PDA

View Full Version : Plane Crashes into Hudson River


swiftaw
Jan 15, 2009, 03:19 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/15/new.york.plane.crash/index.html

OrangeCuse44
Jan 15, 2009, 03:27 PM
This is crazy. The airplane just floated by my office window. I took some bad iPhone photos. Wow...

Eidorian
Jan 15, 2009, 03:28 PM
Yep, no fun in the winter.

OrangeCuse44
Jan 15, 2009, 03:32 PM
Yep, no fun in the winter.

Passengers that went into the water are being treated for hypothermia

GoCubsGo
Jan 15, 2009, 03:34 PM
Holy crap. It took me a while to figure out what you had going on there. CNN took care of the rest. :D

klempwrsu
Jan 15, 2009, 03:39 PM
That driving range looks exactly like it does in GTA IV. That is a lot of attention to detail

fireshot91
Jan 15, 2009, 03:39 PM
I don't see the airplane...maybe its me?

OrangeCuse44
Jan 15, 2009, 03:45 PM
That driving range looks exactly like it does in GTA IV. That is a lot of attention to detail

Yeah pretty good, right?

I don't see the airplane...maybe its me?

The second shot if you zoom in the wing is sticking out of the water. iPhone camera....

powerdave
Jan 15, 2009, 03:50 PM
An absolute miracle. Looks like no loss of life.

apsterling
Jan 15, 2009, 03:50 PM
So if airplanes float, do iMacs? And does Obama's "Beast"?

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2009, 03:57 PM
Looks like a hell of a good job by the captain. Ditching is not something you get a chance to practice.

rdowns
Jan 15, 2009, 03:58 PM
Wow, simply amazing that there was no loss of life.

freeny
Jan 15, 2009, 04:00 PM
Funny, friend IM'd me from Denver to tell me what was going on 8 blocks away... Had no idea. :p

SFStateStudent
Jan 15, 2009, 04:18 PM
Yup, "a modern miracle"...:eek:

iAthena
Jan 15, 2009, 04:25 PM
Really puts that little talk we all ignore about seatbelts and floatation devices into perspective.

ucfgrad93
Jan 15, 2009, 04:35 PM
Looks like a hell of a good job by the captain. Ditching is not something you get a chance to practice.

Wow, simply amazing that there was no loss of life.

Agreed. The captain and crew did one heck of a job!:eek:

Wild-Bill
Jan 15, 2009, 04:39 PM
Wow, I'm glad everyone made it out alright. Great job by the pilot. :D

However, let's all observe a moment of silence as we cherish the memory of the Macbooks and MBP's that may have been left on board. :(

apsterling
Jan 15, 2009, 04:46 PM
Now, for the full scale inspection on the geese, were they sent by terrorists? ;)

MacsBestFriend
Jan 15, 2009, 04:59 PM
Right now I am watching my local news and a minute ago came a story about Apple's stocks tanking today: just checking they lost over 5%. This is probably because of Steve Jobs letter announcing his sickleave yesterday.

On another note: a plane crashed into the Hudson River after a bird or a flock of birds flew into the engine (The birds fail). Everyone survived and there are no signs of terrorism. The pilot is a hero!:eek:

I am watching Governor Patterson giving his speech right now. "Miracle on the Hudson" is how he referred to this because of the fact everyone survived. Jeez, they didn't go to commercial just now- instead they went to the station. I knew about this and i announced it on Facebook three hours ago- they are talking about it just now. A lady actually saw the crash and was hysterical on TV. At my local airport something similar happened a little while ago: a plane was talking off at 4PM and all of the tires blew out and the engines died. Noone was injured.

I heard from the Phil Defranco show when I got home from school and my dad thought it was bull until the 6pm news went to the plane.

MacFan782040
Jan 15, 2009, 04:59 PM
I've always wondered why jet engines don't have some kind of screen or fencing type barrier in front of them that wouldn't restrict the air intake but would prevent objects such as birds to not be sucked in. :confused:

r.j.s
Jan 15, 2009, 05:00 PM
I've always wondered why jet engines don't have some kind of screen or fencing type barrier in front of them that wouldn't restrict the air intake but would prevent objects such as birds to not be sucked in. :confused:

Because anything you put there would restrict intake.

chainprayer
Jan 15, 2009, 05:01 PM
lol did you see that the water was up to the windows? crazy!

MacsBestFriend
Jan 15, 2009, 05:06 PM
lol did you see that the water was up to the windows? crazy!

No, I live upstate.:o You saw it person????:eek:

joepunk
Jan 15, 2009, 06:01 PM
Holly Cr*p!

Good job Pilots and Crew.

I will now stop making jokes to myself about those safety instructions that one finds in the airline seat pouch.

The flight tracker tells the story... (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE1549/history/20090115/2026Z/KLGA/KLGA/tracklog)

fotografica
Jan 15, 2009, 06:11 PM
I can't even begin to imagine that..Amazing job by the captain,crew and rescuers..

yg17
Jan 15, 2009, 06:12 PM
And the passengers lucked out. None of their luggage was destroyed. Because it was US Airways, all of their luggage was actually put on a plane destined for somewhere in the middle of Siberia. Of course, the people on the flight to Siberia will wonder where their luggage is once they land :D

Keebler
Jan 15, 2009, 06:19 PM
I can't even begin to imagine that..Amazing job by the captain,crew and rescuers..

amazing at that first photo and how they were just standing on the wing in the water not panicking. amazing.

