Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
From: AUSTRALIA
Denabol,
I totally agree with you. Pax are not told enough information about ditching and in this case if there was only 1 flight attendant at the rear then he/she has done a marvellous job in redirecting all the pax to the overwings and the forward doors. Placards would be a good idea on the internal rear doors of aircraft that shouldn't be opened in a ditching, but this can be confusing as this can be different even on the same aircraft type ( i.e - 737-300/400 rear doors ARE opened in ditching, 737-800 they are NOT opened ).
Having worked on aircraft where you are the only attendant at the rear I can tell you the thought of hysterical and paniced passengers coming towards you is a scary one - especially when you are alone. This is another reason why I hate the 1/50 ratio of crew/pax in some countries.
Ultimately the overwing briefing and safety demonstration is our best chance of pointing out these 'ditching' differences on each flight, and this accident I hope, will give more airlines motivation to update safety cards, overwing briefs and safety demonstration videos.
I totally agree with you. Pax are not told enough information about ditching and in this case if there was only 1 flight attendant at the rear then he/she has done a marvellous job in redirecting all the pax to the overwings and the forward doors. Placards would be a good idea on the internal rear doors of aircraft that shouldn't be opened in a ditching, but this can be confusing as this can be different even on the same aircraft type ( i.e - 737-300/400 rear doors ARE opened in ditching, 737-800 they are NOT opened ).
Having worked on aircraft where you are the only attendant at the rear I can tell you the thought of hysterical and paniced passengers coming towards you is a scary one - especially when you are alone. This is another reason why I hate the 1/50 ratio of crew/pax in some countries.
Ultimately the overwing briefing and safety demonstration is our best chance of pointing out these 'ditching' differences on each flight, and this accident I hope, will give more airlines motivation to update safety cards, overwing briefs and safety demonstration videos.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: London
Is there no way that we can get aviation associations to investigate this suggestion further? I know it's probably been suggested a million and one times, but it seems like it is something that needs to be seriously considered
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
From: Oz
First- re: previous double birdstrike incidents... wasn't there one a few years ago where a Fokker 100 had double engine failure due bird ingestion, overran runway and came to rest in a field... (landing gear pictured in front of fuselage ifI recall correctly)
Second- perhaps people are confusing the Airbus 'power assisted' doors with 'electrically operated' doors- power assist helps in door opening when armed but is not always avilable in the event of electrical failure... electrically operated is just that- push a button and the door opens (as for some B767)
Third- large numbers of pax on slides/wing due to only 1 pair of doors opened armed, rear doors underwater so cannot be opened. If off wing slide can be disarmed then I'd say the crew would have done this if they could have. Or perhaps it just didn't deploy. (767 slide deploys just aft of wing which I believe in the same attitude as the A320 in this case the panel would be underwater, hence would not deploy?)
Fourth- Ben Sandilands needs to get a clue. If you were trying to open a door the size of an A320 underwater the pressure would keep it closed, it would be practically impossible to open as it goes outwards... unless you can make a hole in it somehow, and you don't want to do that in a ditching surely...!
If pax actually looked at the safety card, on aircraft such as the 737 and A320 it clearly shows exits ONLY from the overwings and fwd doors... maybe just a hint that you're not meant to exit from the rear? Moot point though as I said good luck to the pax trying to get rear doors open underwater!
Fifth- Great job done by flight crew, cabin crew, bystanders and emergency agencies in assisting this outcome.
Second- perhaps people are confusing the Airbus 'power assisted' doors with 'electrically operated' doors- power assist helps in door opening when armed but is not always avilable in the event of electrical failure... electrically operated is just that- push a button and the door opens (as for some B767)
Third- large numbers of pax on slides/wing due to only 1 pair of doors opened armed, rear doors underwater so cannot be opened. If off wing slide can be disarmed then I'd say the crew would have done this if they could have. Or perhaps it just didn't deploy. (767 slide deploys just aft of wing which I believe in the same attitude as the A320 in this case the panel would be underwater, hence would not deploy?)
Fourth- Ben Sandilands needs to get a clue. If you were trying to open a door the size of an A320 underwater the pressure would keep it closed, it would be practically impossible to open as it goes outwards... unless you can make a hole in it somehow, and you don't want to do that in a ditching surely...!
