Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
I do not agree that a MAYDAY or PAN call is not important, because it is.Specially in Europe procedures for ATC are based on those calls. A lot of things happen when such calls are being made.
From my perspective as a airline pilot I'm trying to figure out what additional assistance Cactus might have received by stating mayday as opposed to what was said. The good Captain might have won a contest amongst the anal pedants out there but it wouldn't have changed anything for the better. There's a time and place for mayday calls, the grace is to know when it's time to simply fly the plane, pass information as needed and let anonymous posters dissect the phraseology and format used to save all aboard.
Leave it to rest people.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This hero business is really p*****g me off. The crew did what they were trained to do very professionally and very well. The Captain made the best decision of the choices available to him in a cool and controlled fashion and it worked, FORTUNATELY. Well done. 
Don't know if I would have reacted the same, one would like to thinks so but NO-ONE knows.
BUT no-one was a hero.
A hero is as an example, the guy who dived into the icy, and now oily and fuel polluted Potomac river when that 737 crashed to save the woman who was drowning. He risked his life un-prompted and unpaid to save another. That is a hero. To say this crew were heroic is an insult to people like that.
This is not meant as an insult to him.... no doubt all you who need someone to look up to in order to sleep at night will think it is....
Looking at previous threads and posts, I wonder what all you armchair analysts would be saying about him if the aircraft had broken up, just sunk and everyone had drowned?
Regarding Mayday, if you use it and say nothing else for a few seconds ATC will be on alert immediately, the big red button will be pressed, SAR will have the Rotors running and Fire/rescue will be in the trucks ready to roll, also everyone else will or should shut up.
That 10 seconds could save your life.
That is the purpose. TO GET THE ATTENTION OF ATC. Complaining about using it is just an attempt to justify the lazy attitude people who think the rules or recommended procedures are for everyone else and not for real pilots like them.
Sully made a Mayday call, according to the CVR, so all you hero worshippers have now got something to emulate
Don't know if I would have reacted the same, one would like to thinks so but NO-ONE knows.
BUT no-one was a hero.
A hero is as an example, the guy who dived into the icy, and now oily and fuel polluted Potomac river when that 737 crashed to save the woman who was drowning. He risked his life un-prompted and unpaid to save another. That is a hero. To say this crew were heroic is an insult to people like that.
This is not meant as an insult to him.... no doubt all you who need someone to look up to in order to sleep at night will think it is....
Looking at previous threads and posts, I wonder what all you armchair analysts would be saying about him if the aircraft had broken up, just sunk and everyone had drowned?
Regarding Mayday, if you use it and say nothing else for a few seconds ATC will be on alert immediately, the big red button will be pressed, SAR will have the Rotors running and Fire/rescue will be in the trucks ready to roll, also everyone else will or should shut up.
That 10 seconds could save your life.
That is the purpose. TO GET THE ATTENTION OF ATC. Complaining about using it is just an attempt to justify the lazy attitude people who think the rules or recommended procedures are for everyone else and not for real pilots like them.
Sully made a Mayday call, according to the CVR, so all you hero worshippers have now got something to emulate
The other aspect of transmitting 'mayday' is that everybody else on frequency hears it and if they have any sense will stay silent or move to another frequency; it is an excellent attention grabber.
I think the message is there is no harm in saying it (nobody has come out with a good reason not to say it) and it will probably do some good, so go on give it a go next time you have a problem, you know it makes sense.
I think the message is there is no harm in saying it (nobody has come out with a good reason not to say it) and it will probably do some good, so go on give it a go next time you have a problem, you know it makes sense.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mayday
There is alot here on this thread and not sure if I missed it being mentioned but one advantage in issuing a mayday would not only be to advise ATC of current situation but also to alert other aircraft on frequency of the requirement for the comms to be kept to a minimum so assitance can be given.
p.s. I do understand from the CVR that a mayday was issued but communications interrupted it - perhaps this is where technology could be used to improve dialogue.
p.s. I do understand from the CVR that a mayday was issued but communications interrupted it - perhaps this is where technology could be used to improve dialogue.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do understand from the CVR that a mayday was issued but communications interrupted it - perhaps this is where technology could be used to improve dialogue.
Pity it doesn't actually exist. 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Overtheristan
Age: 54
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding Mayday, if you use it and say nothing else for a few seconds ATC will be on alert immediately, the big red button will be pressed, SAR will have the Rotors running and Fire/rescue will be in the trucks ready to roll, also everyone else will or should shut up.
