Safety of flight
 

I've followed this whole thread from day one. The results of the investigation will be very important to the next incident like this will be very important.

Did Sully make the right choice?

A pilot has to have certain priorities of action? Should he save himself first? No, his passengers and his crew must be put ahead of his own well being.

But, those innocent people on the ground must be even farther ahead of the passengers and crew. Why? They didn't buy a ticket to be part of the aviation experience.

So, keep those on the ground safe...FIRST THING...and Sully did that.

Next, keep his passengers and crew safe...landing in the hudson had some risk involved, but less risk than some of the other options.

Were there any other options available, YES.

But the hudson option minimized risk to the innocents, and maximized a safe outcome for the passengers and crew.

The 'bus has a gadget which shows an arc of where the plane will end up at idle thrust, it becomes active when flaps are selected. I think it should be changed to always show glide range in present configuration.

I have to think the FADEC was partly to blame. In old fashioned jets you could put lots of fuel through, over temping the thing and getting some thrust. We used to say that a jt8d would run at firewall power for 8 minutes before failing. If sully could have gotten 2 minutes of half thrust, I don't think his feet would have gotten wet.

We shall see.

I do remind all of you who pilot multi engine aircraft of any sort. Always be ready to be a humble single engine pilot that suddenly loses 100 percent of his power. In a little single engine plane, you should always be looking for a spot to land JUST IN CASE.

I also submit that sully's glider experience is not the saving grace some think it is. Sailplanes often fly for hours finding thermals or other forms of energy to keep flying. No such luck on that fateful day.


Minimize the risk to others
Maximize the safe outcome for passengers and crew

The MINIMAX SOLUTION! (or modification thereof))

DANVILLE, Calif. (AP) – The pilot who safely landed a US Airways jetliner in the Hudson River says he was only doing his job.

Pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger is being given a hero's homecoming in Danville, the San Francisco suburb he calls home.

During brief remarks at Saturday's celebration, Sullenberger said circumstance determined he would be flying with an experienced crew on Jan. 15.

Sullenberger says, "We were simply doing the jobs we were paid to do."

Around 3,000 people gathered under drizzly skies in the town square to welcome Sullenberger home.

The final report will have many details i'm sure, it will not have the exact information that the crew were getting during the events of that short flight, like sound/vision/feeling etc etc etc.

From the limited information around, it does appear the crew did a great job and got a great result, period.

I take my hat off to all crew in the aircraft and on the ground/water.

Happy new year.

The Air Florida 737 did not ditch into the Potomac... it crashed into the Potomac after first striking the bridge and at least one of the vehicles on the bridge. IIRC, the landing gear was still down!

Bird strike cover up?
 

I haven't had chance to go through all the pages of this discussion so apologies if this has already been covered.

I caught the end of the O'Reilly factor on Fox News this morning and Geraldo flashed up an FAA report from 2 days prior to the Hudson river landing stating that the same plane embarking on the same sector suffered a climb out engine compression failure and had to turn back and land which obviously it did so safely. Apparently Geraldo was on the case and would let everyone know - haven't seen any follow up to this as yet.

This might explain why Sullenberger has been kept away from the public eye since the landing! Of course, going by the principal of believing nothing you read and only half of what you see I'll wait until the official version of the truth is out.

We don't deal in conspiracy theories here and vague references to validate them. If you can't be bothered to read the thread and the facts therein, then you offer zilch to the discussion.

If you want to join the discussion with counters to reported facts by bringing in new analysis in a point by point rebuttal then place your cards face up on the table.

ATC Transcript?
 

There was an NTSB release last week that stated something to the effect of an ATC transcript for 1549 to be released soon. Although I've seen media articles with snippets from the transcript, I'm yet to see the full ATC (or CVR) transcript. Anyone?

Masters Medal
 

As far as I can see, the Masters Medal was awarded for the airmanship shown in the successful ditching with no loss of life.:ok: GAPAN by awarding the medal have made no judgement on whether the action of the crew contributed to the accident or not, nor on whether the decision to ditch was the correct one or not. :ugh:

Homecoming ceremony
 

Reports here of a homecoming event for Capt Sullenberger in Danville, California:

AP TV (via YouTube) YouTube - Hudson River Pilot Gets Hero's Welcome Home
LA Times Hero pilot Sullenberger's hometown honors its favorite son - Los Angeles Times

Not that he could say much more than express his thanks, for obvious reasons. But he was quoted as saying this:

"Circumstance determined that it was this experienced crew that was scheduled to fly on that particular flight on that particular day, but I know I can speak for the entire crew when I tell you, we were simply doing the jobs we were trained to do."