If pax actually looked at the safety card, on aircraft such as the 737 and A320 it clearly shows exits ONLY from the overwings and fwd doors... maybe just a hint that you're not meant to exit from the rear? Moot point though as I said good luck to the pax trying to get rear doors open underwater!Fifth- Great job done by flight crew, cabin crew, bystanders and emergency agencies in assisting this outcome.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,658
Likes: 0
From: Up north
CNN have named the pilot -He is part of some safety group/organisation - didn't get his name,
Job well done by the CREW! (Captain,FO and cabin crew!)
CP
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 141
Likes: 14
From: australia
Rules and regs
Because of some misinformation on this thread and at risk of being pedantic, let me spell out requirements pertinent to ditching and bird ingestion. I’ll paraphrase the late 1980’s version of Federal Regs which I think is close enough to certification basis of A320. Note that the regulations current at the date when design began generally apply for the whole production life of the type – which in itself a contentious issue!
“FAR 25.807(e) Ditching Emergency Exits” requires “…..one exit above the waterline ….for each unit of 35 passengers….” Flotation attitude of the aircraft for all distributions of payload and fuel is usually demonstrated by tank testing a model.
“FAR33.77 Foreign Object Ingestion” requires that ingestion of :
- one 4 pound bird not cause fire or hazardous fragmentation
- one 3-ounce bird per 50 suare inch of inlet area up to max of 16 birds or one 1.5 pound bird for first 300 square inches plus one for each additional 600 square inches not cause more than 25 % power loss.
Bottom line is that 2 geese and you’re down!
Congratulations to the pilots and whole crew but let’s not forget the designers and regulators who came up with a robust plane
“FAR 25.807(e) Ditching Emergency Exits” requires “…..one exit above the waterline ….for each unit of 35 passengers….” Flotation attitude of the aircraft for all distributions of payload and fuel is usually demonstrated by tank testing a model.
“FAR33.77 Foreign Object Ingestion” requires that ingestion of :
- one 4 pound bird not cause fire or hazardous fragmentation
- one 3-ounce bird per 50 suare inch of inlet area up to max of 16 birds or one 1.5 pound bird for first 300 square inches plus one for each additional 600 square inches not cause more than 25 % power loss.
Bottom line is that 2 geese and you’re down!
Congratulations to the pilots and whole crew but let’s not forget the designers and regulators who came up with a robust plane
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 1
From: The Shire
I was stunned watching this on Skynews while on standby today. I just hope I can show the same professionalism, airmanship and no doubt CRM if ever presented with similar circumstances.
I'll have a beer for you tonight!
Well done
I'll have a beer for you tonight!
Well done
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: Tallong NSW
rear doors
Just watched the evening news here and you can clearly see that the bottom of the rear doors are just under water as the rescue effort begins and gradually get lower. I think a cabin attendant confronted with people wanting to use those doors would have a hand full of trouble, especially trying to her them forward. One guy said the water was up to his neck in the back of the cabin before he could get out.
Fantastic effort by the pilots and cabin crew.
Fantastic effort by the pilots and cabin crew.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: isle of man
Firstly, congratulations to ALL involved, an almost unbelievable outcome.
As a result of this probable double bird-strike and Ryanair's incident at Rome lst year I guess we need to possibly review our risk assessment on bird activity adjacent to aerodromes? We have been very lucky, albeit allied to fantastic crew skills.
As a result of this probable double bird-strike and Ryanair's incident at Rome lst year I guess we need to possibly review our risk assessment on bird activity adjacent to aerodromes? We have been very lucky, albeit allied to fantastic crew skills.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
From: Oz
Denabol, forgive the speculation on my part, as I wasn't there to witness it...
but I would hazard a guess that the egress of these pax would have been a little slower than planned for due to the proximity of boats and land... in an open water ditching, if the water were that high in the cabin, it would be a case of get them out in lifejackets and worry about the rafts later... pax can always jump and swim to a raft if need be. So probably would be much faster if immediate rescue wasn't in sight... who knows the flight crew might have had time to make an announcement of the sort if they saw boats close by before ditching...
Yes a scary situation, one we train for in the (cabin) sim and yes even in practice strong assertive tactics are required. It's a matter of asserting your authority as the trained professional and if need be, use a willing able bodied passenger to assist you to keep those doors closed... heck, tell them it'll sink faster once those doors are open if it keeps them away from the back! It's amazing even a small 5 foot something flight attendant can keep back a bigger passenger if the verbal technique is right, I've seen it done and she might as well have had a bloody big axe in her hand!
Seems that a LOT of factors were in the favor of pax/crew today, one or two things different it could have been a much sadder outcome (Air Florida as mentioned, which was my first thought on hearing the news bulletin!)
but I would hazard a guess that the egress of these pax would have been a little slower than planned for due to the proximity of boats and land... in an open water ditching, if the water were that high in the cabin, it would be a case of get them out in lifejackets and worry about the rafts later... pax can always jump and swim to a raft if need be. So probably would be much faster if immediate rescue wasn't in sight... who knows the flight crew might have had time to make an announcement of the sort if they saw boats close by before ditching...
Yes a scary situation, one we train for in the (cabin) sim and yes even in practice strong assertive tactics are required. It's a matter of asserting your authority as the trained professional and if need be, use a willing able bodied passenger to assist you to keep those doors closed... heck, tell them it'll sink faster once those doors are open if it keeps them away from the back! It's amazing even a small 5 foot something flight attendant can keep back a bigger passenger if the verbal technique is right, I've seen it done and she might as well have had a bloody big axe in her hand!
Seems that a LOT of factors were in the favor of pax/crew today, one or two things different it could have been a much sadder outcome (Air Florida as mentioned, which was my first thought on hearing the news bulletin!)
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: Mediteranian Region
It seems we are loosing our focus here, this is an incredible job well handled, everyone can speculate as much as they want, but they were not in there going through the procedure and planning the most safest action which proved to be. At times and conditions like these, it is a split second decision. I admire the professinalism of the crew, well done.
Long D
Long D
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: UK
Smithy, they are in the climb at 3000 feet over what to me looks like built up area with lots of high rise and it all goes to hell in a hand basket. First instinct fly the plane, identify the problem, fly the plane, tell somebody, fly the plane, tell the cabin, fly the plane by which time he has traded altitude for airspeed and his options are even less. He sees the water and goes for that.......the area he "picked" was devoid of bridges which when you think about how many there are in NYC, would make a landing in line with the river even harder...they all did brilliantly...christ, practice efato in my 152 got my blood pumping...they, like the crew of the BA777 at LHR are heroes in a world gone mad and looking for a great story
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
From: Oz
Sorry, not meaning to take away from the crew, just trying to say that perhaps slowing down the evac as boats were nearby (if that is what they did- quite possible) kept things calm and prevented too much panic (and hence kept injuries/fatalities down)
If you've ever seen someone who thinks they're drowning you'll know just what I mean. Just wanted to address some of the questions from a cabin/pax management perspective
Anyway however it was done, good job to all involved. That's all I'll say on the subject.
If you've ever seen someone who thinks they're drowning you'll know just what I mean. Just wanted to address some of the questions from a cabin/pax management perspective
Anyway however it was done, good job to all involved. That's all I'll say on the subject.
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 38
Likes: 63
From: The Smaller Antipode
Fer Crissakes, Smith - are you for real !!! I suppose he was trying to save the kindergarten, and hospital that lay in his path,too. !!#$!!&%$ 
This was one of the most magnificent pieces of flying we have been privileged to witness - and you dare criticise ?
The mind boggles.
This was one of the most magnificent pieces of flying we have been privileged to witness - and you dare criticise ?
The mind boggles.
Last edited by ExSp33db1rd; 16th January 2009 at 07:10.
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: Sydney, Australia
Life vests...
I believe this A320 did not have pax vests, since it does not overfly large stretches of water. The vests seen probably came from the rescue boats.
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 1
From: The Shire
Could he not have put it down closer to the shoreline making it easier for the passengers to swim to dry land?
Besides you're a pom, I would have thought you would be a fan of a brisk swim to wake you up in the morning?
Pilots' Pal
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
From: USA
The usual responses....
The foregoing demonstrates the now common mix of genuine informed comment, praise where due, over-the-top praise, mis-informed speculation gradually degenerating into a slagging session among those posting.
Well done crew, rescue services, others who helped and to pax who may have assisted.
Well done crew, rescue services, others who helped and to pax who may have assisted.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 649
Likes: 10
From: EU
lifevests?
I don't believe USairways don't have lifevests, probably some pax left without in a hurry.
I also clearly saw airline-type inflatable lifevests on tv-footage.
I understand the ferries dumped lifevests in the water for possible swimmers. Those on ferries are usually the big foamtypes, easily mistaken for seatcushions.
I also clearly saw airline-type inflatable lifevests on tv-footage.
If you look carefully you can see large numbers of seat-bottom cushions floating near the wing