That 10 seconds could save your life.
That is the purpose. TO GET THE ATTENTION OF ATC. Complaining about using it is just an attempt to justify the lazy attitude people who think the rules or recommended procedures are for everyone else and not for real pilots like them.
Sully made a Mayday call, according to the CVR, so all you hero worshippers have now got something to emulate
That 10 seconds could save your life.
That is the purpose. TO GET THE ATTENTION OF ATC. Complaining about using it is just an attempt to justify the lazy attitude people who think the rules or recommended procedures are for everyone else and not for real pilots like them.
Sully made a Mayday call, according to the CVR, so all you hero worshippers have now got something to emulate
I would like to add something. In my opinion it is also a matter of who is responsible for what. Because that is the main reason for possible time delay for SAR.
After my incident (a wheel weel fire warning after take-off on a 737) I visited ATC to thank them. During that visit I had a really good conversation with several air traffic controllers. We talked a lot about the subject.
For them it's much harder to asses a situation than it is for us. The procedures are made for the grey areas. For the "is it a mayday or not" incidents. By doing it myself I win valuable time. When I don't, I know one thing for sure, I loose valuable time. For that reason I am very interested at what time the "redbutton" was pressed in this incident. Not to criticize the crew of cactus 1549, but to learn. Now everything worked perfectly, but suppose the incident would have happened 2 hours later. Every second delay of SAR would have been critical for the survival change of the passengers.
Another thing which I am interested in if 7700 was set on the box. During my own emergency I didn't think of it, but I know for sure that I will try to do it next time, because It saves so much communication for ATC in the adjacent control area's. On all the radar screens the flight turns red by itself. No need to ask any questions. Traffic is directed away without asking questions to the controller. This saves "bits" for the controller who is very busy with the emergency.
In my opinion captain Sully and his crew did a great job, but we (the avation industry) can still learn from great jobs.
I am really looking forward to the interview on 60 minutes.
Rgds
Martijn
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the calm and collected professionals who do their job well usually don't make the news. We instead hear about the screw ups and the greedy CEOs driving companies into the ground but still getting their bonuses. Sully and crew seem "heroic" in comparison to a public desperate for news of truly honorable and competent professionals.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sort of...
My initial thoughts were along different lines.....
Voice recognition has got very good these days hence there are these irritating automated telephone services where you speak your bank details etc.
Simply having a box that interprets what is being transmitted into text and that being broadcast digitally on a different freqency to an ancillary screen for the ATC where keywords such as PAN and Mayday highlighted in red (or any colour) for attention.
In the case of mayday/pan identification it would be also be possible for this broadcast of text to be picked up on other aircraft with said equipment and for their flight decks to be made aware a situation is in progress.
I dont know that anything like this exists specifically targeted at the aviation industry but we use VoiceXML alot at the telco I am working at and it works very well. The W3C's Speech Interface Framework's Grammar specification and the semantic Interpretation specificatons (SRGS & SISR) wouldbe easy to fit in to such a product and the interactivity left out. Coupling this technology with a digital transceiver I dont think would be too much of a challenge and not that expensive.
Voice recognition has got very good these days hence there are these irritating automated telephone services where you speak your bank details etc.
Simply having a box that interprets what is being transmitted into text and that being broadcast digitally on a different freqency to an ancillary screen for the ATC where keywords such as PAN and Mayday highlighted in red (or any colour) for attention.
In the case of mayday/pan identification it would be also be possible for this broadcast of text to be picked up on other aircraft with said equipment and for their flight decks to be made aware a situation is in progress.
