Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo
This was a valuable guide to me some years later (early 1990s)
On a cool damp night in an MD-83 halfway through the rotate I ploughed through a flock of ducks that had been warming their feet on the runway, and just appeared in the lights as we crested the slight rise in the runway.
I was amazed as they rose straight up like helicopters, and in an instant "boom", both engines surged violently. A series of bangs followed, and to cut a long story short the starboard engine was surging, but the port was running OK with unknown level of damage. I instructed the F/O to slowly reduce the power on the stbd engine until it stopped surging, but NOT to let it unspool, as it would never come back up. (Thanks Southern!) It stabilised at about 1.3 EPR which might have been all we had left if the port one quit.
Luckily the port engine continued to run well, and we completed a tight circuit to get back on the ground before it might think of failing.
Ironically, during the landing roll, 3 ducks impacted the nose/windshield, presumably they had been flying around looking for the rest of the decimated flock.
On examination, the stbd engine first stage had 32 blades out of 36 either missing or badly damaged. The port had feathers from 3 or 4 ducks wrapped around intake area, but no mechanical damage. It speaks volumes of the toughness of P&W engines that neither hot section was seriously damaged.
P.S.
Needless to say, whenever duck is on the menu I go for it!
Just a minor correction but indeed a lesson learned.
When the throttles were moved the engines began to surge. Without any abatement to the throttles the surging continued until the compressor baldes failed on one engine after the other "we got the other engine going too damn it". It is presumed that continued restart attempts with no compressor led to completely burned out turbines. But the real lesson learned about the engines was to throttle back just out of the engine stalling bucket and cross your fingers that you can keep it in the air that way.
When the throttles were moved the engines began to surge. Without any abatement to the throttles the surging continued until the compressor baldes failed on one engine after the other "we got the other engine going too damn it". It is presumed that continued restart attempts with no compressor led to completely burned out turbines. But the real lesson learned about the engines was to throttle back just out of the engine stalling bucket and cross your fingers that you can keep it in the air that way.
On a cool damp night in an MD-83 halfway through the rotate I ploughed through a flock of ducks that had been warming their feet on the runway, and just appeared in the lights as we crested the slight rise in the runway.
I was amazed as they rose straight up like helicopters, and in an instant "boom", both engines surged violently. A series of bangs followed, and to cut a long story short the starboard engine was surging, but the port was running OK with unknown level of damage. I instructed the F/O to slowly reduce the power on the stbd engine until it stopped surging, but NOT to let it unspool, as it would never come back up. (Thanks Southern!) It stabilised at about 1.3 EPR which might have been all we had left if the port one quit.
Luckily the port engine continued to run well, and we completed a tight circuit to get back on the ground before it might think of failing.
Ironically, during the landing roll, 3 ducks impacted the nose/windshield, presumably they had been flying around looking for the rest of the decimated flock.
On examination, the stbd engine first stage had 32 blades out of 36 either missing or badly damaged. The port had feathers from 3 or 4 ducks wrapped around intake area, but no mechanical damage. It speaks volumes of the toughness of P&W engines that neither hot section was seriously damaged.
P.S.
Needless to say, whenever duck is on the menu I go for it!
Last edited by ZQA297/30; 19th Jan 2009 at 21:38. Reason: Afterthought
snowfalcon2, Re “Could be addressed in training…” (#962)
An alternative is to consider the human aspects of the crew’s task in a relatively short timescale, vis:-
Identify the nature of the problem; probably the initial focus was on starting one engine. Then, with two engines malfunctioning there could have been many other alerts. If the generators were off line then an electrical checklist might have been considered – after attempting to recover engines.
Next consider a return to airport with abnormal landing; then an emergency landing … not at an airport … then ‘we going for the Hudson’.
Add to this inter crew / cabin communication, ATC, selecting the landing configuration, then it could be quite explainable that the crew never got beyond the QRH index. We don’t know of any distracting vibrations, or possible airframe damage; many things might flash through the mind during the surprise of such a severe event.
