Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC

[Flying Lawyer]

GAPAN Press Release

London, 22 January 2009

The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (GAPAN), a City of London Livery Company, whose Patron is HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and Grand Master HRH The Duke of York, has awarded a prestigious award, the Master’s Medal, to the crew (air and cabin) of US Airways Flight 1549.

Under the command of Captain Chesley B (Sully) Sullenberger, the crew ensured the safety of all 146 passengers after executing an emergency ditching and evacuation of their Airbus 320 aircraft on the Hudson River, New York, on 15 January, following a catastrophic bird strike and double engine failure.

The Master’s Medal is rarely awarded and only for an outstanding aviation achievement, and at the discretion of the Master of The Guild, currently Air Commodore Rick Peacock-Edwards, who said:
“The reactions of all members of the crew, the split second decision making and the handling of this emergency and evacuation was `text book` and an example to us all.
To have safely executed this emergency ditching and evacuation, with the loss of no lives, is a heroic and unique aviation achievement. It deserves the immediate recognition that has today been given by the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators.’’

The formal award of the Master’s Medal to the crew of US Airways Flight 1549 will be made later this year, most probably at the Guild’s prestigious Annual Trophies & Awards Banquet in the City of London’s Guildhall in October.

The Guild is the premier organisation for aviators and was established in 1929 to maintain the highest standards of air safety through the promotion of good airmanship.

-ends-

[Safety Concerns]

It is to be noted that at all times during the event and up until the ditching, the normal electrical supply (AC and DC buses) and all three hydraulic systems were fully operational and the flight control law remained in Normal law.

For info for those who may be wondering

[PJ2]

Thank you Safety Concerns; What's the source please? (read back through the last five pages thinking I'd missed it, that's all).

That's pretty big news - means no flame-out, just the inability to develop sufficient thrust to remain aloft.

[dvv]

That picture — how do we know it's the real path that the aircraft traveled, and not just an arbitrary interpolation of the flight's radar info from flightaware.com?

[Capvermell]

The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators (GAPAN), a City of London Livery Company, whose Patron is HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and Grand Master HRH The Duke of York, has awarded a prestigious award, the Master’s Medal, to the crew (air and cabin) of US Airways Flight 1549.

Along with Mayor Michael Bloomberg the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators seem to be taking quite a big risk that something completely unexpected about the accident may not yet turn up during the investigation.

Whilst one appreciates that this is now a 24 hour news society and that everyone wants to be seen to jump on the band wagon it seems a little depressing when a crusty old body like this, with an even more crusty old Royal Patron, can't wait until the official report comes out before taking its decision.

There still seems to be a slight risk that after careful further analysis it may be concluded (with the benefit of hindsight and after far longer to think about the matter than these pilots actually had at the time) that Captain Sullenberger almost certainly could have reached La Guardia or Teterborough safely and that while he got away with it he took a massive and unnecessary gamble with everyone's lives by ditching in the Hudson. To be perfectly honest I think this is now rather unlikely because this event has now acquired such a folklore like media status that it will not be politically convenient (and we know from past incidents that the NTSB and even more so the FAA is sometimes susceptible to political pressure) to reach such a conclusion, even were it to turn out to be true.

Nonetheless surely both Air Transat and the Air Canada Gimli Glider incidents show that modern Boeing and Airbus jets can be brought down safely without any engines working but with other control surfaces fully operational. That being so someone may eventually start to ask why landing on a runway wasn't possible here. Obviously the main cited reason will come down to lack of altitude (as both the other two flights had engineless descents from cruising altitude) and the fact that those two airports were in largely unpopulated areas whereas La Guardia and Teterborough airports were in densely populated areas, especially when approached from Manattan.

But there still seems at least some remaining risk that whilst Captain Sullenberger clearly did a brilliant job of ditching in the Hudson safely (once he had taken his decsion to do so) that the NTSB may eventually determine that he need not have ditched in the Hudson at all. Certainly in days gone by worthy bodies like this Guild would always have waited to be sure of the outcome of the official investigation before they bestowed such honours.

[PJ2]

Just like everything else that's been presented here, we don't know that the map isn't arbitrary. That's the whole problem, and benefit, of informed speculation. But there is no innate accuracy to the map at all, although it may turn out to be 100% correct.

The question that always must be kept in mind is, what can be observed from direct evidence. Our collective (and my) conclusions that both engines failed and that the aircraft was in alternate law and that the RAT was deployed and APU running may be incorrect given the new information just above. Speculation is fine so long as it has some experience behind it and isn't morphed into conclusions.

Capevermell;

Like many, I dont know what the rush is. Certainly our times need heroes but a lot of this is the media selling air-time, newspapers and magazines precisely to sell 'hero" in our times - they know upon which side their bread is buttered.

