure that a few contractual PR guys out there know the score.

[justanotherflyer]

A.P. : Feb 2nd, 2009 | FRESNO, Calif. -- Hero pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger is every librarian's hero, too.

The US Airways pilot splash landed his jetliner in the Hudson River on Jan. 15, and everyone on board escaped safely. But left in the cargo hold was a book Sullenberger had checked out from California State University, Fresno, through his local library near Danville.

Library officials say Sullenberger asked for an extension and waiver of overdue fees. The pilot and his spokeswoman didn't return messages seeking comment Monday.

The librarians say they were struck by Sullenberger's sense of responsibility and did him one better: they're waiving all fees and dedicating the replacement book to him.

The book's subject? Professional ethics.

You've got to admit, the guy sets a great example.

[lomapaseo]

The librarians say they were struck by Sullenberger's sense of responsibility and did him one better: they're waiving all fees and dedicating the replacement book to him.


No doubt they would appreciate the original book being returned to them to be put on display in a glass case.

[barit1]

Thanks, thx1169 - the New York Magazine article is a great picture of the industry today - for better or worse - and how it became that way.

[HotDog]

Add a fourth type of damage...

'Disassembly for hauling through the streets of Noo Joisey'. The severe tail damage was probably just that, plus a lot of the dings on the fuselage. Or, being Noo JOisey, the Crips and Bloods maybe stole the tail bling.

There has been a previous query with regard to the missing APU. Your answer below, from a US Airways Airbus Instructor.

Speaking of hitting the water:

Did I mention that the underside was shredded? It appears that the force deformed the airframe enough that the R1 door (the galley service door directly across from the passenger boarding door) was forced open! I cannot imagine what sort of force that took. You couldn't chop your way through that structure with an axe and a six-day week to do it. The APU, and its entire fire containment box was ripped loose from the mounts and was hanging underneath the airplane by a single cable. There is also a wrinkle, an airframe deformation across the top of the fuselage just a ways aft of the wings. That airplane might have looked intact but it is junk; it is beercans.

[pattern_is_full]

"The U.S. Airways pilot who saved 155 lives! Plus, his crew in their first live primetime interview. The miracle on the Hudson pilot and crew take your calls only on Larry King Live! "

On CNN... Monday 2/9 (or 9/2 for the eurofans)

I expect Sully et al will do better than the average SkyNews reporter at explaining aviation...

[lomapaseo]

I expect Sully et al will do better than the average SkyNews reporter at explaining aviation...

I'm not sure what you meant by this, but he can't afford to step out of his cockpit box at this time and broaden himself in this type of interview beyond a hero pilot status.

There's a time to gamble and a time to collect your winnings.

[broadreach]

Haatschi,

Spraymarks around dings would have been put there by NTSB presumably, to distinguish them from others. The punctures around the cockpit would certainly have been from rescue boats, particularly those with pusher frames with exposed lower steel (upper parts being protected by rubber).

Not easy to keep a boat in tight position without doing some damage. Even less so when the wind wants to send you in a different direction in relation to the aircraft, and you're worried about propwash or the prop itself chopping swimmers up.

[Captain Bob]

The NTSB will get this all sorted out in due time. If they can figure out if a little light bulb was on or off at the time the aircraft made a smoking hole in the ground, this will be a piece of cake for them.

[Pugilistic Animus]

That NY magazine article was excellent and touching and explained the situation nicely---a few minor 'points' could use firming, but then no one would understand:}

I guess a 'journo' got it right:ooh:

I found this person's comments very nice


I'm one of the 185 people who survived the crash-landing of United Airlines Flight 232 in Sioux City, Iowa, in 1989. While it's difficult to... (http://nymag.com/news/features/53788/index4.html#)

I'm one of the 185 people who survived the crash-landing of United Airlines Flight 232 in Sioux City, Iowa, in 1989. While it's difficult to see, hear, or read about a plane crash, especially having lived through one myself, I can't help but be grateful. In my case, I survived (though 111 passengers did not). And in the case of the US Airways Flight 1549 crash-landing on the Hudson, everyone survived. Perhaps most amazing is the human capacity to move on. Since surviving the tragedy in 1989, I know I have. And I'm hopeful that all of Flight 1549's survivors eventually will too.

Close (http://nymag.com/news/features/53788/index4.html#)


By SCBAILEY (http://my.nymag.com/SCBAILEY/comments/) on 02/03/2009 at 11:29 pm

[precept]

************************************************************
NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
February 4, 2009
************************************************************
THIRD UPDATE ON INVESTIGATION INTO DITCHING OF US AIRWAYS
JETLINER INTO HUDSON RIVER
************************************************************
The following is an update on the National Transportation
Safety Board's investigation of US Airways flight 1549, which
ditched into the Hudson River on January 15, 2009.
The left (#1) engine, which was recovered from the Hudson
River on January 23 and subsequently shipped to the
manufacturer in Cincinnati where the NTSB is directing a
teardown, was found to contain bird remains. The organic
material found in the right (#2) engine has also been
confirmed to be bird remains. The material from both engines
has been sent to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington
where the particular bird species will be identified.
As part of its investigation into this accident, the NTSB
investigated an engine surge event that occurred in the right
(#2) engine during a flight on January 13, two days prior to
the accident. The engine recovered from the surge and the
remainder of the flight was completed uneventfully. The NTSB
determined that the surge was due to a faulty temperature
sensor, which was replaced by maintenance personal following
approved procedures. After the engine was examined with a
boroscope and found to be undamaged and in good working
order, the aircraft was returned to service.
On December 31, 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) covering all
CFM56-5B series turbofan engines, the same type that was on
the accident aircraft. After examining the engine maintenance
records and interviewing relevant personnel, the NTSB
determined that all of the requirements of the AD were
complied with prior to the accident flight.
During the accident flight, the flight data recorder revealed
no anomalies or malfunctions in either engine up to the point
where the captain reported a bird strike, after which there
was an uncommanded loss of thrust in both engines.
Last week the aircraft was moved from the barge where it had
been docked in Jersey City, NJ, to a secure salvage yard in
Kearny, NJ, where it will remain throughout the NTSB
investigation, which is expected to last 12-18 months.
Photo of feather found in the left (#1) engine:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/USAIR_1549_Bird_Feather.JPG (http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/USAIR_1549_Bird_Feather.JPG)
###
NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson
(202) 314-6100
[email protected]

[RatherBeFlying]

Eng #1
Bypass OGV Platform [Outlet Guide Vane
Outer Flowpath
3 'O'Clock ALF
.
.
.
1 of 6Suspect more material to be found in the compressor stages.

[Frangible]

"maintenance personal"??
toady the NTSB, tomorow the wurld!

[ComJam]

Sky News are running the ATC audio tape of the Hudson River accident....amazed at how relaxed the pilot sounds as he says "we may end up in the Hudson"....

Gotta feel sorry for the Controller as he realises he's lost one...

[skytrax]

The audio will be here in maximum 30 min, I reckon!

[SD.]

The 'expert', what a pleb :ugh:

[ATCNetwork]

The FAA have just published the audio files

link to their page below
FAA Releases USAir 1549 Air Traffic Control Tapes - ATC Network - News Item (http://www.atc-network.com/NewsItem-28900-FAA-Releases-USAir-1549-Air-Traffic-Control-Tapes.aspx)

[Slopey]

On the BBC News homepage now. (BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Hudson jet communications released (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7872809.stm))

[simfly]

Hopefully the CVR will be made public too soon!

[beamer]

Have to agree about the 'rent an expert' on Sky. Time to go away and enjoy your pension Mr Moody - you are an embarrassment ! BBC transport correspondent - not a retired pilot - far more professional in his analysis.

[APC77Z]

4-min audio clip on www.flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com)

[vanHorck]

I listened just once. Very professional on both sides inclusive of assisting other pilot, whatever future disectors will say, especially given that the controller had no full knowledge of what was to unfold.

[Nyquist77]

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Hudson jet communications released (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7872809.stm)

[Nyquist77]

As SLF it makes me feel reassured to know how professionally Pilots and ATC deal with emergencies such as this. the careful error free approach is indicative of exemplary training. I admire the way the ATC calmly continues to offer landing solutions to the pilot of A320

In this recording do we hear the departure controller handing over as he is relieved from his post because of the situation?