Keebler
Jan 15, 2009, 06:20 PM
Because anything you put there would restrict intake.

ditto and also, I would think the intake sucking power (probably a proper term for that) :) is probably so strong that nothing can fit on the engine without getting sucked in?

pilotError
Jan 15, 2009, 06:42 PM
A screen over the engine would just make cubes out of whatever was headed into the intake anyway.

westernmass
Jan 15, 2009, 07:01 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/01/citizen-photo-o.html

Iphone on the scene

westernmass
Jan 15, 2009, 07:02 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/01/citizen-photo-o.html

wow!! Glad all made it. That pilot deserves a medal and a raise!!

Dezlboy
Jan 15, 2009, 07:24 PM
I don't see the airplane...maybe its me?

I don't see it either. Maybe on the far right?

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2009, 07:42 PM
A screen over the engine would just make cubes out of whatever was headed into the intake anyway.

More like julienne, but your point is taken...

snberk103
Jan 15, 2009, 07:54 PM
One could argue that we shouldn't be making a big deal of this. An airplane had a problem that was unpreventable. The pilot did what they are trained and paid to do. The rest of the crew then did what they are trained paid to do.
The plane performed to spec (i.e. it didn't break up, the doors opened, the flotation devices floated, it didn't catch fire). People and plane did what they were supposed to do - it newsworthy only because it happens so seldom.

And yes, if I was on the plane, or had loved ones on the plane I would be freaking out too. I'm just trying to point out that airline training and equipment have now improved so much, that something that used to end - always - in tragedy now ends in a few wet feet.

Hats off not just to the flight crew, but to the trainers and plane designers, and all those other people who make this possible.

bruinsrme
Jan 15, 2009, 08:13 PM
One could argue that we shouldn't be making a big deal of this. An airplane had a problem that was unpreventable. The pilot did what they are trained and paid to do. The rest of the crew then did what they are trained paid to do.
The plane performed to spec (i.e. it didn't break up, the doors opened, the flotation devices floated, it didn't catch fire). People and plane did what they were supposed to do - it newsworthy only because it happens so seldom.

And yes, if I was on the plane, or had loved ones on the plane I would be freaking out too. I'm just trying to point out that airline training and equipment have now improved so much, that something that used to end - always - in tragedy now ends in a few wet feet.

Hats off not just to the flight crew, but to the trainers and plane designers, and all those other people who make this possible.

It is a BIG deal.

Training prepares you for established, thought out, studied, and analyzed situations. in simulators you don't die or kill passengers. When the training is over you go home.

Remembering my sub days; fire in the engine room or flooding in the forward compartment. Whole different world from the training drills.

Consultant
Jan 15, 2009, 08:14 PM
One could argue that we shouldn't be making a big deal of this. An airplane had a problem that was unpreventable. The pilot did what they are trained and paid to do. The rest of the crew then did what they are trained paid to do.
The plane performed to spec (i.e. it didn't break up, the doors opened, the flotation devices floated, it didn't catch fire). People and plane did what they were supposed to do - it newsworthy only because it happens so seldom.

And yes, if I was on the plane, or had loved ones on the plane I would be freaking out too. I'm just trying to point out that airline training and equipment have now improved so much, that something that used to end - always - in tragedy now ends in a few wet feet.

Hats off not just to the flight crew, but to the trainers and plane designers, and all those other people who make this possible.

Actually it's one of the very few safe water landings ever, so yeah it's sort of important.

snberk103
Jan 15, 2009, 08:41 PM
It is a BIG deal.

Training prepares you for established, thought out, studied, and analyzed situations. in simulators you don't die or kill passengers. When the training is over you go home.

Remembering my sub days; fire in the engine room or flooding in the forward compartment. Whole different world from the training drills.

But that makes my point. You trained in a simulator, you had to use that training, you are still here to argue with me.

Please know, I am not actually trying to downplay the severity of might have happened, and I know that nailing a perfect water landing under these circumstances is pretty slim. I'm trying to make a point that all that training, and well designed equipment, paid off to create an event where people merely got their feet wet.

There are unsung heros here as well - they are people who created the training regime, designed the plane.

snberk103
Jan 15, 2009, 08:45 PM
Actually it's one of the very few safe water landings ever, so yeah it's sort of important.

You have to distinguish between crashes where the pilot had control of the plane, trying to land on the water - and crashes where the plane ended up in the water due to pilot error, or out of control due to mechanical difficulties that seriously compromised control. There was a case of a plane landing in Puget sound 50 years ago. Most of the other examples I came up with the pilot was not attempting a water landing.

See my note above, I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness.... I'm trying to point out that things worked really really well.

BlackSnow
Jan 15, 2009, 09:00 PM
Huh, good thing they're all ok. The captain did a great job with the landing.

bruinsrme
Jan 15, 2009, 09:02 PM
But that makes my point. You trained in a simulator, you had to use that training, you are still here to argue with me.

Please know, I am not actually trying to downplay the severity of might have happened, and I know that nailing a perfect water landing under these circumstances is pretty slim. I'm trying to make a point that all that training, and well designed equipment, paid off to create an event where people merely got their feet wet.

There are unsung heros here as well - they are people who created the training regime, designed the plane.

Training only goes so far. When I was involved in those two occurences on the sub there was fear, anxiety, urgency, adrenaline, confusion and high emotion. those things I NEVER felt in the trainers or during drills. Training affords people in that situation to be able to think and make that HOLY SHi& and WTF a little less HOLY SHI& and WTF

The piolt actual was one of the safety instructors.

