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, 14:20
  #921 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: East of Texas
Posts: 1,061
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hate to be a party pooper, BUT..... I can't help but wonder how it is that BOTH engines were so badly damaged by bird ingestion that they could not continue to fly. I don't believe this has ever happened before. Has it?

Does anyone else besides me consider that maybe this crew screwed up? Maybe they actually shut down the good engine during a severe damage engine shutdown while attempting to return to the airport.

At low altitude there would have been no time to restart it.
Lost,

What are your thoughts today?
Rapid D is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 14:45
  #922 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
re-use of parts

Re post #916,

Have you not read "The Ghost of Flight 401 by John G Fuller?
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 14:51
  #923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Serious errors, apparently: reportedly the PNF had not selected the Ditch switch, nor notified the cabin crew of ditching.

Hat it been on UAL, with their channel 9, some of the pax would have been aware of the upcoming ditching and warned the rest, at which point the cards would have been read, and life vests brought to mind.

The possibility of ditching in a river or harbor, rather than in open ocean, may not have been seriously considered in the past, and may require some re-thinking.

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 14:51
  #924 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One additional element of 'luck' here, which I don't think has been mentioned, was the constitution (no pun) of the pax. It seems that the great majority were young fit guys. No little old ladies and only one infant. (And can I say, not one of the pax appears overweight. What are the chances of that?) The FAA's perfect complement for an evacuation trial.
forget is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 15:07
  #925 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Serious errors, apparently: reportedly the PNF had not selected the Ditch switch, nor notified the cabin crew of ditching.
Would disagree with your highly unfair and accusatory conclusion

If USAir use the Airbus QRH, and lost the engines (as they seem to) the drill is not a Memory drill, and runs to 4 pages. One of the actions you mention is halfway down p4

Unprepared ditching is, this side of the pond, dealt with in the cabin. The normal prep for ditching takes 10+minutes... If any "Brace" PA was made (seem it was) well done the FC

I trust your post is seen as sufficiently uninformed as to be deleted by the Mods, rendering my reply a waste of time...

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 15:17
  #926 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do UAL allow pax to listen to the audio (re channel9) during take off and landing? Every flight I have been on, having earphones on during these periods is a big no no.

As has already been mentioned, priority for the pilots is to fly the plane whilst making the correct decisions under immense pressure, when they know their life is in serious s&!t. I think anyone who has not been in that situation should not criticise this crew, or any other who miss a couple of things (and nothing to say yet that the US air crew did...) I believe the pilots of the BA 777 last year did not get a PA out before the impact short of the runway, and no wonder, they had their priorities right, just unfortunate for the pax!
simfly is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 15:18
  #927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hate to be a party pooper, BUT..... I can't help but wonder how it is that BOTH engines were so badly damaged by bird ingestion that they could not continue to fly. I don't believe this has ever happened before. Has it?

Does anyone else besides me consider that maybe this crew screwed up? Maybe they actually shut down the good engine during a severe damage engine shutdown while attempting to return to the airport.

At low altitude there would have been no time to restart it.


Originally Posted by Rapid D
Lost,

What are your thoughts today?
Well, speaking of bird ingestion, I guess I'll be "Eating Crow"
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 15:19
  #928 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by silverelise
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).
Well, if you've heard about Airbus' "Flight Control Laws", you might have read at a bit more on it. Some of the basics ideas are certainly available on-line.

The difference between conventionally controlled and Airbus fly-by-wire could be summarized (somewhat simplified) thus:

- In a conventionally controlled aircraft the flight controls deflect the control surfaces with a fixed ratio, and aerodynamic forces move and turn the aircraft. It is the pilot's responsibility to compensate for varying conditions.

- in an Airbus FBW aircraft the flight controls tell the computer how the pilot wants the plane to move and turn, and the computers deflect the control surfaces in such a way that it moves and turns exactly as requested, with the computer(s) compensating for varying conditions.

That said, any aircraft will fly wherever the pilot tells it to fly, including straight into a mountain or smoothly down onto the Hudson.

It will give you a warning when you get too low to the ground with the gear and/or flaps retracted, or approach terrain too fast, but all modern airliners will do that, it's part of the EGPWS, and not Airbus-specific. For a forced landing/ditching some or all of these warnings can be disabled to avoid distractions.

What someone has pointed out, the ability of the Airbus to maintain the bank angle (even automatically return it to 0 if it is below 5 degrees) may have helped a bit with the ditching, but in relatively calm conditions the differences to, say, a 737 shouldn't be dramatic.


Cheers,
Bernd
bsieker is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 16:25
  #929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: under a small carrot outside strathbungo
Age: 43
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't know if this has been mentioned but....

Has anyone noticed that the news outlets seem to be of the opinion that there was only one pilot on board. No mention is made of the the other crew.

apart from here on PPRUNE.

Don't get me wrong THEY did a great job, and if I ever met them I'd buy them a beer.