[coz96]

In this recording do we hear the departure controller handing over as he is relieved from his post because of the situation?Sounds like the same voice to me. As far as I know the controller does not hand over unless they have a deal.

What I do hear though is the controller coordinating with other controllers at other facilities on land lines.

[doktor schlickling]

BBC NEWS | Americas | Hudson plane crash audio released (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7872621.stm)

[Flak Jacket]

First of all let me say that I think the pilots did a wonderful job in keeping everybody alive and they should rightfully be praised for their efforts.

I do however, have an observation (and I am aware it is easy to be critical when not faced with their situation) and would appreciate your thoughts.

I have only listened to the short clip available on the sky news site, but from what I have heard the pilot doesn't call a mayday or let the controller know that he is declaring an emergency and requires priority, I know he says he's hit birds and has lost thrust, but no emergency MAYDAY call.

Also near the end end there is a call of 'we're going in the hudson' which the controller doesn't pick up on, might a DITCHING, DITCHING call been better to leave the controller in no doubt.

Again, I do not want this to seam as if I am being critical to the pilots as I have said the fact that everbody got out speaks for it's self, I mearly wish to gain your views.

[surfingatco]

Sounds to me like a different ATCO about 5 minutes after AWE1549 disappears from his radar. As a UK ATCO, I empathised with him when he had no idea if the aircraft had crashed, or ditched "safely".

I'm sure NY Tracon's CISM (Critical Incident Stress Management) scheme kicked in to relieve him asap in order to give him support.

As has been said, very professional on both sides, and let's not pick holes in the RT!

[Silver Tongued Cavalier]

Calling all Armchair Experts/Investigators!! Why not send Capt Sully a copy of the CAP 413: Radiotelephony Manual. Maybe he might learn something about proper RT procedures/flying/airmanship...:ugh:

Seriously though, in an Emergency situation like this, crossing the t's and dotting the i's, isn't important. We leave that for the annual line check and 6 monthly sim. This was REAL WORLD folks........

[offa]

Totally agreed ..... great job by New York ATC .... makes you proud!

[Silver Tongued Cavalier]

Yeah, great job by NY ATC, La Guardia and Teterboro, some fast decision making!!!

[coz96]

Sounds to me like a different ATCO about 5 minutes after AWE1549 disappears from his radar.Ahh makes sense now. The version I was listening to does not go continue on that long.

[Max Angle]

The 'expert', what a pleb

Time to go away and enjoy your pension Mr Moody - you are an embarrassment

Well he may of advancing years but let us not forgot that Capt. Eric Moody was himself hailed as a hero in 1982 when the BA 747 he was skippering lost all 4 engines over the Indian Ocean and drifted down over 20,000ft before they got them going again.

Perhaps those who may be too young to remember should have a read:

The story of BA flight 009 and the words every passenger dreads ... | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-431802/The-story-BA-flight-009-words-passenger-dreads-.html)

or have a look and listen:

QxhiJnhI-p4

Give the bloke a little respect, he deserves I reckon.:D

[SD.]

It all goes back to Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.


Had he have given the full Cap 413 Mayday call, although it would have sounded very professional, a big black smoking hole on Broadway wouldn't have looked too clever.

Mr Moody, the retired BA expert had a dig at the American RT, was shocked that the Cactus crew never declared a mayday and that the controller never gave them a discreet frequency to talk on.

Some people are never satisfied. :E

[Intruder]

Hopefully the CVR will be made public too soon!
Hopefully NOT!

The CVR was NOT installed for the press or the public. it was installed ONLY for mishap investigations! :mad: :ugh:

[OFBSLF]

I have only listened to the short clip available on the sky news site, but from what I have heard the pilot doesn't call a mayday or let the controller know that he is declaring an emergency and requires priority, I know he says he's hit birds and has lost thrust, but no emergency MAYDAY call.
Within 10 seconds of informing TRACON that he'd lost engines, TRACON informed LGA tower and had them stop all takeoffs so 1549 could return if able.

He may not have used the word mayday, but it seems clear that TRACON immediately treated it as an emergency.

[fireflybob]

As I often say there is a difference between doing "things right" and the "right thing" - this crew obviously did the latter.

A discreet frequency was surely the last thing they needed - it's bad enough trying to set a new (unexpected) frequency on a "normal" departure!

[misd-agin]

They didn't have to say MAYDAY, EMERGENCY or PAN PAN. The controller knew immediately from the radio transmissions and what the crew said, and their responses to his inquiries, and by watching the a/c descending, that this was an absolute emergency.

He responded immediately by notifying LGA tower to stop all departures, thereby reducing his workoad and clearing the runways of aluminum.

After flying into NY for years you recognize the voice immediately.

[Gulf4uk]

Have listened acouple of times to the recording and how well the pilot
handled things but i want to add my thoughts and praise for the ATC
Controller he did not seem flustered in the Face of what was a potential
Disaster .Well done that Man you to deserve more recognition for a
job well done.

Tony
Farnborough

[Paolo]

Fireflybob:

I totally agree with all that you say!!!!

Well said !!!

Paolo

[AMF]

misd-agin They didn't have to say MAYDAY, EMERGENCY or PAN PAN. The controller knew immediately from the radio transmissions and what the crew said, and their responses to his inquiries, and by watching the a/c descending, that this was an absolute emergency.

He responded immediately by notifying LGA tower to stop all departures, thereby reducing his workoad and clearing the runways of aluminum.




Exactly. What some here fail to realize is that R/T is NOT an end unto itself, it's communication. US ATC doesn't need a verbatim "mayday" call to begin emergency response as the situation dictates, as this audio clearly shows. Capt Sully's stating he had lost thrust in both engines and was returning...explaining the situation.. is tantamount to an emergency declaration and there is certainly no hesitation on the part of the controller due to him failing to understand this. In other words, the fact that an emergency existed was communicated within seconds, and appropriate responses began by the Controller which would have told Cpt Sully that his emergency status was obviously understood by ATC.

SD.
Mr Moody, the retired BA expert had a dig at the American RT, was shocked that the Cactus crew never declared a mayday and that the controller never gave them a discreet frequency to talk on.

Mr Moody perhaps needs an electro-shock to the head because he sounds like he's too old to acertain the obvious from the audio; that the controller instantly knew an emergency existed and why (birdstrike/lost thrust) and could probably use some instruction from Capt. Sully regarding the foolishness of burdening the pilots with unnecessary distractions during a full-blown emergency while they're trying to fly the airplane.

Well, NObody except ab initio BA air cadets care what Mr. Moody is "shocked by" or what he thinks about American R/T anyway.

[beardy]

Not declaring a mayday made no difference to the outcome, so all ponderings are irrelevant to this accident.

But, out of curiosity, why not declare one, would you, what is the disadvantage, is it a cultural thing or would it just not occur to you during an emergency? I probably would say the word, although I can't guarantee it, but that's the way I was brought up.

As I say just curious.

[Gulf4uk]

If things were happening that Fast would you have Time to even think
about putting out A mayday ? .
Correct proceedures yes everytime but there has to be the time you
just are so busy Saving your passengers and crew you dont do it
Was anyone concerned about lack of MAYDAY Call ?

Tony
farnborough

[Centreline747]

After listening to the ATC, the message got across without the need for a 'Mayday' call. Time permitting I'm sure one would have been put out but when you consider the altitude at which the event occured and the time constraints whilst probably attempting to relight an engine, complete drills etc, then I think it is realistic that a 'mayday' call was not sent.
Just my opinion;)

Rgds

CL747

[Loki]

Agree with the consensus that a Mayday call was not required.....too little time, and unnecessary, in that of course it was a mayday ; A320 with no power and not much altitude? The pilot had said what the problem was most concisely.

Isolating the incident, by imposing RT silence or transferring non emergency traffic to another frequency is an ideal....but it may take time to set up....finding a body to do the work or a spare workstation are just two possible problems. Possibly a technique to employ with longer playing incidents.

