Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
NY's Dunkirk
Old Hands on the River Didn’t Have to Be Told What to Do
Thank you Carl Lucas, John Winiarski, Frank Illuzzi, Cosmo Mezzina, Manuel Liba, Vincent Lombardi, Brittany Catanzaro and all the others whose names we do not have.
Around 3:30 on Thursday afternoon, Capt. Carl Lucas fired up the engines on the Athenia...
Then he spotted a plane in the water.
“We just threw off the lines and went out there,” said Captain Lucas, 34.
At the same pier, Capt. John Winiarski, 52, and a deckhand, Frank Illuzzi, 62, were on board the catamaran the Admiral Richard E. Bennis. They noticed the Athenia speeding away.
“We seen them scurrying out into the river, so we turned around and saw the plane in the river,” Captain Winiarski said. “We made a beeline.”
And so it went: a flotilla of rescuers, created by people who caught glimpses of something going wrong and did not have to be told to help. The Athenia, the Admiral Bennis and 12 other boats — all operated or chartered by New York Waterway — picked 135 people out of the river. The crews stopped their work and changed the world.
“You don’t look nowhere,” said Cosmo Mezzina, 62, a deckhand on the ferry the Governor Thomas H. Kean. “You don’t look right or left. You just look right in front of you, just to save, to rescue those people.”
One of the ferry captains, Manuel Liba, ticked off the strokes of fortune: the pilot brought the plane down smoothly, the Hudson was calm, it was daylight and it was 45 minutes before the evening rush on the river.
There was more than luck. On a bitter, frigid afternoon, the plane had come down minutes from people who regularly practice helping. The first ferry to reach it was the Thomas Jefferson, which pulled out of Pier 79 on the Hudson River at 39th Street in Manhattan. “As we turned around, we noticed the plane in the water,” said Vincent Lombardi, captain of the Thomas Jefferson. “We thought it was an odd-looking vessel.”
He radioed the Coast Guard, then headed for the plane. The arrival of the Thomas Jefferson can be seen on a Coast Guard video at 3:34 p.m., about four or five minutes after the plane hit the water. Other videos show more ferries nestled around the jet, drifting alongside as it was pulled south by the current.
“I’ve been on the water since I was 2 years old,” said Brittany Catanzaro, 20, the captain of the Thomas Kean and a ferry pilot for five months.
“I pulled out of Pier 79, I looked for any kind of southbound traffic, and I saw the plane there,” Captain Catanzaro said. “It was hard to stay next to it, but you practice that by throwing life rings in the water and trying to stay alongside them.
“One of the people got on board, turned around and hugged my deckhand. We’re just working as if we’re training and drilling.”
Each of the captains hailed the ferry deckhands — as well a ticket agent and bus driver — for hoisting people from the water.
The last person to leave a life raft was Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the captain of the US Airways flight. He climbed aboard the Athenia after everyone else had been lifted to safety. “Very calm,” Captain Lucas reported. “He had a metal clipboard with the passenger manifest. He came up into the wheelhouse, and we tried to organize a count of who was recovered from the water. I asked him if he thought there was anyone left on the plane. He said no, that he had checked twice himself.”...
“You train so much, you don’t have to think about it,” Captain Lucas said. “I didn’t have to give any orders to the crew.” ...
“We were getting the boat ready, and we saw the plane going down,” said Captain Liba, 52, who pilots the ferry Moira Smith. “We called management, we said, ‘We got to go.’ We just took off for the airplane. Right away, the doors flew out from the plane, and people came out...
Then he spotted a plane in the water.
“We just threw off the lines and went out there,” said Captain Lucas, 34.
At the same pier, Capt. John Winiarski, 52, and a deckhand, Frank Illuzzi, 62, were on board the catamaran the Admiral Richard E. Bennis. They noticed the Athenia speeding away.
“We seen them scurrying out into the river, so we turned around and saw the plane in the river,” Captain Winiarski said. “We made a beeline.”
And so it went: a flotilla of rescuers, created by people who caught glimpses of something going wrong and did not have to be told to help. The Athenia, the Admiral Bennis and 12 other boats — all operated or chartered by New York Waterway — picked 135 people out of the river. The crews stopped their work and changed the world.
