I suppose this is on topic as (an inconsequential) simultaneous VHF transmission took place.

Graybeard. Interesting post Graybeard, and almost totally wrong. Contran was indeed conceived following the Tenerife disaster - but not by your US airline captain. That would be a Mr Rutty, in my personal experience a :mad: little man – in my opinion of course.

He didn’t – Contran Patents were all in my name. What he did Patent was a system so simplified that it was, for all practical purposes, useless. And he had the gall to use, as part of his US Patent Application, a letter of mine to Flight International describing Contran.

Therein lies the difference. Rutty was a DC-10 captain, I fixed avionics. Following me? Take a look at the US Patent Office records and see the not so subtle differences.

Wrong! Again, ……… see the not so subtle differences. (do you really think that an RTCA, FAA TSO’d and UK CAA Approved piece of kit would allow that?)

Two things mainly. Rutty’s unworkable lash up, and his constant pounding on US doors (including his Senator’s) left the whole anti-blocking programme with a credibility problem. Secondly, the abysmal support of the Contran licensed manufacturer caused even those who’d fitted the system to lose interest. Apart from Airbus that is, which couldn’t see a problem so refused to action formal requests from airlines to provision passenger aircraft – but equipped their own Beluga transports. Aircraft wings from UK being more valuable than pax. :hmm:

To get back to your ‘the system is fragged’. Boeing carried out their own human factors lab tests and, as a result, offered the kit as a customer option. Proof? See below. Maybe it’s time to resurrect it.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...767CONTRAN.jpg

I'm not that impressed
 

maybe I'm the only one here who thinks things didn't go that well on the old radio.

both the controller and pilot used the wong call sign...ok, not critical in this situation.

BUT.

it is obvious to me that each runway offered by atc to the crew was pretty darn far in terms of flying distance. Runway 1 at TEB and runway 4 (initially) at LGA would require alot of flying...it was obvious to me that the controller did not understand that the plane wasn't flying so much as gliding downhill.


Runway 1 at TEB would have required a downwind, base and final...runway 19(or even 24) at TEB, the same piece of pavement mind you, was more like a modified left base.

To go to runway 4 at LGA was back to the runway of departure...again sort of a long downwind, base and final...runway 13, offered later,seems to indicate that the controller was beginning to understand the limits of this situation.

The first couple of runway offers may have confused the situation a bit...mind you I can't verify that TEB 19(or 24) was makeable or even 13 at LGA, and I'm not suggesting that the hudson wasn't the best choice. BUT, we must communicate and a full understanding of the problem took a few seconds.

I do suggest that we come up with a new radio phrase. REPEATING SULLY,SULLY,SULLY indicates to air traffic control that the plane is now gliding and at best can go 3 miles per thousand feet of altitude above the terrain. This call would also trigger alerting air sea ground rescue units, stop all traffic at all airports nearby and fulfill the ''declaration of emergency'' requirement.

I hereby sign your petition!

Nic

I think Sully could look out of his window and see what his options were. Talking to ATC was a waste of time because they couldn't help him in any way other than alert rescue people. I am looking to hear his side of the event tomorrow night on 60 minutes.

protectthehornet, ATC has to offer whatever landing options are available for a return but only the pilots flying are able to evaluate the suitability of those options. Why are you unimpressed by that?:confused:

hotdog
 

atc can and should offer options of landing...but why did they offer the runways that took the greatest flying distance,and not the shortest flying distance...I think it is because it was not fully realizeed that the plane was powerless...hence my suggestion for a new radio phrase.

I'd submit the controller offered those runways (and airports) quickly and off the top of his head because they were probably the active runways (northbound departures) in use at that time for those airports which, as the TRACON controller, he would have fully known. It's also well-understood by any controller that the pilot can elect to land any way he damn well chooses on any runway and fly any pattern while excercizing his emergency authority.

I see his offers as giving the pilots airport options, and shouldn't be construed as him assuming the aircraft was still powered and could fly traffic patterns to those specific runways instead of landing on its reciprocal as the situation dictated, since conditions were VMC.

'forget'

not discounting that this system would be beneficiary to R/t but can you explain which part of the incident it might have changed?

If they did get a relight and could make a normal approach to a runway the info was important. Since they remained a glider it wasn't. At the time they were communicating restoring power to an engine was still in question. All involved did a fine job of doing the best they could with what they had.

People, you should be maintaining the highest standards of listening watch, and keeping your long-winded, drawn-out responses to directions and non-essential requests out of the R/T picture and off the airwaves even when there's no emergency aircraft. Requests for "track miles" (can't you see where the traffic flow is being vectored on your TCAS or level-off altitudes are charted?) or reporting established on the approach when not asked or required to do so by the pertinent country's regulations and other extraneous transmissions only bog down the system and block critical transmissions. This is especially true in the NY area where TRACON is dealing with just as many departures and arrivals out of Teterboro, White Plains etc, located in the immediate vicinity as they are out of JFK, LGA, and EWR.

In other words, hearing a "MAYDAY" call by another aircraft should by no means alter what you should have already been doing. Nobody wants to hear you ramble on while THEY are trying to listen-up for their own call sign even in normal, busy times.