[Power]

can't wait until the Air Crash Investigation episode :8

[OSCAR YANKEE]

Calling all Armchair Experts/Investigators!! Why not send Capt Sully a copy of the CAP 413: Radiotelephony Manual. Maybe he might learn something about proper RT procedures/flying/airmanship...

Oh no....here we go again...the CAP 413.....when are the british ever going to get over the fact they did not invent aviation:ugh:

The CAP 413 is a british document, with all the silly british exceptions to the ICAO Std.
When are you ever going to grow up and say CLEARED ILS iso. that nonsense I have to go through every day...... :}

Cheers

[Capt Kremin]

From what I have read of the event, a handover of control from the FO to the Capt took place shortly after the birdstrike. Therefore it is probably the FO we hear talking here. What a wonderfully calm and measured voice under the circumstances! I am sure if I were in the same situation I could not manage something like that.

ATC did their usual highly professional job.

Pilots, Cabin crew, ATC and emergency response personnel..... you did yourselves, and the aviation community proud.

[misd-agin]

Often, in critical times, the PF(PH for folks paid in Euros) becomes the "Communications Officer" when the PNF(the guy watching for Euro paid pilots) gets buried in checklists or other supporting duties.
The guy flying, and talking, often has the easier job.

We still fly with three man crews -

CA
FO
Communications Officer - the least busiest guy during an emergency :ok:

[topper3]

It would be good to know who's voice that is on the CVR as there seems to have been very little mention of the FO. It would be a shame, especially if the success of the ditching was down to a coordinated crew effort

[GSMini]

Mmmm, me thinks is the Capt. talking. If controls were transfered, in an emergency in the 320, PF has controls and comms. and PNF does the ECAM.

Cheerio :}

[Haaatschi]

In the flurry of new info some of you seem to have forgotten that there already had been an NTSB announcement about the contents of the CVR and the "Mayday" question more than 2 weeks ago:

While NTSB officials say the content of the recording is consistent with interviews conducted after the landing, one word stood out -- mayday.
"We didn't hear it on the air traffic control exchange, it wasn't reported from the interviews with the crews. It does come out on the cockpit voice recorders that he used the term mayday," said Higgins.
Source: NY1 | 24 Hour Local News | Top Stories | NTSB Reviews Black Box Tapes From Flight 1549 (http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/92489/ntsb-reviews-black-box-tapes-from-flight-1549/Default.aspx)


As SLF I post this without commentary or analysis - just for the experts' reference.

[DingerX]

Class B airspace position information has the helo traffic, including 1SA, explaining her apparent evasive maneuvers noted in *this* thread (or what I suspect will be this thread post-merge) above.
The news sites may only be posting 4-7 minute edits of TRACON, but the agility of the whole system is impressive, and undoubtedly of sound pedagogical value.

[act700]

Well, the discussion on this thread helps prove my FAA/JAA argument, which is JAA has their heads so far up their pooper scoopers with THEORY, whereas the Americans have (maybe/almost?) perfected the PRACTICAL.

Euros/JAA are so brainwashed into "nothing happens without a Mayday", whereas in the FAA system stating your issue will more often than not be enough to get across what you're dealing with. If it does not, there will be unmistakable clarification.
Also, the controller can declare the emergency for the pilot(s), who in this case, obviously didn't have time.
Just to clarify, so the Brits on here don't have coronaries: FAA teaches the whole concept of Mayday, and Pan, etc. But they also accept "the reality of the situation" as an operating procedure, if that makes sense.

Also, as to the calmness of the voices: anyone who's ever been in a "crappy" situation will probably agree, that in the heat of the moment there is not much time to be or sound scared. You just deal with the task at hand-survival!
Later at the bar having drink, that's when you crap your pants on realizing how much worse it could have been.

IMHO, listening to the voices, I think it is the Capt. talking as well as flying, as the FO was probably busier than hell with trying to restart one; as someone mentioned earlier.
Make note of the voices at take off clearance, and from then on out.

Like I said many times before, NY controllers are some of the best in the world. Respect.

For all involved in the 1549 deal, I'm glad it was NY, and not London, cause without Mayday, they probably would have gotten arrested and violated!

To the Euros/JAA I say, it's time to slowly extract your heads from your arses, and get with the fact that the Yanks have quite a few good ideas and procedures.
Maybe working together to get the best of both sides would make more sense, than the current, politically induced "my dong's bigger than yours" attitudes in play presently.

But what the hell do I know. After all, I'm just a FAA trained and experienced Euro, trying to figure out how to pass this ridiculous conversion!

[act700]

Did I miss something?

I was just commenting on a 2 page thread, and now I'm on page 70something?!

[act700]

I see: just like in a merger of seniority lists, we (the other thread) were just stapled to the bottom of this list!
I'm gonna have to consider filing a grievance with my union.

[Airbubba]

Exactly. What some here fail to realize is that R/T is NOT an end unto itself, it's communication. US ATC doesn't need a verbatim "mayday" call to begin emergency response as the situation dictates, as this audio clearly shows.

Absolutely. Americans don't use the word 'Mayday' or do practice 'Pans' as I observed much earlier in the thread. We don't stand on ceremony in the air (if you've heard us talk on the radio, you know what I mean :) ).

We worry about pay and time off, we leave it to others to endlessly debate R/T procedures. It's a cultural thing.

We do talk some of that there Roger Ramjet talk in the military to keep NATO happy but most of us lose that dialect quickly after we get the civilian job.

Our style is catching on, just spoke with a lady controller at Maastricth tonight and she was using 'Cheerio, and 'Okey-dokey' on the airwaves.

[Aeronut]

Sounds like the callsigns used are Cactus 1529 & 1539 whereas theflight was1549, or maybe I am missing something

[Flak Jacket]

Well, I seam to have stirred up something of a hornet nest.

Just to make things clear...

I was not in anyway suggesting that the pilots could have done more or the outcome would have changed whatever they had said. I think that they did a fantastic job as I said in my earlier post.

It was just my observations which I was presenting as a discussion point! Some of you have obviously taken it differently.

[llondel]

I suspect the whole Mayday issue may be because most US pilots and ATCs have English as a first, or at least fluent language. Anyone remember the Avianca 707 that ran out of fuel? ATC only realised they had a problem too late because either the flight crew didn't realise the seriousness of their situation or failed to communicate it. Had the word Mayday been used earlier then they might have been safely on the ground because it is pretty unambiguous.

Europe has a whole mix of languages, so a clear and unambiguous indication of emergency is required in case there's otherwise limited understanding of words outside the routine communication. As English continues its creeping takeover of everywhere except France and Quebec, everyone involved is going to be more comfortable using conversational English.

[Aeronut]

Sounds like the callsigns used are Cactus 1529 & 1539 whereas theflight was1549, or maybe I am missing something

[NigelOnDraft]

Sounds like the callsigns used are Cactus 1529 & 1539 whereas theflight was1549, or maybe I am missing somethingAnd? Did it cause a problem?

As a UK pilot, I often find US ATC a bit too slick and clever for me... However, the reaction to the initial call to ATC here, and co-ordination between various airfields was amazing :D

Mayday? Pan? Can be great calls... but have a meaning, particularly when you need "assistance" from ATC. I would tend to reserve their use until:
1. I need assistance from ATC - this flight clearly did not (what help could they offer?)
2. ATC, and/or other traffic are not giving me the level of assistance I require. A Mayday or Pan then transmitted might up the priority I was given...

ANC - in this situation A & N were all that was required... and actioned. C was pretty irrelevant, and treated as such :ok: The necessary message was got across... understood and actioned. QED :D

NoD

[RobertS975]

Years ago, I had a "situation" in a light aircraft that had taken off from BOS on a VFR flight. I told TRACON that I needed an immediate return to the airport (we were about 1500 feet, 2-3 miles from the airport).

"Are you declaring an emergency?" the busy departure controller asked.

I hit the ball back over to his side of the net. "Not if you'll clear right back into the field," I replied.

There are times when the communications about an emergency need spelling out more clearly, as was the case with the unfortunate Avianca 707 fuel exhaustion crash on Long Island as they accepted endless vectors on an approach to JFK, eventually running out of fuel.

Sounds like the communication was superb here with the US Air birdstrike even without the Mayday call.