That said, because these kinds of events are extremely rare, it's not possible to reasonably compare accidents despite the temptation to do so. Neither TEB nor LGA presented attractive landing opportunities - short runways, much narrower constraints on a successful outcome and the possibility of under/overshooting a small mark, a high risk which was immediately removed by the river where time and distance permitted setting the aircraft up for a controlled forced landing. It was the right decision which will not need political correctness to ignore other outcomes, all of which would have been much higher risk. In such aviation incidents, it is hard to argue with this kind of success.

[lomapaseo]

Thank you Safety Concerns; What's the source please? (read back through the last five pages thinking I'd missed it, that's all).

That's pretty big news - means no flame-out, just the inability to develop sufficient thrust to remain aloft.

Typical wording from a flight safety department advising their users.

I don't believe that you can interpret a flame out or not from the wording, but only that there was enough RPM to drive the aircraft power.

To assess flameout you need EGT.

[PJ2]

Originally Posted by user

I don't believe that you can interpret a flame out or not from the wording, but only that there was enough RPM to drive the aircraft power.

To assess flameout you need EGT.

From within the cockpit in order to execute the Engine Shutdown QRH item, yes indeed, but not necessarily in an investigation or as is being done here, informed speculation; "Flame out" can indeed be interpreted from other factors.

Someone has posted that the electrics and hydraulics were normal and that the a/c was in Normal Law. I asked for the source because that hasn't been said anywhere else that I can find. If all that is the case, then the engines were running in some fashion.

I say that because a windmilling N2 at 190kts will not be rotating fast enough to drive hydraulics and keep the generator on line. If even one generator is offline, the aircraft is in Alternate Law.

Either the engine(s) was/were near normal idle at around 55 to 60% N2 and sufficient to drive both systems, or it/they was/were sub-idling (due to damage) in which case very high EGT's would be experienced or it was not running - ie, no flame.

So the statement that the aircraft was in Normal Law is important - I don't see it as merely coming from a Safety Department without supporting information directly from the investigation, for precisely the above reasons.

[forget]

Saftey Concerns. Where did this come from

It is to be noted that at all times during the event and up until the ditching, the normal electrical supply (AC and DC buses) and all three hydraulic systems were fully operational and the flight control law remained in Normal law.

Several Googles of your exact phrasings shows one hit. Your Prune post.

[Capvermell]

It was the right decision which will not need political correctness to ignore other outcomes, all of which would have been much higher risk. In such aviation incidents, it is hard to argue with this kind of success.

I think the fact that no one died or was even seriously injured will ultimately see to it that Captain Sullenberger's decision cannot be brought in to question because the decision he took then led to a demonstrably successful outcome.

On the other hand if Captain Sullenberger had taken precisely the same decision but due to slightly different tidal conditions or marginally less precise control of the aircraft trim it had cartwheeled and broken up then no doubt quite a different view would have been taken. Especially as in a near freezing temperature river most of the one third or so of pasengers who might possibly have survived the impact and then swum away from the aircraft in warmer water (despite the catastrophic break up) would not have done so due to being left in freezing water with no life jackets.

In such a circumstance one could easily see an NTSB report concluding that the pilot should have headed for one of the two potentially reachable nearby airports and that his chances of a more survivable outcome there were considerably better.

So the successful outcome is clearly influencing the conclusion about the wisdom of the original Hudson ditching decision, even though if the ditching had gone horribly wrong the actual decision to ditch, at the time it was taken by the pilots, would have been for precisely the same reasons.

[snowfalcon2]

Is there in fact any previous recorded occurrence of an airliner that has managed to perform a safe planned low level engine-out landing at an airport, without major damage? Or, for that matter, any occurrences that did not go well?

Gimli and Air Transat/Azores come to mind as airport landings, but both cases started from cruise altitude with lots of planning time. Ryanair 737 in Rome did not really have any option, and BA038 neither.

[galvonager]

That picture — how do we know it's the real path that the aircraft traveled, and not just an arbitrary interpolation of the flight's radar info from flightaware.com?

That would depend on what data they used. If you go to the Passur LaGuardia airport monitor, and re-play starting at 15:26, you will see the following track, which appears to follow a slightly different route. In particular, notice how the helicopter is turning right to avoid them (it is a helicopter, even if it appears as a plane on the image), which it wouldn't do if 1549 was to their right, over the highway, as that other picture suggests.

[dvv]

galvonager, this app uses exactly the same data the previous picture is based on, but with its own kind of interpolation, which may or may not be a better approximation of the real track.

