"Brace for Impact"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Brace for Impact"
I have just watched the one hour Discovery Channel program about the USAir flight into the Hudson river. Apparently this flight was operated without cabin crew!! There is no mention of their contribution to saving the lives of the 150 passengers.
Does anyone know why they were omitted??
Does anyone know why they were omitted??
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: england
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure why the programme did not mention cabin crew.Have not seen it.
According to reports there were 3 cabin crew on board, 2 at the front and 1 at the rear.The ones at the front opened the doors and evacuated passengers on to the slide rafts.The crew member at the back opened her door and did the same.Whilst this was going on a passenger panicked and opened a door.Not knowing the procedures this turned out not to be a good idea as that let in water into the cabin. The crew member then had to attempt to get that door shut.
You can read all this on wikipaedia.
Still not sure why there was no mention on the programme you watched.
According to reports there were 3 cabin crew on board, 2 at the front and 1 at the rear.The ones at the front opened the doors and evacuated passengers on to the slide rafts.The crew member at the back opened her door and did the same.Whilst this was going on a passenger panicked and opened a door.Not knowing the procedures this turned out not to be a good idea as that let in water into the cabin. The crew member then had to attempt to get that door shut.
You can read all this on wikipaedia.
Still not sure why there was no mention on the programme you watched.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colton, CA
Age: 68
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can read all this on wikipaedia.
Isn't that the site where anyone can jump in and add their two cents worth, truthful or not?
Well, okay, I guess I'll add my two cents worth. The story I heard was that there was a version of events offered by the rear-most flight attendant that the investigators couldn't corroborate. She claimed a passenger took it upon himself to open the rear door. The Feds, through subsequent interviews and statements, were unable to ascertain who this person was.
Could it be that, with all the confusion going on, the FA herself may have opened the door and then later, realizing her error, tried to cover her tracks? No doubt the captain did an excellent job bringing the plane down. His terse statement, "Brace for impact!", however, did not shed light upon the fact that they were going to be making a water landing. That tidbit of information, passed along, may have made a significant difference.
While probably insignificant, something I noticed in the 60 Minutes interview of the crew and at other appearances, all of the members of the flight crew appeared in their uniforms, except the woman who worked the rear of the aircraft. She wore her street clothes. Was there a message there somewhere that she was trying to tell us?
Sully, Flight 1549 Crew Talk to Katie Couric on ‘60 Minutes’ - The Middle Seat Terminal - WSJ
ONTPax
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: england
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you don't like wikipedia I will come from a different angle.
Before the hearing, Associated Press published an article that said at the hearing a witness would come forward to say that it was the flight attendant who opened the door.This can no longer be viewed on line.
At the hearing passenger Billy Campbell who was sitting in seat 25A said that a panicking female passenger pushed past the crew member and opened the door.
After this a formal apology was made by associated press to the crew member.This can be viewed online using local papers for 9th June 2009.
At the end of the hearing it was said "The highly experienced US Airways flight and cabin crew performed their duties in an admirable fashion."
I am always happy to stand corrected and would be interested to read any information that contradicts this or suggeats that a male passenger was involved.
Before the hearing, Associated Press published an article that said at the hearing a witness would come forward to say that it was the flight attendant who opened the door.This can no longer be viewed on line.
At the hearing passenger Billy Campbell who was sitting in seat 25A said that a panicking female passenger pushed past the crew member and opened the door.
After this a formal apology was made by associated press to the crew member.This can be viewed online using local papers for 9th June 2009.
At the end of the hearing it was said "The highly experienced US Airways flight and cabin crew performed their duties in an admirable fashion."
I am always happy to stand corrected and would be interested to read any information that contradicts this or suggeats that a male passenger was involved.
Sly Lowlife Freight
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt the captain did an excellent job bringing the plane down. His terse statement, "Brace for impact!", however, did not shed light upon the fact that they were going to be making a water landing. That tidbit of information, passed along, may have made a significant difference.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the passengers noted that the CC were calling out "Brace! Brace! Brace!" In unison after the captain gave the order. Others mentioned the CC telling and helping them to evacuate, so clearly the CC did make a contribution. I also noted there was scant reference to the FO during the whole episode and if he was named, I missed it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ontpax in my opinion the fact that that the rear f/a was not wearing her uniform during the interview lies more in the fact she was still traumatised by the experience and less about any covert message.
The conditions at the rear of the A/C were far worse than at the front. Uniform wearing might seem a small thing but for that f/a it might well just bring back too many difficult emotions.
The conditions at the rear of the A/C were far worse than at the front. Uniform wearing might seem a small thing but for that f/a it might well just bring back too many difficult emotions.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colton, CA
Age: 68
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the hearing passenger Billy Campbell who was sitting in seat 25A said that a panicking female passenger pushed past the crew member and opened the door.