“You don’t look nowhere,” said Cosmo Mezzina, 62, a deckhand on the ferry the Governor Thomas H. Kean. “You don’t look right or left. You just look right in front of you, just to save, to rescue those people.”
One of the ferry captains, Manuel Liba, ticked off the strokes of fortune: the pilot brought the plane down smoothly, the Hudson was calm, it was daylight and it was 45 minutes before the evening rush on the river.
There was more than luck. On a bitter, frigid afternoon, the plane had come down minutes from people who regularly practice helping. The first ferry to reach it was the Thomas Jefferson, which pulled out of Pier 79 on the Hudson River at 39th Street in Manhattan. “As we turned around, we noticed the plane in the water,” said Vincent Lombardi, captain of the Thomas Jefferson. “We thought it was an odd-looking vessel.”
He radioed the Coast Guard, then headed for the plane. The arrival of the Thomas Jefferson can be seen on a Coast Guard video at 3:34 p.m., about four or five minutes after the plane hit the water. Other videos show more ferries nestled around the jet, drifting alongside as it was pulled south by the current.
“I’ve been on the water since I was 2 years old,” said Brittany Catanzaro, 20, the captain of the Thomas Kean and a ferry pilot for five months.
“I pulled out of Pier 79, I looked for any kind of southbound traffic, and I saw the plane there,” Captain Catanzaro said. “It was hard to stay next to it, but you practice that by throwing life rings in the water and trying to stay alongside them.
“One of the people got on board, turned around and hugged my deckhand. We’re just working as if we’re training and drilling.”
Each of the captains hailed the ferry deckhands — as well a ticket agent and bus driver — for hoisting people from the water.
The last person to leave a life raft was Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the captain of the US Airways flight. He climbed aboard the Athenia after everyone else had been lifted to safety. “Very calm,” Captain Lucas reported. “He had a metal clipboard with the passenger manifest. He came up into the wheelhouse, and we tried to organize a count of who was recovered from the water. I asked him if he thought there was anyone left on the plane. He said no, that he had checked twice himself.”...
“You train so much, you don’t have to think about it,” Captain Lucas said. “I didn’t have to give any orders to the crew.” ...
“We were getting the boat ready, and we saw the plane going down,” said Captain Liba, 52, who pilots the ferry Moira Smith. “We called management, we said, ‘We got to go.’ We just took off for the airplane. Right away, the doors flew out from the plane, and people came out...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little_Rad_Hat
Picasa Web Albums - joyceastifanfotos - WST #10 - Goo...
Not correct.
I cannot recall any card which shows two different evacuation paths in case of ground landing or water landing. Just checked Ryanair one and does not give any clue about which doors use in case of water landing. Check the link.
Maybe some cards have this information. I cannot recall any safety briefing that in case of water lading the rear doors shall not be used to evac the plane.
The card is the clue
Not correct.
I cannot recall any card which shows two different evacuation paths in case of ground landing or water landing. Just checked Ryanair one and does not give any clue about which doors use in case of water landing. Check the link.
Maybe some cards have this information. I cannot recall any safety briefing that in case of water lading the rear doors shall not be used to evac the plane.
Last edited by FrequentSLF; 19th Jan 2009 at 03:25.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps selected
According to Higgins here NY1 | 24 Hour Local News | Top Stories | Jet Slowly Lifted From Icy Hudson River
"The crew selected Flaps 2....."
As I understand it, in order to have flap operation, the Y or G system would have to be pressurized. As others have said, this can still occur in a double out situation where the engines continue to windmill.
What a great triple-redundant RAT system
"The crew selected Flaps 2....."
As I understand it, in order to have flap operation, the Y or G system would have to be pressurized. As others have said, this can still occur in a double out situation where the engines continue to windmill.
What a great triple-redundant RAT system
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not correct.
I cannot recall any card which shows two different evacuation paths in case of ground landing or water landing.
I cannot recall any card which shows two different evacuation paths in case of ground landing or water landing.