[NigelOnDraft]

Capvermell

In such a circumstance one could easily see an NTSB report concluding that the pilot should have headed for one of the two potentially reachable nearby airports and that his chances of a more survivable outcome there were considerably better.
So the successful outcome is clearly influencing the conclusion about the wisdom of the original Hudson ditching decision, even though if the ditching had gone horribly wrong the actual decision to ditch, at the time it was taken by the pilots, would have been for precisely the same reasons.

But there still seems at least some remaining risk that whilst Captain Sullenberger clearly did a brilliant job of ditching in the Hudson safely (once he had taken his decsion to do so) that the NTSB may eventually determine that he need not have ditched in the Hudson at all

I would agree about the comments on GAPAN being a bit hasty - but being positive, maybe that more facts will emerge supporting the crew which would make their achievements even more remarkable, and adding value to a GAPAN award that is somewhat devalued by an award prior any formal investigation

I disagree with your comments above however... In my experience AAIB and NTSB reports are reluctant to state that A.N.Other course of action would have been better... unless it clearly would have been at that time.. and not judged by the actual outcome...

I am an A320 Capt, and if my engines fail at low level, or even high level, I am unaware of any advice or training as to whether I should land on an airfield, or water, or snow, or.... There comes a time when the Airlines and Authorities have to leave the decisions to the crew on the day. Only after various accidents and experiences add evidence might they make recommendations for future such events. Double engine failures in modern twins are still so rare that such an experience database has not, IMHO, yet been built up The USAir crew have added to that (limited) database in a very positive way, IMHO

NoD

[galvonager]

galvonager, this app uses exactly the same data the previous picture is based on, but with its own kind of interpolation, which may or may not be a better approximation of the real track.

You're saying that the only data we have are the data points (marked on the first image as such), and everything else is interpolation? That's quite possible. Still, the helicopter behavior makes the Passur track more believable to me.
Does more complete data exist at all anywhere? (The data points on the first picture, being the presumed basis for mine, are from the transponder, right?)

[dvv]

galvonager, ok, disregard my previous post — the passur data do seem more detailed But I'm still a little bit suspicious about the passur app — a little bit later on in the replay, there are two N461SA's flying around

[Green-dot]

There still seems to be a slight risk that after careful further analysis it may be concluded (with the benefit of hindsight and after far longer to think about the matter than these pilots actually had at the time) that Captain Sullenberger almost certainly could have reached La Guardia or Teterborough safely and that while he got away with it he took a massive and unnecessary gamble with everyone's lives by ditching in the Hudson.

Is there in fact any previous recorded occurrence of an airliner that has managed to perform a safe planned low level engine-out landing at an airport, without major damage? Or, for that matter, any occurrences that did not go well?

LY 1862 comes to mind. On October 4, 1992, the 747-258F was climbing out after takeoff. At low altitude it lost 2 engines on one side, was subject to rapidly degrading hydraulic systems and with damage to its high lift devices (the latter most likely unknown to the crew) attempted to return to Schiphol Amsterdam airport. It circled over highly populated areas twice, failed to line up for the landing runway, stalled, and crashed into an appartment building killing the 4 persons on board and many in the building. With hindsight, if the aircraft had been diverted away from populated areas immediately and had ditched into the nearby Ijsselmeer, it would have required considerably less airborne time while still marginally controllable and the 4 persons on board would possibly have survived with no casualties on the ground.

With that accident in mind, Captain Sullenberger in my humble opinion, took the right decision to ditch.

Green-dot

[snowfalcon2]

A successful landing at LGA or TEB, as many have already noted, requires crossing a precise point in space at a precise speed. A hundred yards or so short would likely lose all aboard.

Exactly. I'd speculate that Capt. Sullenberger's glider experience did influence his decision not to try for La Guardia or Teterboro.
Fact is, to achieve a precise landing in a glider, the glidepath can be very effectivelly controlled with airbrakes that can be instantly set to any desired position during the final.
In an A320, even if the crew could rely on having power for the flight controls (which they couldn't) the time required for any flap setting change makes glidepath control imprecise. The only remaining trick, a sideslip, would require some previous training experience to get an idea of its effectiveness.
So even if they had been able to set up an approach, the risk of either an undershoot or overshoot (with no guarantee of available brake pressure) would have been significant.

[BOAC]

To all those tempted to pontificate about the 'decision', please take a MOMENT to remember it will take days to assimilate the necessary parameters and performance details, and they had minutes.

I can see all you 'experts' now, prooning about the dreadful accident in which the a/c crashed into the city killing many hundreds........

"Why didn't they ditch in the river?"

[fleigle]

Reporting on FlightGlobal;
1) right engine remained at about 15% N1
2) left engine at about 30% N1
3) RAT deployed
4) flaps and slats at mid-position (pos. 2?)
f