I dont know that anything like this exists specifically targeted at the aviation industry but we use VoiceXML alot at the telco I am working at and it works very well. The W3C's Speech Interface Framework's Grammar specification and the semantic Interpretation specificatons (SRGS & SISR) wouldbe easy to fit in to such a product and the interactivity left out. Coupling this technology with a digital transceiver I dont think would be too much of a challenge and not that expensive.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disbelief
Sully's initial reaction to the event was "disbelief." This Sunday, the U.S. TV show 60 Minutes will have the first interview with Sully, and he discusses his initial reaction in the teaser video the network has now posted on their web site:
Sully On The Record Video - CBSNews.com
For those unable to view this show, I believe the video will be available here:
60 Minutes - Video, Reports, Profiles, Interviews - CBSNews.com
sometime after the U.S. broadcast (this Sunday, 7 p.m. Eastern and Pacific times))
Sully On The Record Video - CBSNews.com
For those unable to view this show, I believe the video will be available here:
60 Minutes - Video, Reports, Profiles, Interviews - CBSNews.com
sometime after the U.S. broadcast (this Sunday, 7 p.m. Eastern and Pacific times))
Last edited by Mark in CA; 7th Feb 2009 at 00:06.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Fl, US
Age: 84
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ntsb Advisory Regarding Communications Involving Us Air Flt 1549
************************************************************
NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
February 6, 2009
************************************************************
NTSB DETAILS TYPES OF COMMUNICATIONS INVOLVING US AIRWAYS
FLIGHT 1549
************************************************************
Due to the intense interest in the recorded communications
between the pilot of the US Airways aircraft that ditched
into the Hudson River on January 15 of this year, and air
traffic control, the NTSB has provided a brief explanation
of what these communications entail, as well as the
difference between the air traffic control (ATC) recording
and that of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR).
The ATC recordings capture the radio transmissions between
air traffic controllers and pilots on a specific radio
frequency reserved for use in aeronautical communications.
ATC transmissions are carried over the public airways and
can be monitored in real time by anyone with a radio tuned
to the appropriate frequency.
The ATC recording primarily captures two types of
communications: 1) the radio transmissions between the air
traffic controllers and pilots of the numerous aircraft on
that frequency, and 2) communications by air traffic
controllers made by radio, phone or other direct electronic
audio link to other ATC facilities.
In the case of the ATC recordings related to the ditching of
US Airways flight 1549, which were released by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) this week, the controller at
the New York TRACON LaGuardia Departure facility
communicated with a total of 14 entities - aircraft and
other controllers at ATC facilities - all of which were
recorded.
The recording captured by the cockpit voice recorder (CVR)
is different from that of the ATC recording. Whereas the
bulk of the ATC recording captures the radio transmissions
between air traffic controllers and pilots, the CVR, by way
of a microphone mounted on the overhead instrument panel and
microphones in the headsets worn by the pilots, records all
of the sounds inside the cockpit, including the
communications with ATC.
In addition to recording all conversations between the
pilots themselves and between the pilots and ground and
cabin crew, the CVR captures sounds such as engine noise,
automated warnings, landing gear extension and retraction,
and other sounds that may yield information on the functions
being performed inside the cockpit as well as those related
to the operation of the aircraft.
A CVR committee, usually consisting of members from the
NTSB, FAA, operator of the aircraft, manufacturer of the
airplane, manufacturer of the engines, and the pilots union,
is formed to listen to the recording. This committee creates
a written transcript of the CVR audio to be used during the
investigation. This transcript is released by the NTSB
either at the time of a public hearing, or if there is no
hearing, at the time the accident docket is opened to the
public. The timeline for either of these events is usually
six months or more into the investigation. In the United
States, the actual CVR audio recording is protected by law
and is never released to the public.
# # #
NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson, (202) 314-6100
[email protected]
************************************************************
NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
February 6, 2009
************************************************************
NTSB DETAILS TYPES OF COMMUNICATIONS INVOLVING US AIRWAYS
FLIGHT 1549
************************************************************
Due to the intense interest in the recorded communications
between the pilot of the US Airways aircraft that ditched
into the Hudson River on January 15 of this year, and air
traffic control, the NTSB has provided a brief explanation
of what these communications entail, as well as the
difference between the air traffic control (ATC) recording
and that of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR).
The ATC recordings capture the radio transmissions between
air traffic controllers and pilots on a specific radio
frequency reserved for use in aeronautical communications.
ATC transmissions are carried over the public airways and
can be monitored in real time by anyone with a radio tuned
to the appropriate frequency.
The ATC recording primarily captures two types of
communications: 1) the radio transmissions between the air
traffic controllers and pilots of the numerous aircraft on
that frequency, and 2) communications by air traffic
controllers made by radio, phone or other direct electronic
audio link to other ATC facilities.
In the case of the ATC recordings related to the ditching of
US Airways flight 1549, which were released by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) this week, the controller at
the New York TRACON LaGuardia Departure facility
communicated with a total of 14 entities - aircraft and
other controllers at ATC facilities - all of which were
recorded.
The recording captured by the cockpit voice recorder (CVR)
is different from that of the ATC recording. Whereas the
bulk of the ATC recording captures the radio transmissions
between air traffic controllers and pilots, the CVR, by way
of a microphone mounted on the overhead instrument panel and
microphones in the headsets worn by the pilots, records all
of the sounds inside the cockpit, including the
communications with ATC.
