Nice illustration
 

in the New York Times.

In an earlier post someone mentioned they landed with about a 10 knot tailwind. I would estimate the current from the video at about 2 knots.
Net result is an 8 knot downwind component on landing, so if you want to argue the irrelevant then going the other way would be better.
I would suggest that they turned left hoping that some power from at least one of the engines would give them a chance of a return to La Guardia. As it turned out that wasn't possible and they made the best of the situation. Full marks to all the crew, and particlarly the ferry crews who displayed exceptional seamanship to maintain station without steerage way in wind and current.

In terms of the current, I believe the tide was going out at the time, so the downstream current would presumably be even faster (thus "better") for a low impact landing. Not that they planned it that way...

Tide Location Selection for New York

81% of the moon was visible (although everyone was off before dark.)

We actually agree, Wiley, altho you don't seem to realise that!

120 to 180 secs is the time they had available.

Which is no time at all! ( I did tell you I was slow on the typing! )

Hey, you're an ATPL from Oz, don't get sucked in with the PPL's on this thread! :ok:

Well, so much for all the "experts" who said that the starboard engine couldn't possibly still be on the airframe... what with "vicious" swing to the left towards the end of the landing roll/plane... some of you just crack me up! :ugh:

Remoaks stupid comment has just brought this thread to an end, as far as I'm concerned. Unless the Mods get rid of it!!

According to the BBC this morning the port engine has been located by sonar, "30 feet down in the Hudson", but they have not said where (ie. how far from the impact position).

And as mentioned previously, FO was PF for the departure, pilots looked up and saw "windscreen full of large brown birds" (BBC) and Captain S. took control with the phrase "my aircraft".

No, Remoak was 100% correct. I suppose it is you that has been embarrassed :ok:

Only someone not entrusted with the responsibility of getting those passengers out could even think that!

Whether the landing is as 'successful' as this one or not, there are still things that regular pax, no matter how frequently they fly, just do not know, or can do for themselves, without the crew.

For example, one of the articles linked to earlier quoted from one of the flight attendants saying that it was a pax who tried to open the rear doors, despite the FA being there. So yes, I would say at that point the cabin crew role became very relevant! ;)

Looking at the pictures, ever tried diving in freezing, ice covered, low visibility, dirty water which happens to be moving (ie: current) AND with the possibility of bits of metal, cable and whatever hanging around AND the proximity of other boats (propellors)...?

Takes time, care, patience and planning ... 24hrs ... that's not bad!

fc101
E145 Driver

Amazing New Engine Failure Drill!
 

The Sunday Telegraph reports that, as a part of the Emergency Drill, the Pilot

" Switched off everything except the emergency lighting to stop more fuel going into the engines". Where do the reporters get this drivel? If I wanted to stop fuel going to the engines I'd use the HP/LP cocks.

OK, I ll put my hand up.

When i heard the right engine was the one still on the plane, i thought it was nonsense given that the plane veered to the left.

I ll eat humble pie and i stand corrected

I guess i do not yet qualify as an NTSB investigator

Could she ever fly again?

some input from any engineers out there?

or maybe she will be the prized relic in one of those aviation museums .. I bet there would be a few bids for it from around the country

Nice to see the mods are hard at work removing posts that contain simple observations and correlations - namely mine. Maybe it is just nautical terms they don't like?

The pie chart omits those of us who have been professional pilots and are now gainfully employed as professionals in other aviation disciplines - God bless the Class 1 :{

I will try again - early pictures show the aircraft on an even keel with a roughly even distributioin of SLF on the wings, the pictures of it being tugged show considerable listing to starboard.

I will refrain from imparting any conjecture on this seeing as the mods appear to be averse to it.

RIX

Quote:

---

Could she ever fly again?

---

Destination for the jet after the investigation should be either Coors for beer cans or Gillette for razor blades… the aluminum parts of course.

Glider pilots know why
 

Some interesting stuff:

The Wall Street Journal: Pilot Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger: What Role Did Glider Flying Play?

and

Popular Mechanics: Did the Hudson Plane Crash Pilot's Glider Experience Help Him Land Flight 1549?

CC irrelevant or not?
 

I'm sensing it's difficult to make the point that CC effort was of little importance in this particular incident, without it being interpreted as a broad attack on CC in general. There are incidents where the CC's actions made a huge difference, but this (fortunately) is not one of them. Of course, the picture is far from complete, but the reported actions performed by the CC didn't appear to have mattered much. 1) Brace position reminder called on PA, excellent thinking and action taken, but landing was soft enough to render it irrelevant, maybe risking a couple sore necks at worst. 2) Life vests information, some concern on pax lacking them, but it didn't matter as the ferries were able to scoop up the people in time. Questionable situational awareness on the CC if they did not know they were landing on water until the aircraft had started sinking. 3) Opening of aft doors, this is infact a point I believe very few pax would be aware of. Yet several reports of people trying to open them, halted only by the fact that they did not open, not CC it appears. Reports of water leaking in might be due to the doors being opened (to some degree), but again they all had enough time to get off safely anyway. Opening the over-wing and front doors and wait for the ferries to come, I believe the passengers would have managed that on their own. Again, they are in an aircraft that is sinking on the Hudson. Try to stop them getting out!

Replay the flight without any CC or incapacitated CC, and the outcome should be pretty much the same. That's the definition of irrelevance, isn't it? It's similar to if your house catches fire, and you manage to put it out yourself before the fire trucks arrive. The fire brigade would be completely irrelevant for this particular event, that doesn't change the fact that in other circumstances they can be the difference between life and death.

Of course, there were passengers floating around in rafts, which would have to be filled with the right amount of people and then detached. Perhaps without proper use of the rafts, people would have to swim, and there would probably be some fatalities. However, I would guess that the passengers would be able to organize this rather simple task on their own, especially with the flight crew available to give orders. So I'm stumped in trying to find areas where the CC would have made a difference this event, in different circumstances, sure, but this incident? Hence I claim they were irrelevant to the fortunate outcome. I would be happy to change my mind from new information.

As a passenger, I'm a religious reader of safety booklets and listener to briefings, but the details don't stick beyond the end of the flight. Still, sittiing in the comfort of my living room, it seems to me that "water landing" instruction I remember most is not to use the overwing exits rather than not to use the rear exists.

Either my memory is faulty (could well be) or perhaps it is type dependent? Comments I've read about planes being designed to float nose up suggest the rear doors should never be used in a water landing.

Just curious - not fussed since I'll be reading the booklet again next time.

Wonderful work and a wonderful result in NY this week and by the engineers who designed the plane. Congrats to all involved.

Yaw/Veering to left after touchdown
 

On seeing the photos showing this left turn on the water, it did mometarily cross my mind if it might just be possible that the right engine was not only still attached but producing some sort of power until it was literally drowned out and so forcing the turn.

Anyone recall that wonderful clip of a bizjet over-run into a lake and the engines autostarting (after evacuation) and converting it into a motor launch?