Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC
AlwaysOnFire
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: **** you PPRUNE!
Age: 24
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dysag
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 63
Posts: 94 Rananim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post raises the touchy subject of how brainy the A320 is compared with brand B.
Two elements have already been mentioned: stall protection and the ditching button.
Whilst the 737 is a robust old dear, the thousands of best-brain manhours that went into making the A320 a "better mousetrap" appear to be showing.
[Quote]
Well, one thing I miss on both the B737 and A320 is the ability to fueldump,
so itīs surely room for improvements.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 63
Posts: 94 Rananim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post raises the touchy subject of how brainy the A320 is compared with brand B.
Two elements have already been mentioned: stall protection and the ditching button.
Whilst the 737 is a robust old dear, the thousands of best-brain manhours that went into making the A320 a "better mousetrap" appear to be showing.
[Quote]
Well, one thing I miss on both the B737 and A320 is the ability to fueldump,
so itīs surely room for improvements.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson Waterbus
Frequent SLF here, with a few comments in response to several earlier posts.
I recall from a few years ago travelling on some US domestic flights where the safety card said that the seat cushions were the only personal flotation devices, and that they were designed with straps through which one should insert ones arms. Perhaps USAir takes this approach.
I am fairly sure that BA safety cards, on some types at least, warn against attempting to open doors that are not clear of the water.
From fairly recent experience of ferry trips round New York and Victoria, Canada, and watching float planes taking off and landing in Victoria, it seems probable that water conditions on the Hudson would have been well withing limits for float plane operation. Perhaps this was a positive factor in the USAir success.
Is sea state taken into account designing (land) aircraft hulls for ditching survivability? If so, what limits are used?
I recall from a few years ago travelling on some US domestic flights where the safety card said that the seat cushions were the only personal flotation devices, and that they were designed with straps through which one should insert ones arms. Perhaps USAir takes this approach.
I am fairly sure that BA safety cards, on some types at least, warn against attempting to open doors that are not clear of the water.
From fairly recent experience of ferry trips round New York and Victoria, Canada, and watching float planes taking off and landing in Victoria, it seems probable that water conditions on the Hudson would have been well withing limits for float plane operation. Perhaps this was a positive factor in the USAir success.
Is sea state taken into account designing (land) aircraft hulls for ditching survivability? If so, what limits are used?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky news now sensationalising things (again)
Probe Into New York Plane Crash In Hudson River Begins: Hero Pilot Chesley Sullenberger Yet To Talk | World News | Sky News
SLF here. I have nothing but admiration for the guys up front and I really don't think that Sky need to be sensationalising the story tabloid fashion, just because they've exhausted all the other angles.
The crew did a great job, end of story.
If alternatives were rejected, then IMO they were probably rejected to avoid crashing into densely populated areas and minimising any loss of life or collateral damage.
I look forward to the NTSB report and no doubt the ensuing episode of Air Crash Investigation explaining what happened.
SLF here. I have nothing but admiration for the guys up front and I really don't think that Sky need to be sensationalising the story tabloid fashion, just because they've exhausted all the other angles.
The crew did a great job, end of story.
If alternatives were rejected, then IMO they were probably rejected to avoid crashing into densely populated areas and minimising any loss of life or collateral damage.
I look forward to the NTSB report and no doubt the ensuing episode of Air Crash Investigation explaining what happened.
AlwaysOnFire
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: **** you PPRUNE!
Age: 24
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bondgirl78
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: LONDON . UK.
Posts: 3 wow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think it is amazing that the pilot landed the plane so perfectly! Well done to him and his crew!
On another note its a bit worrying that so many of you pilots are shocked that his attempt was sucessful. I am just a normal girl from the uk who has a facination with plane crashes as i am so shat scared of the dam things!! I fly but i HATE IT! I am obsessed with air crash investigation and am aware that this is one of the only succesful landings in water. The ethiopian plane broke up in the sea and yes there were survivors, but also many fatalities. So my fears are correct cause not even you guys are convinced that if you had to land in the water , that you would make it!! I hope this has given you some faith!
Hell will i ever get over this fear! No friggin way!
[Quote]
Youīre wrong, there been plenty of ditchings that ended up like this one.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: LONDON . UK.
Posts: 3 wow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think it is amazing that the pilot landed the plane so perfectly! Well done to him and his crew!
