Plane Down in Hudson River - NYC

[A37575]

and agree together that the "landing" was to be made on the river

For heaven's sake the the cockpit is not a democracy nor is it a committee decision. In such a time critical situation the captain is empowered by law to be in sole command. "Agreeing together" before the captain ditches the aircraft is not CRM or TEM and the time is well overdue for some first officers to realise that their task is to give support where the captain requires it - not to demand a committe approach to every action or decision the captain may choose to make.

[Profit Max]

Originally Posted by Lost in Saigon

At 3:12 in the video a passenger with no life jacket slips off the right wing, disappears below the water, and is then helped back up by another passenger. (also not wearing a life jacket)

I think the person actually jumped of the wing on purpose, then realised how cold the water was and came back quickly.

Also amazing is that the first passengers are on the slide/raft just 30 seconds after the plane came to a halt.

[vanHorck]

"Kitty Higgins, the NTSB member in charge of the on-scene investigation, said both engines are believed to have detached as the plane was pulled along by the river's strong currents."

Either the Washington Post is misquoting or the NTSB member in charge needs to be replaced.

No way the current would exert stronger force than the ditching itself!

[md80fanatic]

That was nearly the equivalent of a carrier landing in a passenger aircraft, quite a sight.

[Dysag]

Chippie Chappie

You're right. FBW on its own doesn't help anyone. It's the flight control computers that provide the protection.

Here's a highly journalistic but nevertheless instructive intro to Airbus "fly through computer".

YouTube - airbus-a320-stall-test-airshow-jet-airliner

[Mr @ Spotty M]

I think you will find that no passengers had lifejackets as they are not carried, they use the flotation cushion and the slides are just slides, not rafts.
I am sure l read earlier in this thread that the life jackets worn when pax landed ashore were from the rescue boats.

[Lost in Saigon]

Originally Posted by A37575

For heaven's sake the the cockpit is not a democracy nor is it a committee decision. In such a time critical situation the captain is empowered by law to be in sole command. "Agreeing together" before the captain ditches the aircraft is not CRM or TEM and the time is well overdue for some first officers to realise that their task is to give support where the captain requires it - not to demand a committe approach to every action or decision the captain may choose to make.

I don't agree with your comments. A time critical situation also needs good crew coordination.

I know of a situation where the an aircraft in the Caribbean experienced a wheel well fire warning about an hour after take off. The Captain decided he needed to ditch the aircraft. The First Officer had to threaten physical violence in order to persuade to Captain not to ditch the aircraft. The flight continued on and landed at destination.

[Lost in Saigon]

Originally Posted by Mr @ Spotty M

I think you will find that no passengers had lifejackets as they are not carried, they use the flotation cushion and the slides are just slides, not rafts.
I am sure l read earlier in this thread that the life jackets worn when pax landed ashore were from the rescue boats.

No that is wrong. It was posted that the aircraft did indeed carry life jackets. Also, the life jackets that some of the passengers can be seen wearing are clearly inflatable airline type life jackets.

Here is one of the first photos taken as the first recuse boat arrived:

[Guava Tree]

Quote from A37575:
"For heaven's sake the the cockpit is not a democracy nor is it a committee decision. In such a time critical situation the captain is empowered by law to be in sole command. "Agreeing together" before the captain ditches the aircraft is not CRM or TEM and the time is well overdue for some first officers to realise that their task is to give support where the captain requires it - not to demand a committee approach to every action or decision the captain may choose to make"

Ageegeah! This hardly comes under the umbrella of "every action or decision the captain may choose to make"

Are you divorced from your wife ?

[Fargoo]

Can someone confirm if this webcam is pointing towards the area of the recovery?

EarthCam - USS Intrepid Cam

[beamender99]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr @ Spotty M
I think you will find that no passengers had lifejackets as they are not carried, they use the flotation cushion and the slides are just slides, not rafts.
I am sure l read earlier in this thread that the life jackets worn when pax landed ashore were from the rescue boats.

No that is wrong. It was posted that the aircraft did indeed carry life jackets. Also, the life jackets that some of the passengers can be seen wearing are clearly inflatable airline type life jackets.

Mr @ Spotty M
Several posters have stated that life jackets were on board and had info to support their statement.
One news video shot clearly showed the word AIR in a large familiar font on the left front of a lifejacket worn by a pax
Perhaps the captain / FO donated his?

Based on the above I was very surprised how few pax had a USAIR life jacket on.

Well done to ALL involved. I was surprised that the mayor did not mention the 19 year old lady skipper of the second ferry on the scene ( mentioned on an earlier posting).

I was impressed that all the river traffic left the landing area clear.
Seriously - what a stroke of luck that the river in that area was not full of craft .

[rabidstoat]

SLF here, and having read through the thread I see where the 'Brace for impact' warning was given, and have heard several passengers talk about having heard that command. What I don't see, though, is anything about the passengers being advised at some point that there would be a ditching, and that life vests should be donned. Does anyone know if that happened, as per the very-busy checklist that someone posted a few pages back?

I'm just trying to sort out the lack of life vests on most people. Seems like there would have been time to dig them out and put them on prior to bracing to impact. However, I have luckily never been in such a situation to know the timing of these things.

[Eboy]

Has the aircraft been lifted out of the Hudson? Anybody know if the engines are still there? I'd presume they'd snap off upon water contact.