However, apparently what the crew did do exceptionally well, was (rule 1) fly the aircraft. This is better than having the ditching valve closed and arriving in the water in a tangled mess of aluminium!
We shall see from the investigation the exact sequence of events, but I suspect that this accident will be the basis for future training of what went well; the Captain flew and monitored, the First Officer managed and monitored, each with their own priorities and sufficient skill (airmanship) without the need for lengthy briefings and drills - mainly because there wasn’t time.
An alternative is to consider the human aspects of the crew’s task in a relatively short timescale, vis:-
Identify the nature of the problem; probably the initial focus was on starting one engine. Then, with two engines malfunctioning there could have been many other alerts. If the generators were off line then an electrical checklist might have been considered – after attempting to recover engines.
Next consider a return to airport with abnormal landing; then an emergency landing … not at an airport … then ‘we going for the Hudson’.
Add to this inter crew / cabin communication, ATC, selecting the landing configuration, then it could be quite explainable that the crew never got beyond the QRH index. We don’t know of any distracting vibrations, or possible airframe damage; many things might flash through the mind during the surprise of such a severe event.
However, apparently what the crew did do exceptionally well, was (rule 1) fly the aircraft. This is better than having the ditching valve closed and arriving in the water in a tangled mess of aluminium!
We shall see from the investigation the exact sequence of events, but I suspect that this accident will be the basis for future training of what went well; the Captain flew and monitored, the First Officer managed and monitored, each with their own priorities and sufficient skill (airmanship) without the need for lengthy briefings and drills - mainly because there wasn’t time.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly the airplane - rule number one of flying.
There are times when "checklist discipline" sounds great in the rooms where training protocol is established but it isn't necessarily the best plan in real life situations. Experience, skill, and technical knowledge helps in these circumstances. ZQA297/30's event might be one example.
There are times when "checklist discipline" sounds great in the rooms where training protocol is established but it isn't necessarily the best plan in real life situations. Experience, skill, and technical knowledge helps in these circumstances. ZQA297/30's event might be one example.
Last edited by misd-agin; 19th Jan 2009 at 21:54. Reason: typos
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CNN is reporting passengers on an earlier flight 1549 (Jan 13) with the same incident plane contacting them about an engine event on climb out from La Guardia ... A couple of very loud bangs, announcement that emergency landing may be necessary, but flight then continued after pilots resolved the issue to satisfaction.
Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549 - CNN.com
What do people think? Potentially relevant?
Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549 - CNN.com
What do people think? Potentially relevant?
John Hodock, another passenger on the Tuesday flight, said in an e-mail to CNN: "About 20 minutes after take-off, the plane had a series of compressor stalls on the right engine. There were several very loud bangs and fire coming out of the engine. The pilot at first told us that we were going to make an emergency landing, but after about five minutes, continued the flight to Charlotte."
"EAC confirms that US Airways ship number N106US flew on January 13, 2009, and January 15, 2009, with the same flight number of AWE 1549 from New York's LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte Douglas [International] Airport in North Carolina," Expert Aviation said in a statement to CNN.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: FNC/LPMA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
A B707 cargo aircraft landed 5 km short and ditched in a lake in 2000. It floated at least until the next day.
Yes, but the fact that they were empty, low on fuel, with no cargo, final approach, all engines available, was a major contributor to that successful ditching. US Air was "dead stick", heavy and at a much higher sink rate. The stressing forces applied were much higher as the plane "sunk" at the first impact.
Last edited by MountainSnake; 19th Jan 2009 at 22:57.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an earlier flight 1549 (Jan 13) with the same incident plane
Remember the heron at MAN (I think it was MAN)?
Was this earlier 1549 "surge" also an unfortunate encounter with a (maybe smaller) bird?
Are engines systematically checked for possible bird strike damage after a "surge" report at low altitude?
Maybe it's now really high time to get rid of anomalies such as bird sanctuaries close to major airports?
Read the earlier reports such as quoted in post #790.
CJ
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will always be passengers who pay attention to the briefings and know where the life vests are. There will always be passengers who ignore everything and try assemble their carry on bags and drag them out of the plane while everything and everyone around them burns.
