Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC

Old 19th Jan 2009, 11:01
  #901 (permalink)  
F4F
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Devil 46 Pages of HEROism...

and counting

And a couple of open questions:
- What about awaiting the investigation report and then see what really happened (hopefully maybe...)?
- Was ALL the THRUST lost (difficult to believe)?
- Considering the height and speed reached, was there no way for an early return to the departure field?
- Other options available?
- Prime and never to be answered, was there any way to maneuver and avoid the flock in the first place (great pity, for there would be no hero in this scenario...)


live 2 fly 2 live
F4F is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 11:06
  #902 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 736
Insufficiency of rafts...

Am I right in concluding that there were nothing like enough rafts for 155 people available, or at least in good reach of the overwing and front exits (I have read the posts and understand that the rears could 'possibly' be brought forward)... ?

A surfeit of rafts would seem necessary, as if something 'can' go wrong, it will...

A mile out to sea and a very different story standing on that wing for even 30 minutes!

Remember the Titanic ?
HarryMann is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 11:23
  #903 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 736
Other options...

- Was ALL the THRUST lost (difficult to believe)?
Unlikely but how long does it take to discover what is and what isn't available, and when it will be back on-line (answering a question with a question)

- Considering the height and speed reached, was there no way for an early return to the departure field?
Quick mental computation and quick decision making at this height saved the day... not farting about. Even if it was theoretically within range, you do not know that the flaps, u/c and other complications will make it the wrong decision down the line... e.g. #1 at 3,000 and descending fast, minimise turns (esp. near the ground), minimise complexity (of everything), minimise out of cockpit distractions.
You go for what is 100% doable, not 89% likely.. The Hudson was doable, and he did it - Bravo!
It's that thinking in the first 30 seconds or so, that characterised the glider pilot/light a/c pilot thinking, familar with low, slow, and having to go with the flow. (the alignment, approach speed and final flare need be little different than a normal landing, certainly no slower, you do NOT want to drop a wing!)

- Other options available?
You mean the auxiliary jet-pack, or parachutes




Sorry, couldn't resist...

Last edited by HarryMann; 19th Jan 2009 at 11:38.
HarryMann is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 11:33
  #904 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 76
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by framer View Post
possibly stupid . . . . pax into the river with a water temp of about 5 degrees C . Everyone involved would already be going into shock, some probably can't even swim. For a fit person the 'exhaustion time' is about 20mins at that temp and expected survival time of 30-90 mins.
Having done it these times are very generous.

We were in a moderate sea with a water temp of about 2 deg C. I was wearing immersion gloves and some 5 - 10 yards from the life raft. The copilot had to re-enter the water and 'rescue' me. we both wore buoyancy aids. He reached me and was then hauled back with a rope. I was boarded inthe liferaft and he was hauled in second.

He was in the water for no more than a minute or two having previously been in the water about 2 minutes. his hands were locked like claws and he was in hypothermic shock. After about 20-30 minutes he had recovered sufficiently to be very sick. Had he not been in the liferaft he would not have lasted 5 minutes let alone 20.
Wader2 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 11:45
  #905 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 84
Posts: 9
And a couple of open questions:
- What about awaiting the investigation report and then see what really happened (hopefully maybe...)?
- Was ALL the THRUST lost (difficult to believe)?
- Considering the height and speed reached, was there no way for an early return to the departure field?
- Other options available?
- Prime and never to be answered, was there any way to maneuver and avoid the flock in the first place (great pity, for there would be no hero in this scenario...)
I think your first question answered the remaining ones...
JayEmKay is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 11:57
  #906 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ilford
Posts: 3
Kingbird87

Not wishing to detract from you well reasoned and informative comments, but I would observe that the bird-strike was more likely to have occured over Bronx Park whilst on a heading of 360, having made the normal left after take off from 04 at LGA. It was here, when N106US reached it maximum height of 3,000 ft that the incident took place.

The 180 to align with the Hudson river then took place.
Bighat is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 12:33
  #907 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In the shed
Age: 73
Posts: 63
CFM56 Ad

Current copy of Air Transport World mag has a two-page ad from CFM for ther CFM56 family with the tagline:
"The recipe for a genuine CFM engine
Five large birds [picture of two chicken in a roasting tin]
500 lbs of hailstones
3 slabs of ice
and lots of water"

... which they fire into the donc as part of their ingestion tests. I guess they'll be looking to pull the ad until they've tried it again with geese.
captainspeaking is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 12:51
  #908 (permalink)  
Everything is under control.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 432
I read the 1) flight data recorder and 2) cockpit voice recorder were pulled from the plane, but this article shows three boxes. Which is which?

The Associated Press: NTSB: River jet's engines lost power at same time
Eboy is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 12:52
  #909 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 76
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by mickjoebill View Post
Passengers took seat cushions when they realised they were on water.

Very few life vests taken and worn.
Just a speculative thought, but in UK all flights are 'overwater' so passengers are routinely briefed on the use of life vests.

In the US it would seem that many flights do not carry life vests and passengers are briefed to use seat cushions.

