Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NYT reports much of what I have posted above from my actual hearing and seeing the Higgins interview.
"The landing in the Hudson ... was so relatively smooth to the flight attendants, according to the safety agency, that they were not aware they had touched down in water until they got out of their seats and began organizing the evacuation."
This is the link as of this post.
"The landing in the Hudson ... was so relatively smooth to the flight attendants, according to the safety agency, that they were not aware they had touched down in water until they got out of their seats and began organizing the evacuation."
This is the link as of this post.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dallas TX, USA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bird Strike Forensics - NPR article
lomapaseo, I heard the below on NPR's "All Things Considered" Friday 01/16/2009 "Team Works to Identify Birds Hit By Planes". Interview with Carla Bird of the Feather Identification Lab in the Smithsonian Institute of Natural History. Bird remains from aircraft wind up at the Smithsonian. About 4,000 bird strikes occured in 2008 (most with no damage). Bird pureed bird goo on aircraft is called 'SNARGE' (our word for the day). And at the end she describes the smallest bird that has damaged an aircraft golden crowned kinglet at 4 grams caused $74,000 to a US Air Force aircraft. In the second interview, Carla Bird describes how deer DNA from a 1,500 foot bird strike occurred.
There are two audio stories here. Its illuminating to listen to both.
Team Works To Identify Birds Hit By Planes : NPR
Best wishes,
Jim
There are two audio stories here. Its illuminating to listen to both.
Team Works To Identify Birds Hit By Planes : NPR
Best wishes,
Jim
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: long island
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to the point made in post # 754, it has become so common these days to have accident scenes attrack a half dozen or more news and/or law enforcement helicopters, that often operations and particularly communication on the ground are made much more difficult.
If common sense does not dictate that the helicopters should keep far enough away to not impede operations, perhaps statutes should do so.
If common sense does not dictate that the helicopters should keep far enough away to not impede operations, perhaps statutes should do so.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have I got it right in thinking they (fortuitously) landed ‘down current’ (for want of a better term)? If so, that ‘n’ knots less relative ground speed on touchdown might have been significant.
I recall a USAF pilot who was horribly burned in an F80 (T33?) crash back in the 60’s who used to lecture in military circles on forced landings. One of his major points for landing on an unprepared field was: “Lighten the aircraft s much as possible to get your speed as low as possible on touchdown. The energy formula is ‘ MV squared’, so every knot you can reduce your landing speed by can have a major effect on your chances of survival.”
In this case, with a strong following current, the aircraft’s relative touchdown speed with the water would have been somewhat less than it would have been in still water. (Anyone know if they [again fortuitously] landed into wind, even further lowering their relative touchdown speed?) I bring this up only to suggest that maybe the outcome in any future similar incident might not be so benign.
Of course, if the current was against them, I’m talking utter bollocks.
I recall a USAF pilot who was horribly burned in an F80 (T33?) crash back in the 60’s who used to lecture in military circles on forced landings. One of his major points for landing on an unprepared field was: “Lighten the aircraft s much as possible to get your speed as low as possible on touchdown. The energy formula is ‘ MV squared’, so every knot you can reduce your landing speed by can have a major effect on your chances of survival.”
In this case, with a strong following current, the aircraft’s relative touchdown speed with the water would have been somewhat less than it would have been in still water. (Anyone know if they [again fortuitously] landed into wind, even further lowering their relative touchdown speed?) I bring this up only to suggest that maybe the outcome in any future similar incident might not be so benign.
Of course, if the current was against them, I’m talking utter bollocks.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it is full of water; and thus it could not be hoisted (snatched) from the water by any device. Instead it must be s-l-o-w-l-y raised inch/cm-by-inch/cm, or as rapidly as the hoist can handle the weight, to allow the water to drain from the aircraft.
There is also the consideration that all of that weight is going to be concentrated on several relatvely small points where the lifting devices are set. Chances are that the structural strength of the aircraft is not sufficient to withstand that, unless the water is allowed to drain out as it is lifted.
(Me=not a pilot at all, but sometimes a professional crane operator.)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: In the mirror
Age: 91
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From previously posted tidal charts the river was ebbing, so indeed they landed with the current, however I don't think that it was intentional. First of all if they thought/knew that they could not make Teterboro (sp?) surely a 180 wasn't an option. Also the river goes both ways, so it just happened to be flowing out at that moment. It just as easily could have been going the other way. There is no way that they had time or means to find out.
IIRC - the river runs about 4-5 kts. Someone said earlier about 10, but I think that is too high.
Someone posted earlier that there was about 10 kts of tail wind.
IIRC - the river runs about 4-5 kts. Someone said earlier about 10, but I think that is too high.
Someone posted earlier that there was about 10 kts of tail wind.
wiley
General Spruance was the in T33 crash at Scott AFB in the early '60s. He gave a presentation to my OTS class, still on AD in 1976.
GF
General Spruance was the in T33 crash at Scott AFB in the early '60s. He gave a presentation to my OTS class, still on AD in 1976.