[GroundProxGuy]

Looking for opinions on the APU's role in this crash. Honeywell has been making some hay about the WSJ's story stating the APU was powered in the descent, giving the crew full use of the flight control system. I recall reports stating that one engine was at 35% N1 and the RAT was deployed.

If true, doesn't that make the APU's contribution redundant or unused?

Has it been reported/determined if the APU was re-started in flight, or operating continuously since takeoff?

When (after main engine start) is the APU typically shut off? I though operators were shutting them off before takeoff for fuel savings.

I've waded through most of this thread and didn't see this discussed, the Search function returns zero results for "APU" (too short?) and no joy with "auxiliary" (and several misspelled variants).

Thanks!

[Flak Jacket]

"Mayday? Pan? Can be great calls... but have a meaning, particularly when you need "assistance" from ATC. I would tend to reserve their use until:
1. I need assistance from ATC - this flight clearly did not (what help could they offer?)"

May be you don't need assistance straight away but a mayday call, and it doesn't have to be the full shebang, just a Mayday...standby, would alert everybody else on freq that someone has a major emergency and so they should be aware where the priority lies.

Again, not criticising the pilots involved more a discussion between cultures....

[Hanz Blix]

Just throwing this out there but after listening to the tapes a few times it sounds like the first part of the call was cut off by the ATCO talking to another aircraft. This could explain why the Mayday was missing.
My two cents though.............who cares if it was missed the controller got the point.

[Aeronut]

Quote:
Sounds like the callsigns used are Cactus 1529 & 1539 whereas theflight was1549, or maybe I am missing something

And? Did it cause a problem?


No, it did not. Didn't mean to imply this was handled in anything less than terrific fashion. I suppose I was just highlighting my observation skills which pale in comparison to the skills of all involved.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

act700 said:For all involved in the 1549 deal, I'm glad it was NY, and not London, cause without Mayday, they probably would have gotten arrested and violated!
If that's what you think perhaps you'd better not fly in European airspace, no sense exposing yourself to that kind of bureaucracy.... :rolleyes:
The standard format of distress call is a tool to let you practice, in the sim or in other training environments, getting over the information that it would help ATC or SAR, or D&D, to know- the idea being that if it then happens for real you can make the call easily without having to think about it. If you don't have time, no one is going to make a big deal as long as the people who need to know (perhaps in order to clear a runway for you?) getsome kind of warning.
Incidentally, the one time I have made a genuine distress call, I used the standard format but got the reply "err, what?" from ATC!

[daelight]

With the release of the recording between Capt Sullenberger and the controller we can almost experience the amazing events on that cold, clear afternoon.

For people who *still* have to hark on about whether a Mayday was issued it unbelievably clear that this had no effect on the controllers complete attention to this pilot in trouble.

Just a moment 'Mayday freaks' if I maybe so brash as to call you - do you really want to waste any more time on this point? He told the controller ""Hit birds, we lost thrust in both engines, we're turning back towards La Guardia" What more needs to be said here? HIT BIRDS, WE LOST THRUST IN BOTH ENGINES ... sorry to shout it - but for crying out loud it's an aircraft in grave trouble, it is understood from his words and in the shortest of exchanges required. The professionalism of the Captain, from everything we know in this most public accident, is utturly undeniable. The 'Mayday or not' case IS closed. In fact it was never open....

Also, to bring up the point of not saying the flight number correctly - completley irrelevent in the situation at hand. He is less then 2 minutes out and with the same controller who knows excatly who and where he is. This was perhaps the only mistake we hear made by the Captian and shows he actually is a human being and not an immortal God some of us believed and maybe even hoped, he was. He is close though.

The controller is amazing in this. He has a dozen of more vessels to control when this emergency comes at him and yet he handles the situation superbly. The handling of this event is something we can all learn something from.

It was especially 'awesome' to hear the Capt. just say 'unable' - nothing else is said to the controller after this. He is now completley 200% focused on saving the lives of each and every person onboard and who knows how many on the ground as his crippled jet glides over NY toward the Hudson.

An amazing story.

[fauxpaw]

This was perhaps the only mistake we hear made by the Captian and shows he actually is a human being and not an immortal God some of us believed and maybe even hoped, he was. He is close though.

Having read every post in this thread, I don't have the impression that any of us either believed or hoped that the captain was an immortal god. I would further wager that you're the only one who believes that he is close to god-like status.

Sounds like you're hard at work on that made-for-TV script.........:)

[Boeing 777-300ER]

daelight :ok: Great Post

Here in Europe we spend too much time debating about the proper way to do things. In my opinion at times we are full of s..t.

[act700]

Hey, daelight,

I'd say I agree with you on most of what you said, except maybe the God like stuff. I'll leave that to Hollywood.

But I do have one question, about this:
"He is now completley 200% focused on saving the lives of each and every person onboard..."

I would venture to say that at that point he was 200% focused on the task at hand: surviving! Which conveniently helps everybody behind him. After the succesfull ditching, that's when he makes sure all are taken care of.

Not degrading anything he/they did. Just trying to be realistic.

[beardy]

Just an honest question. Some folk here seem very reistant to 'declare an emergency' or say 'mayday' in appropriate circumstances. Why, what is the disadvantage?

[vanHorck]

it s another few seconds you can use doing something else and another few seconds where the radio frequency is blocked for other possibly more pressing information

[vanHorck]

COMPLETE CREW INTERVIEW(S) COMING UP THIS WEEKEND

The Associated Press: CBS to devote entire morning show to hero pilot (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iNOiyWjBBmH8OknIFG_As9823m6QD965N6GG0)

[777300ER]

daelight Great Post

Here in Europe we spend too much time debating about the proper way to do things. In my opinion at times we are full of s..t.

I could not agree more.

[Chief Brody]

Me thinks Eric Moody likes the sound of his own voice on Sky News just a bit too much.

Every time there is an aviation mishap / accident / tragedy he's the first to start rattling on - I realise he's probably on a retainer.

I wouldn't mind so much but most of the time he manages to very quickly start talking about his experience on the jumbo over Indonesia rather than the saliant points of the current topic at hand.

Eric have a little dignity ol' boy and just enjoy your retirement.

[Obie]

Well, whilst a "mayday" call is drilled into all of us from day one of taking a flying lesson, to nominate to all and sundry that an emergency is occurring, I don't really have a problem with someone not declaring an emergency in certain circumstances, due to time constraints, like this one for instance!

But, for some of the turkeys on this thread to state that one should never follow any procedures, under any circumstances, belies belief!

Amateur posters on a professional pilots forum really are a pain in the A*se!!

By the way, does anybody think the release of the CVR tapes to the World is an invasion of privacy?

I certainly do, and I suspect the crew might also!

[Loki]

Obie

Quite! In 30 something years and with a good share of unusual circumstances, I don`t recall anyone using "mayday" and only one "pan" call. If there was any doubt, one only had to say something like "roger, do you wish to declare an emergency?" This always resolved any doubt and gave justification for some unconventional actions. I can only think of one occasion (where I was a bystander) where insufficient information was given on the first call, quickly resolved by that phraseology.

In the case of the Hudson river episode. The pilot made an exemplary call...

1 What happened .....he`d hit birds

2 Consequences....he`s now flying a heavy glider

3 Intentions....trying to return.

I really don`t see how that call would have been improved by adherence to an "ideal" phraseology. However, I agree there are occasions when this might be a good thing to do.

[emjanssen]

Hello,

I think that in the first part of the transmission they block each other out.

The controler gives a heading, followed by a beep and then the you can hear cactus 1549.

So it is possible that he did call a MAYDAY. This is consistent with previous reports from NTSB that a mayday was heard on the flightrecorder.

Talking from my own experience now. When you are in a emergency situation, one tents to forget to listen out on the frequency before making a call. I am not sure that it is the case now, but it is a possibility.

In my case, the first part of my transmission was blocked out by another aircraft. To be more accurate, I blocked out the other aircraft. At that time I didn't have any bits left to notice that the controler didn't read it back. I have learned from that, but I can't promise it will not happen again if I ever end up in the same situation.

