Everyone is so damn fast to congratulate everyone here.

Great job well done all, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

I will be waiting to see what the final investigation finds what the cause of the dual engine failure on takeoff has been.

Boy those wings appeared buoyant.

Well Done To The Whole Crew
 

Great flying but didn't the Cabin crew make a fine job of vacating the pax. I've just listened to a very calm report on Fox from a pax in Row 21 who rightly praised the whole crew. Its worth all the training guys, well done all of you, 5 real heroes.
At last some GOOD news in 2009! :ok:

This is something of a mystery. Some pax are clearly wearing aircraft life vests; yet a very switched on pax says he left the aircraft but had forgotten his (flotation) seat cushion. Another mentioned life vests being handed out by FAs. :confused:

RAT & Engines influences on ditching effects ?
 

Hi all,
I remember the 767 from Ethiopian as a good start of a ditching... until the engines touched the water and created a huge drag wich then made the aircraft roll over and get destroyed.

So i'm REALLY curious about 3 things :

1°) Since the RAT deploys automatically above 100kts when you loose AC 1 + 2, losing both engines here probably got the RAT out. What was the influence of the RAT being the first thing to touch the water ? Did it create a pitch down moment ?

2°) Are the engines still attached to the aircraft or not ? How come it didn't have the same bad effect on the ditching as the Ethiopian B767 ? Might it be because the rate created a pitch down moment making both engines touching the water and the same time ?? (and then no yaw moment created, thus no roll over!)

3°)Landing gear : a witness said Landing gear was down! Being opposite to any ditching procedure i know. Might it be because it was planning to land at the smaller airport and then reconsider the situation ? I doubt they went through the Manual gear extension procedure and i doubt gear down could have such a good effect on ditching...

Can't wait to know the answers to those 3 questions.
Anyway, good job !!

"The other successful ditching was the Ethiopian 767 that ran out of fuel." How can you call that a succesfull ditching? look at the video of the ditching.. they were flying fast,the wingtip hit the water first and the plane broke apart...hardly successfull in my opinion..

I think Birds should be banned from airport airspace :}

Well it certainly wasn't the fault of the crew, they deserve congratulations.

What Is Good Airmanship ?
 

Well I have been flying for 25 years and good airmanship to me , is keeping a good lookout at all times and specially so , below 10000 feet agl. In a multi crew cockpit, having a bird hit ( above 500 agl ) has always been considered a crime and the crew more often than not ,have been admonished for their lack of airmanship. Not taking away any credit from the crew , I was just wondering if the entire episode could have been avoided totally (It really pains to see a wonderful machine like an Airbus in water). Being a Bus driver myself , I am certain that the duties of the crew ,include one head up ,at all times , and this has not been done dilligently (I hope I am wrong). The aftermath handling ,undoubtedly deserves the highest appreciation. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ALL 155 OF YOU.
Warm regards
KS

What a hell of a "ain't life wonderful" day at these times of miserable recession......Right pilot, right crew, right place.....an amazing achievement.......truly a further credit for the Airbus

Dude -- the RAT isnt that large, and either way it's located on the port fusilage at about the same FS as the engine intake.

@ iaf22

1) none whatsoever - at correct ditching attitude it shouldn't be anywhere near water, as rear fuselage makes first contact. Its small size would also make any pitching moment insignificant.

2) who knows? wait for the report! Ethiopian ditching went avry because capt. has already suffered a few hefty blows on his head with crash axe and there was general commotion with hijackers during ditching, which made complying with correct ditching technique difficult.

3) wait for the report! I bet those CVR and FDR won't be difficult to read out.

Whatever preceded and ultimately caused the splash, I'm certain that cabin and cockpit deserve a praise for ditching and evacuation done very well.

Rat Deployment
 

Rat has a Shear point as did the 767. Does the 320 revert to direct law flight like the 330?

Doesn't look like it.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...6plane_12a.jpg

Yes, I'm still up for the damn fast congratulations. A great job was done. Perhaps there was a mistake in there somewhere, what do I know. The end result has great job all over it, everyone walked on to shore.

A routine job would have been that they all got out at the gate at Charlotte - that did not happen, and, all of us did not congatulate the crew for a routine job.

Okay... fair is fair, hey all you other crews with routine flights yesterday, congatulations for a routine flight!

Great job crew!

Pilot DAR

Well hats of to all the crew and the people who built such a rugged aircraft. Amazing story and for once NY gets a good news aviation story for once.

I mind many years back the an RAF Nimrod was lost due to multiple gesse ingestions and years later the the same type was succesfully ditched in the water with no fatalities. So the pilots of these wonderfull machines can hopefully write a textbook answer to landing in water.

For the pilots out there what will happen to the pilots now after this. I assume it will be giving evidence/what happened etc but after all that , will they get an award or a better job , i dont know i just ask you guys

The BBC really should listern a little. on this lunchtimes BBC news so called experts Learmont and Moody(ex BA) also forgot the FO. The whole incident has been assumed that the Captain was PF, maybe he was not as in the LHR777 forced landing. Equally what about the cabin crew??

To cap it all the BBC refer to the Airbus as an Airplane (yuk!)

common denominator
 

Keepittidy, as has been mentioned before the pilot who ditched the Nimrod was copilot on the A320.
The copilot is the common denominator!


Mickjoebill

Apologies, Co-Pilot was not Nimrod pilot, my bad

Yeah i just viewed last 2 pages and the story is there , too many posts to read in my lunch hour :)

Zero loss of SOB - lucky and great flying! Not to take anything away from the Cptn and FO, but if there was a large flock of goose, and none of the crew spotted it? I for one can't wait for more detail to unfold. What was the wind condition at the time of the ditching?

That airplane is an EOW A 320 and has life vests and slide rafts installed.

Plane down in Hudson River
 

As SLF when checking in "what is pilots name" if not Sullenberger sharp intake of breath.
Seriously top marks all round, when I was being taught at the Queen's expense ditching in anything was thought to be seriously dodgy Pictures were shown of aircraft nosing in with nothing much underneath but a radiator, to do it with underslung engines was thought impossible. The stress engineers who got the sums right also deserve a medal.