I have never flown Ryanair, but I fly extensively on many airlines. When I get on an airplane, the FIRST thing I check is the exits available for a water landing. I have found that is the MOST varying factor among airplane emergency procedures. On US airlines, the information is on the card on ALL airplanes.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen numerous posts about the plane landing downwind. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure what KTEB was reporting, but there is an official weather station nearby in central park, KNYC. It showed westerly winds of about 8 knots a few minutes before the time of the accident. Also at that time, planes were of course departing runway 4 at LGA, however they were arriving on runway 31 at LGA. So, the A320 likely had a very mild crosswind and a few knots of current in his favor. Not terrible conditions, and certainly not enough to cause much of a chop on the water. Sea plane pilots are most afraid of a clear glass surface because it is the most difficult to sense height, and that certainly wasn't the case either. Being winter was actually a stroke of luck as there is a lot more river traffic across from mid-town in the summer that could have gotten in the way of the runway.
I don't think it is known publicly if the APU was running or not. US Airways seems to have an aggressive APU off policy to save every drop of fuel, so I doubt it was running on takeoff. Was the crew able to start the APU in the air? This likely would have been more useful than starting the engines. Assuming no APU, I've heard that the turbofans might provide useful hydraulic pressure above 200 knots (and that's assuming the turbofans can still spin around after the catastrophic failure) and the RAT can work above 140 knots. How much control would they have had of the airplane below 140 knots?
Another point, the flight was AWE1549. Note that AWE is the American West 'Cactus' callsign, rather than USA 'US AIR.' Since the merger, the airline has been operating internally as two separate airlines, with old Am West crews and old US Airways crews. The captain's bio shows that he flew for PSA which was later absorbed by the old US AIR. So has the post-America West US AIRWAYS finally merged its flight crews? Furthermore, it is nice to see that US AIRWAYS is finally providing a free drink to passengers after their new policy began on August 1 2008. A little too much though, I'd say. I'm curious if the safety briefing was conducted by the crew or by video. I've noticed that some US Airways A319s at least that previously used a video for the briefing have reverted to crew announcements. Maybe they haven't bothered to keep the video system in service.
Congratulations to the crew, CRM, the passengers, the rescuers, the aeronautical engineers, and those who supported all of the above. Even a restaurant in New Jersey shut down and provided hot soup and clean table clothes for triage. There was a report that one passenger didn't bother to wait and catch a ferry, but swam to shore. (YIKES!) He was treated for hypothermia but will be ok. Not the move I would have taken on the Hudson, even in the summer! Lucky he found a ladder or someone to pull him out.
I don't think it is known publicly if the APU was running or not. US Airways seems to have an aggressive APU off policy to save every drop of fuel, so I doubt it was running on takeoff. Was the crew able to start the APU in the air? This likely would have been more useful than starting the engines. Assuming no APU, I've heard that the turbofans might provide useful hydraulic pressure above 200 knots (and that's assuming the turbofans can still spin around after the catastrophic failure) and the RAT can work above 140 knots. How much control would they have had of the airplane below 140 knots?
Another point, the flight was AWE1549. Note that AWE is the American West 'Cactus' callsign, rather than USA 'US AIR.' Since the merger, the airline has been operating internally as two separate airlines, with old Am West crews and old US Airways crews. The captain's bio shows that he flew for PSA which was later absorbed by the old US AIR. So has the post-America West US AIRWAYS finally merged its flight crews? Furthermore, it is nice to see that US AIRWAYS is finally providing a free drink to passengers after their new policy began on August 1 2008. A little too much though, I'd say. I'm curious if the safety briefing was conducted by the crew or by video. I've noticed that some US Airways A319s at least that previously used a video for the briefing have reverted to crew announcements. Maybe they haven't bothered to keep the video system in service.
Congratulations to the crew, CRM, the passengers, the rescuers, the aeronautical engineers, and those who supported all of the above. Even a restaurant in New Jersey shut down and provided hot soup and clean table clothes for triage. There was a report that one passenger didn't bother to wait and catch a ferry, but swam to shore. (YIKES!) He was treated for hypothermia but will be ok. Not the move I would have taken on the Hudson, even in the summer! Lucky he found a ladder or someone to pull him out.