I do not agree that a MAYDAY or PAN call is not important, because it is.
Specially in Europe procedures for ATC are based on those calls. A lot of things happen when such calls are being made. A lot of thing also happen when they are not made, but than the decision is made by somebody else and not on your flightdeck. And you can judge the best how bad your situation is.

Rgds
Martijn

[A-Z]

I had an engine failure and forced landing in UK air space early in my career. I had very little time, and it wasn’t practical to complete the “Mayday” call. But it did the job. The UK controllers did a fine job in presenting my options, giving me the estimated surface wind at my location, then getting a helicopter to me to make sure I was OK.

To all those who say it’s all theory and no practical in the Eurozone, I use the example above to rest my case. And to those who say that in USA the operating procedures are ultra safe and close to perfect, consider the practice of clearing an aircraft to land before the one at the threshold has even begun its takeoff roll.

I have ATPLs from both sides of the Atlantic. The knowledge required for both is more or less the same. The difference is in the way they are examined. The FAA written is easy to pass, but a thorough oral exam could take hours, and will require you to know most of the subject matter areas you might find in the 14 JAA exams. The flight tests are similar too. The FAA and JAA ATPL flight test can be completed in the simulator and resembles the annual type rating check (LPC for Eurozoners).

I have full respect for the professionalism of all aircrew and ground staff on both sides of the Atlantic, and would expect us all to be able to exercise the good judgment shown by the people involved in the Hudson incident.

[Tigger_Too]

"Are you declaring an emergency?" the busy departure controller asked.

I hit the ball back over to his side of the net. "Not if you'll clear right back into the field," I replied.

A nine-word answer, which had the potential to leave the controller in some doubt. Why not: "Affirm"?

[charliemouse]

Guys,

MAYDAY - one word. Time to say (at start of first comms with ATC), half a second. You all train to say it in Sim. Sully probably said it but understandably wasn't waiting for a gap in comms. Of course it helps clarify the situation. Of course 'lost both engines' gets the point across. Of course multi-lingual Europe has more need for clarity than US airspace. Europe is more 'beurocratic'? I'm learning nothing here! Can we find something else to talk about on this very interesting thread now please!

On a slightly different point: on a 319-100 last night on a foggy Munich slot, our APU just stopped. The pilot announced this was due to 'fog & ice'. Took 5 minutes to re-start while we sat in the dark. Is this normal? Obviously not a happy event should this duck align with the double engine failure mentioned here or the Capt Moody 747 incident...

(I only really mention this to distract from a boring comms lesson :8)

SLF and usual lurker...

[ONTPax]

Here's an interesting discussion thread about the ungrateful passengers:

throwingstardna: The Survivors Of US Airways Flight 1549 Make Me Hate People (http://throwingstardna.livejournal.com/1021855.html)

These people need to be spanked! :ugh:

ONTPax

[BreezyDC]

does anybody think the release of the CVR tapes to the World is an invasion of privacy?

Obie,

They haven't released the CVR tapes, these are the tower tapes. CVR transcripts are released after study. The tapes are rarely released beyond NTSB and at times law enforcement -- apparently the audio quality is difficult at times anyway.

[forget]

This 'did he say Mayday or not' is painful. The NTSB has already said that the word Mayday was transmitted. It's been pointed out that a conflicting VHF transmission took place between ATC and US Air. The Mayday call is on the CVR (hence the NTSB's statement) - but, as you'd expect, not on the Tower tapes. So that'll make everybody happy. :hmm:

[draughtsman99]

It's the reporter who needs spanked or shot!
Berretta wrote:
I am Fred Berretta and I am disappointed in the angle this reporter took. She called me and asked how I was doing, how I felt US Airways was treating us, to which I replied fantastically. She asked what the right gesture should be and I said I really did not know, maybe a permament upgrade, which I said jokingly as I really don't care. I am grateful we all survived and I thank God for that every day. The pilot and crew are heroes, along with a lot of other people, including many of the passengers. I think most of the passengers feel the same way I do. Just wanted to pass this along.
2/2/2009 6:35 PM EST

[West Coast]

I do not agree that a MAYDAY or PAN call is not important, because it is.Specially in Europe procedures for ATC are based on those calls. A lot of things happen when such calls are being made.

I would imagine that controllers in Europe have the latitude and common sense to invoke whatever emergency procedures are appropriate once an otherwise fully occupied crew says they are landing in the local river, mayday call or not. Correct me if I'm wrong.

From my perspective as a airline pilot I'm trying to figure out what additional assistance Cactus might have received by stating mayday as opposed to what was said. The good Captain might have won a contest amongst the anal pedants out there but it wouldn't have changed anything for the better. There's a time and place for mayday calls, the grace is to know when it's time to simply fly the plane, pass information as needed and let anonymous posters dissect the phraseology and format used to save all aboard.


Leave it to rest people.

[pilotbear]

This hero business is really p*****g me off. The crew did what they were trained to do very professionally and very well. The Captain made the best decision of the choices available to him in a cool and controlled fashion and it worked, FORTUNATELY. Well done. :ok:
Don't know if I would have reacted the same, one would like to thinks so but NO-ONE knows.
BUT no-one was a hero.

A hero is as an example, the guy who dived into the icy, and now oily and fuel polluted Potomac river when that 737 crashed to save the woman who was drowning. He risked his life un-prompted and unpaid to save another. That is a hero. To say this crew were heroic is an insult to people like that.
This is not meant as an insult to him.... no doubt all you who need someone to look up to in order to sleep at night will think it is....

Looking at previous threads and posts, I wonder what all you armchair analysts would be saying about him if the aircraft had broken up, just sunk and everyone had drowned?

Regarding Mayday, if you use it and say nothing else for a few seconds ATC will be on alert immediately, the big red button will be pressed, SAR will have the Rotors running and Fire/rescue will be in the trucks ready to roll, also everyone else will or should shut up.
That 10 seconds could save your life.
That is the purpose. TO GET THE ATTENTION OF ATC. Complaining about using it is just an attempt to justify the lazy attitude people who think the rules or recommended procedures are for everyone else and not for real pilots like them.:ugh:
Sully made a Mayday call, according to the CVR, so all you hero worshippers have now got something to emulate:E

[beardy]

The other aspect of transmitting 'mayday' is that everybody else on frequency hears it and if they have any sense will stay silent or move to another frequency; it is an excellent attention grabber.

I think the message is there is no harm in saying it (nobody has come out with a good reason not to say it) and it will probably do some good, so go on give it a go next time you have a problem, you know it makes sense.

[Jofm5]

There is alot here on this thread and not sure if I missed it being mentioned but one advantage in issuing a mayday would not only be to advise ATC of current situation but also to alert other aircraft on frequency of the requirement for the comms to be kept to a minimum so assitance can be given.

p.s. I do understand from the CVR that a mayday was issued but communications interrupted it - perhaps this is where technology could be used to improve dialogue.

[forget]

I do understand from the CVR that a mayday was issued but communications interrupted it - perhaps this is where technology could be used to improve dialogue.

Something like this perhaps? :hmm: Pity it doesn't actually exist.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/CONTRAN1-1.jpg

[emjanssen]

Regarding Mayday, if you use it and say nothing else for a few seconds ATC will be on alert immediately, the big red button will be pressed, SAR will have the Rotors running and Fire/rescue will be in the trucks ready to roll, also everyone else will or should shut up.
That 10 seconds could save your life.
That is the purpose. TO GET THE ATTENTION OF ATC. Complaining about using it is just an attempt to justify the lazy attitude people who think the rules or recommended procedures are for everyone else and not for real pilots like them.
Sully made a Mayday call, according to the CVR, so all you hero worshippers have now got something to emulate

I agree.

I would like to add something. In my opinion it is also a matter of who is responsible for what. Because that is the main reason for possible time delay for SAR.

After my incident (a wheel weel fire warning after take-off on a 737) I visited ATC to thank them. During that visit I had a really good conversation with several air traffic controllers. We talked a lot about the subject.
For them it's much harder to asses a situation than it is for us. The procedures are made for the grey areas. For the "is it a mayday or not" incidents. By doing it myself I win valuable time. When I don't, I know one thing for sure, I loose valuable time. For that reason I am very interested at what time the "redbutton" was pressed in this incident. Not to criticize the crew of cactus 1549, but to learn. Now everything worked perfectly, but suppose the incident would have happened 2 hours later. Every second delay of SAR would have been critical for the survival change of the passengers.