On UA flights, when enabled, Channel 9 can be monitored gate-to-gate. It's not always enabled. Capt. Haynes turned off channel 9 sometime after they blew their engine but before they realized how bad things were.
Okay, for the journalists reading the thread, and unsure how to call the authors of these posts, here's a cheat sheet:
Frequent Fliers praise the heroism of the crew.
Flight Crew claim it's "professionalism"
First Officers remind people that there was more than one person on the flight deck.
Captains state that the authority has to rest with one person (they also silently suspect it'll all turn out to be the "co-pilot's" fault)
Flight Attendants point to the speedy and orderly evacuation of far too many people in far too little time.
Europeans wonder why US senior flight attendants would be on a domestic route.
US Senior Flight Attendants would correct them, but today's youth just wouldn't understand anyway. Heck, sometimes not even the whippersnappers on the domestic routes understand.
Journalist Trolls suggest that flight attendants, ferry drivers, a full flight crew was unnecessary, in the hope of drawing out a choice quote.
Boeing Fanatics marvel at why Airbus would build such a tough plane only to prevent pilots from actually flying it.
Airbus Pilots argue over whether the aircraft was in Normal, Alternate or Direct Law.
Airbus Test Pilots claim to have the answer.
Marketing wants to move USAirways' into the Marine Air Terminal at LGA.
Sky Gods are quiet. Lockheed's looking into developing a seaplane just to clear up all this fuss about water landings.
Right-place, right-time, left-seat pilots with a consulting company on the side specializing in teaching CRM to the corporate world emphasize the teamwork and coordination that functioned flawlessly from Ops until the NTSB debrief.
Attorneys are too busy scrambling for "needlessly terrified" clients.
my apologies to all involved.
On UA flights, when enabled, Channel 9 can be monitored gate-to-gate. It's not always enabled. Capt. Haynes turned off channel 9 sometime after they blew their engine but before they realized how bad things were.
Okay, for the journalists reading the thread, and unsure how to call the authors of these posts, here's a cheat sheet:
Frequent Fliers praise the heroism of the crew.
Flight Crew claim it's "professionalism"
First Officers remind people that there was more than one person on the flight deck.
Captains state that the authority has to rest with one person (they also silently suspect it'll all turn out to be the "co-pilot's" fault)
Flight Attendants point to the speedy and orderly evacuation of far too many people in far too little time.
Europeans wonder why US senior flight attendants would be on a domestic route.
US Senior Flight Attendants would correct them, but today's youth just wouldn't understand anyway. Heck, sometimes not even the whippersnappers on the domestic routes understand.
Journalist Trolls suggest that flight attendants, ferry drivers, a full flight crew was unnecessary, in the hope of drawing out a choice quote.
Boeing Fanatics marvel at why Airbus would build such a tough plane only to prevent pilots from actually flying it.
Airbus Pilots argue over whether the aircraft was in Normal, Alternate or Direct Law.
Airbus Test Pilots claim to have the answer.
Marketing wants to move USAirways' into the Marine Air Terminal at LGA.
Sky Gods are quiet. Lockheed's looking into developing a seaplane just to clear up all this fuss about water landings.
Right-place, right-time, left-seat pilots with a consulting company on the side specializing in teaching CRM to the corporate world emphasize the teamwork and coordination that functioned flawlessly from Ops until the NTSB debrief.
Attorneys are too busy scrambling for "needlessly terrified" clients.
my apologies to all involved.
CNN is reporting passengers on an earlier flight 1549 (Jan 13) with the same incident plane contacting them about an engine event on climb out from La Guardia ... A couple of very loud bangs, announcement that emergency landing may be necessary, but flight then continued after pilots resolved the issue to satisfaction.
Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549 - CNN.com
What do people think? Potentially relevant?
Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549 - CNN.com
What do people think? Potentially relevant?
Pay attention to any photos or stated evidences of bird strikes across the whole frontal area of the aircraft. Flock encounters leave this kind of evidence.
Examine the DFDR engine parameters in the event. There is a difference between only a surge encounter and one where the bird damage causes it.
