Airfoilmod, your point was already assumed, but for avoidance of doubt my target was/is the bureaucracy and media bollocks that feed off each other in times of big 'events'.

NTSB: Any fatalities?
NYCPA: Nope.
NTSB: OK, give the press to Higgins, see how she performs...

The average descent rate from 3200ft down to 300ft (see # 16 & 304) seems to have been no more than 800ft/min. Even allowing for the airspeed decrease of 49 knots over this period, and possible flap deployment (of which we can only guess at this stage) this would seem to indicate there was some residual thrust available. In which case there could well have been adequate hydraulic and electrical power available without recourse to the RAT or Direct Law as some have suggested, so that the crew at least had a reasonably controllable aircraft. But all this will become clear later.

And 4 minutes would have allowed more than adequate time to start the APU. For sure in these circumstances this would have been a priority.

I would say the absolute key to the succesful outcome was the early decision to opt for the river landing, leaving the crew free to concentrate on this task. Any alternative, if indeed there was one, would have been highly fraught, with the risk of catastrophe.

This point needs making because it would appear a number of earlier posters disbelieved a successful ditching could be achieved with a large commercial aircraft, and seemed to perpetrate the myth that underwing engines would cause the aircraft to submarine on touchdown. Let us hope the publicity given to this event will dispel this particular notion.
span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

BBC News Uses Simulator
 

Not sure if anyone else has posted this yet, thread has got quite long.

What do people think of the use of the simulator clips in this short clip?

BBC NEWS | World | A pilot's eye view of NY crash flight

Video - Breaking News Videos from 7ONLINE.COM - New York News and Tri-State News

First picture I have seen of the touchdown. (in the "plane crash investigation" video about 2:23 out in the story). They for sure made quite a splash ;)

Im not a pilot but a ATCO...for me it looks like a pretty normal angle up for the touchdown on this long contaminated runway;)

Im full of admiration and proud of beeing part of a industry with such fine and skillfull proffesionals around!

This successful ditching once again shows the advantage of sailplane or glider experience to judge a no power descent to a landing. The incredible job these pilots did shows their understanding of energy management and how to make a powerless airliner get down without fatalities. Airlines don't require any training to do what they did but thank God some pilots take it upon themselves to know how to handle this situation. With all the cost cutting of management I don't see any additional training in this area but am happy some pilots take it upon themselves to know how to handle a situation like this.

IAF-22 wrote around page 10 this ...
Now that we know everyone is safe & it went as best as it could, I'm wondering more on the aspect of the type of landing that was carried out?

Does anyone have access to the 2D schematic drawings of the A320, maybe compared along-side to the B767 (type that crashed in Africa) or maybe compared to a B737 ??? The type of drawing with measurements, etc. Reason is which type is safer in a "perfect world smooth water landing" ??? ... I'm referring to how low the engines hang below the fuselage line - so when the engine pods hit, is the fuselage already on the waterline, or does it get dragged hard onto the water? If you can understand what i mean. It all depends on the profile of the landing really...

I'm an engineer & pilot, but not on airliners ... Its just a thought of how when the "Big Yank" would have occurred when the engines hit the water & ripped the Gas Guzzlers clean off! ... Lucky Fuel is bouyant too :ok:

Anyone able to help with schematic drawing, 2D front on & side on from their manuals, and insert pics here??

airfoilmod

You're right, I don't write for the public. You're wrong, I am an editor.

As for: It is not in the best interests of the media at large to be honest and forthright in the dissemination of "news". Aviation is incredibly safe, and getting safer. This is bad news for the "news".

Those of us who are inside the industry would totally agree with this. All I'm asking for is a little respect for those of us who do a professional job on behalf of aviation. What I object to is the general assumption that ALL journalists are looking for a negative story.

Respect
 

And now you have mine. You may not (you may) know what is involved in being at the mercy (sic) of the ill-informed who have a microphone or a masthead. You sound like a fair person. With a livelihood in the balance, fairness and forthrightness is to be honored, not neglected.

AF

Sufficient Life Raft Capacity?
 

The pictures show the two forward slide / rafts with people upon them plus an apparently similar number of people on the wings.

We now know that the rear slide / rafts may be unavailable in case of an A-320 ditching -- quite possibly in other a/c.

Were the two forward slide / rafts adequate to accommodate all SLF or do the certification authorities need to look deeper into this?

airfoilmod
 

Thank you on behalf of all my fellow aviation journalists. I hope that other readers of this site will take your comments on board. We are friends of the industry, not enemies. - if you want to criticise the media, be specific, don't generalise.

Flotation Devices
 

A fantastic job done and congratulations to all. One thing though, I am delighted to see that all the passengers on the wing of the A320 had full life jackets on. On many US carriers you are told that your seat cushion can be used as flotation device, that seems a cheap way out to me. Perhaps its time for all US carriers to install full lifejackets on all domestic operating aircraft?

I know that some helicopter engines have intake screens.

glider pilot...not the end all
 

energy management in any form is a good practice for a power off approach and landing.

I like bubber's posts in general, but disagree on this one. Gliding is not the end all to a power off approach in an airliner.

AS most of you know, most descents are at idle thrust...while not the same as power off, it can approximate gliding. Now, we don't fly power off or at idle to a landing (being unspooled is a no no for a go around), we always gauge our energy in one form or another.

After all, sully hadn't taken up the A320 and practiced gliding it...he flew gliders. I advise every pilot to reread "stick and rudder'' and how to gauge the approach.

She did not inspire confidence, didn't know aeronautics basics, didn't know proper terms for aircraft parts and controls, clearly doesn't understand accident dynamics or physics or if she does she can't explain them to the public at all. It was a decidedly unnerving and disappointing viewing of a first press conference on this accident. I hope she's replaced by someone who knows the language of aviation.

If I've got this wrong and she had a bad first day, someone please tell me 'cause that briefing was a mess.

William Boot

Perhaps if you post your credentials for qualifying as an aviation journalist you will get more serious attention. CV please.

Turbo fans are quite different to turbojets found on other a/c types.

They rely on a proportion of the air passing by the engine compressors and and mixing with the hot gasses at the jet cone.

Covers would not work on turbofans

eaglespar

I don't know where the CoG's of the engines are relative to the CoG of the full aircraft, but I would hazard a guess that they're forward. If that's correct, the engines and pylons in place would have tended to make the aircraft float less nose up, tail down, but lower in the water because of the higher mass and therefore displacement.

All that is assuming the aircraft wasn't more severely damaged and possibly holed because the engines didn't detach. A hole at one or other end of the tube, a cargo door being forced open, even holes from external fittings being ripped off and all bets are off - it becomes a lottery.

Maybe I remembered wrong. Or they were headed to Calgary, or departed there. Honestly don't remember exactly. Thanks for correcting.

Gimli Glider - July 23 1983 - Montreal to Edmonton - C-GAUN - Fuel starvation to both engines - made an emergency landing at Gimli Airpark.

As for this incident, as written in the Toronto Star....

"One by one, the passengers were plucked to safety from the rafts, Hood and Sullenberger the last ones left. The passenger insisted the pilot get off first, but Sullenberger refused. He had been the last off the plane, and he would be the last off the raft."

Maybe professionalism to you pilot guys, but downright heroic to us common folk.

Additional Privileges?
 

Perhaps in addition to Captain Sullenberger's "Commercial Privileges Glider" and "A320" stamps on his ticket, he should receive an honorary "A320 - Unpowered Sea" certification. :cool:

The F/O should also get one. Neither his outstanding work nor that of the rest of the crew is receiving enough accolades, in my humble opinion. I bow to them. :D