Another thing which I am interested in if 7700 was set on the box. During my own emergency I didn't think of it, but I know for sure that I will try to do it next time, because It saves so much communication for ATC in the adjacent control area's. On all the radar screens the flight turns red by itself. No need to ask any questions. Traffic is directed away without asking questions to the controller. This saves "bits" for the controller who is very busy with the emergency.

In my opinion captain Sully and his crew did a great job, but we (the avation industry) can still learn from great jobs.

I am really looking forward to the interview on 60 minutes.

Rgds
Martijn

[Marsh Hawk]

Perhaps the calm and collected professionals who do their job well usually don't make the news. We instead hear about the screw ups and the greedy CEOs driving companies into the ground but still getting their bonuses. Sully and crew seem "heroic" in comparison to a public desperate for news of truly honorable and competent professionals.

[Jofm5]

My initial thoughts were along different lines.....

Voice recognition has got very good these days hence there are these irritating automated telephone services where you speak your bank details etc.

Simply having a box that interprets what is being transmitted into text and that being broadcast digitally on a different freqency to an ancillary screen for the ATC where keywords such as PAN and Mayday highlighted in red (or any colour) for attention.

In the case of mayday/pan identification it would be also be possible for this broadcast of text to be picked up on other aircraft with said equipment and for their flight decks to be made aware a situation is in progress.

I dont know that anything like this exists specifically targeted at the aviation industry but we use VoiceXML alot at the telco I am working at and it works very well. The W3C's Speech Interface Framework's Grammar specification and the semantic Interpretation specificatons (SRGS & SISR) wouldbe easy to fit in to such a product and the interactivity left out. Coupling this technology with a digital transceiver I dont think would be too much of a challenge and not that expensive.

[Mark in CA]

Sully's initial reaction to the event was "disbelief." This Sunday, the U.S. TV show 60 Minutes will have the first interview with Sully, and he discusses his initial reaction in the teaser video the network has now posted on their web site:

Sully On The Record Video - CBSNews.com (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4778932n)

For those unable to view this show, I believe the video will be available here:

60 Minutes - Video, Reports, Profiles, Interviews - CBSNews.com (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/60minutes/)

sometime after the U.S. broadcast (this Sunday, 7 p.m. Eastern and Pacific times))

[precept]

************************************************************
NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
February 6, 2009
************************************************************
NTSB DETAILS TYPES OF COMMUNICATIONS INVOLVING US AIRWAYS
FLIGHT 1549
************************************************************
Due to the intense interest in the recorded communications
between the pilot of the US Airways aircraft that ditched
into the Hudson River on January 15 of this year, and air
traffic control, the NTSB has provided a brief explanation
of what these communications entail, as well as the
difference between the air traffic control (ATC) recording
and that of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR).
The ATC recordings capture the radio transmissions between
air traffic controllers and pilots on a specific radio
frequency reserved for use in aeronautical communications.
ATC transmissions are carried over the public airways and
can be monitored in real time by anyone with a radio tuned
to the appropriate frequency.
The ATC recording primarily captures two types of
communications: 1) the radio transmissions between the air
traffic controllers and pilots of the numerous aircraft on
that frequency, and 2) communications by air traffic
controllers made by radio, phone or other direct electronic
audio link to other ATC facilities.
In the case of the ATC recordings related to the ditching of
US Airways flight 1549, which were released by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) this week, the controller at
the New York TRACON LaGuardia Departure facility
communicated with a total of 14 entities - aircraft and
other controllers at ATC facilities - all of which were
recorded.
The recording captured by the cockpit voice recorder (CVR)
is different from that of the ATC recording. Whereas the
bulk of the ATC recording captures the radio transmissions
between air traffic controllers and pilots, the CVR, by way
of a microphone mounted on the overhead instrument panel and
microphones in the headsets worn by the pilots, records all
of the sounds inside the cockpit, including the
communications with ATC.
In addition to recording all conversations between the
pilots themselves and between the pilots and ground and
cabin crew, the CVR captures sounds such as engine noise,
automated warnings, landing gear extension and retraction,
and other sounds that may yield information on the functions
being performed inside the cockpit as well as those related
to the operation of the aircraft.
A CVR committee, usually consisting of members from the
NTSB, FAA, operator of the aircraft, manufacturer of the
airplane, manufacturer of the engines, and the pilots union,
is formed to listen to the recording. This committee creates
a written transcript of the CVR audio to be used during the
investigation. This transcript is released by the NTSB
either at the time of a public hearing, or if there is no
hearing, at the time the accident docket is opened to the
public. The timeline for either of these events is usually
six months or more into the investigation. In the United
States, the actual CVR audio recording is protected by law
and is never released to the public.
# # #
NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson, (202) 314-6100
[email protected]
************************************************************

[LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK]

West Coast, I may disagree with you vehemently on JB, but I concur. I can't believe this post mortem is still going on. Everyone got out safely and the plane didn't break into little pieces unlike other ditchings.

The aircraft reached 3,000ft right ? Only non-aviators would fail to comprehend how little time that leaves to advise the cabin crew and passengers, inform ATC of intentions, look for a runway, attempt to run a check-list with his F/O, fly the aircraft and then have the presence of mind to deal with the aftermath of the ditching.

No ditching button or no May Day call ? So what ? The Captain did a bloody good job in the 3 or so minutes he had.

[X13CDX]

Does anyone have a link of where I could view the interview on 60 minutes with Captain Sully in full? I have searched the whole of CBS.com n youtube n not been able to find anything but the teaser video..?!

[kappa]

It hasn't been telecast yet. It will be at 1900 Eastern US time on 8 Feb.

[barit1]

In post #1350, smith quoted an opinionated piece:
Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water. In a older generation airplane like the 727 or 737 300/400 the throttles are hooked to the fuel controllers on the engine by a steel throttle cable just like a TBM or a Comanche. On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real. Everything is electronic. The throttles, rudder and brake pedals and the side stick are hooked to rheostats who talk to a computer who talks to a electric hydraulic servo valve which in turn hopefully moves something.


Since then I've received the identical message from several different sources, so I took a little time to research & write a rebuttal:

There is much garbage in this...

For example the "Airbus A320 Crash at the Paris Airshow in 1998" is wrong in terms of location, date (a decade off) and causative factors. The facts are totally screwed up; it's written by someone who can't shoot straight. But it is not unusual to receive such summary judgments after any accident.

(That's not to say you won't find Google references to a 1998 Paris airshow crash, but the simple fact is that the Paris Air Show (Salon International de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace, Paris-Le Bourget) is held every other year - in ODD NUMBERED YEARS! )

Further, the implication that cables and pulleys are somehow superior to fly-by-wire ignores the fact that pulleys can jam, cables fray and break, etc. An elevator cable fracture caused a Air Moorea Twin Otter crash (9 August 2007). Northwest Airlines Flight 706 L-188 Electra crashed shortly after takeoff from O'Hare (1961) because an aileron cable failed. Further - I've seen or heard of incidents where an engine could not be shut down, ran away and destroyed itself because of cable-pulley rigging errors.

I agree completely with Sully's statement that they did "what they were trained to do". Sully's shining moment came the instant he decided that any
airport was out of gliding range. The rest was simply doing the job under tough conditions.

[kappa]

I believe all will agree that Matthew Wald, an aviation writer at The New York Times, interpreted the audio well. Here is the link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/nyregion/06crash.html?_r=1).

[Haaatschi]

I scoured the web a little for the air times. Here are my results. Bare with me if something is missing or incorrect but I have set my Tivo to record all of the below.

60 minutes, CBS, Sunday night
Good Morning America, ABC, Monday morning
The Early Show, CBS, also Monday morning (the entire show is dedicated to the event)
Press conference and keys to city NY, Monday afternoon
David Letterman, Tuesday night, CBS
Larry King, Tuesday night (postponed form Monday), CNN

[Graybeard]

The Contran shown in post 1465 was conceived by an airline Capt. in the US, in response to the KLM/PanAM collision on Tenerife in 1977. He patented the device, which needs be only some simple added circuitry in a VHF Comm, not a separate LRU, Line Replaceable Unit.