So yes I agree with you there are many other factors that play into this, Crew, pilot, co-pilot, plane and equipment that made this all possible.

Any idea how they are gonna get that plane out of the water.

Lord Blackadder
Jan 15, 2009, 09:03 PM
A screen over the engine would just make cubes out of whatever was headed into the intake anyway.

...or knock the screen into the engine with whatever foreign object was heading into it.

amazing at that first photo and how they were just standing on the wing in the water not panicking. amazing.

Some of them were probably in shock. Stepping out of a rapidly filling aircraft onto the wing in the middle of the Hudson would put most of us in a weird mental space.

puckhead193
Jan 15, 2009, 09:51 PM
what shocks me is if you look at the pictures closely some are wearing the yellow life vests while others aren't. Where are the ones that aren't wearing life vests? Is it only for first class passengers or do you have to pay extra?
I forgot what channel showed videos of a boat tossing life vests to the people standing on the wings.

aethelbert
Jan 15, 2009, 09:58 PM
what shocks me is if you look at the pictures closely some are wearing the yellow life vests while others aren't. Where are the ones that aren't wearing life vests? Is it only for first class passengers or do you have to pay extra?
I forgot what channel showed videos of a boat tossing life vests to the people standing on the wings.
Upon impact from what has been said, everything was thrown upwards; passengers hit their heads on the ceiling, seat sections lots their attachments from the floor, et al. If this was the case, many of the seating sets may have been turned in such a matter where access to the life vests was limited; exiting the aircraft was more important than spending time turning over seats.

.Andy
Jan 15, 2009, 09:59 PM
what shocks me is if you look at the pictures closely some are wearing the yellow life vests while others aren't. Where are the ones that aren't wearing life vests? Is it only for first class passengers or do you have to pay extra?
First class get tailored navy blue pin-striped life vests. As someone who travels first class often I can tell you I'd sooner perish than be seen in a yellow vest.

Thomas Veil
Jan 15, 2009, 10:12 PM
We're only in January, and we've already got a contender for the feel-good story of the year. All passengers rescued, and the pilot did one helluva job.

It's funny -- years ago there was this goofy disaster movie, "Airport '79", in which something similar happened, except that the plane was much more deeply submerged. And I remember thinking of the entire concept, "What a load of malarkey."

Doesn't seem so far-fetched now.

Any idea how they are gonna get that plane out of the water.They'll probably put Rush Limbaugh under it and inflate his ego.

apsterling
Jan 15, 2009, 10:13 PM
They'll probably pull a crane barge in there. Alternatively they could destroy the plane and let it sink. Then sell sightseeing tours on glass bottomed boats!

puckhead193
Jan 15, 2009, 10:19 PM
They'll probably pull a crane barge in there. Alternatively they could destroy the plane and let it sink. Then sell sightseeing tours on glass bottomed boats!

1 i don't think you'll be able to see it
2. Do you really want to see bodies too :confused:


:p

yg17
Jan 15, 2009, 10:23 PM
Did US Airways charge the passengers $2 for the water and a $50 rescue fee? :D

dmr727
Jan 15, 2009, 10:26 PM
I'm waiting for PETA to make some report about the needless slaughter of the geese. :)

apsterling
Jan 15, 2009, 10:28 PM
I'm waiting for PETA to make some report about the needless slaughter of the geese. :)

You mean Sky Kittens?

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2009, 10:30 PM
But that makes my point. You trained in a simulator, you had to use that training, you are still here to argue with me.

As I pointed out earlier, ditching is not something a pilot gets to practice. They may know the procedure, but knowing a procedure one probably never actually does outside of a training exercise makes it feat to accomplish under real-world circumstances. Consider also that if both engines ingested birds, the airplane was probably operating with little or no thrust. There's no "book" for flying an airplane under these conditions. The crew has to improvise quite a bit. The decision to ditch had to be a difficult one but almost certainly the right one. Had the same conditions occurred over land, they've have had much poorer options. Either way, I'm impressed.

irmongoose
Jan 15, 2009, 10:58 PM
I applaud the pilot, the crew, and all those involved in the rescue. However, two questions:

- Was ditching the best possible action at the time?
- Could the "bird situation" have been prevented?

I guess these will be answered in the next few days/weeks, but seeing that it is New York City, there must have been plenty of runways to land at, and plenty of other planes that might have been (but weren't) subjected to the sudden onslaught of birds that caused it to go down.

Interesting, nonetheless.



irmongoose

snberk103
Jan 15, 2009, 10:59 PM
1 i don't think you'll be able to see it
2. Do you really want to see bodies too :confused:
:p

No bodies --- unless you count the birds that got pulled into the engines. Gotta be geese, eh?!

snberk103
Jan 15, 2009, 11:03 PM
As I pointed out earlier, ditching is not something a pilot gets to practice. They may know the procedure, but knowing a procedure one probably never actually does outside of a training exercise makes it feat to accomplish under real-world circumstances. Consider also that if both engines ingested birds, the airplane was probably operating with little or no thrust. There's no "book" for flying an airplane under these conditions. The crew has to improvise quite a bit. The decision to ditch had to be a difficult one but almost certainly the right one. Had the same conditions occurred over land, they've have had much poorer options. Either way, I'm impressed.