On another note its a bit worrying that so many of you pilots are shocked that his attempt was sucessful. I am just a normal girl from the uk who has a facination with plane crashes as i am so shat scared of the dam things!! I fly but i HATE IT! I am obsessed with air crash investigation and am aware that this is one of the only succesful landings in water. The ethiopian plane broke up in the sea and yes there were survivors, but also many fatalities. So my fears are correct cause not even you guys are convinced that if you had to land in the water , that you would make it!! I hope this has given you some faith!
Hell will i ever get over this fear! No friggin way!
[Quote]
Youīre wrong, there been plenty of ditchings that ended up like this one.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: in a cigar lounge smoking a Partagas P2
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw the news this morning 0100 UTC/0900 Local in Beijing while putting on the uniform for the return flight to Europe.
Couldn't believe what I saw - gave me goosebumps.
Have seen details and interviews and more details today after landing home. Still unbeliveable. Compares to the AF A-340 accident & evacuation in YYZ.
Great airmanship and professionalism by the crew. My respect goes out to the crew of the US Airways A-320, especially Cpt. Sullenberger, PIC.
Very well done.
My "after landing" cigar today was smoked in honour of that fine crew.
fcp2
Couldn't believe what I saw - gave me goosebumps.
Have seen details and interviews and more details today after landing home. Still unbeliveable. Compares to the AF A-340 accident & evacuation in YYZ.
Great airmanship and professionalism by the crew. My respect goes out to the crew of the US Airways A-320, especially Cpt. Sullenberger, PIC.
Very well done.
My "after landing" cigar today was smoked in honour of that fine crew.
fcp2
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure, if anybody mentioned it yet, as I did not read the whole thread. I used to fly and teach floats in Canada. The best and smoothiest landings on the river were the ones with the current and into the wind. Both reduce your water speed at touchdown. Lets say that your current is 20 knots running with you and your headwind is 10 knots against you, your water speed at touchdown is going to be 30 knots less, than it would be under no current and no wind conditions. I think that they mentioned, that the aircraft was drifting south during the rescue operation. But that river is tidal, mind you, so it could have been running the other way or be stationary at the time of the ditching. I am not sure about the tidal conditions around New York. I am also not sure of the wind conditions, but judging by takeoffs from La Guardia to the north, the winds would be favourable. Extra 30 knots slow down is very valuable in landings on the water. If you double the speed in the air, you have 4 times the drag. But if you double the speed on the water, you have 8 times the drag.
Anyway, excellent job! I would be happy to sign the guy off!
Anyway, excellent job! I would be happy to sign the guy off!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB press conference going on right now and the spokeswoman says neither engine is attached to the aircraft. They are currently using side scanning sonar in the Hudson River looking for the wayward power plants.
Excellent job by the whole crew .............on another subject altogether..............How long before the Port of New York Authority get around to charging USairways with pollution of the Hudson River ??? something like 10 tonnes fuel must have been onboard ........
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being pedantic here and the outcome was good but was it wise for the pax to stand on the wings? Remember the plane had just taken off so there was a whole lot of fuel in there and there must have been some structural damage to the tanks after the ditching. I guess it was the best of two evils really, stay with the chance of being fireballed or jump with the chance of hypothermia and/or drowning.
Also once the hull had been secured, would it not have been prudent to enter the cabin and strategically place some large inflation bags ensuring the hull wouldn't sink?
Just a few points I have mooted with myself and p.s. my previous post about landing closer to the embankment was just an example of black humour us pilots revel in.
Also once the hull had been secured, would it not have been prudent to enter the cabin and strategically place some large inflation bags ensuring the hull wouldn't sink?
Just a few points I have mooted with myself and p.s. my previous post about landing closer to the embankment was just an example of black humour us pilots revel in.
RobertS975
Yes, they do.
Also, there is a myth which persists still, that turning on the radar will somehow help prevent a birdstrike. This is false. The landing lights may be of limited use for bird avoidance at night0 and in cloud. which birds will fly in at departure and arrival altitudes.
A very good source for wide information this can be found at:
TP 13549 - Sharing the Skies
A good reason to obey the 250kt speed limit below 10k ASL and 200 kts within 5nm, (it's below 3k and within 10nm in Canada). The "per-squared law" works in perhaps unexpected ways unless one really thinks about it...a 10lb bird at 180kts has some "give" in terms of "splat-ness" - in other words, the impact loads will be "distributed" over a slightly wider area, (obviously limited to the bird's frontal print presented to the impact area to the aircraft), but at higher speeds, the pliability/plasticity of flesh is much tinier simply because it can't catch up to the speed of impact and is therefore a very hard, pointy source of energy with extremely high loads concentrated in a much smaller area of the airframe/windshield/engine, etc.