Last edited by Feathered; 19th Jan 2009 at 16:13.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your recollection may not be very good, then...
I have never flown Ryanair, but I fly extensively on many airlines. When I get on an airplane, the FIRST thing I check is the exits available for a water landing. I have found that is the MOST varying factor among airplane emergency procedures. On US airlines, the information is on the card on ALL airplanes.
I have never flown Ryanair, but I fly extensively on many airlines. When I get on an airplane, the FIRST thing I check is the exits available for a water landing. I have found that is the MOST varying factor among airplane emergency procedures. On US airlines, the information is on the card on ALL airplanes.
The link in my previous posts shows clearly that there is not a plan for water landing.
The issue is why is not on all cards on all airlines? If so the bashing of the pax would be correct...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cairo
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen 'don't open the rear door after a landing on water' on the safety card for the MD-80 like planes with the door in the tail, 'don't open the rear door after a landing on water' on some A320 series cards (I think drawn cartoon style) and at least one (cannot recall the type) that said ony use the over wing exit after a ditching. Some SLF do read the cards.
I am 'VOB' when sailing (Voice Activated Ballast), SLF on a plane. I don't find either term derogatory.
Compare the performance of Higgins (who had lots of information to give but didn't understand her brief) with the guy in Denver (who had very little information to give but came over as understanding much more than his brief). Not hard to spot the 'B' team.
Sullenberger is an even smarter guy than I thought if he has taken advise not to give media interviews. Much more mature than 'didn't I do well?' in front of a fawning press.
I am 'VOB' when sailing (Voice Activated Ballast), SLF on a plane. I don't find either term derogatory.
Compare the performance of Higgins (who had lots of information to give but didn't understand her brief) with the guy in Denver (who had very little information to give but came over as understanding much more than his brief). Not hard to spot the 'B' team.
Sullenberger is an even smarter guy than I thought if he has taken advise not to give media interviews. Much more mature than 'didn't I do well?' in front of a fawning press.
Last edited by SLF3b; 19th Jan 2009 at 05:23.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Otamatata
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US, who cares, saying you lost both engines and were landing in the Hudson doesn't require a mayday call. Even answering ATC if they can't help you is a waste of time in an emergency. Notice on the transcripts ATC did not ask for those annoying reports on souls on board, fuel, etc, but left them alone to deal with the ditching, probably required if you declared an emergency, or Mayday for the brits.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frequent SLF, if this is the case (that all airlines do not show this on cards) perhaps it is something that will be changed as an outcome from this event.
Here is an example of what I mean:
EasyJet Boeing 737-700 All Safety Cards: Collection of aircraft safety cards
They clearly show two different evacuation paths- just sayin, studying the card prior to such an event would immensely help the recall to the pax of that information in a high-stress situation. Perhaps it's not a requirement in the US to have certain information on the cards- I'm sure in Australia all airlines show this info- I know the ones I have worked for all showed land vs water evac.
My comments earlier were in no way 'having a go' at the pax- of course if you don't know better you want to go for the nearest exit- but I was trying to say, as someone trained for this situation, given the fact the doors were opened so quickly, and the pax thinking they had landed on-airport- means many may in fact have been out of their seats (from knowing impact had occured or from F/As calling 'evacuate'- by the time the need for lifejackets was known.
In a couple of the photos seat cushions can plainly be seen- I was suggesting the possibility that seeing boats, many of the pax may have decided they didn't want to hang arround to collect a life jacket as they felt they were in danger- air crew are taught- if you feel your life is in danger, get the hell out. So, each pax would have done what they thought was best.
(However, I believe taking a rollaboard bag onto the wing isn't the wisest thing, but we all do strange things under pressure!
Interestingly, this particular A320 card shows use of rear doors,
Hellas Jet Airbus A320 All Safety Cards: Collection of aircraft safety cards
so if the procedure is the same for USAir, this fits in with the FA stating that she 'decided not to use rear doors'- well within the scope of her training & role.
Details aside, well done to all involved- crew, those who offered assistance, and the pax for not losing their cool.
