I've often wished that airlines or safety organizations offered some kind of pax training - something where you could actually try putting on the life vest and using the oxygen mask, and also be trained to assist FAs and crew in case of an emergency. Always seemed to me that it would be helpful.

Agree with all that's been said here praising the pilot and crew. I fly US Airways often, and find it encouraging to know how skilled the people in charge of my life all those times really are.

wg

I think you are misreading post #316 ref. the Nimrod. It does not say that the Nimrod pilot was the co-pilot of the A320.

Elsewhere in this thread is a reference to the Chicago Tribune which reports the co-pilot to be Jeffrey Skiles.

A fantastic outcome for professional aviation today.

Well done to Captain Sullenberger, to his First Officer and to his Cabin Crew! We are all very proud of your professionalism and execution of a safe outcome for your passengers and crew.

Well spotted junior man. :ok: Full spec life vests and rafts installed.

Untitled Document

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... Unless the witness is NTSB who cares. If all is at this appears. this event is yet another reason to ditch the age 60 mandatory retirement rule as captain was approaching it.

dodging birds
 

A couple of comments here suggest the crew should have been watching for birds and avoided. One guy claims to have 25 years experience.

He must have been flying a Cessna 150, or a glider those 25 years.

Dodging birds in an A320?

Sheesh - what ridiculous comments, but then - this is PPRUNE, LOL

I suspect it was a "Bleeds Off" takeoff, which may have helped the situation immeasurably.

Deicing was being done in LGA, and even if you don't deice yourself, a bleeds off takeoff (APU running, supplying air for packs) will stop a lot of the stink of sucking up Deicing fluid on the runway, AND that crap is slick and a lot ends up on the runway, so I tend to always go bleeds off/MAXpower when deicing is being done (regardless of whether or not I deiced)especially at LGA with the short unforgiving runways.

If the APU was running for takeoff then there was no rat deployment at all, full electrics were always available, and a simple push of the yellow electric pump would restore much of the hydraulics if the engines weren't even windmilling.... On the otherhand, to restore the blue system the RAT manual deploy button would have to be pushed with the APU running...

IF the APU wasn't running, then the crew was even busier (though they may have immediately pushed the start switch at the beginning of the event) will be interesting to see.

Good job all around, can't wait to read the cvr transcripts and the reports...

Cheers
Wino

Replying to post #330....skankark said...
"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"

Looks like they hit the birds at around 3000ft.....so how are you supposed to avoid a flock of geese......if that is what it was.....flying IFR at 200kts :rolleyes:

The age 60 rule is gone.

As for maneuvering to avoid a flock of birds, good luck in an airliner at that slow speed!

Mark

Congratulations to all involved, :D:D just goes to show, lifejackets are not carried on board too soley mark the crash site.....

Who would have thought you would ever read this in a newspaper...


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...15gray.480.jpg


Updates From Plane Rescue in Hudson River - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com

ATC feed?
 

Anyone have the link to the ATC feed?

Skankark is known for doing a barrel roll in a 380 buss around V formation geese....

Gimmy as break!

Hero's
 

A great day for the aviation world... and a reassuring day for pilots and crew of under wing nacelle aircraft everywhere! Well Done to the entire crew. But especially to Capt Sullenberger a Hero.

In searching for facts leading to prevention strategies, I was drawn to the referenced image a few posts back that illustrated the flight track vs time and altitude. (see post # 303)

While the altitude seems to have reached about 3000 ft before descending it does not necessarily mean that the bird ingestion and left engine failure occurred at that point. There is a possibility that the ingestion event might have been shortly after liftoff (over the airport) and at least one engine continued working until the highest altitude attained.

Perhaps some performance analysis could be made from the chart to suggest whether the climb out was on a single engine.

This might be the case (I am an SLF), but the article about the Ryan Air incident linked earlier specifically stated that the pilots saw the flock of birds, tried to go around to avoid it, and were simply unlucky because the flock rose exactly into the newly adjusted flight path.

Now, these are probably different birds, it was a landing not a take off, it was from "people close to the investigation", not the final report, etc. etc. - each situation is obviously different (something that is totally lost on the press and sometimes here). But that Ryan Air experience suggests that your comment might be a bit too far on the other side of the opinion spectrum and that it is possible to at least to avoid large flock of birds when you see them while landing (which I suspect is at lower speeds than was the case here 1 min. into flight).

[edited last sentence because I was too fast on the submit button]

Several years ago a AA F100 ingested birds on takeoff out of LGA. Luckily for them it was runway 13 and then were able to keep the plane flying long enough to reach rwy 13L at JFK.

If it had been a different runway the results would have been different.

And the Fox News is expressing amazement that the crew had enough presence of mind to keep the landing gear up and ability to land with the wings level.:ugh:

Flyingconsultant
 

a large flock of birds can be seen, and evasive action can be taken on the descent, although there is no predicting that the flock might not take the same evasive action and so still result in a bird strike.

On take off the attitude of the plane may be such (nose high) that the birds flying level are never seen. Furthermore the plane will likely be slow and heavy.

There are still such things as accidents. Not everything in the world is avoidable

"And the Fox News is expressing amazement that the crew had enough presence of mind to keep the landing gear up and ability to land with the wings level."

Fox News must surely get an award for their knowledge of ditching these planes wings level and gear up in cold and hence less viscose water......

Folks are talking about adding dead stick landings to training. For years the standard offer from sim instructors if the sim session ended early - "dual flameout landing anyone?"

Folks will complain about 'negative training', etc, etc but other interesting events to see are no flap takeoffs, s/e handflown CAT II or III landings, total loss of hydraulics, and dual engine failure landings. :ok: