Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good drills that crew
The captain's perception to ditch somewhere the chances of immediate recovery are high is to be applauded.
I'm not a pilot but the ditching appears to have taken considerable skill - getting rid of the energy whilst not stalling takes real airmanship.
Cabin crew orgainsing an orderly and panic-free disembarkation is risky conditions is no mean feat. I would imagine that the immersion survival time in the Hudson in this time of year is not much more than a very few minutes.
Trebles all round!
I'm not a pilot but the ditching appears to have taken considerable skill - getting rid of the energy whilst not stalling takes real airmanship.
Cabin crew orgainsing an orderly and panic-free disembarkation is risky conditions is no mean feat. I would imagine that the immersion survival time in the Hudson in this time of year is not much more than a very few minutes.
Trebles all round!
Referring to post 404 - the engine pods are designed to shear off during ditching.. At least that's the plan..
They are designed to shear off below the wing box under any circumstances of excessive loading.
Under some ditchings they may survive while under others they will shear off, just like for catastrophies of any kind.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, U.K.
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
probability of multiple engine failure
In response to The Real Slim Shady's post, a little excursion into probability theory. Assume the risk of one engine failure is x (say 1 basis point or 1 in 10,000 flights). If the events of engine number 1 failing *and* engine no. 2 failing are independent, then the probability of 2 engine failures at the same time is 1bp x 1bp which is 10^(-8) or 1 in 100 million.
The assumptions of both events being independent is incorrect IMHO for several reasons:
1. Birdstrikes: self explanatory really. Flock of birds has high likelihood of damaging both engines, confirmed by NY and Ryanair Ciampino incident.
2. Fuel system: BA038 comes to mind. Let there be a central systemic failure in the fuel supply and the probability of both engines being affected is again quite high.
3. Pilot error / human performance: If one thing goes wrong and you have systems failing, the probability of further errors down the line increases dramatically. (Stress, shock, unknown or rarely practiced situation, sudden loss of instruments etc.) Example here is pilots shutting down the good engine after engine fire and letting the other one burn. They say it has happened...
4. Volcanic ash - another sweet piece of anecdotal evidence (and excellent airmanship).
To make a long story short, you have to use *conditional* probability, i.e. the probability of you losing engine no.2 *given* that you have lost engine no. 1. I would argue that when using the concept of conditional probability, the chance of having multiple engine failure is suddenly much higher in quantitative terms.
For example, I would estimate that given you have lost one engine due to a flock of birds, the probability of losing the other engine as well is somewhere between 10 and 50%. (Which would be astronomical dimensions greater than the chance of having a birdstrike in the first place.)
Three events of multiple engine failures in less than two years (BA, Ryanair and US Airways) - those are only the ones I am aware of - *is* statistically significant. Especially given that all of them were in critical phases of flight and rather close to disaster...
I would suggest every airline and aviation authority and sim instructor should include multiple engine failure (especially at low altitude, after t/o and before landing) into their standard training program.
I think the different air forces around the world have done so for decades already...
The assumptions of both events being independent is incorrect IMHO for several reasons:
1. Birdstrikes: self explanatory really. Flock of birds has high likelihood of damaging both engines, confirmed by NY and Ryanair Ciampino incident.
2. Fuel system: BA038 comes to mind. Let there be a central systemic failure in the fuel supply and the probability of both engines being affected is again quite high.
3. Pilot error / human performance: If one thing goes wrong and you have systems failing, the probability of further errors down the line increases dramatically. (Stress, shock, unknown or rarely practiced situation, sudden loss of instruments etc.) Example here is pilots shutting down the good engine after engine fire and letting the other one burn. They say it has happened...
4. Volcanic ash - another sweet piece of anecdotal evidence (and excellent airmanship).
To make a long story short, you have to use *conditional* probability, i.e. the probability of you losing engine no.2 *given* that you have lost engine no. 1. I would argue that when using the concept of conditional probability, the chance of having multiple engine failure is suddenly much higher in quantitative terms.
For example, I would estimate that given you have lost one engine due to a flock of birds, the probability of losing the other engine as well is somewhere between 10 and 50%. (Which would be astronomical dimensions greater than the chance of having a birdstrike in the first place.)
Three events of multiple engine failures in less than two years (BA, Ryanair and US Airways) - those are only the ones I am aware of - *is* statistically significant. Especially given that all of them were in critical phases of flight and rather close to disaster...
I would suggest every airline and aviation authority and sim instructor should include multiple engine failure (especially at low altitude, after t/o and before landing) into their standard training program.