GF
Everything is under control.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crews Hoist Ditched Plane From Hudson River
Filed at 11:39 p.m. ET
NEW YORK (AP) -- Salvage crews have used a big crane to lift a downed US Airways jet from the Hudson River.
The jetliner looked battle-scarred as it inched up from the water late Saturday, carried by five large slings.
The metal on the bottom of the plane appears shredded and torn. In some places it looks like it was sheared off.
Chunks dropped in the water as it was maneuvered in the darkness.
The jet is to be put down on a waiting barge.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...zuNuirOclVIzYg
NEW YORK (AP) -- Salvage crews have used a big crane to lift a downed US Airways jet from the Hudson River.
The jetliner looked battle-scarred as it inched up from the water late Saturday, carried by five large slings.
The metal on the bottom of the plane appears shredded and torn. In some places it looks like it was sheared off.
Chunks dropped in the water as it was maneuvered in the darkness.
The jet is to be put down on a waiting barge.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...zuNuirOclVIzYg
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the current help?
In response to Wiley, who has just commented on the current in the Hudson as an aid to the safe ditching, I did mention this back in post #380.
No one seemed to notice my comment back then, except for one poster who said that the current was too slow to have any effect.
The videos that have been released today show that there was a terrific current in favour of a safe ditching. The force was with the pilot that day.
It must have been a downwind ditching as the plane took off in the opposite direction to the direction of ditching.
No one seemed to notice my comment back then, except for one poster who said that the current was too slow to have any effect.
The videos that have been released today show that there was a terrific current in favour of a safe ditching. The force was with the pilot that day.
It must have been a downwind ditching as the plane took off in the opposite direction to the direction of ditching.
Last edited by McGinty; 18th Jan 2009 at 04:47.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have I got it right in thinking they (fortuitously) landed ‘down current’ (for want of a better term)? If so, that ‘n’ knots less relative ground speed on touchdown might have been significant.
) and the pilots start talking (if they want to). Yes, the ideal situation is to land with the current and into the wind. The sea state wasn't a real problem here, fortunately.
First all kudos being given to the US Air crew are well deserved. WELL DONE.
I do think this would be a good time to revisit Eastern 853 mid-air in 1965 and the fantastic feat of airmanship by that crew and the ultimate sacrifice by Captain White for those that do not know. Hope this link works:
TWA Flight 42 - The Unexpected - When Experience and Airmanship Really Counts
I wonder if this is part of any "how to do it right" courses.
The Sultan
I do think this would be a good time to revisit Eastern 853 mid-air in 1965 and the fantastic feat of airmanship by that crew and the ultimate sacrifice by Captain White for those that do not know. Hope this link works:
TWA Flight 42 - The Unexpected - When Experience and Airmanship Really Counts
I wonder if this is part of any "how to do it right" courses.
The Sultan
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Karachi
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WSJ Story on 7th Jan
JANUARY 7, 2009, 12:04 A.M. ET
Safety Bid Accelerates For Airbus Jetliners
By ANDY PASZTOR
After nine sudden engine-stalls on Airbus aircraft since last April, U.S. and European aviation regulators are working with engine-maker CFM International SA to develop new safety measures for approximately 1,500 workhorse Airbus jetliners used around the world.
The effort was accelerated by an alarming incident last month, when both engines of an Air France Airbus A321 stalled briefly after takeoff from an airport in Tunisia, according to regulators and industry officials.
Like most of the previous incidents, high-pressure compressors on the engines stopped working when the pilots eased back takeoff power and set the throttles to climb away from the runway. None of the incidents ended in crashes or loss of life because the engines never shut off and recovered normal power after a brief interval.
The pattern, however, has prompted enough concern to warrant development of new software by CFM, a joint venture between General Electric Co.'s engine unit and France's Snecma, which is part of Safran Groupe SA. The software modification is designed to adjust airflow through the engines, particularly older ones with some performance deterioration that haven't gone through a major overhaul for several years, according to a GE spokesman.
More broadly, the latest moves reflect heightened concerns recently by regulators and outside experts about a wide range of engine-reliability and safety issues spanning various passenger-jet makes and models. From computer-control malfunctions to high-altitude engine icing that can temporarily shut down thrust, engine problems in recent years have re-emerged as high-priority safety topics.
The CFM engines at issue have an excellent overall safety record, and only a small number of aircraft are expected to undergo enhanced inspections or engine replacements in the near term. But the stepped-up scrutiny will prompt significantly tighter inspection and monitoring of engine conditions on many more Airbus aircraft over the years. Airbus is a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.
The stalling incidents all occurred on narrow-body Airbus jets using the same engines since around the beginning of the decade, GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said. The software modifications are expected to be installed on some 1,500 A319, A320 and A321 aircraft by the middle of the year, according to GE.
Safety Bid Accelerates For Airbus Jetliners
By ANDY PASZTOR
After nine sudden engine-stalls on Airbus aircraft since last April, U.S. and European aviation regulators are working with engine-maker CFM International SA to develop new safety measures for approximately 1,500 workhorse Airbus jetliners used around the world.
