Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it interesting that comparisons are still made with the Potomac incident. Surely there's no real comparison because in that instance the aircraft stalled due to icing conditions and so came down largely out of control, whereas the Hudson landing was done with a glider with full control.
As with BA038, where I believe it has been shown in a simulator that it was possible to reach the runway, the benefit of hindsight and practice is what makes it possible. When you're up there and the engines quit with no warning, you only get one go. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be good enough, and in this case it was.
Another example was American 191 at Chicago, where several crews crashed the sim having gone into it cold, but the crews that were told what had happened to the wing were able to recover and land.
Imagine knowing in advance everything that was going to happen - you could cut out most of the precautionary briefings and just do the one or two that were specific to your flight.
As with BA038, where I believe it has been shown in a simulator that it was possible to reach the runway, the benefit of hindsight and practice is what makes it possible. When you're up there and the engines quit with no warning, you only get one go. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be good enough, and in this case it was.
Another example was American 191 at Chicago, where several crews crashed the sim having gone into it cold, but the crews that were told what had happened to the wing were able to recover and land.
Imagine knowing in advance everything that was going to happen - you could cut out most of the precautionary briefings and just do the one or two that were specific to your flight.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
The union cannot stop Capt Sullenberger from giving interviews. Until the investigators formally exonerate the crew from any blame, there are legal implications that Capt Sullenberger is obviously, wisely, paying heed to.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT Deployed & APU On...
...according to Flightglobal:
Officials have also confirmed that the A320's Hamilton Sundstrand-built ram air turbine (RAT) had deployed from its compartment near the root of the left wing during the event and that the Honeywell auxiliary power unit in the tail had been operating.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"When will Captain Sullenberger be interviewed on TV? If he was interviewed on 10, or 20 shows, I'd watch all of the interviews. I read that he's willing to be interviewed, but supposedly the union won't permit interviews."
Huh? Why would the union care whether he interviews or not?
Investigation is going on and he chose to hold off on interviews for a brief time.
Not for long though (see below).
I would also like to see the first officer being interviewed. Watching the news reporting I'm starting to think USAirways is the first commercial airline that utilizes one pilot only.
Hero pilot giving first interview to Katie Couric
8 hours ago
NEW YORK (AP) — Katie Couric has landed the first interview with hero pilot Chesley Sullenberger, who brought his distressed plane down in the Hudson River with all his passengers surviving.
The interview with Sullenberger and his crew will be shown on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Feb. 8.
Huh? Why would the union care whether he interviews or not?
Investigation is going on and he chose to hold off on interviews for a brief time.
Not for long though (see below).
I would also like to see the first officer being interviewed. Watching the news reporting I'm starting to think USAirways is the first commercial airline that utilizes one pilot only.
Hero pilot giving first interview to Katie Couric
8 hours ago
NEW YORK (AP) — Katie Couric has landed the first interview with hero pilot Chesley Sullenberger, who brought his distressed plane down in the Hudson River with all his passengers surviving.
The interview with Sullenberger and his crew will be shown on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Feb. 8.
All this second guessing is well and good....but hind sight is always 20/20!
I would suggest as in American Baseball....the tie goes to the runner.
Everyone lived due to the decisions and actions of the US Air Crew....Flight and Cabin....and that is what matters.
You can "what if" and "I Woulda...." all day long....but you were not there....you did not have to make those decisions.
You cannot argue with success!
Far better to make a good forced landing area than land short in a horrible place. No one worries too much about landing long in such a situation now do they?
I would suggest as in American Baseball....the tie goes to the runner.
Everyone lived due to the decisions and actions of the US Air Crew....Flight and Cabin....and that is what matters.
You can "what if" and "I Woulda...." all day long....but you were not there....you did not have to make those decisions.
You cannot argue with success!
Far better to make a good forced landing area than land short in a horrible place. No one worries too much about landing long in such a situation now do they?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
".... it sure does make you wonder what the engine controll was controlling on for each engine since the implication was that the engines were in a steady state condition."
No, you can't imply that from the available infomation. It's very possible the controller was trying to deliver full power by allowing max fuel to the powerplant etc etc but lousy combustion or the mechanical damage, stopped the hardware from spinning at more than 35%. Think of this analogy - what happens if one or two spark plugs fail on your car? You, as the control system, ram your foot to the floor to demand maximum power, but how fast can you go?