Also look at the crew actions between the initial event and the time that they actually begin a restart action. The crew knows what the engine symptoms were and whether they actually shut down engines for exceedances or simply attempted restarts from flamed out engines.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bird sanctuaries
" Maybe it's now really high time to get rid of anomalies such as bird sanctuaries close to major airports? "
Chirstiaan J
What do you propose to do nuke em ?
The birds have been there before the airports
We have had discussions on bird strikes before on pprune, perhaps you have read them. There's a lot of info on it
What about the Pulselite landing light system ?
Hasn't been proven but what has ? The old wx radar systems back.
As it stands there will be more bird strikes and we have to deal with it.
Chirstiaan J
What do you propose to do nuke em ?
The birds have been there before the airports
We have had discussions on bird strikes before on pprune, perhaps you have read them. There's a lot of info on it
What about the Pulselite landing light system ?
Hasn't been proven but what has ? The old wx radar systems back.
As it stands there will be more bird strikes and we have to deal with it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew of previous 1549?
Any way of finding out who was flying the 1549 flight that is mentioned in the CNN article.
The reason I ask is that there is speculation on the web by non-pilots trying to blame the pilots for the situation.
Some people are intent on smearing success.
Here's US Airway's Web page about N106US:
Aircraft
How much time is considered high time on these engines?
Thanks
The reason I ask is that there is speculation on the web by non-pilots trying to blame the pilots for the situation.
Some people are intent on smearing success.
Here's US Airway's Web page about N106US:
Aircraft
How much time is considered high time on these engines?
Thanks
Last edited by Robert Campbell; 20th Jan 2009 at 01:02. Reason: Additions
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Berkeley
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New info: smooth surfaces look more like water than water, to birds!
this may suggest some simple surface treatment to change the reflection of polarized light would greatly discourage birds from flocking to airports.
Smooth "objects look more like water than water" to birds as they come into the area!
So smooth runways and glass are -- for birds -- what the ethologists call a "supernormal stimulus" -- more attractive than the real thing.
You can imagine what this is like. Classic examples are, for a herring gull, a red dot on the beak; for a human male, consider a strapless evening gown.
(The classic engineering paper is here: A Stress Analysis )
Now you know how the birds feel as they head toward the airport!
Excerpt from New Scientist -- Wildlife confused by polarised light pollution
12:40 08 January 2009
Bruce Robertson of Michigan State University (KBS - Research Associates) says ... When light bounces off smooth, dark surfaces it becomes polarised – meaning the light wave is aligned in one plane.
In natural environments, this most commonly happens around water, but humans excel at making smooth surfaces. "Cars, asphalt, oil pools, and windows polarise light more strongly than water," says Robertson.
To animals tuned to distinguish polarised light and use it as an environmental cue, "these objects look more like water than water," he says. ...
Smooth "objects look more like water than water" to birds as they come into the area!
So smooth runways and glass are -- for birds -- what the ethologists call a "supernormal stimulus" -- more attractive than the real thing.
You can imagine what this is like. Classic examples are, for a herring gull, a red dot on the beak; for a human male, consider a strapless evening gown.
(The classic engineering paper is here: A Stress Analysis )
Now you know how the birds feel as they head toward the airport!
Excerpt from New Scientist -- Wildlife confused by polarised light pollution
12:40 08 January 2009
Bruce Robertson of Michigan State University (KBS - Research Associates) says ... When light bounces off smooth, dark surfaces it becomes polarised – meaning the light wave is aligned in one plane.
In natural environments, this most commonly happens around water, but humans excel at making smooth surfaces. "Cars, asphalt, oil pools, and windows polarise light more strongly than water," says Robertson.
To animals tuned to distinguish polarised light and use it as an environmental cue, "these objects look more like water than water," he says. ...
Last edited by ankh; 20th Jan 2009 at 01:37. Reason: fix typo
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine #2 has slightly more hours than the airframe - It's obviously a replaced engine.