[Edit: Ignore comment about 1 engine below - its clear now they had lost both engines]
My interpretation is that they had power in one engine. The plane would have had a full load of fuel, so may not have been light enough to fly on one engine. Most modern jets glide like a brick, but.... the Air Canada flight that landed at Gimli, and the Air Transat flight that landed in the Canary islands (or perhaps the Azores, I can't remember) were exceptions. Perhaps this was the same model of plane, and so was able to glide.

iParis
Jan 15, 2009, 11:12 PM
OMG. This was on MacRumors!
My driver's ed instructor's son was the pilot!
I'm not BSing you guys at all.
Turns out that multiple birds got stuck in the engines and destroyed them.
He said his son can fly a plane with only one engine but with both of them gone he was forced to land.

r.j.s
Jan 15, 2009, 11:13 PM
My interpretation is that they had power in one engine. The plane would have had a full load of fuel, so may not have been light enough to fly on one engine.

The A320 can climb under one engine.

And since it was flying to Charlotte, it would not have had much fuel on board - the extra weight of full bags is too expensive.

dmw2692004
Jan 15, 2009, 11:15 PM
glad they are all okay, great job by the pilot.

dmr727
Jan 15, 2009, 11:22 PM
I don't like to armchair quarterback other pilots, but I'll make a couple of comments based on what others are saying:

If both engines did indeed flame out, the pilots likely had very little time to decide where to put it down. As IJ mentioned, ditching is generally looked at as a last resort. If they made a conscious decision to ditch (as it appears that they did), they were likely out of options.

The plane will climb just fine on one engine, as long as the plane was loaded to legal limits for the conditions (this is true of any airliner, btw).

Ditching is never practiced, even in the sim. Rarely are dual engine flameouts practiced in the sim either, and even then it's at altitude.

iParis
Jan 15, 2009, 11:24 PM
I don't like to armchair quarterback other pilots, but I'll make a couple of comments based on what others are saying:

If both engines did indeed flame out, the pilots likely had very little time to decide where to put it down. As IJ mentioned, ditching is generally looked at as a last resort. If they made a conscious decision to ditch (as it appears that they did), they were likely out of options.

The plane will climb just fine on one engine, as long as the plane was loaded to legal limits for the conditions (this is true of any airliner, btw).

Ditching is never practiced, even in the sim. Rarely are dual engine flameouts practiced in the sim either, and even then it's at altitude.

Did you read my post?
My one of my drivers ed instructors' son was the pilot of that.
Both engines did fail.

r.j.s
Jan 15, 2009, 11:27 PM
Did you read my post?
My one of my drivers ed instructors' son was the pilot of that.
Both engines did fail.

I dont think he was talking to you.

iParis
Jan 15, 2009, 11:29 PM
I dont think he was talking to you.

I know, but I wasn't sure whether or not he understood that both engines gave out.

dmr727
Jan 15, 2009, 11:42 PM
I know, but I wasn't sure whether or not he understood that both engines gave out.

I didn't read your post until after I posted, however yes, I understand that it's likely both engines flamed out. However I was responding to someone that questioned the decision to ditch if only one engine had failed.

That said, I don't fully accept any 'fact' completely until the official report from the NTSB. That's why you see a lot of 'if this, then perhaps this' vagueness in everything I write when it comes to aircraft accidents.

millar876
Jan 16, 2009, 12:24 AM
why am i waiting for a realy bad video or audio tape of somone claiming to be binladen claiming that it was a terrorist attack on the infadel fish of the hudson river and all the worlds islamic geese have banded together to take down the infadel western planes by flinging themselves into jetliner engines. and if this purely fictional tape surfaces, you know what it will mean, yup everyone will have to go through airport security in their underwear.

Side note. Great job pilot / flight crew, doing something so dificult in such a stressfull situation and without any loss of life. Kudos to you.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 16, 2009, 12:41 AM
My interpretation is that they had power in one engine. The plane would have had a full load of fuel, so may not have been light enough to fly on one engine. Most modern jets glide like a brick, but.... the Air Canada flight that landed at Gimli, and the Air Transat flight that landed in the Canary islands (or perhaps the Azores, I can't remember) were exceptions. Perhaps this was the same model of plane, and so was able to glide.

Just want to point out that for I know the commercial jets one of the FAA requirements is they have to be able to climb and continue flight with 50% of there engines off line.

So a 4 engine plane has to be able to climb with 2 of the engines off line.

IJ Reilly
Jan 16, 2009, 12:48 AM
I didn't read your post until after I posted, however yes, I understand that it's likely both engines flamed out. However I was responding to someone that questioned the decision to ditch if only one engine had failed.

That said, I don't fully accept any 'fact' completely until the official report from the NTSB. That's why you see a lot of 'if this, then perhaps this' vagueness in everything I write when it comes to aircraft accidents.

Exactly. We can speculate for entertainment purposes, but the NTSB has the official and final word, and that will take months if not longer to be issued. I assumed a complete loss of power because all passenger airplanes are certified to fly with one engine out. In fact I believe that they must be able to climb to a certain altitude with one engine out.

If anyone is interested in a major feat of piloting, they should look up the "Gimli Glider" incident mentioned previously. These pilots successfully figured out how to glide an airliner which had exhausted its fuel due to a fueling error. The amazing thing is they couldn't know how the airplane was designed to perform in a glide since this is never tested for an airplane of this kind. (Pilots of single-engine airplanes know their best rate of glide by heart.)

If the pilots of this US Airways flight managed to ditch their airplane successfully without any power, then they did something quite remarkable. But we'll see.

bradl
Jan 16, 2009, 01:26 AM
I applaud the pilot, the crew, and all those involved in the rescue. However, two questions:

- Was ditching the best possible action at the time?