No, you can't imply that from the available infomation. It's very possible the controller was trying to deliver full power by allowing max fuel to the powerplant etc etc but lousy combustion or the mechanical damage, stopped the hardware from spinning at more than 35%. Think of this analogy - what happens if one or two spark plugs fail on your car? You, as the control system, ram your foot to the floor to demand maximum power, but how fast can you go?
".... it sure does make you wonder what the engine controll was controlling on for each engine since the implication was that the engines were in a steady state condition."
No, you can't imply that from the available infomation. It's very possible the controller was trying to deliver full power by allowing max fuel to the powerplant etc etc but lousy combustion or the mechanical damage, stopped the hardware from spinning at more than 35%. Think of this analogy - what happens if one or two spark plugs fail on your car? You, as the control system, ram your foot to the floor to demand maximum power, but how fast can you go?
No, you can't imply that from the available infomation. It's very possible the controller was trying to deliver full power by allowing max fuel to the powerplant etc etc but lousy combustion or the mechanical damage, stopped the hardware from spinning at more than 35%. Think of this analogy - what happens if one or two spark plugs fail on your car? You, as the control system, ram your foot to the floor to demand maximum power, but how fast can you go?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well then it wouldn't be at steady state because the EGT would be going over limits
Again, you're trying to imply things that have not been stated. There is no evidence here that the engine control systems were definitely operating correctly or that the feedback loops were closed.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N1's rotating - is that perhaps just windmilling rotation with perhaps little, or no N2? N1 rotation does not mean you have an operating engine, even one stuck at a low idle stall.
"Loss of lift in turns" - the plane doesn't lose lift in the turn. The vertical component of lift is reduced in a turn, which impacts your gliding distance.
The decision to turn back - at the location of engine failure there are not suitable landing locations in the direction we were heading(looked around yesterday). Your choices are the Hudson or turn south to locate a better spot(not many).
After the turn southbound their location was above Rt 9(Broadway) and Dyckman St at 1700'(estimated). Prevailing winds were probably from the west or NW. The distance to where they landed is just under one mile farther than TEB rwy 06 or LGA 13. That's without figuring in the impact of the winds aloft.
However, we've had days to figure this out, while they had to make a quick decision. TEB would have been a very tough choice. Misjudge your gliding distance and your second options are much worse. LGA 13 you had some other options(East River abeam Riker's island).
The reality is they would have been fairly busy, while we've got hours to figure this out.
Folks have stated - "if you stretch your glide". You can't "stretch your glide". You can max perform the airplane or by using drag, or poor techniques, decrease your glide distance. Trying to "stretch" your glide beyond what the airplane is capable would actually reduce your glide performance if you were correctly flying the proper glide profile.
"Loss of lift in turns" - the plane doesn't lose lift in the turn. The vertical component of lift is reduced in a turn, which impacts your gliding distance.
The decision to turn back - at the location of engine failure there are not suitable landing locations in the direction we were heading(looked around yesterday). Your choices are the Hudson or turn south to locate a better spot(not many).
After the turn southbound their location was above Rt 9(Broadway) and Dyckman St at 1700'(estimated). Prevailing winds were probably from the west or NW. The distance to where they landed is just under one mile farther than TEB rwy 06 or LGA 13. That's without figuring in the impact of the winds aloft.
However, we've had days to figure this out, while they had to make a quick decision. TEB would have been a very tough choice. Misjudge your gliding distance and your second options are much worse. LGA 13 you had some other options(East River abeam Riker's island).
The reality is they would have been fairly busy, while we've got hours to figure this out.
Folks have stated - "if you stretch your glide". You can't "stretch your glide". You can max perform the airplane or by using drag, or poor techniques, decrease your glide distance. Trying to "stretch" your glide beyond what the airplane is capable would actually reduce your glide performance if you were correctly flying the proper glide profile.
Last edited by misd-agin; 24th Jan 2009 at 14:16. Reason: additional N1 verbiage
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: planet earth
Age: 72
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from FOXNews.com
DANVILLE, Calif. — Friends and neighbors of the pilot who safely landed a crippled jetliner in New York's Hudson River planned to give him a hero's homecoming on Saturday.
The mayor and other officials were preparing to greet US Airways Pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and his family with a ceremony on Danville's town green.