I think the different air forces around the world have done so for decades already...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet again the b vs. a has popped up - with at least two posts suggesting it wouldn't have happened so with a Boeing - BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
Without a hint or suggestion from any official source yet, and despite the logic presented much earlier in the thread - it seems the (so far) unfounded singular hero worship of the captain alone has resurfaced here, as well as being continually regurgitated in the media. Despite the fact that no-one here yet knows WHO was the handling pilot??? I'm thinking 'so much for CRM'!
Another occurance of power off glide on a transport category jet:
Garuda Indonesia, Jan 16 2002. Descending in wx, dual flameout, unsuccesful relight attempts, clear below 8,000 feet and glide to a succesful ditch in the Bengawan Solo river (which is a tadd narrower than the Hudson Rv). One fatality - seemingly not related to the forced landing itself...............Oh for the benefit of the a vs. b proponents - it was a B733 ...... and it didn't disintegrate.
Without a hint or suggestion from any official source yet, and despite the logic presented much earlier in the thread - it seems the (so far) unfounded singular hero worship of the captain alone has resurfaced here, as well as being continually regurgitated in the media. Despite the fact that no-one here yet knows WHO was the handling pilot??? I'm thinking 'so much for CRM'!
Another occurance of power off glide on a transport category jet:
Garuda Indonesia, Jan 16 2002. Descending in wx, dual flameout, unsuccesful relight attempts, clear below 8,000 feet and glide to a succesful ditch in the Bengawan Solo river (which is a tadd narrower than the Hudson Rv). One fatality - seemingly not related to the forced landing itself...............Oh for the benefit of the a vs. b proponents - it was a B733 ...... and it didn't disintegrate.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chicago
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
miracle?
As a SLF, I find it hard to get an understanding of exactly how "miraculous" this accident was. I can certainly appreciate the relief and admiration expressed in this thread, but it would be highly interesting to get a sense of the probability of a happy ending such as this one.
Repeating the incident (from engine failure), how many times out of a hundred would the plane come down with no fatalities?
Would the numbers be very different with an "average" flight crew, assuming Sully & FO pulled off something quite out of the ordinary?
The nature of the questions obviously implies ballpark estimates at best, but that easily beats my unfounded stabs in the dark.
Repeating the incident (from engine failure), how many times out of a hundred would the plane come down with no fatalities?
Would the numbers be very different with an "average" flight crew, assuming Sully & FO pulled off something quite out of the ordinary?
The nature of the questions obviously implies ballpark estimates at best, but that easily beats my unfounded stabs in the dark.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But where is Doug ??
Where are you Doug Parker and all the US Airways board .. bestowing the wonders of your crew ????????Utter Shambles .. cos we have not heard from you yet !!!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fogive me if this has all ready been asked, but does anyone know if the gear was up or down? I would assume the flaps were fully extended.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Fl, US
Age: 84
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ntsb Briefing Friday Afternoon In New York
NTSB spokesperson gave extensive briefing this afternoon. Next briefing tomorrow afternoon. From memory, items I picked up from briefing (criticize as you like, it is only my memory)
* Aircraft is docked along the shore. It has been inspected by divers. Conditions are very difficult for inspection.
* Cabin crew being interviewed by NTSB today. Air controllers also being interviewed today. Interview of witnesses and passengers has begun. Search of photographic and other data from government and other sources is in process.
* Flight crew to be interviewed from tomorrow morning.
* Recorders could not be recovered today. NTSB plan is to have contractors lift aircraft onto a barge before 1000 local tomorrow morning.
* Once secured on barge, data recorders will be recovered.
* Aircraft will then be taken to 'undisclosed' secure location for further investigation.
* Both engines are not attached to the aircraft. Both engines were attached prior to imact with Hudson river. Side looking sonar searches being conducted in the Hudson river by authorities.
* Once engines are found and recovered, they will be taken to an as yet undisclosed secure location for further investigation. NTSB believes that should bird strike evidence exist, it can be extracted from residual DNA.
Much other preliminaries discussed during the televised news conference this afternoon. Again, I am only reporting what I heard. It may already be available on other internet sources.
One thing is clear though. The NTSB is heavily focused on this accident to learn from what went right. They stated that often they have to focus on what went wrong. This is an opportunity for them to learn. Much more information available but will stop here.
* Aircraft is docked along the shore. It has been inspected by divers. Conditions are very difficult for inspection.
* Cabin crew being interviewed by NTSB today. Air controllers also being interviewed today. Interview of witnesses and passengers has begun. Search of photographic and other data from government and other sources is in process.