I trust you aren't serious :ugh:

If you are, I doubt the Crew looked at their ND in the whole process, and the ND the Airbus types I fly do not show useful things like rivers, bridges and ferries, just useless things like Waypoints and NDBs that are not a lot of use when your engines fail at 300' :{ However, Mr Airbus installed some nice windows, and I suspect this crew looked out of those... an art somewhat being lost :ooh:

NoD

N T S B Advisory Second Update
 

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington , DC 20594

January 24, 2009

************************************************************

SECOND UPDATE ON INVESTIGATION OF DITCHING OF US AIRWAYS
JETLINER INTO HUDSON RIVER

***********************************************************

The following is an update on the National Transportation
Safety Board's investigation of US Airways flight 1549,
which ditched into the Hudson River on January 15, 2009.

The left engine, which had separated from the aircraft
during the ditching, was recovered from the Hudson River on
Friday afternoon, January 23, 2009. The initial external
examination of the engine revealed dents on both the spinner
and inlet lip of the engine cowling. Five booster inlet
guide vanes are fractured and eight outlet guide vanes are
missing. A visual examination of the engine did not reveal
evidence of organic material; there was evidence of soft
body impact damage.

Both of the engines will be boxed and shipped to the
manufacturer in Cincinnati where NTSB investigators will
oversee a complete tear-down of each engine. Advanced
technology will be employed to detect any organic material
not apparent during the initial visual examination.

Several NTSB investigators remain on-scene and are
supervising Airbus technicians as the aircraft wreckage is
prepared for long-term storage. This process includes
removing the wings and the horizontal and vertical
stabilizers. The aircraft wreckage will be shipped to a
secure storage facility where it will remain available to
the NTSB throughout the course of the investigation.

The NTSB wishes to acknowledge the support and cooperation
of the numerous federal, state and local agencies that
worked so closely with Safety Board investigators and were
of great assistance throughout the entire on-scene phase of
the investigation.

###

Media Contact: Peter Knudson
[email protected]
NTSB Public Affairs: 202-314-6100

No doubt NigeOnDraft!

But the Airbus I fly, does show rivers on the ND (although not bridges nor ferries...).:}
Under lower visibility circumstances it could certainly be a useful feature for a quick initial decision of where ditching is possible.

@lomapaseo

Sorry, did I stumble into the Professional Pilots FACT Network? I thought I was on the rumour network, my bad. :ugh:

Anyway, here is a link to more information that I've now been able to find:

US Airways Hudson river plane had CFM56-5B engines FAA requested inspection for compression stall problem | DWS Aviation

"It has been revealed that the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had ordered stringent inspection of the type of engines on the US Airways plane that splash-landed in New York’s Hudson River after a few of those engines were found to have a rare kind of stall problem known as “compression stall.”

And later:

""CNN says that, on January 13, 2009, two days before US Airways Flight 1549 landed in the Hudson River, the same plane – also named Flight 1549 and taking off from New York’s LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte, North Carolina, the United States – had encountered problems. Four passengers on that flight on January 13 had said that the crew told the passengers on the intercom that the plane was experiencing “compression stalls.”
Meanwhile, the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) confirmed that there was an entry in the maintenance log of the plane that landed in the Hudson River that a compressor stall had occurred on January 13, 2009."

Can I come out to play now or do I have to finish my dinner first? Sad.

Nigel, Nigel, Nigel
 

I never said the crew used the arc showing how far the plane would go. I did say the system should be revamped to always show the range of the glide/power off descent regardless of congifuration.


Of course the pilots looked out the window and judged their glide capability by the old fashioned method. (if one wished to learn what this method is, it has to do with the spot on the windshield going up or down...contact me for the name of a fine book with a full description)

Having flown out of LGA many times, I can assure you that it should not have been the first time any professional pilot at least considered putting her down in the hudson.