However, I think that the papers have got it wrong, and that thanks to a good captain, and some great CRM with the FO in what was probably a busy few minutes that they survived.

From the times today, and I can't remember the exact wording but it went something like this

"Captain S took control of the plane (from the FO woh was PF), went throught the checklist and talked to ATC."

The paper gave the impression that he did everything.

Could all papers read this and print that, "thanks to some excellent teamwork, and crm which has been developed over the last few decades all the pax and crew survived."

I'm a captain and I'm well aware that the FO is important as I am, and could the papers please reflect that.

thankyou, rant over.
Homer_J is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 16:43
  #930 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
given the state of the underside, one wonders if the selection of ditch switch was all that important...
MarkD is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 16:44
  #931 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"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.

Everyone seems to have forgotten this little gem from 1988. A TAC 737 put down on a levee south of New Orleans after loosing power from both engines in a severe thunderstorm. There were no injuries and no loss of life. The aircraft was actually flown out of the location several days later. I would say his accomplishments were on par with what happened last week, given the choices he had and having little knowledge of the area he was putting down in. The details can be found here:
Taca 737 On New Orleans Levee (pic) — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net

Patrick
patrickal is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 17:50
  #932 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For A320 Crew - Would you have worked your way through the ENG DUAL FAILURE (fuel remaining) checklist or would you switch/jump at some point to the DITCHING procedure.
nnc0 is online now  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 17:54
  #933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
On the a/c I fly (B 737 - 800) the Ditching Checklist seems to be very much for a premeditated ditching - a throwback one suspects from the days of large piston engine a/c flying across the pond where you might have to shut down 2 of the 4 engines on the way across and then not be able to maintain height. You then had 20/30 minutes, maybe more, to prepare the cabin (brief pax, don lifejackets, get the dinghies out) and on the flight deck do all the necessary items.

I would suggest (as this incident proves) that most ditching these days are unpremeditated or virtually so. Maybe we need a much shorter checklist for this eventuality just listing the essentials. (The Boeing checklist says burn off fuel to minimum - hardly applicable in the Hudson incident).
fireflybob is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 17:59
  #934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For A320 Crew - Would you have worked your way through the ENG DUAL FAILURE (fuel remaining) checklist or would you switch/jump at some point to the DITCHING procedure
To a degree - neither Given the (lack of) time, and more important things like flying the aircraft, one quick PA and getting the aircraft configured, whilst trying to relight one of the engines... If it had been me, I doubt the QRH would have made it out, let alone found the right page...

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 18:17
  #935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
handflying

I'd like to answer this question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverelise
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).


Well, if you've heard about Airbus' "Flight Control Laws", you might have read at a bit more on it. Some of the basics ideas are certainly available on-line.

The difference between conventionally controlled and Airbus fly-by-wire could be summarized (somewhat simplified) thus:

- In a conventionally controlled aircraft the flight controls deflect the control surfaces with a fixed ratio, and aerodynamic forces move and turn the aircraft. It is the pilot's responsibility to compensate for varying conditions.

- in an Airbus FBW aircraft the flight controls tell the computer how the pilot wants the plane to move and turn, and the computers deflect the control surfaces in such a way that it moves and turns exactly as requested, with the computer(s) compensating for varying conditions.

That said, any aircraft will fly wherever the pilot tells it to fly, including straight into a mountain or smoothly down onto the Hudson.

It will give you a warning when you get too low to the ground with the gear and/or flaps retracted, or approach terrain too fast, but all modern airliners will do that, it's part of the EGPWS, and not Airbus-specific. For a forced landing/ditching some or all of these warnings can be disabled to avoid distractions.

What someone has pointed out, the ability of the Airbus to maintain the bank angle (even automatically return it to 0 if it is below 5 degrees) may have helped a bit with the ditching, but in relatively calm conditions the differences to, say, a 737 shouldn't be dramatic.


Cheers,
Bernd
...With this quote:
Great Job!
This is really a great piece of airmanship work and although cabin crew deserve a word of gratitude (their work was also so important to evacuate all passengers alive!) I must tell you that, I am fascinated by the great job, done on the cockpit.
Yesterday I went to bed still frilled by the outcome of that accident and I have tried to make the exercise of positioning myself in the seat of that captain...it wasn't easy, I must concede. Those who are not pilots and are not familiar with flying a powerless A320 have no idea of the complexity of handling that "glider" (together with the completion of check-lists and the handling of the situation with the chief purser, ATC and Pax.). In the flight Simulator, at Green Dot Speed, one gets a rate of descent of approximately 1800/2200' per minute and the the simple fact of trying to "recover" about five Knots, for instance, will result in the increase of that rate to 2500/2800' sometimes 3000' per minute! Further, as far as I remember, one would be receiving partial hydraulic power trough windmilling and the RAT (minimum speed for power 140Kts) so Slats/Flaps selection would have to be done with parsimony, (at the right altitude, to allow for profile upsets) would come slowly and would influence not only the profile itself, but the Flight Controls behavior also...
Flight Simulators seem to be not prepared for the training of ditching maneuvers, therefore we usually train double engine failures (sometimes with ditching preparation) and subsequent landing on a field witch require planning for touching down on the first segment of the runway. In the present Hudson River case, the "runway" was long, but time was short. No time for mistakes, no second chance for a perfect landing.
They have done well. More than that, they have restored faith on our profession!
Congratulations on a Job Well Done.