Sullenberger, who lives in this San Francisco Bay Area suburb, has been lauded nationwide for gliding Flight 1549 to an emergency river landing on Jan. 15 after both of the plane's engines were disabled following a collision with a flock of birds. All 155 passengers and crew members were rescued.
Community members planned to celebrate his feat with music, an honor guard and other presentations.
Sullenberger has said little publicly about his experience. Although he and wife Lorraine planned to attend Saturday's ceremony, they were not expected to speak at length, a family spokeswoman said.
Sullenberger attended the inauguration of President Barack Obama on Tuesday, and the family returned to California this week.
Katie Couric has landed the first interview with Sullenberger and his crew. It is scheduled to be shown on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Feb. 8.
The mayor and other officials were preparing to greet US Airways Pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger and his family with a ceremony on Danville's town green.
Sullenberger, who lives in this San Francisco Bay Area suburb, has been lauded nationwide for gliding Flight 1549 to an emergency river landing on Jan. 15 after both of the plane's engines were disabled following a collision with a flock of birds. All 155 passengers and crew members were rescued.
Community members planned to celebrate his feat with music, an honor guard and other presentations.
Sullenberger has said little publicly about his experience. Although he and wife Lorraine planned to attend Saturday's ceremony, they were not expected to speak at length, a family spokeswoman said.
Sullenberger attended the inauguration of President Barack Obama on Tuesday, and the family returned to California this week.
Katie Couric has landed the first interview with Sullenberger and his crew. It is scheduled to be shown on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Feb. 8.
There are a couple of minor inconsistencies that no doubt will be sorted out in the days and months to come.
The "report from Airbus" indicates that the No.1 Engine N1 was around 35% - that's about idle thrust - the N2 at idle thrust is about 55 to 58%, sufficient to power both the hydraulic pump (yellow system) and it's generator. The report only indicates that the No.2 engine N1 was 18%, a bit more than half of normal - assuming the fire was still lit, the N2 was obviously high enough to drive the Green system hydraulic pump and it's generator, powering all systems - I see where you were going, Safety Concern and appreciate both your obvious credibility and the now-available background to your post.
Not sure why a relight was attempted on No1 if it was running but those kinds of decisions will come out in the official reports. Obviously they "wrote off" No.2 as a candidate for a restart in the time they had.
One other item - some posts indicate that the RAT was deployed (and that it "can be seen" in photo #6 in the series just posted) - I'm not sure about that but if both generators were running the system would not normally (key word) deploy the RAT. Also, some say the APU was running; the Airbus communique says nothing about this, but again we will learn about this shortly, I'm sure.
The speed and pitch attitudes surprised me a little - lower, and higher, respectively, especially where Alpha-Prot was - indicates a heavier airplane than I thought, (20,000kg, as I understand the fuel load to have been, is a lot of fuel for this airplane, though).
The "report from Airbus" indicates that the No.1 Engine N1 was around 35% - that's about idle thrust - the N2 at idle thrust is about 55 to 58%, sufficient to power both the hydraulic pump (yellow system) and it's generator. The report only indicates that the No.2 engine N1 was 18%, a bit more than half of normal - assuming the fire was still lit, the N2 was obviously high enough to drive the Green system hydraulic pump and it's generator, powering all systems - I see where you were going, Safety Concern and appreciate both your obvious credibility and the now-available background to your post.
Not sure why a relight was attempted on No1 if it was running but those kinds of decisions will come out in the official reports. Obviously they "wrote off" No.2 as a candidate for a restart in the time they had.
One other item - some posts indicate that the RAT was deployed (and that it "can be seen" in photo #6 in the series just posted) - I'm not sure about that but if both generators were running the system would not normally (key word) deploy the RAT. Also, some say the APU was running; the Airbus communique says nothing about this, but again we will learn about this shortly, I'm sure.
The speed and pitch attitudes surprised me a little - lower, and higher, respectively, especially where Alpha-Prot was - indicates a heavier airplane than I thought, (20,000kg, as I understand the fuel load to have been, is a lot of fuel for this airplane, though).
Last edited by PJ2; 24th Jan 2009 at 17:32.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: merseyside
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculation ? or sour grapes ? you decide !
I have read this thread from begining to end and have enjoyed reading 90 % of the posts ..
However i found myself wondering very early on just how much longer it would take for the thread to turn sour with regards to Captain Sullenbergers & First Officer Jeff Skiles descision to ditch in the Hudson ?
We didnt have to wait very long for the sour grapes to ripen now did we !