Student pilot here.

Yes. They lost both engines to two separate bird strikes. They were too far out to make it back to LGA, JFK and EWR were too far out, and while TEB has runways long enough to accommodate, they couldn't climb to make it there. They were lucky enough to keep at 1500ft to fly over the George Washington Bridge. The Hudson was the safest place than risking it over land.


- Could the "bird situation" have been prevented?


Not really.. they are migratory, and when parked, airplane engine cowels make a prime spot for them to build a nest. This could happen at any time, anywhere. A NWA B747 had a bird strike in one of its engines during departure out of SFO; they circled back and landed safely. In the ATIS (Automated Terminal Information Service) at LGA, which they'll enclude the raw METAR weather report, they put in a NOTAM for bird activity on and in the vicinity of the airport, and to use caution.


I guess these will be answered in the next few days/weeks, but seeing that it is New York City, there must have been plenty of runways to land at, and plenty of other planes that might have been (but weren't) subjected to the sudden onslaught of birds that caused it to go down.

Interesting, nonetheless.


Shortly after that, on the ATC feeds of JFK Tower and EWR Tower at LiveATC.net, every landing aircraft was given the notice of Bird Activity within 2 miles of the field.

My interpretation is that they had power in one engine. The plane would have had a full load of fuel, so may not have been light enough to fly on one engine. Most modern jets glide like a brick, but.... the Air Canada flight that landed at Gimli, and the Air Transat flight that landed in the Canary islands (or perhaps the Azores, I can't remember) were exceptions. Perhaps this was the same model of plane, and so was able to glide.

The Air Transat plane was an A330. Both the A330 and the A320 are similar that they use fly-by-wire technology, but this definitely wasn't the case of low fuel; the A330 had a cut in the fuel hose, IIRC; with 2 bird strikes to both engines, there just wasn't an engine for fuel to go to. The Air Transat incident was more similar to the Air Canada Gimli Glider incident, where they ran out of fuel from miscalculation.

BL.

dmr727
Jan 16, 2009, 02:18 AM
I believe that they must be able to climb to a certain altitude with one engine out.


(Warning - geekery ahead intended for IJ Reilly. Read only if you're curious, or in need of sleep)

There are really two different sets of requirements. One is for the certification of Part 25 aircraft (read: anything over 12,500 lbs max gross for takeoff). It specifies climb gradient requirements, in units of %. The appropriate verbiage is in CFR 25.121:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=7ce6a501d47a50fe3735d5cd0aa9712d&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.11.2.155.18&idno=14

The second set of requirements is for whomever is doing the flight planning (either a pilot or licensed dispatcher). It's called the Second Segment* Climb requirement, and at a minimum this needs to be 1.6%. If it's IMC (such that you couldn't visually return to the airport) it needs to be 3.3%. At many airports the IFR departure will require something even higher than that. A good example is Aspen, which has a departure that needs a 7.6% gradient all the way to 14,000'. That's a pretty hefty requirement, and when the weather is crummy at ASE, you'll see a lot of airplanes making a fuel stop in Grand Junction. Most jets need to be pretty light to make 7.6% on one engine, and therefore can't carry enough fuel to get to wherever they're trying to go.

* Second Segment Climb is defined as the period from when the gear is retracted until the aircraft reaches a safe altitude, with the flaps remaining in whatever setting was used for takeoff. The climb is made at V2, with one engine windmilling.

Counterfit
Jan 16, 2009, 04:47 AM
why am i waiting for a realy bad video or audio tape of somone claiming to be binladen claiming that it was a terrorist attack on the infadel fish of the hudson river and all the worlds islamic geese have banded together to take down the infadel western planes by flinging themselves into jetliner engines. and if this purely fictional tape surfaces, you know what it will mean, yup everyone will have to go through airport security in their underwear.

Side note. Great job pilot / flight crew, doing something so dificult in such a stressfull situation and without any loss of life. Kudos to you.
I need to grow my beard out and do this! :D

If anyone is interested in a major feat of piloting, they should look up the "Gimli Glider" incident mentioned previously. These pilots successfully figured out how to glide an airliner which had exhausted its fuel due to a fueling error. The amazing thing is they couldn't know how the airplane was designed to perform in a glide since this is never tested for an airplane of this kind. (Pilots of single-engine airplanes know their best rate of glide by heart.)

I've read a bit about that. One of the pilots flew gliders, so he knew how to do the calculations.

Piarco
Jan 16, 2009, 06:36 AM
OMG. This was on MacRumors!
My driver's ed instructor's son was the pilot!
I'm not BSing you guys at all.
Turns out that multiple birds got stuck in the engines and destroyed them.
He said his son can fly a plane with only one engine but with both of them gone he was forced to land.

How old is your driver's ed instructor? 90? Captain Chesley Sullenberger (the pilot) is 57....

themoonisdown09
Jan 16, 2009, 07:06 AM
I wonder if the birds that took the plane down are the same (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=620745) that damaged a gas station and some cars. :D

r.j.s
Jan 16, 2009, 07:14 AM
I wonder if the birds that took the plane down are the same (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=620745) that damaged a gas station and some cars. :D

Wouldn't they be migrating the wrong direction for the wrong season? These must be terrorist birds ...

themoonisdown09
Jan 16, 2009, 07:34 AM
Wouldn't they be migrating the wrong direction for the wrong season? These must be terrorist birds ...