In addition to recording all conversations between the
pilots themselves and between the pilots and ground and
cabin crew, the CVR captures sounds such as engine noise,
automated warnings, landing gear extension and retraction,
and other sounds that may yield information on the functions
being performed inside the cockpit as well as those related
to the operation of the aircraft.
A CVR committee, usually consisting of members from the
NTSB, FAA, operator of the aircraft, manufacturer of the
airplane, manufacturer of the engines, and the pilots union,
is formed to listen to the recording. This committee creates
a written transcript of the CVR audio to be used during the
investigation. This transcript is released by the NTSB
either at the time of a public hearing, or if there is no
hearing, at the time the accident docket is opened to the
public. The timeline for either of these events is usually
six months or more into the investigation. In the United
States, the actual CVR audio recording is protected by law
and is never released to the public.
# # #
NTSB Media Contact: Peter Knudson, (202) 314-6100
[email protected]
************************************************************
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: BHX
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast, I may disagree with you vehemently on JB, but I concur. I can't believe this post mortem is still going on. Everyone got out safely and the plane didn't break into little pieces unlike other ditchings.
The aircraft reached 3,000ft right ? Only non-aviators would fail to comprehend how little time that leaves to advise the cabin crew and passengers, inform ATC of intentions, look for a runway, attempt to run a check-list with his F/O, fly the aircraft and then have the presence of mind to deal with the aftermath of the ditching.
No ditching button or no May Day call ? So what ? The Captain did a bloody good job in the 3 or so minutes he had.
The aircraft reached 3,000ft right ? Only non-aviators would fail to comprehend how little time that leaves to advise the cabin crew and passengers, inform ATC of intentions, look for a runway, attempt to run a check-list with his F/O, fly the aircraft and then have the presence of mind to deal with the aftermath of the ditching.
No ditching button or no May Day call ? So what ? The Captain did a bloody good job in the 3 or so minutes he had.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: leeds
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have a link of where I could view the interview on 60 minutes with Captain Sully in full? I have searched the whole of CBS.com n youtube n not been able to find anything but the teaser video..?!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In post #1350, smith quoted an opinionated piece:
Since then I've received the identical message from several different sources, so I took a little time to research & write a rebuttal:
Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water. In a older generation airplane like the 727 or 737 300/400 the throttles are hooked to the fuel controllers on the engine by a steel throttle cable just like a TBM or a Comanche. On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real. Everything is electronic. The throttles, rudder and brake pedals and the side stick are hooked to rheostats who talk to a computer who talks to a electric hydraulic servo valve which in turn hopefully moves something.
There is much garbage in this...
For example the "Airbus A320 Crash at the Paris Airshow in 1998" is wrong in terms of location, date (a decade off) and causative factors. The facts are totally screwed up; it's written by someone who can't shoot straight. But it is not unusual to receive such summary judgments after any accident.
(That's not to say you won't find Google references to a 1998 Paris airshow crash, but the simple fact is that the Paris Air Show (Salon International de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace, Paris-Le Bourget) is held every other year - in ODD NUMBERED YEARS! )
Further, the implication that cables and pulleys are somehow superior to fly-by-wire ignores the fact that pulleys can jam, cables fray and break, etc. An elevator cable fracture caused a Air Moorea Twin Otter crash (9 August 2007). Northwest Airlines Flight 706 L-188 Electra crashed shortly after takeoff from O'Hare (1961) because an aileron cable failed. Further - I've seen or heard of incidents where an engine could not be shut down, ran away and destroyed itself because of cable-pulley rigging errors.
I agree completely with Sully's statement that they did "what they were trained to do". Sully's shining moment came the instant he decided that any
airport was out of gliding range. The rest was simply doing the job under tough conditions.
For example the "Airbus A320 Crash at the Paris Airshow in 1998" is wrong in terms of location, date (a decade off) and causative factors. The facts are totally screwed up; it's written by someone who can't shoot straight. But it is not unusual to receive such summary judgments after any accident.