The effort was accelerated by an alarming incident last month, when both engines of an Air France Airbus A321 stalled briefly after takeoff from an airport in Tunisia, according to regulators and industry officials.
Like most of the previous incidents, high-pressure compressors on the engines stopped working when the pilots eased back takeoff power and set the throttles to climb away from the runway. None of the incidents ended in crashes or loss of life because the engines never shut off and recovered normal power after a brief interval.
The pattern, however, has prompted enough concern to warrant development of new software by CFM, a joint venture between General Electric Co.'s engine unit and France's Snecma, which is part of Safran Groupe SA. The software modification is designed to adjust airflow through the engines, particularly older ones with some performance deterioration that haven't gone through a major overhaul for several years, according to a GE spokesman.
More broadly, the latest moves reflect heightened concerns recently by regulators and outside experts about a wide range of engine-reliability and safety issues spanning various passenger-jet makes and models. From computer-control malfunctions to high-altitude engine icing that can temporarily shut down thrust, engine problems in recent years have re-emerged as high-priority safety topics.
The CFM engines at issue have an excellent overall safety record, and only a small number of aircraft are expected to undergo enhanced inspections or engine replacements in the near term. But the stepped-up scrutiny will prompt significantly tighter inspection and monitoring of engine conditions on many more Airbus aircraft over the years. Airbus is a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.
The stalling incidents all occurred on narrow-body Airbus jets using the same engines since around the beginning of the decade, GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said. The software modifications are expected to be installed on some 1,500 A319, A320 and A321 aircraft by the middle of the year, according to GE.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Boring Point
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the current, forget the wind, forget the direction of landing, forget the position of safety personnel. In the time it's taking me to write this post would be about the time the crew had from E/F to splashdown! Which means they had no time for anything other than flying the aeroplane onto the water in front of them! ( I am a slow typist! )
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reporting Airboat vs Boeing
Boeing spends buckets of money advertising on tv, although their direct customers are few. This is pre-emptive buy of favorable coverage when the inevitable occurs. Ads weren't done by the old McDouglas, so in the 1979 tragedy at KORD, AA got off, while the DC-10 and McDuck were crucified.
GB
GB
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the speed at touchdown vs. the speed of the water. And don't forget the wind. If the northerly wind is greater than the water current the a/c would be traveling faster than if it had flown into the wind against the current.
Didn't make a difference, they were landing south regardless of river current or wind direction.
Didn't make a difference, they were landing south regardless of river current or wind direction.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Interview Monday
US Airways Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III will appear in his first interview since successfully ditching a commercial jetliner on New York's Hudson River Monday on TODAY, NBC News announced
bonger;
Yes, I understand the issues with ASAP - sad enough but FOQA is not an ASAP/ASRS Program and as far as I understand it would still be running - the issues which have caused ASAP to fail, not wholly safety-related in my view (and it takes two to tango), will likely not have affected their FOQA program. Given the history of both carriers, (I used to know some of the principles at USAir), I doubt if FOQA would come to such an end. Anyway, I think Rotorhead1026's response is accurate. I hope so, even if these cards themselves don't survive the water - it's too good a program to let other than very serious crew identification issues destroy it.
Not any more. It expired last month. US Airline Pilots Association Allows Safety Program to Lapse Citing Carriers Mismanagement of Critical Immunity Provisions
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obie, you must be a VERY slow typist. From 3200' to touchdown? Take a look at the time line. I haven't, but I'd be guessing something in excess of three minutes, particularly if he had a bit of 'zoom' potential from 250k back to his green dot speed.
Believe me, as someone who's been in a similar situation, (with a far messier result), I can attest that for the crew, in some ways it would have felt like three seconds - and in others, (the not helpful ways), three hours.
No one's saying the crew planned a down current landing, just that those precious fewer knots between the aircraft and the water on alighting might have made a difference in how the airframe handled the impact. Any bike rider will understand what I mean - try riding without goggles at 80mph and then 90. The difference in the wind force is very significant. In an immediate forced landing, you're stuck with your Mass; but any decrease in the 'V', (thanks to the Vsquared), can make quite a difference in the ergs you need to dissipate. As I mentioned above, General Spurance stressed this point with some passion in his presentation.
Believe me, as someone who's been in a similar situation, (with a far messier result), I can attest that for the crew, in some ways it would have felt like three seconds - and in others, (the not helpful ways), three hours.
No one's saying the crew planned a down current landing, just that those precious fewer knots between the aircraft and the water on alighting might have made a difference in how the airframe handled the impact. Any bike rider will understand what I mean - try riding without goggles at 80mph and then 90. The difference in the wind force is very significant. In an immediate forced landing, you're stuck with your Mass; but any decrease in the 'V', (thanks to the Vsquared), can make quite a difference in the ergs you need to dissipate. As I mentioned above, General Spurance stressed this point with some passion in his presentation.