Beardy, I hope you NEVER just decide to just "move to another frequency" because you hear an emergency aircraft on freq and think its best. You may be the aircraft the controller needs to vector out of the way. And you shouldn't be yakking anyway...the next controller you suprise with your presence doesn't want to hear or listen to you explaining why you unillaterally decided to show up..if he's the next sector he may be busy on the land lines with the emergency aircraft controller. He's got his own traffic and may be having sent more his way while the other is clearing airpace. What you suggest is quite the opposite of good sense. Change freq, or standby, when you're instructed to.

Nobody's complaining about the use of "Mayday", or advocating it NOT be used. Feel free to "Mayday" until you're blue in in the face if you think it helps your situation. However, people are trying to explain to the pendants who seem to think only by using that specfic term that responses....even immediate ones...are initiated by ATC, and therefore the subsequent CFR/SAR assets. In the US, this is NOT the case. Certainly a "Mayday" call will initiate those responses, but as the TRACON tapes show, Cpt Sully's "Mayday" call was blocked but it didn't matter. And not because of luck, but because of the system. His brief description of the situation, deviation off cleared route, and his statement they were returning to the airport... showed to the Controller that Capt Sully was exercizing his EMERGENCY Authority as oulined in the Regs, and the controller experienced no confusion about what this means or is..it's an EMERGENCY when a PIC does so...and immediately responded by alerting LGA and began looking for other airports for the distressed aircraft.


When the Tracon controller land-lined LGA and told them to hold the T/Os because of a returning aircraft with reported loss of thrust on both engines the Local Controllers there undoubtedly sent the alert to CFR personnel on the field. So what's the problem? If anything it shows that the US system doesn't break down in this regard due to one blocked, specific term.

I do 99% of my flying overseas now and of course I'd use "Mayday" as a lead-off transmission to express an emergency situation as standard convention and common sense dictate when dealing with either pedantic or English-as-2nd-language controllers. But those like the retired BA TV Captain and some here who pontificate that it's THE (only) keystone trigger to emergency response actions by ATC and/or CFR or insinuate that not using is unprofessional are just dead wrong. In the rest of the world yes, but in US, where this event occurred, it's not the case. Controllers are allowed to think and independently act even if the aircraft doesn't have time/or is able to transmit a thing.

And to reiterate. Any pilot who needs to hear a "Mayday" on freq to realize that they "should shut up", "stay silent", or "comms to be kept to a minimum", really has no business flying in saturated airspace like the US Northeast corridor in the first place, if anywhere. There's nothing more annoying than being subjected to some R/T vainglorious tw@t who loves to hear himself on the radio.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...own-Pilot.html

:ok:

And, for the R/T freaks, more on the emergency response here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/ny...pagewanted=all

ATCNetwork, Probably none. As I said - an inconsequential simultaneous VHF transmission took place. The matter came up as someone suggested a technical fix was needed for conflicting comms.

100% correct.Too much clutter out there,esp in EU.Keep it short.Keep it simple.

Sorry, I didn't express myself very well about 'moving to another frequency.' I don't advocate it, but it remains an option in some circumstances (perhaps when you just about to go off the frequency in use anyway) and would not execute a silent change, that would damage the controllers situational awareness. However, I would never say never.

I can see why it is not always necessary to say 'mayday,' but, I still can't see any disadvantages in saying it, it's use does resolve any doubt, it is unambiguous.

perhaps someone will post the transcript of 60 minutes? (sully)
 

it might offer a starting point for more thoughts if the actual transcript appears here...perhaps the CBS website will have it in a day or so.

A red button display?
 

We all know that Sully and crew performed expertly and immaculately-but what would have happened if cloudbase had been a thousand feet? Is there a case , especially for crews that do not have a deep knowledge of important critical local conditions (for example, nearby runways,nature of populations and buildings, including height) . Nav input could be basic GPS including altitude. Suitable provider could be combination of Google maps and Jepperson
Keith

Hudson 1
 

I think the Hudson 1 GPS approach should be implemented immediately! Notify Jeppeson.

Nice 60 minutes display. I think Sully did it well.

I watched part of the 60 min interview and Sully did acknowledge that he declared a "Mayday"

Now while listening to the ATC recordings I noticed quite a few noises indicating that we were only getting to hear part of the comms.

As previously indicated the CVR will not be made public, and only parts that are of the best interest of the FAA/NTSB will be made available as news releases. What will be released will have to pass muster of all parties involved from the pilots union, aircraft manufacturer, engine manufacturer, US Airways, the list will be extensive.

Even with the excellent outcome of a no win situation you can rest assured that the crew got a professional grilling. Then after 10 of thousands of man hours by hundreds of specialist and six months to a year to think about it someone will come up with a different recommendation that the crew was suppose to perform in the seconds they had.

I have noticed lately that as far as NTSB is concerned they have been releasing information in a manner that has been at best misleading. The CO incident at Denver in particular seemed very misleading. Especially the comment about the unusual noises then several days later commenting that they came after the aircraft left the runway.

mayday
 

Captain Sully is quite clear in his interview just broadcast in the States on "60 minutes" . His first words were "MAYDAY MAYDAY"
QED!