Opinions vary.
If I'd known there was going to be an Act II I would have bought more popcorn.
Last edited by MickG0105; 11th Apr 2021 at 08:05. Reason: Better idea
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opions vary
I did not Walter Mitty was still around. I have heard everything.The wannabees are still alive and still aluve and dreaming.
Sully did a wonderfull job on getting his stricken A/C down on the Hudson that guy critisim is totally unwarrented, his idea if what he could have done are outa THE WALTER MITTY MANUAL TO SAFE FLYING .....THINK THATS COVERED ON PAGE 13.
DREAM ON BROTHER.
Sully did a wonderfull job on getting his stricken A/C down on the Hudson that guy critisim is totally unwarrented, his idea if what he could have done are outa THE WALTER MITTY MANUAL TO SAFE FLYING .....THINK THATS COVERED ON PAGE 13.
DREAM ON BROTHER.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What started the questioning was that Sully did not maker a hard turn into wind and commence a glide approach. The established industry wisdom until about ten years before the accident was that a turbo jet twin can always make it back to the departure airport. The FAA would probably have been staffed by vastly experienced pilots of the "old school". If using full power and a simple climb then that opinion would previously have been correct, They however may have been using reduced power for take off or in the middle climb The fan engines may have been producing huge drag when seized or windmilling. The folks in the FAA found this challenging as it did not fit what they thought was the norm and so they started to seek an explanation, the obvious one as always was pilot incompetence. Only when the error was shown to them by trusted people did they start to reconsider. I flew the 737 3/4/500 for many years and we often discussed this problem, it was noticeable that ex military people favoured the prompt hard turn glide approach solution rather than thinking first and potentially missing the curve. Solly decided as he was paid to do and landed smoothly in an area free of obstruction, no one died. The assumption that he was not paying attention seems grossly unfair to me
One second according to the CVR. Work on the basis that about 0.25 seconds elapsed between when he actually saw them and when he made the call.
Of course the difference is, this was meant to be funny.
Last edited by MickG0105; 11th Apr 2021 at 23:29. Reason: Comment
Nunc est bibendum
Just after Sully’s adventure I (and likely a bunch of others) tried the turn back in the sim- a 767 in my case. It was a SYD 16R DEENA departure. I think we gave it a crack about a dozen times. We made it back only once or twice. I don’t think we made it back with the engine failures happening at any stage below 3,000’. We were also mentally prepped to not stuff about and turn immediately. On one of the turn backs about 3,000’ we would have ended up pranging into the Seawall short of the 34L threshold. 3,500 may have been the lowest we made it back and even then we were clean and accelerating so had a bit more energy.
I don’t know the layout of the airports around LGA or what SID he was flying but any return from below 3,000’ would have been very sporting with no margin at all for error. The least risk option was to put it in the water where people would have been far more likely to survive than put it on the streets short of LGA or Teterboro and have everyone die.
Sounds like great airmanship to me. Hopefully the clown with 7 ATPLs has retired!
I don’t know the layout of the airports around LGA or what SID he was flying but any return from below 3,000’ would have been very sporting with no margin at all for error. The least risk option was to put it in the water where people would have been far more likely to survive than put it on the streets short of LGA or Teterboro and have everyone die.
Sounds like great airmanship to me. Hopefully the clown with 7 ATPLs has retired!
Last edited by Keg; 11th Apr 2021 at 23:09.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, but there's always one or two.
I had a stoush in here years ago with some clown saying it was unfair to criticize the Turkish 737 crew who crashed at Schiphol while praising Sully- like an Auto-throttle malfunction was the same thing as the loss of both engines!
I've had bird-strikes (notably, one out of Schiphol- the effing sea-gulls there are bigger than wedgetails!) and the idea you can see, reactt, and Bob Hoover a jet over or under them is beyond ridiculous.
Guy's an obvious troll- always remember that Abraham Lincoln quote-"Don't believe everything you read on the internet!"
I had a stoush in here years ago with some clown saying it was unfair to criticize the Turkish 737 crew who crashed at Schiphol while praising Sully- like an Auto-throttle malfunction was the same thing as the loss of both engines!