* Flight crew to be interviewed from tomorrow morning.
* Recorders could not be recovered today. NTSB plan is to have contractors lift aircraft onto a barge before 1000 local tomorrow morning.
* Once secured on barge, data recorders will be recovered.
* Aircraft will then be taken to 'undisclosed' secure location for further investigation.
* Both engines are not attached to the aircraft. Both engines were attached prior to imact with Hudson river. Side looking sonar searches being conducted in the Hudson river by authorities.
* Once engines are found and recovered, they will be taken to an as yet undisclosed secure location for further investigation. NTSB believes that should bird strike evidence exist, it can be extracted from residual DNA.
Much other preliminaries discussed during the televised news conference this afternoon. Again, I am only reporting what I heard. It may already be available on other internet sources.
One thing is clear though. The NTSB is heavily focused on this accident to learn from what went right. They stated that often they have to focus on what went wrong. This is an opportunity for them to learn. Much more information available but will stop here.
Cloth Ears, I wouldn't read too much into that. He did give a brief declaration yesterday and he's probably wise to stay low profile and let the crew take the glory on behalf of crews everywhere. Had there been fatalities I'm sure the profile would have been more visible.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Gloucestershire, UK
Age: 39
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine loss seemed to have happened during climb so flaps were propably partially extended.
I am relieved to see that the engine pylon pins sheared off; looks like for once reality matches with the theory.
The conditions for ditching were probably good and that's why everyone on board got out of this plane alive.
The press seams to emphasize on pilot's behaviour (and thumbs up for him); he asked passengers to "brace for a hard impact" but if i'm right, that's part of the ditching proc...
I am relieved to see that the engine pylon pins sheared off; looks like for once reality matches with the theory.
The conditions for ditching were probably good and that's why everyone on board got out of this plane alive.
The press seams to emphasize on pilot's behaviour (and thumbs up for him); he asked passengers to "brace for a hard impact" but if i'm right, that's part of the ditching proc...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the link below a photo of a succesfull ditching that happened to a Dutch Navy Breguet Atlantique in the North Sea in the 70's.
Look at the bent props; some indication of the stress on the plane during a ditching:
Ditched Breguet Atlantique
Look at the bent props; some indication of the stress on the plane during a ditching:
Ditched Breguet Atlantique
Cloth ears - Senior management have to be very careful how they react after a crash even when, as it appears here the flight crew are the heroes.
IF when the NTSB / Airbus / Airline conduct their preliminary work into an accident and find that it was pilot error then the same senior management get lambasted for praising and honouring the crew too early.
Better to be careful and find the real story rather than relying on TV and provide the medical and other support immediately after the crash.
I expect the Crew to get sufficiently lauded in the weeks to come BUT in the post crash euphoria better for them to be careful, praise them for a job well done But do nothing that damages the airline.
IF when the NTSB / Airbus / Airline conduct their preliminary work into an accident and find that it was pilot error then the same senior management get lambasted for praising and honouring the crew too early.
Better to be careful and find the real story rather than relying on TV and provide the medical and other support immediately after the crash.
I expect the Crew to get sufficiently lauded in the weeks to come BUT in the post crash euphoria better for them to be careful, praise them for a job well done But do nothing that damages the airline.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think so.
Yes, the engine damage most likely occurred during the climb, BUT they continued to climb all the way to approximately 3400 feet.
I would expect that proper Standard Operating procedures would have had them clean up and retract the flaps long before reaching 3400 feet. This would have been done even if one or both engines were damaged.
I also expect that at least one engine had at least partial power all the way down to the flare and that it was not a "dead Stick" landing. In that situation, most aircraft systems would have been operational.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lost in saigon
why do you think there was still partial power in one of the engines?
I cannot remember any fact to this effect having been published
Earlier on in this thread there was a request, based on known altitudes and speeds as published on this thread for a 320 bus pilot to evaluate at what point power was apparently known to have been lost but unfortunately no one replied.
It seems clear that at 3200 ft there was at least insufficient power to sustain level flight and descent commenced.
There has been (an unsubstantiated) suggestion the plane's APU would have been on during take off because of de-icing prior to take off. I understand this delivers (some) hydraulic pressure to allow flap deployment.
perhaps a bus pilot can see from the pics if flaps were deployed. I remember at least one poster claiming they were in the TO position but I do not know if he was a bus flyer
why do you think there was still partial power in one of the engines?
I cannot remember any fact to this effect having been published
Earlier on in this thread there was a request, based on known altitudes and speeds as published on this thread for a 320 bus pilot to evaluate at what point power was apparently known to have been lost but unfortunately no one replied.