Terrorist birds indeed!

iParis
Jan 16, 2009, 07:42 AM
How old is your driver's ed instructor? 90? Captain Chesley Sullenberger (the pilot) is 57....

72. Thank God we have more than one instructor.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think so. I'll ask him about it when I see him next.

sushi
Jan 16, 2009, 08:18 AM
Looks like a hell of a good job by the captain. Ditching is not something you get a chance to practice.
So true.

Considering the Hudson river is very busy, both on the water and above, they were very lucky to be able to come down without hitting anything along the way.

He done good! :)

Abstract
Jan 16, 2009, 09:43 AM
72. Thank God we have more than one instructor.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think so. I'll ask him about it when I see him next.

How do you know he's related to the pilot? Did you have a driving lesson yesterday or something?

Also, quick question for you: what's your driver instructor's first name?

IJ Reilly
Jan 16, 2009, 10:41 AM
(Warning - geekery ahead intended for IJ Reilly. Read only if you're curious, or in need of sleep)

Oh no, not the FAR/AIM -- the ultimate soporific!

Probably everybody had a CFI at one time or another who bellowed at them, "You mean you can't recite Part 91 chapter and verse?"

The worst thing about this was, they could. Learning to fly can be an exercise in humiliation.

So true.

Considering the Hudson river is very busy, both on the water and above, they were very lucky to be able to come down without hitting anything along the way.

He done good! :)

One scenario that the NTSB will doubtless be examining is whether the flight crew lost one engine then accidentally shut down the good one. Apparently this happens fairly often in simulated flame-out exercises.

r.j.s
Jan 16, 2009, 10:43 AM
One scenario that the NTSB will doubtless be examining is whether the flight crew lost one engine then accidentally shut down the good one. Apparently this happens fairly often in simulated flame-out exercises.

If that were the case, he'd go from hero to nothing in no time.

irmongoose
Jan 16, 2009, 10:45 AM
Student pilot here.

Cheers for the explanation!

The New York mayor is honoring the pilot and crew as heroes - great news.


irmongoose

bradl
Jan 16, 2009, 11:25 AM
For those of you who would like to SEE what happened, point your browser at:

http://www4.passur.com/lga.html

Set the time to yesterday at 15:26, and look for USA1549 departing runway 4 at LGA. You'll see it depart, climb out, drop like a brick after being struck by the birds, barely maintain 1400ft while going over the GW Bridge, then setting down in the Hudson as everyone has seen. The only UPS soiled pants moment was when a single engine plane or heli was over the bridge at 900ft, sees the A320 coming, turns right and gets the hell out of the way.

Another bit of food for thought: recall the JBU292 incident a couple years ago at LAX. It's the one where the nosegear was down, but the wheels were perpendicular to the rest of the plane. When it landed, the pilot rotated the aircraft so the nosegear was the last to hit the runway (as normal). But he kept it up until he got slow enough on the ground to cause minimal damage (that plane is back in the air). My guess is that the pilot here did the same exact thing except wheels up.

There are videos out there with JBU292, have a look.

BL.

dmr727
Jan 16, 2009, 12:45 PM
Interesting that the media hasn't said a word about the First Officer. He was up there too. :)

Lord Blackadder
Jan 16, 2009, 01:10 PM
Interesting that the media hasn't said a word about the First Officer. He was up there too. :)

True. Credit is also due to certain passengers who reportedly helped calm down their more hysterical fellows and kept the movement out of the plane orderly. Had there been mass panic inside the plane we could have had some drownings or a stampede.

dmr727
Jan 16, 2009, 02:38 PM
True. Credit is also due to certain passengers who reportedly helped calm down their more hysterical fellows and kept the movement out of the plane orderly. Had there been mass panic inside the plane we could have had some drownings or a stampede.

Oh definitely - it was a good job by everyone. It's nice to see stories like this! :)

Interesting take on the future of aviation safety, given that flying for the airlines ain't what it used to be:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0116/p25s30-usgn.html

jzuena
Jan 16, 2009, 03:25 PM
I applaud the pilot, the crew, and all those involved in the rescue. However, two questions:

- Was ditching the best possible action at the time?
- Could the "bird situation" have been prevented?

I guess these will be answered in the next few days/weeks, but seeing that it is New York City, there must have been plenty of runways to land at, and plenty of other planes that might have been (but weren't) subjected to the sudden onslaught of birds that caused it to go down.

Interesting, nonetheless.

irmongoose

If you look at the area via Google Maps you will see that there aren't many flat spots to land in Manhattan or New Jersey in that area. Lots of tall buildings. TEB was just about the only flat area other than the Hudson and the pilot determined he could not make TEB safely, so...

The amazing thing is they couldn't know how the airplane was designed to perform in a glide since this is never tested for an airplane of this kind.

I'm sure Airbus had to calculate the theoretical V speeds and put something in the manuals. The pilots had to have some airspeed to shoot for to "glide" the Airbus as far as possible.

Oh no, not the FAR/AIM -- the ultimate soporific!

Probably everybody had a CFI at one time or another who bellowed at them, "You mean you can't recite Part 91 chapter and verse?"

And its usually right after they pull your power and ask you "what is your Vg speed, and what is your target landing spot and why (and why haven't you already trimmed off to that Vg speed?)". :D
They need to do something to get your stress level somewhere near where it would be on a real emergency like yesterday's.

dmr727
Jan 16, 2009, 03:41 PM
I'm sure Airbus had to calculate the theoretical V speeds and put something in the manuals. The pilots had to have some airspeed to shoot for to "glide" the Airbus as far as possible.