I've had bird-strikes (notably, one out of Schiphol- the effing sea-gulls there are bigger than wedgetails!) and the idea you can see, reactt, and Bob Hoover a jet over or under them is beyond ridiculous.
Guy's an obvious troll- always remember that Abraham Lincoln quote-"Don't believe everything you read on the internet!"
Yeah, but there's always one or two.
I had a stoush in here years ago with some clown saying it was unfair to criticize the Turkish 737 crew who crashed at Schiphol while praising Sully- like an Auto-throttle malfunction was the same thing as the loss of both engines!
I've had bird-strikes (notably, one out of Schiphol- the effing sea-gulls there are bigger than wedgetails!) and the idea you can see, reactt, and Bob Hoover a jet over or under them is beyond ridiculous.
Guy's an obvious troll- always remember that Abraham Lincoln quote-"Don't believe everything you read on the internet!"
I had a stoush in here years ago with some clown saying it was unfair to criticize the Turkish 737 crew who crashed at Schiphol while praising Sully- like an Auto-throttle malfunction was the same thing as the loss of both engines!
I've had bird-strikes (notably, one out of Schiphol- the effing sea-gulls there are bigger than wedgetails!) and the idea you can see, reactt, and Bob Hoover a jet over or under them is beyond ridiculous.
Guy's an obvious troll- always remember that Abraham Lincoln quote-"Don't believe everything you read on the internet!"
Exchange speed for height is an interesting conundrum. Many years ago we did a wee bit of research on what was best. Maintaining height until at the glide speed or zooming till glide speed. Varying conditions, temp, weight, height etc. gave slightly varying results about which put you into the cone for making the airfield. One of the benefits of gaining height was a slight increase in time to make D’s (as one was not concentrating so much on retrimming as speed bleed off to maintain altitude).
Suffice to say a very difficult situation that was handled well with no lives lost with kudo's to the pilot, Sully, for making a D (better to make a D than sit and do nothing).
Suffice to say a very difficult situation that was handled well with no lives lost with kudo's to the pilot, Sully, for making a D (better to make a D than sit and do nothing).
On the matter of speed for height, just how much speed are you going to trade off? You're going to be looking for green dot aren't you?
According to the NTSB report
The report also states that
According to the NTSB report
... the green dot speed would have been about 223 kts.
... the airplane reached its highest altitude of about 3,060 feet at an airspeed of about 185 kts calibrated airspeed (KCAS).
I always thought that you would be better trading excess speed for altitude since there’s no point in squandering some of that energy in the higher drag speed range. At low altitudes/speeds on departure its a moot point anyway.
in this link are the grim stories of lots of bird strikes. Not too many happy outcomes.
Significant bird strike events
in this link are the grim stories of lots of bird strikes. Not too many happy outcomes.
Significant bird strike events
The problem with that is the very act of changing your AofA to increase Cl and thus "trade speed for height" creates drag. Maintaining 1g and letting the speed bleed off to best glide is probably going to be the most efficient move.
Two things..
Firstly the comment about never trying to fly under a flock of water fowl because their natural instinct is to dive away, is spot on.
Secondly, I’ve flown that departure out of LGA numerous times and in my personal opinion, when you consider where he hit the birds, there was simply nowhere else to put the aircraft given the loss of power. JFK, EWR and TEB or even turning back to LGA were all out of the question. It was the only long and flat space in one of the most densely packed cities in NA.
At the end of the day, he made a decision and everyone walked away. Learn what you can from it and hope you’re never in the same situation.
Firstly the comment about never trying to fly under a flock of water fowl because their natural instinct is to dive away, is spot on.
Secondly, I’ve flown that departure out of LGA numerous times and in my personal opinion, when you consider where he hit the birds, there was simply nowhere else to put the aircraft given the loss of power. JFK, EWR and TEB or even turning back to LGA were all out of the question. It was the only long and flat space in one of the most densely packed cities in NA.
At the end of the day, he made a decision and everyone walked away. Learn what you can from it and hope you’re never in the same situation.
In that same pointless and ill-informed vein, as a highly experienced 747 driver for 36 years I wonder how much extra climb capability he would have been accustomed to having at his disposal one minute after takeoff? An unplanned increased rate of climb would almost certainly not have been available on the Classic when fully loaded, and I doubt he ever flew one of those out of LGA.
