I think most people just like to talk :) And YES, I very definitely DID check the name on the door on the way in. My point was that those people advocating the use of those checklists also seem to have lost sight of the fact that there was not time to use them as the aircraft didn't ever get high enough for those checklists to be useful.

Indeed, it looks scary: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...eld-la-460370/

It seems that these great Russians guys and Sully ignored the SOP`s etc. Is it time the Book was re-written to reflect this ?

Not really. These folk all thought outside the book, and that will always happen...thankfully

Expand a bit what you mean and we'll share what has been done already.

OK, here's "the Book" for situations like these: "Be prepared. Keep calm. Think fast. Be lucky."

Not needed. It's already written in the Boeing QRH that in certain circumstances deviations from SOP's and procedures may be needed. I am sure there's something similar in Airbus documentation.

Last time I checked, PIC can do pretty much all s/he wants, if necessary to protect lives.

It's a privilege I hope to never use.

Has the DFDR been released?

I shouldn't think there'll be much on it apart from a few Russian expletives - I doubt there was time for running the full Cornfield Landing checklist...

The crew seemed pretty cool and collected in the transcripts of comms with ATC. Anyway, lomapaseo asked about the data recorder, not the CVR.

Comparison with Hudson
 

GXER. I'll second that.

I have a feeling that in both cases the pilots did not necessarily make the best choices but they avoided the bad ones and that is often enough. In any profession experience is for weeding those out, training helps but it is no substitute for experience.

In Russian case there was simply no choice but land ahead may be little left or right. It may be interesting to know why he chose to land with gear up. Sully's case he had to make the decision not to return. There was nothing wrong in every thing he did except dropping speed and getting into alpha prot that prevented a proper flare and resulted in heavy impact. However considering the work load and the time frame it's ok.

The FCTM mentions if forced Landing is anticipated the gear must lowered to absorb some energy. But the forced Landing check list does mention gear to be lowered above 3000ft. Although it doesn't mention the reason. It could be that initially the drag of lowering the gear will increase the rate of descent and below 3000ft not enough height to settle down again. In this case it was only 750ft. So perhaps correct thinking.

Somewhere further up thread there's a quote from the Captain where he suggests that his decision was based on the fact that as they had full tanks, there was less chance of causing a rupture and fire if he left the gear up.

Landing with the gear up I thought had already been answered by the crew of the A321.

They were only reaching 750' MAX ALT and were starting to go down, with that thought the Skipper had already decided that a return to the airport was impossible and that an immediate forced landing was inevitable.
The crew had raised the gear after the normal rotation/lift off at take off, and the Capt knew how long the time would take to lower it again either by the manual drop/lock or via the HYD systems (if he still had any?) and it was obvious to him they had not the time to get 3 greens.
I do not know if the RAT deployed and was functioning, but that needs 140 or is it 150 kts airspeed to work the turbine and pump for some electrics and HYD's.

Regards R.

I was thinking about some accusations here that the captain didn't call "Brace!" for the passengers, and here is the result of my mental effort.

I don't think a call to brace would help anyone. Even in the most airborne country like the US, most passengers would simply not understand it. Other than a few aviation enthusiasts, very few people actually know what this word stands for. They've just boarded the plane, they are tired from all the lines they had to stand in, they are utterly irritated by their encounter with the security, they are finally trying to relax. The plane accelerates down the runway, the shaking stops, and we fly, and the suddenly "BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!"... What do you do? Hug a person in the adjacent seat? Grab the armrests? I don't think it'd work, especially with panic factored in. Even people who know the meaning would need time to process the command, and those who don't know would simply wonder what the heck the PA is screaming about.

And now imagine there is a plane full of people who don't speak a word in English, and there is no set phrase in their language for "assume the brace position". Heck, I just realized I don't know that phrase in my native language, and those that I can come up with would require quite a few seconds to say.

So, in my conclusion, "brace" command, unless called well in advance, gives absolutely NO meaningful result and doesn't improve the outcome by one iota.