You're close. In a jet, you're not looking for an airspeed - you're looking for an angle of attack. The angle of attack indicator will have a marking for max L/D (best glide). The pilot merely needs to pitch for that. It's better than using an airspeed because AOA will work regardless of aircraft configuration, weight, CG, etc. Plus you never have a number to remember. ;)

iParis
Jan 16, 2009, 04:07 PM
How do you know he's related to the pilot? Did you have a driving lesson yesterday or something?

Also, quick question for you: what's your driver instructor's first name?

Actually yes I did have class yesterday. It was the first day we had that particular driving instructor since we have about 3 different ones.
I have no idea what his first name is.

Like I said, I may have been mistaken. His son may have been the co pilot but I'm pretty sure I rememeber him saying his son's the pilot.

Lord Blackadder
Jan 16, 2009, 04:26 PM
The angle of attack indicator will have a marking for max L/D (best glide). The pilot merely needs to pitch for that.

When did this become standard equipment in airliners?

dmr727
Jan 16, 2009, 05:29 PM
When did this become standard equipment in airliners?

I have no idea. I'm not sure that it's even necessarily standard. I don't know much about airliners, although I know a couple things about the Airbus 320 because my wife flies one. I think she gets tired of all my questions, though. :)

AOA indicators have been standard on everything I've flown over on my side of the fence - the oldest airplane being from 1979. But again, dunno about the airliners.

Consultant
Jan 16, 2009, 07:46 PM
You have to distinguish between crashes where the pilot had control of the plane, trying to land on the water - and crashes where the plane ended up in the water due to pilot error, or out of control due to mechanical difficulties that seriously compromised control. There was a case of a plane landing in Puget sound 50 years ago. Most of the other examples I came up with the pilot was not attempting a water landing.

See my note above, I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness.... I'm trying to point out that things worked really really well.

Yes it went really well.

Survival lessons learned from previous jet ditchings
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/16/air.crash.ditching/index.html

IJ Reilly
Jan 16, 2009, 07:56 PM
I'm sure Airbus had to calculate the theoretical V speeds and put something in the manuals. The pilots had to have some airspeed to shoot for to "glide" the Airbus as far as possible.

I don't know for certain, but I think not. I'm pretty sure flying an airplane of this kind with no power makes you a test pilot.

And its usually right after they pull your power and ask you "what is your Vg speed, and what is your target landing spot and why (and why haven't you already trimmed off to that Vg speed?)". :D
They need to do something to get your stress level somewhere near where it would be on a real emergency like yesterday's.

Or the real stress level you will experience on your check ride.

You've got to have just a little bit of a mean streak to be a CFI.

Abstract
Jan 16, 2009, 09:36 PM
72. Thank God we have more than one instructor.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think so. I'll ask him about it when I see him next.

He's a 72 years old driving instructor, who has a 57 year old son? :confused: I guess he was 14 when he conceived him.

Actually yes I did have class yesterday. It was the first day we had that particular driving instructor since we have about 3 different ones.
I have no idea what his first name is.

Like I said, I may have been mistaken. His son may have been the co pilot but I'm pretty sure I rememeber him saying his son's the pilot.

Right. Find out what his name is, and I'll tell you if he's the pilot's father. ;)

dmr727
Jan 16, 2009, 11:59 PM
I don't know for certain, but I think not. I'm pretty sure flying an airplane of this kind with no power makes you a test pilot.


You're pretty much right. And really, they probably weren't thinking about best glide anyway. With the Hudson right there and no way to get to an airport, I'd guess the pilot flying (we don't necessarily know it was the Captain) just pitched for Vref (again, using AOA to do so) and hoped for the best.



You've got to have just a little bit of a mean streak to be a CFI.

CFIs aren't all mean, dammit! Right rudder! Right rudder! :D

IJ Reilly
Jan 17, 2009, 11:24 AM
You're pretty much right. And really, they probably weren't thinking about best glide anyway. With the Hudson right there and no way to get to an airport, I'd guess the pilot flying (we don't necessarily know it was the Captain) just pitched for Vref (again, using AOA to do so) and hoped for the best.

I wonder how they chose flap settings. Do you extend full flaps to minimize stall speed? Something less to preserve more maneuverability? How many seconds do you have to decide? Yikes.

For those who don't get the reference to being a test pilot, all aircraft are flown during testing by pilots who determine the performance envelope for that airplane, which is then published and learned by everyone who flies the airplane thereafter. Anyone who by reason of choice or necessity flies outside that envelope becomes a "test pilot" for all intents and purposes, because they can no longer have any expectations for how the airplane will perform.

CFIs aren't all mean, dammit! Right rudder! Right rudder! :D

Spoken like a true CFI? No, the other right rudder! (Shouted by CFI in unusual attitude training as an incipient spin develops.)

Thomas Veil
Jan 17, 2009, 11:49 AM
I wonder if the birds that took the plane down are the same (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=620745) that damaged a gas station and some cars. :D:D Until I checked the link, I thought you were talking about this (http://thisdistractedglobe.com/2007/10/30/the-birds-1963/).

http://thumbnails.hulu.com/6/952/15321_512x288_manicured__n0QzcFJg0065M7MJq1aY3A.jpg

dmr727
Jan 17, 2009, 03:08 PM
Spoken like a true CFI? No, the other right rudder! (Shouted by CFI in unusual attitude training as an incipient spin develops.)