(That's not to say you won't find Google references to a 1998 Paris airshow crash, but the simple fact is that the Paris Air Show (Salon International de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace, Paris-Le Bourget) is held every other year - in ODD NUMBERED YEARS! )
Further, the implication that cables and pulleys are somehow superior to fly-by-wire ignores the fact that pulleys can jam, cables fray and break, etc. An elevator cable fracture caused a Air Moorea Twin Otter crash (9 August 2007). Northwest Airlines Flight 706 L-188 Electra crashed shortly after takeoff from O'Hare (1961) because an aileron cable failed. Further - I've seen or heard of incidents where an engine could not be shut down, ran away and destroyed itself because of cable-pulley rigging errors.
I agree completely with Sully's statement that they did "what they were trained to do". Sully's shining moment came the instant he decided that any
airport was out of gliding range. The rest was simply doing the job under tough conditions.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One journo gets it right
I believe all will agree that Matthew Wald, an aviation writer at The New York Times, interpreted the audio well. Here is the link.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pasadena, CA
Age: 49
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sully & crew TV appearances
I scoured the web a little for the air times. Here are my results. Bare with me if something is missing or incorrect but I have set my Tivo to record all of the below.
- 60 minutes, CBS, Sunday night
- Good Morning America, ABC, Monday morning
- The Early Show, CBS, also Monday morning (the entire show is dedicated to the event)
- Press conference and keys to city NY, Monday afternoon
- David Letterman, Tuesday night, CBS
- Larry King, Tuesday night (postponed form Monday), CNN
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Contran shown in post 1465 was conceived by an airline Capt. in the US, in response to the KLM/PanAM collision on Tenerife in 1977. He patented the device, which needs be only some simple added circuitry in a VHF Comm, not a separate LRU, Line Replaceable Unit.
Even VHF Comm design engineers, while not the brightest at most manufacturers, could see the drawbacks to the idea. In busy airspace, pilots would soon get in the habit of keying the mic before the present transmission is finished, in order to be next to talk. As soon as two or more do that at the same time, the system is fragged.
There may have been other factors that doomed it, such as NIH, Not Invented Here.
GB
Even VHF Comm design engineers, while not the brightest at most manufacturers, could see the drawbacks to the idea. In busy airspace, pilots would soon get in the habit of keying the mic before the present transmission is finished, in order to be next to talk. As soon as two or more do that at the same time, the system is fragged.
There may have been other factors that doomed it, such as NIH, Not Invented Here.
GB
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the atc perspective, any aircraft that has recently departed and asks to return to the airport I consider an emergency, period!!! Until otherwise informed.
The fire and rescue companies at JFK would ALWAYS and I say again for emphasis ALWAYS rather be at the runway ready for a problem, than have to react. When atc requests a response the fire trucks respond and in my career I have never been nor have I ever heard anybody else questioned as to the validity of the request.
Aircraft at JFK do not return for fun. It's my job to get you back to the airport as fast and as safely as possible, I will do that first and ask the reason why later. You have a good reason, I'm sure and when the flight crew has the time and inclination they will share that information but from the controllers perspective, at least initially, it is not germain.
The fire and rescue companies at JFK would ALWAYS and I say again for emphasis ALWAYS rather be at the runway ready for a problem, than have to react. When atc requests a response the fire trucks respond and in my career I have never been nor have I ever heard anybody else questioned as to the validity of the request.
Aircraft at JFK do not return for fun. It's my job to get you back to the airport as fast and as safely as possible, I will do that first and ask the reason why later. You have a good reason, I'm sure and when the flight crew has the time and inclination they will share that information but from the controllers perspective, at least initially, it is not germain.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The discussion on "Mayday" or not has centred around the assumption that the level of the problem is quite clear to ATC and others from a pretty clear message from the crew; "hit birds, lost power on both engines" . But what about similar problem from a crew less adept at English in a country where the language does not coincide at all. At a time of stress people will revert quickly to their native tongue (or all the time in France!) so at least "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" will cut to the chase straight away.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The discussion on "Mayday" or not has centred around the assumption that the level of the problem is quite clear to ATC and others from a pretty clear message from the crew; "hit birds, lost power on both engines" . But what about similar problem from a crew less adept at English in a country where the language does not coincide at all. At a time of stress people will revert quickly to their native tongue (or all the time in France!) so at least "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday" will cut to the chase straight away.
This airspace may have been in US airspace and relate to a US domestic flight. This airspace is not however US domestic airspace but US airspace in an international terminal area. The only way that you can be sure that everyone, not just the local ATC, is aware is to use the proper international prowords.
Slick, smart alec answers are fine out in the boondocks but not where non-native speakers are also present. There is a European country, not far from UK and Germany where aircrews and ATC use the national language; doesn't make it right though.