According to the New York Times, an attempt will be made to lift the aircraft from the water today. One concern is 4,000 gallons of fuel still in the aircraft that they want to keep from leaking.

The engines are presumed to have detached on impact and are being searched for by the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers using sonar.

[ferrydude]

"It will be scrapped. When they get it out of the water serious structural damage to the lower 48 section will be apparent. In past such events the skin is torn open and frames trashed."

Highly likely that it will be scrapped, however reuse of aircraft involved in similar ditchings is not without precedent. JAL DC-8 ditched in SFO bay was salvaged, flown for years by United and continues in service today

[Eboy]

Cell phone photo of the landing from the New York Times:

[X13CDX]

rabidstoat
Probationary PPRuNer

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: U.S.
Age: 37
Posts: 1


SLF here, and having read through the thread I see where the 'Brace for impact' warning was given, and have heard several passengers talk about having heard that command. What I don't see, though, is anything about the passengers being advised at some point that there would be a ditching, and that life vests should be donned. Does anyone know if that happened, as per the very-busy checklist that someone posted a few pages back?

I'm just trying to sort out the lack of life vests on most people. Seems like there would have been time to dig them out and put them on prior to bracing to impact. However, I have luckily never been in such a situation to know the timing of these things.


.. in responce to this post.. I would say that the lack of life vests on the pax would be due to them not listening properly to the saftey demo before takeoff.. as it all happened so quickly i would have thought there wasnt enough time for any announcements to be made regarding life jackets etc.. there certainly wouldnt have been enough time for any cabin crew to run about making sure people had their life jackets on. In that situation there really would have only been time to say what needed to be said and that was "brace for impact". If people listened to the saftey demo before every takeoff then they would know that if a plane is going down, especially over water, you are meant to put on your life jackets.. but again with how fast everything happened, panic etc, its no wonder if there were a few life jackets missing.

[Wiley]

Lost in Saigon, you ask:

There is even a possibility that it was the First officer who actually landed the aircraft.

The BA38 incident notwithstanding, (where the captain apparently did leave the FO to land the aircraft after the double engine failure on short finals at Heathrow), I think you'd be looking for a very long time for a captain who's leave the FO to land the aircraft in a situation like the one this crew faced. I'm standing by to be contradicted, (there might be one out there), but suffice to say, I certainly wouldn't.

From the moment the crew saw the first ECAM warning, the FO would have been one busy, busy individual, working his butt off right up to impact to complete multiple checklists that would have included repeated attempts to get at least one engine going again.

For those who seem to be offended that the media are concentrating their accolades upon the captain, I think it would be a safe assumption that the captain, when cleared to make a statement to the world's media, will heap much praise upon all his crew.

Hey, let's all be thankful the media have for once got it right and are acknowledging that we are in fact something more than "glorified bus drivers". If this had happened in Australia, it's an almost dead certainty the bastards would have got the story completly wrong and spun it such a way as to make the crew appear to have screwed up - or accused them of "murdering" poor defenceless geese.

Edited to add: I wonder if this incident will have any impact upon the minds of the management of certain airlines who insist that maximum automation be used at all times? With such policies, in a few years, there won't be any of us left who know how to fly the aeroplane (sorry, cousins - airplane) 'by the seat of our pants'.

[theron]

hero?

is the pilot a hero? did he deliberately put himself on this specific plane knowing the troubles he would face?

if this pilot is a hero then all pilots are heroes because they all made the choice to put their lives on the line and potentially face dangerous events like this every time they get in the cockpit.

for me the pilot was just the right guy, wrong place, wrong time.

incredible airmanship and should be recognised as such.

surely there is a more appropriate noun?

MHO

[X13CDX]

".. theron..

hero?
is the pilot a hero? did he deliberately put himself on this specific plane knowing the troubles he would face?

if this pilot is a hero then all pilots are heroes because they all made the choice to put their lives on the line and potentially face dangerous events like this every time they get in the cockpit.

for me the pilot was just the right guy, wrong place, wrong time.

incredible airmanship and should be recognised as such.

surely there is a more appropriate noun?

MHO"


.. as Hemmingway once described a hero to be someone who shows great grace under pressure.. and that is exactly what captain Sullenberger did yesterday.. a first class hero!

[misd-agin]

Different issues -

1. It's not guaranteed that the Captain was in fact the pilot flying.

2. There are situations in which the Captain would allow the FO to keep the a/c. That is a decision left up to the Captain via his emergency authority. FO had 23 yrs experience with the airline. He had several years experience prior to getting hired at USAIR. Some(many) U.S. airlines have very, very experienced crews. Last FO I flew with had 31 yrs experience.

3. The report stated the engines fell off while the plane was in the river's current. It did not say the river's current caused the engines to detach.

4. "I doubt many pilots could do what the CA did". Next time you're in the sim do an idle power descent and then the same thing with dual engine failure. It's not a 'night and day' difference.

5. "Kudos to the crew for thinking outside the box". Please explain. You're at 3000', with built up areas around you, very congested highways, many twisty, narrow, and all having numerous overpasses, unable to reach any airport, and the only open space is a river of perhaps the marsh area just to the west. What was the 'out of the box' thinking?

6. Check out actual touchdown location vs. flying distance to Teterboro.
They'd have had to do a right 150 degree turn but the distance would have been very, very close. Factor in NW winds (increased distance down the Hudson, decreased distance towards Teterboro) and it's a risky decision. Quick decision had to be made, IMO he made the right choice.