Here is an example of what I mean:
EasyJet Boeing 737-700 All Safety Cards: Collection of aircraft safety cards
They clearly show two different evacuation paths- just sayin, studying the card prior to such an event would immensely help the recall to the pax of that information in a high-stress situation. Perhaps it's not a requirement in the US to have certain information on the cards- I'm sure in Australia all airlines show this info- I know the ones I have worked for all showed land vs water evac.
My comments earlier were in no way 'having a go' at the pax- of course if you don't know better you want to go for the nearest exit- but I was trying to say, as someone trained for this situation, given the fact the doors were opened so quickly, and the pax thinking they had landed on-airport- means many may in fact have been out of their seats (from knowing impact had occured or from F/As calling 'evacuate'- by the time the need for lifejackets was known.
In a couple of the photos seat cushions can plainly be seen- I was suggesting the possibility that seeing boats, many of the pax may have decided they didn't want to hang arround to collect a life jacket as they felt they were in danger- air crew are taught- if you feel your life is in danger, get the hell out. So, each pax would have done what they thought was best.
(However, I believe taking a rollaboard bag onto the wing isn't the wisest thing, but we all do strange things under pressure!
Interestingly, this particular A320 card shows use of rear doors,
Hellas Jet Airbus A320 All Safety Cards: Collection of aircraft safety cards
so if the procedure is the same for USAir, this fits in with the FA stating that she 'decided not to use rear doors'- well within the scope of her training & role.
Details aside, well done to all involved- crew, those who offered assistance, and the pax for not losing their cool.
Last edited by Little_Red_Hat; 19th Jan 2009 at 06:13. Reason: to put the link in, whoops!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: the lake!
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DickyPearse
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19900125-0
Your link does not seem to work?
Good job to all involved BTW.
My answer to the CC question is that I'd rather have a young flirty female FA right up until minute something goes wrong...
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19900125-0
Your link does not seem to work?
Good job to all involved BTW.
My answer to the CC question is that I'd rather have a young flirty female FA right up until minute something goes wrong...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: cyprus
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where can i find credible info on ditching A320 ??? In my airline we dont condemn an exit during emergency evacuation but allways use caution before opening. In ditching scenario we are trained to use overwing exits without being giiven reason...
In the Hudson case, after reading some threads it seems that some airlines do condemn the rear exits, as the a/c will float tail heavy - so DONT OPEN rear doors !! Makes sense to me... and there is clear evidense in the US Air pics.
Any info from manufacturers or authorities is what i need so i may pass it on and up through my superiors... maybe get a policy change.
In the Hudson case, after reading some threads it seems that some airlines do condemn the rear exits, as the a/c will float tail heavy - so DONT OPEN rear doors !! Makes sense to me... and there is clear evidense in the US Air pics.
Any info from manufacturers or authorities is what i need so i may pass it on and up through my superiors... maybe get a policy change.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Alabama
Age: 58
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little_Red_Hat
The fact is that not all airlines safety cards mention that rear doors (for certain type) shall not be used in case of water landing.
I agree with you that perhaps one of the positive outcome of this event will be reflected in the safety cards.
Also maybe some of the people here will stop calling the SFL dumb, fools, etc...being proven that not all the safety cards are clearly stating that rear doors shall not be used.
The fact is that not all airlines safety cards mention that rear doors (for certain type) shall not be used in case of water landing.
I agree with you that perhaps one of the positive outcome of this event will be reflected in the safety cards.
Also maybe some of the people here will stop calling the SFL dumb, fools, etc...being proven that not all the safety cards are clearly stating that rear doors shall not be used.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rear exits not to be used
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are refering to my earlier post, it is nothing at all to do with the configuration. I worked out what the L/D would have to be to achieve a glide of 9 UK statue miles, and 9 nautical miles from 3,000'.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 54
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yaw To the Left ?
From various posts :
Point 1 - Quite so. My prediction, given the conditions below, a diver has groped along the right wing, bumped into a bit of pylon and surfaced with the news "The engine is still there". And remember the violent swing to the left after landing - with the right engine still attached - hardly likely
Point 2 - OK, I ll put my hand up.
When i heard the right engine was the one still on the plane, i thought it was nonsense given that the plane veered to the left.