Fly Safe
Água d'Alte
...and would like to add, that:

One can always look for mistakes, bad decisions, alternatives and "luck", with all the time of the world, behind our desks, with a glass of good wine in our hands...

When a once in a lifetime occasion like this, happens to a Pilot, he/she has to take a decision that may turn to be a good or a bad one. I do think that Captain Chesley Sullenberg 's early and prompt decision is the key for his success. Could he have done more? Could his First Officer have done more? Maybe. As far as I am concerned I do think they have done great!

And NO. Those computers "don't fly for you" in a double engine failure! You have to fly the aircraft "the old fashion way"! A320's (generally) go to a "direct law" mode in case of dual engine failure, which includes now, manual trimming of the aircraft (throughout the trim-wheel) and direct input control of the flight control surfaces of the aircraft. That's why we all should encourage Airline Pilots to fly general aviation, single engine and gliders as a hobby. But that's another story...
Fly Safe
Água d'Alte
aguadalte is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 18:18
  #936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: California
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Ditching

It appears that Southern and Taca experienced forced landings as they landed on LAND. While both are impressive displays of airmanship they are not ditchings.
To be a Ditching the touchdown must be in WATER.
From what I know this is the first completely successful ditching of a jet airliner ever.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.


Quotes:

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


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.


Everyone seems to have forgotten this little gem from 1988. A TAC 737 put down on a levee south of New Orleans after loosing power from both engines in a severe thunderstorm. There were no injuries and no loss of life. The aircraft was actually flown out of the location several days later. I would say his accomplishments were on par with what happened last week, given the choices he had and having little knowledge of the area he was putting down in. The details can be found here:
Taca 737 On New Orleans Levee
Stearperson is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 18:25
  #937 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TACA 737 at New Orleans

Patrickal: "Everyone seems to have forgotten this little gem from 1988. A TAC 737 put down on a levee south of New Orleans after losing power from both engines in a severe thunderstorm. There were no injuries and no loss of life. The aircraft was actually flown out of the location several days later. I would say his accomplishments were on par with what happened last week, given the choices he had and having little knowledge of the area he was putting down in. The details can be found here:
Taca 737 On New Orleans Levee (pic) — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net "

Funny, I had forgot that one, too, and I was closely involved with maintenance of the weather radar on that plane at KLAX a few days later. The plane was only 3 weeks old. Shortly after that, I believe the flight idle thrust was raised on the CFM, and continuous ignition was required.

I met Capt. Dardano about ten years later, when he was Capt. on their 767, and he was quite modest about the landing. He said he was unfamiliar with the new digital radar, so didn't use it as he could have.
He owned a crop dusting and aerial advertising business in El Salvador, and hence, was quite familiar with low and slow flying.

The fact that he wore a pirate patch over his left eye, accentuated his skill at landing on the levee. I believe he lost the eye from an attack by rebels on the hiway between the airport and San Salvador. Of course, binocular vision is useful only out to about a meter.

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 18:44
  #938 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
To the discussion about ditching history (for what little its worth)

I'm sure that IGH will add a page or two here, but my initial coments are:

From a CRM standpoint even ditchings on the ground are worth considering since a lot of decision making needs to go on. Just listening to the CVR's tells you that.

So just some more examples from my dim memory are

The UAL DC8 fuel startvation at PDX
Avianca fuel starvation at JFK
B737 fuel starvation over Brazil
SK MD80 Multiple engine out ARN
Austrian Fokker Multiple engine out due to ice
ET B37 Dual Bird Ingestion Ethiopia


I didn't include the JAL DC8 at SFO simply because I don't believe that they knew that they were ditching in the bay.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 18:57
  #939 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ditching on the ground

Maybe this was the closest to the US accident in the sense that it suffered a double engine failure on climb-out and flew for only about 3 miles.

A PanInternational BAC 1-11 ex-HAM attempted a landing on an autobahn in 1971 after both engines were cooked by kerosene in the water injection system.

22 fatalities out of 121 on board after it hit a bridge pillar. So it was a hero-free event, long since forgotten.

Last edited by Dysag; 19th Jan 2009 at 19:35.
Dysag is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2009, 19:00
  #940 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 49
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stearperson: From what I know this is the first completely successful ditching of a jet airliner ever.
Successfull ditchings with large jets have been done before:
A B707 cargo aircraft landed 5 km short and ditched in a lake in 2000. It floated at least until the next day.


Full story: B707 Takes a Swim
All-Ex is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.