After this a formal apology was made by associated press to the crew member.This can be viewed online using local papers for 9th June 2009.
After this a formal apology was made by associated press to the crew member.This can be viewed online using local papers for 9th June 2009.
It sounds as if the Feds weren't able to locate and interview the female passenger who opened the door and, instead, relied on another passenger's version of what transpired. I wonder if this female passenger could have been brought up on charges of interfering with the performance of a flight crewmember's duties?
ONTPax
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm... A lesson learned: Maybe the old Wild West Gunfighter's axiom about the speed of the draw being less important than the accuracy of the subsequent shot is relevant.
Older and wiser, we move on...
Older and wiser, we move on...
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does it matter now who said what who done what? yes I am sure there are still lesson's to be learned however all survived and even if someone did something wrong what is the likelihood of something like this ever happening again? I know it's great to speculate but if anyone of us had been in the same situation could you honestly say hand on heart that you would do everything you were taught or thought to do the survival instinct is just far to strong.
Last edited by matkat; 17th Jan 2010 at 06:06. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colton, CA
Age: 68
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the only point I was trying to make was that, had the CC and passengers been advised that a water landing was in the offing, the rear door might have remained closed and the quantity of water that rushed in might not have rushed in.
Even though this scenario was pretty much executed flawlessly and the outcome couldn't have been better (everyone survived), one of the tasks that the FAA and NTSB instinctively does is look at a situation such as this and say, "What can we learn from this? What could have been done differently that might have made for an even better outcome?"
It's very easy to "armchair quarterback" and play the "coulda, woulda shoulda" game. Don't get me wrong. This flight crew deserves medals. There probably wasn't some hard and fast rule or policy that said that the captain was required to inform everybody of a water landing if a water landing was imminent. So, in my book, he did nothing wrong. But, supposing he did advise everyone that the plane was going to make a water landing, it is possible that the woman passenger might not have rushed to the rear of the cabin and opened the door.
Here's another example where an employee actions, even though not part of his requirements, might have lead to a different outcome.
On September 12, 2008 a Metrolink commuter train had a head on collision with a Union Pacific freight train on the outskirts of Los Angeles. 25 people died, including the Metrolink engineer, and dozens were injured. The NTSB is about to release their official report in a few weeks and they've basically concluded that the engineer was distracted from interpreting wayside signals because he was busy text messaging. Complacency is one of the worst enemies of transportation operating crews. When someone does the same routine, year in and year out, and they feel they can operate a train or fly a plane on "auto pilot", without having to genuinely think, is when they can really find themselves in trouble. Pilots have found themselves in the jackpot when complacency or distraction has caused them to overlook something as basic as extending the slats prior to takeoff. This engineer was so bored with his identical day-to-day routine, that he apparently thought he could run a train and text message simultaneously. Every day, for weeks on end, his train would meet this particular scheduled freight train at a siding near Simi Valley, CA. However, on the day the collision happened, a slight "tweak" in the operating plan caused the dispatcher set up the meet at a siding several miles to the east of where it was normally performed. Thus, there was a "break" in the day-to-day routine that the Metrolink engineer was used to.
Even though he wasn't required to, had the dispatcher gotten on the radio and informed both trains of the revised meeting location, the collision might have been prevented. I say "might have." Both engineers would have been furnished with that little tidbit of information that might have made all the difference.
ONTPax
Even though this scenario was pretty much executed flawlessly and the outcome couldn't have been better (everyone survived), one of the tasks that the FAA and NTSB instinctively does is look at a situation such as this and say, "What can we learn from this? What could have been done differently that might have made for an even better outcome?"
It's very easy to "armchair quarterback" and play the "coulda, woulda shoulda" game. Don't get me wrong. This flight crew deserves medals. There probably wasn't some hard and fast rule or policy that said that the captain was required to inform everybody of a water landing if a water landing was imminent. So, in my book, he did nothing wrong. But, supposing he did advise everyone that the plane was going to make a water landing, it is possible that the woman passenger might not have rushed to the rear of the cabin and opened the door.
Here's another example where an employee actions, even though not part of his requirements, might have lead to a different outcome.
On September 12, 2008 a Metrolink commuter train had a head on collision with a Union Pacific freight train on the outskirts of Los Angeles. 25 people died, including the Metrolink engineer, and dozens were injured. The NTSB is about to release their official report in a few weeks and they've basically concluded that the engineer was distracted from interpreting wayside signals because he was busy text messaging. Complacency is one of the worst enemies of transportation operating crews. When someone does the same routine, year in and year out, and they feel they can operate a train or fly a plane on "auto pilot", without having to genuinely think, is when they can really find themselves in trouble. Pilots have found themselves in the jackpot when complacency or distraction has caused them to overlook something as basic as extending the slats prior to takeoff. This engineer was so bored with his identical day-to-day routine, that he apparently thought he could run a train and text message simultaneously. Every day, for weeks on end, his train would meet this particular scheduled freight train at a siding near Simi Valley, CA. However, on the day the collision happened, a slight "tweak" in the operating plan caused the dispatcher set up the meet at a siding several miles to the east of where it was normally performed. Thus, there was a "break" in the day-to-day routine that the Metrolink engineer was used to.