I ll eat humble pie and i stand corrected
I guess i do not yet qualify as an NTSB investigator
Point 3 -On seeing the photos showing this left turn on the water, it did mometarily cross my mind if it might just be possible that the right engine was not only still attached but producing some sort of power until it was literally drowned out and so forcing the turn.
Point 4 - Is it possible that the starboard engine was still producing some (more than the port engine at least) amount of power on ditching? This would allow the water, on impact, a slightly less restrained passage through the powerplant and hence it could have experienced insufficient force to shear it off. Could this possibly also explain the aircrafts yaw to port once waterborne
Point 5 - It is possible that #1, having taken in more gooseflesh than #2, was more compromised (due to out of balance rotating mass and damaged mounts), and simply departed first. Left loop? easy. without the nacelle for support, the wing may have dragged the water, creating more left turning impetus than the starboard side had, being "supported" by the "intact" nacelle and pylon assmbly. Who's to say?
Nice to know the points of view change as more info comes to light....shows we can adapt as a species....
I reckon the aircraft should have yawed right due to the drag but did not. Maybe it is because most pilots subconsciously drop their wing on landing / hold-off / flair......i.e P1 left down and P2 right down.....or maybe the engine only departed from the airframe once drifting or when one of the rescue boats arrived....earlier pics did show her "balanced" post crash.
Maybe the taildragger guys could remind us of the reasoning behind a ground loop....or is that a moot point because there are no props ?
Point 1 - Quite so. My prediction, given the conditions below, a diver has groped along the right wing, bumped into a bit of pylon and surfaced with the news "The engine is still there". And remember the violent swing to the left after landing - with the right engine still attached - hardly likely
Point 2 - OK, I ll put my hand up.
When i heard the right engine was the one still on the plane, i thought it was nonsense given that the plane veered to the left.
I ll eat humble pie and i stand corrected
I guess i do not yet qualify as an NTSB investigator
Point 3 -On seeing the photos showing this left turn on the water, it did mometarily cross my mind if it might just be possible that the right engine was not only still attached but producing some sort of power until it was literally drowned out and so forcing the turn.
Point 4 - Is it possible that the starboard engine was still producing some (more than the port engine at least) amount of power on ditching? This would allow the water, on impact, a slightly less restrained passage through the powerplant and hence it could have experienced insufficient force to shear it off. Could this possibly also explain the aircrafts yaw to port once waterborne
Point 5 - It is possible that #1, having taken in more gooseflesh than #2, was more compromised (due to out of balance rotating mass and damaged mounts), and simply departed first. Left loop? easy. without the nacelle for support, the wing may have dragged the water, creating more left turning impetus than the starboard side had, being "supported" by the "intact" nacelle and pylon assmbly. Who's to say?
Nice to know the points of view change as more info comes to light....shows we can adapt as a species....
I reckon the aircraft should have yawed right due to the drag but did not. Maybe it is because most pilots subconsciously drop their wing on landing / hold-off / flair......i.e P1 left down and P2 right down.....or maybe the engine only departed from the airframe once drifting or when one of the rescue boats arrived....earlier pics did show her "balanced" post crash.
Maybe the taildragger guys could remind us of the reasoning behind a ground loop....or is that a moot point because there are no props ?
Who said they didn't send a " Mayday " ?
"The captain makes radio call to ATC (air traffic control) calling mayday and reports that they hit birds, lost both engines and were returning to LaGuardia" airport, said Kitty Higgins, a National Transportation Safety Board member, releasing cockpit transmissions captured on flight data and voice recorders."
"The captain makes radio call to ATC (air traffic control) calling mayday and reports that they hit birds, lost both engines and were returning to LaGuardia" airport, said Kitty Higgins, a National Transportation Safety Board member, releasing cockpit transmissions captured on flight data and voice recorders."
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few reasons I can think of as to why it appears slats/flaps were selected late.
One could be that in the short moment of deciding where to go the Crew wanted to keep the A/C clean so to keep the best angle of glide until assured of clearing bridges ETC.
The other is simply the lack of time. Not sure about the A320 but on my type it takes a good 20 seconds to select/run the first stage of Slat/Flaps - there are 5 stages in total.