It seems clear that at 3200 ft there was at least insufficient power to sustain level flight and descent commenced.
There has been (an unsubstantiated) suggestion the plane's APU would have been on during take off because of de-icing prior to take off. I understand this delivers (some) hydraulic pressure to allow flap deployment.
perhaps a bus pilot can see from the pics if flaps were deployed. I remember at least one poster claiming they were in the TO position but I do not know if he was a bus flyer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geese
In other threads there is often an argument that people who build near airports should not complain about the noise as the airport was there first. In this particular case, the geese were there before the aircraft so maybe we should look a bit harder at how to detect large flocks of birds on the wing.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really?
I would think that walking through the cabin to verify all had exited would be done by any captain and not just a hero.
I would think that anyone who had ever flown(as a pilot) into any airport near a huge city with waterways/rivers/lakes/bays/oceans had at least considered the possibility of ditching on takeoff or landing there. In the USA, I've flown out of SFO, BOS, DCA, LGA and many other near water airports....its in the back of my head always. I am sure 90percent of the airline pilots out there could have done as good a job as the crew which actually did the job. I would have been more worried out of Midway!!! (MDW)
Getting out and onto the wings was the best possible course of action. I am very puzzled why anyone would attempt to open the aft doors...but panic can make mistakes happen.
I encourage everyone to actually read the little briefing cards in the seat pocket ahead of you. They tell you , in picture form, almost everything you need to know about ditching.
USAIR's planes are all equiped with life vests beneath the seats.
The life raft *(slide) has a lanyard (rope)to anchor the raft to the plane or something else and a knife to cut it loose!
Ditching switch...great idea...but in the time it took me to type this sentance I could have : closed the outflow valve, turned off the bleeds, and the other things that would help you stay afloat...on douglas or boeing aircraft. and on the douglas, it would be closed by a direct cable, not electronics. I do wonder if the outflow valve really closed...we shall see.
The pilot and copilot as well as the FA's were probably very interested in getting a head count to make sure everyone was off the plane.
The skill set for landing on the water and a normal landing is very similiar...so, in effect, we are always practicing for a water landing with every normal landing. Of course there are some differences, but keeping the nose up and the wings level...come on.
Someone actually is concerned about the port authority tagging USAIR for a fuel spill...well the counter suit might blame the port authority for not getting rid of birds. we shall see.
I am a fan of the JT8D (no pun) and wonder how it would have held up compared to the CFM56.
I would think that anyone who had ever flown(as a pilot) into any airport near a huge city with waterways/rivers/lakes/bays/oceans had at least considered the possibility of ditching on takeoff or landing there. In the USA, I've flown out of SFO, BOS, DCA, LGA and many other near water airports....its in the back of my head always. I am sure 90percent of the airline pilots out there could have done as good a job as the crew which actually did the job. I would have been more worried out of Midway!!! (MDW)
Getting out and onto the wings was the best possible course of action. I am very puzzled why anyone would attempt to open the aft doors...but panic can make mistakes happen.
I encourage everyone to actually read the little briefing cards in the seat pocket ahead of you. They tell you , in picture form, almost everything you need to know about ditching.
USAIR's planes are all equiped with life vests beneath the seats.
The life raft *(slide) has a lanyard (rope)to anchor the raft to the plane or something else and a knife to cut it loose!
Ditching switch...great idea...but in the time it took me to type this sentance I could have : closed the outflow valve, turned off the bleeds, and the other things that would help you stay afloat...on douglas or boeing aircraft. and on the douglas, it would be closed by a direct cable, not electronics. I do wonder if the outflow valve really closed...we shall see.
The pilot and copilot as well as the FA's were probably very interested in getting a head count to make sure everyone was off the plane.
The skill set for landing on the water and a normal landing is very similiar...so, in effect, we are always practicing for a water landing with every normal landing. Of course there are some differences, but keeping the nose up and the wings level...come on.
Someone actually is concerned about the port authority tagging USAIR for a fuel spill...well the counter suit might blame the port authority for not getting rid of birds. we shall see.
I am a fan of the JT8D (no pun) and wonder how it would have held up compared to the CFM56.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the keyboard
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
racedo
Very well put - a balanced and fair comment. Whilst everyone involved (especially the SLF!) must be delighted to have been able to walk away from a potentially disastrous situation, we all need to wait for the enquiry to tell us what actually went wrong - and that should not be read as the slightest implied criticism of the flight deck crew.