Is it possible that many of these passengers were regular internal US air passengers who were habitutated to the concept of a floation cushion rather than a life vest? In other words they recerted to pre-learnt knowledge and not the specific flight brief?
Wader2 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 13:41
  #910 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 3
parts re-use

Just a curiosity, will any of the parts of this A/C ever likely be reused ? Can somebody tell me what the policy would be in this case. Thanks, Ward
ward is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 13:54
  #911 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,065
Just a curiosity, will any of the parts of this A/C ever likely be reused ? Can somebody tell me what the policy would be in this case. Thanks, Ward
Well, solidly in the urban legend category, there is airline folklore about reused parts salvaged from an Eastern L-1011 after a water crash with fatalities in 1972.

From Wikipedia:

Over the following months and years, employees of Eastern Air Lines began reporting sightings of the dead crew members on board another L-1011 (N318EA). The story was that parts of Flight 401 were salvaged after the crash investigation and refitted into the other L-1011. "Sightings" of the spirits of Don Repo and Bob Loft spread throughout Eastern Air Lines to the point where Eastern's management warned employees that they could face dismissal if caught spreading ghost stories.
Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Airbubba is online now  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 13:59
  #912 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
The blue one says "EGPWS" on the side. I guess it must have some stored data as well.
Huck is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 14:07
  #913 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 202
SLF question about ditching in the Airbus (mods feel free to move somewhere more apt if needs be).

Do you have to override any of the flight management systems or change to one of the different "laws" in order to get the aircraft near the ground without being in a landing configuration (eg. gear still up etc).
silverelise is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 14:11
  #914 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 76
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by Bighat View Post
I would observe that the bird-strike was more likely to have occured over Bronx Park whilst on a heading of 360, having made the normal left after take off from 04 at LGA. It was here, when N106US reached it maximum height of 3,000 ft that the incident took place.
Are you observing that the bird strike was more likely to occur over Bronx Park or that the heading was likely to be 360 over Bronx Park/

If you rae suggesting that Bronx Park increased the risk of bird strike I would suggest that it may not have had an increased risk as far as geese are concerned.

At 3000 feet geese are more likely to be in transit between roosting and feeding areas. They are unlikely to be as high as 3000 feet should they have been disturbed on the ground nor would I expect them to be as high if they had just taken off or if they were intending to land at BP.

Where I am (clue in the name) our geese geneally use a stepped descent 1500 feet at 10 km out and stepping down every 5 k or so. True this is over marshes so in the BP case maybe over the river. They do not adopt a circling descent.

If alarmed they generally climb to 200-250 feet and make a circling descent back to the roosting area. In the Elmdorf case the geese had returned to roost within 2 minutes so I suggest in this case the geese had not been alarmed.
Wader2 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 14:53
  #915 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: the dog house
Age: 51
Posts: 2
Mr Newton says

The only law you'd need to change after two donks have quit is that of gravity.
scareobat is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 14:57
  #916 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 898
Mayday

"I am getting more than a little tired of Fox News declaring that this was the "first" successful ditching of a commercial airliner."

I can't imagine why anyone would watch Faux News.
---

The Southern Airways DC-9 that hit a hailstorm near Atlanta back in 1977 - the era of Boeing Tri-motors - told ATC they had lost both engines, and ATC replied understanding they had lost two of their engines, and continued working other traffic on the frequency.

Although within gliding distance of at least one airport, they landed on a rural road, hitting a corner grocery store, with some loss of life.

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 14:57
  #917 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nottingham
Age: 71
Posts: 223
Fly The Bloody Aeroplane

Capt Sullenberger followed the first principle of airmanship to the letter. 'When all goes pear shaped the first second third and last priority is to fly the bloody aeroplane'. (As clearly enunciated/bellowed/screamed by numerous instructors to any number of trainees/gradees dependent upon the potential cock up factor heading towards them. Given the height/speed/relative distances involved he did absolutley the right things in the right order. Also as everyones moaning about the cost of training how about going back to very basic basics ie make eveyone start on gliders. Afterall it never did the 1930's Luftwaffe any harm did it? As I was constantly told when learning to glide 'Lack of motive power do tendeth to concentrate the mind laddie' I still think that the glider pilots ability to plan and execute what to most pilots would be considered a dead stick landing is a skill that should be taught more widely. Yes I know folks execute EF training ad nauseum but never for very obvious reasons carry the approach to a logical conclusion' Airspeed/height/airspeed/rate of descent/airspeed every damn thing else but above all AIRSPEED. Lose that and you buy the farm. And Sully knew it it spades
Prangster is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 15:02
  #918 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
Reused parts?

I should think the landing gear struts, being massive and not directly involved, are potentially reusable after a good shop visit.

...but other than that, perhaps some training aids.
barit1 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 15:09
  #919 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
Also as everyones moaning about the cost of training how about going back to very basic basics ie make eveyone start on gliders.

You missed the memo. MMPL is the future. These new aircraft fly themselves, you know....
Huck is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 15:18
  #920 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
Prangster

I agree but would add that gliding accustomed Capt Sullenberger to the idea of an off-airport landing was survivable. Many pilots might have bit off on trying for TEB or return to LGA. He seems to have decidedly quickly that no other outcome than a water landing was survivable, so set to the task of doing it right. MPL-licensed crews may never experience even the basic single-engine training event called, "engine stopped, where are you going to land?" Forty years on, I still remember that from my third lesson in a C-150.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.