Even though he wasn't required to, had the dispatcher gotten on the radio and informed both trains of the revised meeting location, the collision might have been prevented. I say "might have." Both engineers would have been furnished with that little tidbit of information that might have made all the difference.
ONTPax
You can read all this on wikipaedia.
Isn't that the site where anyone can jump in and add their two cents worth, truthful or not?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Checkboard
... as opposed to this site?? At least on wiki, a piece of rubbish information is removed fairly promptly.
I think you have misunderstood! 
How long have I been a member? I have been a mod, and posted far too much as well 
I wasn't complaining about this (or any other 'board format) - I was just defending wiki! THE best site on the internet IMHO.
How long have I been a member? I have been a mod, and posted far too much as well I wasn't complaining about this (or any other 'board format) - I was just defending wiki! THE best site on the internet IMHO.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: england
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ONTpax - are you a pilot?
The naivity of your post suggests not.
1) What do you think the Capt was doing when faced with a dual engine failure, low level, flying a 70ton brick, with the city infront and to the right, the river on his left, something that until then was deemed virtually impossible. Do you think he was thinking...."hmm, what can i say to the pax?" or do u think both him and the F/O (who actually had more experience than him on that a/c) were rapidly going through an infinate amount of thoughts trying to solve an - almost - catastrophic problem??
Give him a break.
2) "caused them to overlook something as basic as extending the slats prior to takeoff"
First off do you know the difference between Flaps, Slats, Trailing edge flaps and slats? When would you select the flaps down? Have you never made a "basic" mistake in your life?
Its comments such as yours that show how closed minded some people really are.
As you yourself said "It's very easy to "armchair quarterback" and play the "coulda, woulda shoulda" game"
The naivity of your post suggests not.
1) What do you think the Capt was doing when faced with a dual engine failure, low level, flying a 70ton brick, with the city infront and to the right, the river on his left, something that until then was deemed virtually impossible. Do you think he was thinking...."hmm, what can i say to the pax?" or do u think both him and the F/O (who actually had more experience than him on that a/c) were rapidly going through an infinate amount of thoughts trying to solve an - almost - catastrophic problem??
Give him a break.
2) "caused them to overlook something as basic as extending the slats prior to takeoff"
First off do you know the difference between Flaps, Slats, Trailing edge flaps and slats? When would you select the flaps down? Have you never made a "basic" mistake in your life?
Its comments such as yours that show how closed minded some people really are.
As you yourself said "It's very easy to "armchair quarterback" and play the "coulda, woulda shoulda" game"
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New Zealand , Wellington
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What ever happend, happend. With the amount of shock passengers and even more so the CC received from this event, knit picking what happend really is dumb. I cant imagine how many G's were pulled stopping in such a short distance, it really would have been intense and made the situation nerve wracking to say the least. It would be damn hard for a captain to make an emotionless speech in the short time available. Regardless with cabin crew being trained for this stuff or not, I know for fact if I was on a ditched/crashed aircraft, getting out of the potential bomb is first priority. It doesn't take much brain to figure this out. In this case, personally I feel CC have just as much right to leave the aircraft - your totally risking your lives hanging around, however this is well debatable depending on the case. Vacating the aircraft through a couple of doors in an orderly fashion just to satisfy regulations doesn't cut it. A fully fueled crashed aircraft is a bomb waiting to explode, regardless if its on land or on water.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HKG
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Letterman show with the whole set of crew Flight 1549
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having worked as a flight attendant for 3 different airlines in 3 different countries - the answer to the above would be "no" - never in my experience. Announcements are to be made "live" wherever possible to relay potentially important information.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Big Airways in the UK there are several planned emergency briefings on a pre recorded announcement Machine (PRAM) the idea being that the crew are carrying out their duties and demonstrations whilst this announcement is played. From memory there is one for an emergency landing and one for ditching which are operated by the CC. In a decompression there is one that is played automatically when the masks are deployed at Cabin alt 14000'.
In unplanned emergencies it is much a case of shouting the basics as the PA's come from the Flight Deck - 'This is the captain, this is an emergency BRACE BRACE!"
In unplanned emergencies it is much a case of shouting the basics as the PA's come from the Flight Deck - 'This is the captain, this is an emergency BRACE BRACE!"