Even VHF Comm design engineers, while not the brightest at most manufacturers, could see the drawbacks to the idea. In busy airspace, pilots would soon get in the habit of keying the mic before the present transmission is finished, in order to be next to talk. As soon as two or more do that at the same time, the system is fragged.

There may have been other factors that doomed it, such as NIH, Not Invented Here.

GB

[HM79]

From the atc perspective, any aircraft that has recently departed and asks to return to the airport I consider an emergency, period!!! Until otherwise informed.

The fire and rescue companies at JFK would ALWAYS and I say again for emphasis ALWAYS rather be at the runway ready for a problem, than have to react. When atc requests a response the fire trucks respond and in my career I have never been nor have I ever heard anybody else questioned as to the validity of the request.

Aircraft at JFK do not return for fun. It's my job to get you back to the airport as fast and as safely as possible, I will do that first and ask the reason why later. You have a good reason, I'm sure and when the flight crew has the time and inclination they will share that information but from the controllers perspective, at least initially, it is not germain.

[tocamak]

The discussion on "Mayday" or not has centred around the assumption that the level of the problem is quite clear to ATC and others from a pretty clear message from the crew; "hit birds, lost power on both engines" . But what about similar problem from a crew less adept at English in a country where the language does not coincide at all. At a time of stress people will revert quickly to their native tongue (or all the time in France!) so at least "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" will cut to the chase straight away.

[Pontius Navigator]

The discussion on "Mayday" or not has centred around the assumption that the level of the problem is quite clear to ATC and others from a pretty clear message from the crew; "hit birds, lost power on both engines" . But what about similar problem from a crew less adept at English in a country where the language does not coincide at all. At a time of stress people will revert quickly to their native tongue (or all the time in France!) so at least "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" will cut to the chase straight away.

This leads well into what I was going to say and I am not talking about this accident but about the US-Europe spilt between how an emergency is declared.

This airspace may have been in US airspace and relate to a US domestic flight. This airspace is not however US domestic airspace but US airspace in an international terminal area. The only way that you can be sure that everyone, not just the local ATC, is aware is to use the proper international prowords.

Slick, smart alec answers are fine out in the boondocks but not where non-native speakers are also present. There is a European country, not far from UK and Germany where aircrews and ATC use the national language; doesn't make it right though.

[forget]

I suppose this is on topic as (an inconsequential) simultaneous VHF transmission took place.

Graybeard. The Contran shown in post 1465 was conceived by an airline Capt. in the US, in response to the KLM/PanAM collision on Tenerife in 1977.

Interesting post Graybeard, and almost totally wrong. Contran was indeed conceived following the Tenerife disaster - but not by your US airline captain. That would be a Mr Rutty, in my personal experience a :mad: little man – in my opinion of course.

He patented the device. He didn’t – Contran Patents were all in my name. What he did Patent was a system so simplified that it was, for all practical purposes, useless. And he had the gall to use, as part of his US Patent Application, a letter of mine to Flight International describing Contran.

…. a device which needs be only some simple added circuitry in a VHF Comm, not a separate LRU, Line Replaceable Unit.

Therein lies the difference. Rutty was a DC-10 captain, I fixed avionics. Following me? Take a look at the US Patent Office records and see the not so subtle differences.

Even VHF Comm designers could see the drawbacks to the idea. … pilots would soon get in the habit of keying the mic before the present transmission is finished, in order to be next to talk. As soon as two or more do that at the same time, the system is fragged.

Wrong! Again, ……… see the not so subtle differences. (do you really think that an RTCA, FAA TSO’d and UK CAA Approved piece of kit would allow that?)

There may have been other factors that doomed it, such as NIH, Not Invented Here.

Two things mainly. Rutty’s unworkable lash up, and his constant pounding on US doors (including his Senator’s) left the whole anti-blocking programme with a credibility problem. Secondly, the abysmal support of the Contran licensed manufacturer caused even those who’d fitted the system to lose interest. Apart from Airbus that is, which couldn’t see a problem so refused to action formal requests from airlines to provision passenger aircraft – but equipped their own Beluga transports. Aircraft wings from UK being more valuable than pax. :hmm:

To get back to your ‘the system is fragged’. Boeing carried out their own human factors lab tests and, as a result, offered the kit as a customer option. Proof? See below. Maybe it’s time to resurrect it.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/767CONTRAN.jpg

[protectthehornet]

maybe I'm the only one here who thinks things didn't go that well on the old radio.

both the controller and pilot used the wong call sign...ok, not critical in this situation.

BUT.

it is obvious to me that each runway offered by atc to the crew was pretty darn far in terms of flying distance. Runway 1 at TEB and runway 4 (initially) at LGA would require alot of flying...it was obvious to me that the controller did not understand that the plane wasn't flying so much as gliding downhill.


Runway 1 at TEB would have required a downwind, base and final...runway 19(or even 24) at TEB, the same piece of pavement mind you, was more like a modified left base.

To go to runway 4 at LGA was back to the runway of departure...again sort of a long downwind, base and final...runway 13, offered later,seems to indicate that the controller was beginning to understand the limits of this situation.

The first couple of runway offers may have confused the situation a bit...mind you I can't verify that TEB 19(or 24) was makeable or even 13 at LGA, and I'm not suggesting that the hudson wasn't the best choice. BUT, we must communicate and a full understanding of the problem took a few seconds.

I do suggest that we come up with a new radio phrase. REPEATING SULLY,SULLY,SULLY indicates to air traffic control that the plane is now gliding and at best can go 3 miles per thousand feet of altitude above the terrain. This call would also trigger alerting air sea ground rescue units, stop all traffic at all airports nearby and fulfill the ''declaration of emergency'' requirement.

[Admiral346]

REPEATING SULLY,SULLY,SULLY indicates to air traffic control that the plane is now gliding and at best can go 3 miles per thousand feet of altitude above the terrain. This call would also trigger alerting air sea ground rescue units, stop all traffic at all airports nearby and fulfill the ''declaration of emergency'' requirement.


I hereby sign your petition!

Nic

[bubbers44]

I think Sully could look out of his window and see what his options were. Talking to ATC was a waste of time because they couldn't help him in any way other than alert rescue people. I am looking to hear his side of the event tomorrow night on 60 minutes.

[HotDog]

I'm not that impressed

protectthehornet, ATC has to offer whatever landing options are available for a return but only the pilots flying are able to evaluate the suitability of those options. Why are you unimpressed by that?:confused:

[protectthehornet]

atc can and should offer options of landing...but why did they offer the runways that took the greatest flying distance,and not the shortest flying distance...I think it is because it was not fully realizeed that the plane was powerless...hence my suggestion for a new radio phrase.

[AMF]

protectthehornet hotdog

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
atc can and should offer options of landing...but why did they offer the runways that took the greatest flying distance,and not the shortest flying distance...I think it is because it was not fully realizeed that the plane was powerless...hence my suggestion for a new radio phrase.

I'd submit the controller offered those runways (and airports) quickly and off the top of his head because they were probably the active runways (northbound departures) in use at that time for those airports which, as the TRACON controller, he would have fully known. It's also well-understood by any controller that the pilot can elect to land any way he damn well chooses on any runway and fly any pattern while excercizing his emergency authority.

I see his offers as giving the pilots airport options, and shouldn't be construed as him assuming the aircraft was still powered and could fly traffic patterns to those specific runways instead of landing on its reciprocal as the situation dictated, since conditions were VMC.

[ATCNetwork]

'forget'

not discounting that this system would be beneficiary to R/t but can you explain which part of the incident it might have changed?

[bubbers44]

If they did get a relight and could make a normal approach to a runway the info was important. Since they remained a glider it wasn't. At the time they were communicating restoring power to an engine was still in question. All involved did a fine job of doing the best they could with what they had.