The greater question of how to do the same thing on instruments with very limited visiblity does come to mind. After all, there are other causes of dual engine failure than birds. And there are still jets out there without fancy moving map displays.

The phony CVR transcript is amusing in its own little way. If it were me flying, I would be heard to say...THIS AIRBUS IS A PIECE OF #$%^. AND SO ARE ALL ENGINES MADE BY GE. But this is just a personal opinion and doesn't reflect the views of pprune.

protectthehornet write much that seems sensible, but then...

I will be interested to hear his opinion - he is the only one that can judge that.

True but that's a poor point that doesn't really support your contention.

Characteristics of flying a glider that I suspect were relevant:

• running out of "up" is a normal experience, and unexpectedly landing in the middle of nowhere is SoP
• there is no such thing as an "ideal" circuit. In a powered aircraft the circuit is good if the plane is at the specified height/speed/direction all the way round the circuit. If they encounter air moving at +6kt or -6kt they just adjust the throttle. Glider pilots aren't fazed by not having a means of "getting out of sink"; they just adjust the pattern accordingly. Which he did rather successfully.
• standard training includes repeated "engine failures" at 150ft when climbing at 35 to 45 degrees (If the mud floats around your face, you got it about right, if it hits the canopy you were too enthusiastic :) It isn't unusual for glider pilots that are converting to powered licence to be congratulated (by the instructor) for their speedy accurate reactions (nose down, choice of the appropriate field) to surprise engine failures on takeoff
• accurate zero bank landings are mandatory, with a 25m wing 1m off the ground - might have been helpful avoiding digging one engine into the water
• glider pilots are used to knowing how the aircraft behaves when low and slow (they speed up in order to land :) E.g. in older gliders the best climb in a thermal occurs just above stall speed, so it is normal to be in a 45 degree bank experiencing pre-stall/spin wing buffet.

So, I suspect gliding experience was helpful, but I'd like to hear the captain's opinion.

big red button
 

protect the F18 1202, sir

Great post

In dire emergency, big red button please. "I have control".

Buck has now stopped.

Methinks the FADEC team writing the software to protect the donks never had the Hudson in mind - up close and personal.

Huge respect for Sully and his crew, enhanced by seeing him on the newscasts today.

Yes I've read every post.

CW

With all due respect, the ability to manually override engine control schedules was removed for good reason. While it was possible to achieve some manual control on a JT8D-vintage engine, with a pressure ratio of 12 -15 perhaps, it's just not feasable in a modern compressor with double that compression (or more).

The industry understands this issue, and it's the price that's paid for high fuel efficiency.

You are correct and by FAR regulation they have to do that, else it couldn't get certified. In the old steam driven days with knobs that a pilot could twidle the design regualtions did not regulate pilots so the pilots felt empowered.

Well in todays glass cockpits and computer driven era the pilots are still empowered but alas they don't have the same knobs to twiddle anymore and they pretty much have to sit and watch the thing do whatever it's gonna do.

The safety related presumption is that the design regulations provide sufficient protection (within a 1 in 10,000,000 probability) and by taking the pilot out of some controll you gain by reducing pilot error.

Yes the controll logic needs to be examined and reported (my earlier question: what was it controlling on see post # 1179 )

In the end the issue comes down to the bird design certification standard and the balance between capability and need to avoid. By regulation you can't design a FADEC to take the engine outside its certified envelop

Whilst being a retired gliding instructor and active airbus pilot I can't think that my gliding experience would make one iota of difference in a double engine failure scenario. Its very much chalk and cheese.

System knowledge, QRH skills, RT discipline, CRM and plain old flapability factor would be far, far, more important than any thermal-hunting expertise.

The media is feeding in its usual ugly way.


WWW

Red Button Solution
 

Barit1 makes a good point...indeed the industy knows about fuelconsumption...but

one wonders if the smaller inlet of the JT8d type of engine and its non computer controlled ways might have survived this unique encounter.

So, in order to get the fuel efficiency, build the engine, put the FADEC on it and a red button, as previously suggested, BUT that red button would REPROGRAM the FADEC to a 8 minute limit...allowing 25% more fuel to be introduced and all other parameters INCLUDING vibration to be overlooked. You could even transmit a signal saying...ENGINE NO GOOD NO MORE.

I think it will always be easier to swap engines, then to refloat a plane.