Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing!
Me as a pilot in the same situation, I'm not sure if I would have tried a ditching but to land on a highway nearby. The history of ditching doesn't look very positive, there are a few lucky exceptions. But to land on a crowded NYC highway could have been very very scary.
Congrats to the crew involved. The fly-by-wire technic from Airbus surely helped also to make a smooth ditching.
Dani
Me as a pilot in the same situation, I'm not sure if I would have tried a ditching but to land on a highway nearby. The history of ditching doesn't look very positive, there are a few lucky exceptions. But to land on a crowded NYC highway could have been very very scary.
Congrats to the crew involved. The fly-by-wire technic from Airbus surely helped also to make a smooth ditching.
Dani
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of you guys and gals from the pointy end, so rightly generous with your praise for this ACE pilot, are equally capable of emulating his skill, that is why, as SLF, I am always eager and happy to fly behind you.
I think the boys and girls who float on water are due a hell of round of applause in this particular incident too.
I think the boys and girls who float on water are due a hell of round of applause in this particular incident too.
Random thoughts:
1) What's the glide ratio of a jet this size? Was there even a possibility of making Westchester or Teterboro from the collision point? FlightTrack numbers indicate the pilot had 3,200 feet of altitude to work with.
(Regardless, I think the Hudson made a much better runway - more leeway to adjust speed/touchdown point for the smoothest flare or to avoid obstructions (boats) - and more "emergency equipment" (ferries, tugs, etc.) close to hand. Excellent quick thinking!)
2) I'll give some credit to the pax for remaining calm and orderly in the evac. No doubt the crew's professionalism set the tone.
3) I wonder what folks on the Manhattan shoreline thought - for just an instant - seeing a jet coming in at low altitude.
4) I would love to read not only the ATC/cockpit transcripts, but also the interviews/debriefs the pilots give to NTSB. I want to see step by step how they pulled this off. Just amazing!
1) What's the glide ratio of a jet this size? Was there even a possibility of making Westchester or Teterboro from the collision point? FlightTrack numbers indicate the pilot had 3,200 feet of altitude to work with.
(Regardless, I think the Hudson made a much better runway - more leeway to adjust speed/touchdown point for the smoothest flare or to avoid obstructions (boats) - and more "emergency equipment" (ferries, tugs, etc.) close to hand. Excellent quick thinking!)
2) I'll give some credit to the pax for remaining calm and orderly in the evac. No doubt the crew's professionalism set the tone.
3) I wonder what folks on the Manhattan shoreline thought - for just an instant - seeing a jet coming in at low altitude.
4) I would love to read not only the ATC/cockpit transcripts, but also the interviews/debriefs the pilots give to NTSB. I want to see step by step how they pulled this off. Just amazing!
Last edited by pattern_is_full; 15th Jan 2009 at 22:12. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Berkeley
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OLD photo, PREVIOUS event here
http://varifrank.com/images/pa-ditch.jpg
Someone mentioned this earlier; photos from Google Image Search
(Pan American Clipper ditching at sea; you'll find text about it by searching. Yes, the captain had moved all the passengers from the rear forward in the cabin, expecting it to break as it did.)
NOTE -- this one's old news, folks, just for comparison.
Someone mentioned this earlier; photos from Google Image Search
(Pan American Clipper ditching at sea; you'll find text about it by searching. Yes, the captain had moved all the passengers from the rear forward in the cabin, expecting it to break as it did.)
NOTE -- this one's old news, folks, just for comparison.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone else besides me consider that maybe this crew screwed up? Maybe they actually shut down the good engine during a severe damage engine shutdown while attempting to return to the airport.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing. Another professional crew doing a professional job when called upon, just like the Ryanair crew in CIA.
Looks like a perfectly executed ditching - textbook stuff. Fantastic job, ladies and gents, front and back end.
Hats off all round! Wonderful!
Looks like a perfectly executed ditching - textbook stuff. Fantastic job, ladies and gents, front and back end.
Hats off all round! Wonderful!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fly by wire computer system would have made a ditching more easy with less likelyhood of a stall, unless the loss of electrical power with the loss of engine power put it into direct law. So the aircraft is solid for this kind of problem.
The crew would have little time to think. They would just be following their training. When they were unable to get back to La Guardia a ditching would be the obvious choice with all the buildings around on land.
Some would say that ditching at 140knots or so would mean it would tip over with the underslung engines. That didn't happen. Maybe the engines ripped off at their connecting points. That loss of weight could account for the aircraft floating for so long.
The crew would have little time to think. They would just be following their training. When they were unable to get back to La Guardia a ditching would be the obvious choice with all the buildings around on land.
Some would say that ditching at 140knots or so would mean it would tip over with the underslung engines. That didn't happen. Maybe the engines ripped off at their connecting points. That loss of weight could account for the aircraft floating for so long.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like MSNBC got that the pilot would be speaking wrong - what a shock there 
On the other hand Mayor Michael Bloomberg is being very sensible and cautious in his public comments, praising pilot, waiting for NTSB, putting down silly rumours - puts most of the commentators to shame!
On the other hand Mayor Michael Bloomberg is being very sensible and cautious in his public comments, praising pilot, waiting for NTSB, putting down silly rumours - puts most of the commentators to shame!
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any assumption that an aircraft can fly perfectly well on one engine assumes that the working engine is fully functional. All bets are off if that engine took some damage.
There was a quote from an air traffic union rep on one of news channels earlier saying that the pilots had seen an airfield below them and were at that time considering making an approach into that airport. If I heard correctly the airport in question was Teterboro Airport.
Sounds like the crew were earning every cent of their wages today.
Sounds like the crew were earning every cent of their wages today.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) What's the glide ratio of a jet this size? Was there even a possibility of making Westchester or Teterboro from the collision point? FlightTrack numbers indicate the pilot had 3,200 feet of altitude to work with.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the first successful ditching of a jet transport. JAL landed a DC-8 (nearly new) off SFO Nov 1968, and UAL recovered the aircraft and rehabbed it. JAL continued to fly it for several years.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pattern is full - glide ratio should be about 18:1, or slightly better.
For every 1000' of altitude you can go 3 n.m. So from their peak altitude if they lost ALL power at THAT point they could go about 9 miles.
As far as landing next to the ferries? The pilot could have adjusted his touchdown point to land at a slightly closer point, but trying to 'stretch' your glide is pointless if you're already at your best glide speed. Best glide speed would probably around 210-220 kts - estimate based on 5 type ratings on different a/c- not A320 qual'd, but jets are jets to a large degree.
For every 1000' of altitude you can go 3 n.m. So from their peak altitude if they lost ALL power at THAT point they could go about 9 miles.
As far as landing next to the ferries? The pilot could have adjusted his touchdown point to land at a slightly closer point, but trying to 'stretch' your glide is pointless if you're already at your best glide speed. Best glide speed would probably around 210-220 kts - estimate based on 5 type ratings on different a/c- not A320 qual'd, but jets are jets to a large degree.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: usa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilot being reported as Sully Sullenberger C. B. "Sully" Sullenberger - LinkedIn
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF query: if both engines were knocked out, would the cabin lights die? Or do they run off battery power for a bit? Or would the RAT have deployed?
It only gives power above 140 knots (I think) and they would probably have tried to land slower than that. Looking at the intact hull I'd say the impact happened at very low speed.
Lights would have been on battery power.
One BBC 'expert' reckoned he could see from the pictures that one engine was fully intact. That may turn out to be the case but it is not possible to tell from any picture I've seen if either engine was functional.