[AMF]

pilotbear quote..
Regarding Mayday, if you use it and say nothing else for a few seconds ATC will be on alert immediately, the big red button will be pressed, SAR will have the Rotors running and Fire/rescue will be in the trucks ready to roll, also everyone else will or should shut up.

beardy quote.. Location: UK
The other aspect of transmitting 'mayday' is that everybody else on frequency hears it and if they have any sense will stay silent or move to another frequency; it is an excellent attention grabber.[/

Jofm5 quote.. Location: LONDON
There is alot here on this thread and not sure if I missed it being mentioned but one advantage in issuing a mayday would not only be to advise ATC of current situation but also to alert other aircraft on frequency of the requirement for the comms to be kept to a minimum so assitance can be given.[/

People, you should be maintaining the highest standards of listening watch, and keeping your long-winded, drawn-out responses to directions and non-essential requests out of the R/T picture and off the airwaves even when there's no emergency aircraft. Requests for "track miles" (can't you see where the traffic flow is being vectored on your TCAS or level-off altitudes are charted?) or reporting established on the approach when not asked or required to do so by the pertinent country's regulations and other extraneous transmissions only bog down the system and block critical transmissions. This is especially true in the NY area where TRACON is dealing with just as many departures and arrivals out of Teterboro, White Plains etc, located in the immediate vicinity as they are out of JFK, LGA, and EWR.

In other words, hearing a "MAYDAY" call by another aircraft should by no means alter what you should have already been doing. Nobody wants to hear you ramble on while THEY are trying to listen-up for their own call sign even in normal, busy times.

Beardy, I hope you NEVER just decide to just "move to another frequency" because you hear an emergency aircraft on freq and think its best. You may be the aircraft the controller needs to vector out of the way. And you shouldn't be yakking anyway...the next controller you suprise with your presence doesn't want to hear or listen to you explaining why you unillaterally decided to show up..if he's the next sector he may be busy on the land lines with the emergency aircraft controller. He's got his own traffic and may be having sent more his way while the other is clearing airpace. What you suggest is quite the opposite of good sense. Change freq, or standby, when you're instructed to.

pilotbea quote..That is the purpose. TO GET THE ATTENTION OF ATC. Complaining about using it is just an attempt to justify the lazy attitude people who think the rules or recommended procedures are for everyone else and not for real pilots like

Nobody's complaining about the use of "Mayday", or advocating it NOT be used. Feel free to "Mayday" until you're blue in in the face if you think it helps your situation. However, people are trying to explain to the pendants who seem to think only by using that specfic term that responses....even immediate ones...are initiated by ATC, and therefore the subsequent CFR/SAR assets. In the US, this is NOT the case. Certainly a "Mayday" call will initiate those responses, but as the TRACON tapes show, Cpt Sully's "Mayday" call was blocked but it didn't matter. And not because of luck, but because of the system. His brief description of the situation, deviation off cleared route, and his statement they were returning to the airport... showed to the Controller that Capt Sully was exercizing his EMERGENCY Authority as oulined in the Regs, and the controller experienced no confusion about what this means or is..it's an EMERGENCY when a PIC does so...and immediately responded by alerting LGA and began looking for other airports for the distressed aircraft.


When the Tracon controller land-lined LGA and told them to hold the T/Os because of a returning aircraft with reported loss of thrust on both engines the Local Controllers there undoubtedly sent the alert to CFR personnel on the field. So what's the problem? If anything it shows that the US system doesn't break down in this regard due to one blocked, specific term.

I do 99% of my flying overseas now and of course I'd use "Mayday" as a lead-off transmission to express an emergency situation as standard convention and common sense dictate when dealing with either pedantic or English-as-2nd-language controllers. But those like the retired BA TV Captain and some here who pontificate that it's THE (only) keystone trigger to emergency response actions by ATC and/or CFR or insinuate that not using is unprofessional are just dead wrong. In the rest of the world yes, but in US, where this event occurred, it's not the case. Controllers are allowed to think and independently act even if the aircraft doesn't have time/or is able to transmit a thing.

And to reiterate. Any pilot who needs to hear a "Mayday" on freq to realize that they "should shut up", "stay silent", or "comms to be kept to a minimum", really has no business flying in saturated airspace like the US Northeast corridor in the first place, if anywhere. There's nothing more annoying than being subjected to some R/T vainglorious tw@t who loves to hear himself on the radio.

[Airbubba]

February 8, 2009

Hudson 'Miracle' Pilot Gets Applause on Broadway

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 5:04 a.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- Weeks after starring in his own story of bravery and heroism, the pilot who safely ditched his jetliner in the Hudson River received a standing ovation Saturday from the audience at a Broadway performance of ''South Pacific.''

At the end of the classic revival, the show's stars introduced Capt. Chesley ''Sully'' Sullenberger as the pilot who set down the disabled plane within reach of rescue boats last month, saving the lives of all 155 people on US Airways Flight 1549.

''It could have been tragic, but it wasn't. It became a miracle,'' said Kelli O'Hara, who plays the show's lead female character, Nellie Forbush. ''We've never been more honored than to perform for you, Captain.''

As she spoke, a spotlight was trained on Sullenberger in the audience, and the crowd stood, cheered and applauded. The pilot's wife, Lorrie Sullenberger, began wiping tears from her face.

He hugged her, then turned back to the crowd and waved as the cheers grew still louder...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02/08/arts/AP-Plane-Splashdown-Pilot.html

:ok:

And, for the R/T freaks, more on the emergency response here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/nyregion/08plane.html?pagewanted=all

[forget]

ATCNetwork, not discounting that this system would be beneficiary to R/t but can you explain which part of the incident it might have changed?

Probably none. As I said - an inconsequential simultaneous VHF transmission took place. The matter came up as someone suggested a technical fix was needed for conflicting comms.

[Rananim]

Requests for "track miles" (can't you see where the traffic flow is being vectored on your TCAS or level-off altitudes are charted?) or reporting established on the approach when not asked or required to do so by the pertinent country's regulations and other extraneous transmissions only bog down the system and block critical transmissions

I hope you NEVER just decide to just "move to another frequency" because you hear an emergency aircraft on freq and think its best. You may be the aircraft the controller needs to vector out of the way

100% correct.Too much clutter out there,esp in EU.Keep it short.Keep it simple.

[beardy]

Sorry, I didn't express myself very well about 'moving to another frequency.' I don't advocate it, but it remains an option in some circumstances (perhaps when you just about to go off the frequency in use anyway) and would not execute a silent change, that would damage the controllers situational awareness. However, I would never say never.

I can see why it is not always necessary to say 'mayday,' but, I still can't see any disadvantages in saying it, it's use does resolve any doubt, it is unambiguous.

[protectthehornet]

it might offer a starting point for more thoughts if the actual transcript appears here...perhaps the CBS website will have it in a day or so.

[keith smith]

We all know that Sully and crew performed expertly and immaculately-but what would have happened if cloudbase had been a thousand feet? Is there a case , especially for crews that do not have a deep knowledge of important critical local conditions (for example, nearby runways,nature of populations and buildings, including height) . Nav input could be basic GPS including altitude. Suitable provider could be combination of Google maps and Jepperson
Keith

[Robert Campbell]

I think the Hudson 1 GPS approach should be implemented immediately! Notify Jeppeson.

[bubbers44]

Nice 60 minutes display. I think Sully did it well.

[VFD]

I watched part of the 60 min interview and Sully did acknowledge that he declared a "Mayday"

Now while listening to the ATC recordings I noticed quite a few noises indicating that we were only getting to hear part of the comms.

As previously indicated the CVR will not be made public, and only parts that are of the best interest of the FAA/NTSB will be made available as news releases. What will be released will have to pass muster of all parties involved from the pilots union, aircraft manufacturer, engine manufacturer, US Airways, the list will be extensive.

Even with the excellent outcome of a no win situation you can rest assured that the crew got a professional grilling. Then after 10 of thousands of man hours by hundreds of specialist and six months to a year to think about it someone will come up with a different recommendation that the crew was suppose to perform in the seconds they had.

I have noticed lately that as far as NTSB is concerned they have been releasing information in a manner that has been at best misleading. The CO incident at Denver in particular seemed very misleading. Especially the comment about the unusual noises then several days later commenting that they came after the aircraft left the runway.

[flown-it]

Captain Sully is quite clear in his interview just broadcast in the States on "60 minutes" . His first words were "MAYDAY MAYDAY"
QED!