Indeed, many of the pax seemed to come out by the overwing exits, and were standing on the wings (hopefully balanced on each side). But apart from the idiots who brought their suitcases with them, the most notable thing in the photographs was lack of lifejackets by anyone. In Europe the lifejacket briefing would have been given just a couple of minutes earlier on such a domestic, supposedly "not over water" flight. But in my recollection the majority of actual ditchings have not been out in the open sea at all, but on water close in, typically actually within sight of the runway; even the Ethiopian 767 in the Indian Ocean had the runway in sight.

The usual progression that I have observed - in all walks of life not just air transport:

1. Something goes wrong and people die.
2. The boffins come up with a safety procedure/device.
3. The politicians respond to the newspapers by mandating this with the (near useless) cry that this "must not be allowed to happen again."
4. Device and procedure is mandated.
5. Years pass.
6. Nothing goes wrong and this particular failure does not happen again.
7. Years pass - decades sometimes.
8. Folks talk about removing the device and/or procedure.
9. < fill in the blanks >
10. 'It' happens again.
11. More people die.
12. In the inquiry it is found that numerous voices in the company had been warning about the problem but they were ignored. In the USA you can start with Shuttle Challenge rin 1986. In the UK, you can start with the Kings Cross Tube Fire of 1987. Both of these were unique 'new' failures but are well known examples of the ability of people to ignore facts.

Very often, to be fair, this happens because each emergency has so many variables that you cannot plan for all of them. Modern world pax (particularly USA) want everything guaranteed but in life - It Ain't Necessarily So ...

With US 1549 they had more than just a fine crew, they had a river to hand that was ebbing and made it look (in the pictures) like a lake - if it had been in flood, then there would have been choppy waves and pax would probably not have been able to stand calmly on the wings. Indeed, if the water surface had been very rough, the a/c might have put her nose under very quickly and dived.

Removing life jackets? Someone will. My own view is that, in local waters then they are a real life saver. In open water, the event that brought the a/c down probably precludes their use.

When talking about weight and cost, don't forget that carriers have successfully resisted installing misting water sprinkler systems - but still sell heavy flammable bottles of alcohol!

AS I metioned before, I think one of the FAs on the flight said she hadn't realised they had even ditched as the 'landing' was so smooth (:ok: to the pilots!)

So, either they called for jackets on opening the doors, or the pax saw out the window and just put them on.

You can clearly see pax with jackets on in this picture. Since it was so cold a lifejacket would have definitely improved their chances if they fell in- luckily they could stay on the wing in most cases til boats arrived.

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2...lane-crash.jpg

In one photo there's even a guy with his lifejacket on 'upside down'! Didn't know it was possible til then! :E :}

That picture demonstrates perfectly the smoothness of the river surface. I would suggest that must have been a key factor in keeping the a/c afloat for so long. It sank very slowly, had there have been waves lapping in the door, it might have gone down much faster.

As I recall, the Hudson A321 was still afloat, with the forward door sill above water level, 24 hours after the ditching, tied to a pier.

Those pax are in a raft and have jackets on one side of the aircraft but not the other, and the wings are by now underwater whereas initial photos showed many standing on them; I wonder if the jackets had been supplied from the rescuing vessels.

I don't recall seeing any mention of dinghies on civilian aircraft for many years. As you say, deploying and boarding even on a small aircraft like a 737 takes time and in open water . . .

Taking away the life jackets as a simple cost and weight saving is never going to play well - so I do not see it happening that way.

I think a more interesting question is whether replacing life jackets with smoke hoods as the under-seat safety equipment would potentially be a life saver. There have been cases where smoke-hoods may have saved lives. But I know that many have expressed doubts on the ability of passengers to use them properly.

[quote]...the most notable thing in the photographs was lack of lifejackets by anyone.[/quote

The NTSB report made it clear that at no point were passengers instructed to don live vests. Ten passengers did however and seventy plus took seat cushions with them citing that the instruction to do so (and hold them by crossing their arms) had seeped into their conciousness over the years. It was also a much easier task to accomplish given the fast moving circumstances.


In terms of the efficacy of the live vests - the original question I think, the NTSB had this to say in their report

It would appear that this difficulty was not only specific to passengers on this flight.

I wonder what the US Airways QRH ditching page says.

I'm guessing quite a bit of that small rectangular flotsam around the aircraft is discarded seat cushions.

It would appear that the USA QRH for ditching is based on actions to be taken from cruise height and one engine operable....

Pontius, if by 'dinghies' you are referring to the hexagonal, double chamber rafts then yes they are still carried by some airlines in Australia onboard B737 (and other circa 100/150 seat aircraft) usually fitted to aircraft which have slides only at main doors yet fly beyond the permissible distance from land which exempts their carriage.

One company I worked for was only required to carry them on two routes- in that case the dinghies were stowed in the seat rows immediately aft of the overwing exits as they were too large for the overhead lockers. Others are permanently located in pull-down ceiling stowages. Both kinds I've been trained on are the type with a lanyard which when pulled releases a pin from the gas inflation bottle and they pretty much inflate instantly.

Re: Hudson/NTSB... the fact that one guy had his lifejacket on completely upside down tells me the difficulty is probably not with thejacket itself but the lack of attention to the safety card/demo of how to actually put it on. Compared to the 'old' lifejackets, today's "over the head, on strap round the waist" models ar eprobably as simple as you're going to get without resorting to marine "solid" types.

The red objects on the water are lifejackets from ferries; the yellow ones are aircraft type. I've never seen an inflatable lifejacket on a public ferry, they always seem to be the solid type (not changed much since they were used on the Titanic etc, it seems)