There is indeed a very good argument for obeying the speed limits below 10 and below 3.
Wonderful airmanship demonstrated in the decision-making and the controlled ditching not to mention the energy-management and timing to reduce speed, keeping in mind pitch attitude and (again) the "frontal presentation" of the airplane to an (initially) very hard water surface - tail not too low, wings level etc.
A fine lesson by a fine professional.
PJ2
(Do geese even fly at night?)
Also, there is a myth which persists still, that turning on the radar will somehow help prevent a birdstrike. This is false. The landing lights may be of limited use for bird avoidance at night0 and in cloud. which birds will fly in at departure and arrival altitudes.
A very good source for wide information this can be found at:
TP 13549 - Sharing the Skies
A good reason to obey the 250kt speed limit below 10k ASL and 200 kts within 5nm, (it's below 3k and within 10nm in Canada). The "per-squared law" works in perhaps unexpected ways unless one really thinks about it...a 10lb bird at 180kts has some "give" in terms of "splat-ness" - in other words, the impact loads will be "distributed" over a slightly wider area, (obviously limited to the bird's frontal print presented to the impact area to the aircraft), but at higher speeds, the pliability/plasticity of flesh is much tinier simply because it can't catch up to the speed of impact and is therefore a very hard, pointy source of energy with extremely high loads concentrated in a much smaller area of the airframe/windshield/engine, etc.
There is indeed a very good argument for obeying the speed limits below 10 and below 3.
Wonderful airmanship demonstrated in the decision-making and the controlled ditching not to mention the energy-management and timing to reduce speed, keeping in mind pitch attitude and (again) the "frontal presentation" of the airplane to an (initially) very hard water surface - tail not too low, wings level etc.
A fine lesson by a fine professional.
PJ2
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the aircraft did not have a lot of fuel and most likely in the wings only. Since the wings were mostly in the water with exactly would the fuel react in order to start a fire? Even if there was a fire it wouldn't last long - lots of water.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captainkangaroo - a quote from 330 FCOM3 (similar I would think to 320)
Direct Law - The sidestick is directly coupled to the controls via the COMPUTERS, but without any of the stabilization feedbacks. In effect, this turns the aircraft into a conventional aircraft, but is compensated for configuration and CG...
Turning the APU on does not give you normal law when you have a dual engine flame-out.. You'll have one of the Alternate Laws at best (and Alternate Law does not offer the same protections as Normal Law - it's also possible to stall the aircraft in Alternate Law), and when you push the Land Recovery it goes to Direct Law (with the gear selected down - although being a ditching case it's a little different)..Remember you will be lacking hydraulic power except for the feeble output of the RAT.. I could delve deeper but I really don't see the point.
Even at Emergency Electrical Config you'll still have Prim1 and both Secs (again I'm assuming a similarity with 330/340)
Direct Law - The sidestick is directly coupled to the controls via the COMPUTERS, but without any of the stabilization feedbacks. In effect, this turns the aircraft into a conventional aircraft, but is compensated for configuration and CG...
Turning the APU on does not give you normal law when you have a dual engine flame-out.. You'll have one of the Alternate Laws at best (and Alternate Law does not offer the same protections as Normal Law - it's also possible to stall the aircraft in Alternate Law), and when you push the Land Recovery it goes to Direct Law (with the gear selected down - although being a ditching case it's a little different)..Remember you will be lacking hydraulic power except for the feeble output of the RAT.. I could delve deeper but I really don't see the point.
Even at Emergency Electrical Config you'll still have Prim1 and both Secs (again I'm assuming a similarity with 330/340)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks!
From what we hear and see:
- the pilots: what can one say?
- the cabin crew: getting the pax out in an orderly fashion
- the pax: keeping their cool
- and those ferries: on scene in under 2 min, and apparently efficient and well organized
(just keeping station in currents and not creating a big marine pile-up must take considerable skill...) - And I always liked the A320 anyway.
Thank you all!
PS. I am possibly one, but what is an SLF?
PS. I am possibly one, but what is an SLF?
Being pedantic here and the outcome was good but was it wise for the pax to stand on the wings?
and those ferries: on scene in under 2 min, and apparently efficient and well organized
Seriously though, well done to the crew for such an amazing job under the most difficult of conditions!