26,466.08 hours is by no means high time, and anyway hours mean very little in engine maintenance. The reason? There are two typical limitations that will require an engine swap: operating cycles (= number of flights), and performance deterioration (can't deliver hot day performance within EGT limits). Of course FOD or other physical damage can do an engine in.
I don't know exactly what the current on-wing time record is before removal, but 20 years ago turbofan engines were regularly exceeding 20,000 hours, with far greater reliability than recips at 2000-3000 hour TBO's.
26,466.08 hours is by no means high time, and anyway hours mean very little in engine maintenance. The reason? There are two typical limitations that will require an engine swap: operating cycles (= number of flights), and performance deterioration (can't deliver hot day performance within EGT limits). Of course FOD or other physical damage can do an engine in.
I don't know exactly what the current on-wing time record is before removal, but 20 years ago turbofan engines were regularly exceeding 20,000 hours, with far greater reliability than recips at 2000-3000 hour TBO's.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The total time (as stated) is not really important.
Time since overhaul /last shop visit possibly relevant.
As for reported surging on a previous flight, a red herring me thinks, and not relevant to this incident.
Flight 1549 encountered a flock of large birds which caused enough damage to the engines to cause them to lose power /stop completely.
A not uncommon outcome for one engine although rare for both to encounter bird strikes.....
Time since overhaul /last shop visit possibly relevant.
As for reported surging on a previous flight, a red herring me thinks, and not relevant to this incident.
Flight 1549 encountered a flock of large birds which caused enough damage to the engines to cause them to lose power /stop completely.
A not uncommon outcome for one engine although rare for both to encounter bird strikes.....
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On climb out from Calcutta to Bangkok in a CV880M in 1968, we suffered a bird strike in No.2 Engine. Our deprture track took us in the vicinity of The Tower of Silence, the burial place of the Parsi (Zoroastrian) faith. There were several large Vutures in the area. No.2 Engine sufered a stall which imediately recovered. We inspected the engine intake from the cabin windows and although there was a large blood stain, no vibration was evident. A slightly higher RPM was showing for the same power setting and we continued to Bangkok. On inspection on the ground, severe intake blade damage was evident. The aircraft was 3 engine ferried to Hong Kong the next day. Quite remarkable really for the CJ805 engine to keep operating under the cicumstances. A Vulture is much bigger than a Goose!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pan Am 727 hit a flock of geese in Berlin in the early 1970's. They typically flew at 350-380 KIAS, so they were moving.
Holes in fuselage around cockpit(instant depressurization) and leading edges of wings. Luckily no engine damage.
Holes in fuselage around cockpit(instant depressurization) and leading edges of wings. Luckily no engine damage.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Pan Am 727 hit a flock of geese in Berlin in the early 1970's. They typically flew at 350-380 KIAS, so they were moving.
Yep, no speed limit in the corridors.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't see this mentioned in the last 5 or so pages, for anyone who missed it:
New security camera footage
YouTube - NEW Jan 17 Latest Plane Crash Hudson River New York City Water
Well I'm assuming this is the real thing as CNN posted the same video!
New security camera footage
YouTube - NEW Jan 17 Latest Plane Crash Hudson River New York City Water
Well I'm assuming this is the real thing as CNN posted the same video!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: lefthand side of the screen
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha
I agree boomerang.... there are times that accidents cannot be avoided at all. The chances can be minimized, but very hard to avoid.. as for some people here saying that there's some mistakes committed by the pilots. since theres a lot of pilots reading these forum then this is is my opinion as a passenger if ever you're the pilot flying the plane...
land the plane safely first.. don't give a s**t to other people telling you that you should do this and that. procedures are meant to be followed, true. but the safety of the people on board is your first priority. A lot of people or even pilots will even point out your mistakes. but not even half of them can do what the pilots did in the accident that happened.
kudos to the pilots who did in my opinion a great job!!!
land the plane safely first.. don't give a s**t to other people telling you that you should do this and that. procedures are meant to be followed, true. but the safety of the people on board is your first priority. A lot of people or even pilots will even point out your mistakes. but not even half of them can do what the pilots did in the accident that happened.
kudos to the pilots who did in my opinion a great job!!!