Thinking about the incident in general, those few seconds after dual engine failure, after the Capt. took control and turned south were the most important seconds of this short flight.
He had 2 choices - go for an airfield or go for the Hudson.
Landing on a runway from that height - even if you had enough glide performance, would have been incredibly difficult, (the ever changing glide angle with lowering of gear/flaps). Obviously if you get it right the rewards are an undamaged A/C and unhurt passengers. If you get it wrong though there is a high chance that none of the crew/passengers will survive
The Hudson presents a different option. It's relatively an easy target to land on but there is a chance of some of the passengers drowning after impact if the hull sustains sufficient damage. The fact that they all survived is testimony to the well executed touchdown, a strong A/C, and quick rescue. Plus of course some luck.
The overriding point though is that I have had the luxury of days to think about all this - he had seconds. A gambling man would have gone for broke and tried for an airfield - luckily for the passengers 'Sully', it appears, did not want to gamble with ALL their lives.
He made the right decision.
One could be that in the short moment of deciding where to go the Crew wanted to keep the A/C clean so to keep the best angle of glide until assured of clearing bridges ETC.
The other is simply the lack of time. Not sure about the A320 but on my type it takes a good 20 seconds to select/run the first stage of Slat/Flaps - there are 5 stages in total.
Thinking about the incident in general, those few seconds after dual engine failure, after the Capt. took control and turned south were the most important seconds of this short flight.
He had 2 choices - go for an airfield or go for the Hudson.
Landing on a runway from that height - even if you had enough glide performance, would have been incredibly difficult, (the ever changing glide angle with lowering of gear/flaps). Obviously if you get it right the rewards are an undamaged A/C and unhurt passengers. If you get it wrong though there is a high chance that none of the crew/passengers will survive
The Hudson presents a different option. It's relatively an easy target to land on but there is a chance of some of the passengers drowning after impact if the hull sustains sufficient damage. The fact that they all survived is testimony to the well executed touchdown, a strong A/C, and quick rescue. Plus of course some luck.
The overriding point though is that I have had the luxury of days to think about all this - he had seconds. A gambling man would have gone for broke and tried for an airfield - luckily for the passengers 'Sully', it appears, did not want to gamble with ALL their lives.
He made the right decision.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FO surfaces at last. Jeff Skiles.
Skiles' wife Barbara said her husband needed clean clothes but was otherwise unruffled by the mishap. "Someone was kind enough to give him clean underwear,"
I expect Jeff will be speaking with his wife on her choice of words.
.
Skiles' wife Barbara said her husband needed clean clothes but was otherwise unruffled by the mishap. "Someone was kind enough to give him clean underwear,"
I expect Jeff will be speaking with his wife on her choice of words.
.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jportzer and others; ATC declares emergencies all the time without calls from pilots. Often they are for missed position reports and the like which are later resolved but more often at airports where Tower sees something is wrong and hits the crash alarm. By the way these are not declared emergencies involving rescue coordination centres,they are airport emergency procedures.You can always send the firies back but there is no excuse for them being late at the crash site.
Likewise if you see an airplane in the circuit trailing smoke but not talking, or an A320 that stops climbing and starts (and keeps) descending after take off without calling. An airport emergency will be declared, no-one is waiting for a Mayday or Pan call to be the trigger though it does help with information. Towers worldwide typically have the ability to access the public emergency system, ie, Police Fire Ambulance normally without an intermediary.
By the way this would not occur if the aircraft is out of sight and pilot is talking but not making it clear what his problem might be; that's when you might hear the question "Are you declaring an emergency?"
Likewise if you see an airplane in the circuit trailing smoke but not talking, or an A320 that stops climbing and starts (and keeps) descending after take off without calling. An airport emergency will be declared, no-one is waiting for a Mayday or Pan call to be the trigger though it does help with information. Towers worldwide typically have the ability to access the public emergency system, ie, Police Fire Ambulance normally without an intermediary.
By the way this would not occur if the aircraft is out of sight and pilot is talking but not making it clear what his problem might be; that's when you might hear the question "Are you declaring an emergency?"