I personally think it is very wrong to speculate what did or did not happen to Flight 1549 particurly at such an early stage in any accident investigation .
speculation =
Particurly when posts on this thread are now inferring that the cockpit crews descisions where flawed ?
The " i would have done it different "brigade and the " they where just doing their job so don't deserve any credit " need to take a chill pill 7 a deep breath because none of you have ever been put in exactly the same position as " Sully & Skiles " and it is very unlikely that you ever will !
lets wait for the full accident report guys ...casting aspersions & sour grapes dos'nt suit you so called professionals .
However i found myself wondering very early on just how much longer it would take for the thread to turn sour with regards to Captain Sullenbergers & First Officer Jeff Skiles descision to ditch in the Hudson ?
We didnt have to wait very long for the sour grapes to ripen now did we !
I personally think it is very wrong to speculate what did or did not happen to Flight 1549 particurly at such an early stage in any accident investigation .
speculation =
- Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
- A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
- Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition
Particurly when posts on this thread are now inferring that the cockpit crews descisions where flawed ?
The " i would have done it different "brigade and the " they where just doing their job so don't deserve any credit " need to take a chill pill 7 a deep breath because none of you have ever been put in exactly the same position as " Sully & Skiles " and it is very unlikely that you ever will !
lets wait for the full accident report guys ...casting aspersions & sour grapes dos'nt suit you so called professionals .
dicksorchard - couldn't agree with you more on "casting aspersions or sour grapes" but are such comments coming from the professionals or from those who don't fly, or don't fly professionally?
As more becomes known to the airline piloting community, including a public document from Airbus, those who fly the airplane and those who fly alike, will place themselves in the same situations perhaps to test one's thoughts? I think it is quite natural to respectfully consider this crew's clearly brilliant thought processes and subsequent handling, always with an eye to the fact that nobody commenting has done it. I think the thread has stayed remarkably on-topic compared to others which really deteriorated early on, (but consider others which have rejuvenated themselves like the BA038 thread).
Nobody is ever going to wait for the report so the goal should be, I think, stay to known facts and employ one's own "time-in" (experience/knowledge) to keep the speculation informed while always respecting professional courtesies - such a professional approach keeps the troll and SCWAG factor down by keeping standards high.
Second-guessing work is very bad form indeed and with your comments on this, I fully agree.
As more becomes known to the airline piloting community, including a public document from Airbus, those who fly the airplane and those who fly alike, will place themselves in the same situations perhaps to test one's thoughts? I think it is quite natural to respectfully consider this crew's clearly brilliant thought processes and subsequent handling, always with an eye to the fact that nobody commenting has done it. I think the thread has stayed remarkably on-topic compared to others which really deteriorated early on, (but consider others which have rejuvenated themselves like the BA038 thread).
Nobody is ever going to wait for the report so the goal should be, I think, stay to known facts and employ one's own "time-in" (experience/knowledge) to keep the speculation informed while always respecting professional courtesies - such a professional approach keeps the troll and SCWAG factor down by keeping standards high.
Second-guessing work is very bad form indeed and with your comments on this, I fully agree.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post 1194/1195
Quite agree.
Here was a crew, who, given a no win situation, were left to make the decision, in mere moments and who had the balls to take it and see it through.
Here was a crew, who, given a no win situation, were left to make the decision, in mere moments and who had the balls to take it and see it through.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. Sully just made his first public statement before his home town community: "I think that I can speak for our entire crew when I say that we simply did what we were trained to do."
This just following the praise from all of his town officials.
This just following the praise from all of his town officials.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe just an irrelevant remark...
But somehow I feel less reluctant to condemn some of the "what if " and what when" posts.
If they lead some people to try it out on the sim, or even just think it through and question their original mind-set.... it may add something to our knowledge.
Cap, coat and lifevest.
CJ
But somehow I feel less reluctant to condemn some of the "what if " and what when" posts.
If they lead some people to try it out on the sim, or even just think it through and question their original mind-set.... it may add something to our knowledge.
Cap, coat and lifevest.
CJ
Christiaanj
I absolutely agree
But somehow I feel less reluctant to condemn some of the "what if " and what when" posts.
If they lead some people to try it out on the sim, or even just think it through and question their original mind-set.... it may add something to our knowledge.
If they lead some people to try it out on the sim, or even just think it through and question their original mind-set.... it may add something to our knowledge.