Yep - I instructed for a couple of years. I still keep the certificates (MEI,CFII,CFI) current, but in reality I haven't done that kind of flying in quite some time.

IJ Reilly
Jan 17, 2009, 04:11 PM
Yep - I instructed for a couple of years. I still keep the certificates (MEI,CFII,CFI) current, but in reality I haven't done that kind of flying in quite some time.

Time-building towards your ATP, I presume.

dmr727
Jan 17, 2009, 04:44 PM
Time-building towards your ATP, I presume.

Do I detect a certain amount of derision in that post? ;)

But yes, I was instructing to build experience, and see where the career would take me. This was at a time where the regionals were gobbling up commercial pilots with stupidly low hours - 250TT and 50 multi. I had no desire to go that route.

IJ Reilly
Jan 17, 2009, 07:04 PM
Do I detect a certain amount of derision in that post? ;)

But yes, I was instructing to build experience, and see where the career would take me. This was at a time where the regionals were gobbling up commercial pilots with stupidly low hours - 250TT and 50 multi. I had no desire to go that route.

Oh, no, no, no, no. Yes. :)

You know how common it is for prospective ATPs to work their way up through being a CFI. Most of the instructors at my flight school were doing that.

Speaking of CFIs, I need to get with one soon. I've been inactive for quite a long stretch.

Counterfit
Jan 17, 2009, 07:07 PM
For those of you who would like to SEE what happened, point your browser at:

http://www4.passur.com/lga.html

Set the time to yesterday at 15:26, and look for USA1549 departing runway 4 at LGA. You'll see it depart, climb out, drop like a brick after being struck by the birds, barely maintain 1400ft while going over the GW Bridge, then setting down in the Hudson as everyone has seen. The only UPS soiled pants moment was when a single engine plane or heli was over the bridge at 900ft, sees the A320 coming, turns right and gets the hell out of the way.

I can't get that to work. :confused:

jzuena
Jan 18, 2009, 12:06 PM
I don't know for certain, but I think not. I'm pretty sure flying an airplane of this kind with no power makes you a test pilot.

You would definitely be a test pilot, since they are not tested for their glide, but I'm sure the engineers do run calculations to determine what the plane should do and how you would theoretically set the plane up for best performance. That information must be available to pilots somewhere and I would expect good pilots to seek that kind of info out and keep it in the back of their mind, just in case.

Or the real stress level you will experience on your check ride.

Tell me about it. On my first check ride it was 35C (95F - see, we do use the Metric system for some things in the US) with strong thermals causing light to moderate turbulence. The plane was going up and down like a yo-yo depending on what terrain we flew over; way more than the +/- 100' max. I figured I had to have failed right there. Then we landed on the little-used runway that is preceded by a long parking lot generating lots of thermals of its own. I thought I was done for, but the DE said that he took the weather into account and everything else was fine so I passed. Definitely the nicest DE I've flown with, but on both my helicopter and instrument check-rides it seemed like the DE was going out of his way to make the flight as stress-free as possible.

You've got to have just a little bit of a mean streak to be a CFI.

It seems like you need a mellow streak to be a Designated Examiner, although I've heard getting a check-ride directly with an FAA employee is a "slightly" different experience.

IJ Reilly
Jan 18, 2009, 12:29 PM
My checkride came on a very warm day also, with some low level windshear. I'd have been sweating anyway.

It was so nerve-wracking. My DE was an ex-military guy. Silent most of the time, barking at me the next. After a landing he just says, "Okay, taxi in." I keep glancing over at him. He's just sitting there, stone-faced. I'm thinking I flunked. I shut down, wait. He says nothing. Finally I ask him. He tells me I passed.

To this day I don't know if he was messing with me or was trying to decide.

jzuena
Jan 18, 2009, 12:45 PM
Spoken like a true CFI? No, the other right rudder! (Shouted by CFI in unusual attitude training as an incipient spin develops.)

Even better when they see the look in your eyes that the incipient spin causes and say "you've never done spins? Lets try a few". I have that instructor to blame for seeking out an introductory aerobatics flight in a T-6 with Warbird Adventures and then moving on to helicopters "because autorotations are fun".:cool:

Speaking of CFIs, I need to get with one soon. I've been inactive for quite a long stretch.

It could be worse. I work at the very airport where the flying club I am in is based and I haven't been able to fly for some time, although their hourly rates have been coming down as the fuel prices have. Maybe if it ever stops snowing I can get back out. Maybe I can finally try out one of their newer planes that are younger than I am or do some autorotations in their new R-44.:D

dmr727
Jan 18, 2009, 01:25 PM
Oh, no, no, no, no. Yes. :)

You know how common it is for prospective ATPs to work their way up through being a CFI. Most of the instructors at my flight school were doing that.


Yeah, I know how you feel. I really enjoyed my time instructing, and would love to do it some more. It's just unfortunately rare for an instructor to find a niche where he/she can make a good living doing it.


Speaking of CFIs, I need to get with one soon. I've been inactive for quite a long stretch.

Yes you do! And the weather has been great - you need to be flying! If you need a BFR - lemme know. ;) You're in the area, right?

IJ Reilly
Jan 18, 2009, 02:52 PM
Yeah, I know how you feel. I really enjoyed my time instructing, and would love to do it some more. It's just unfortunately rare for an instructor to find a niche where he/she can make a good living doing it.

It's not much of a living, as nearly as I can tell. Most CFIs seem to do it either because they're time building for an ATP or because they just love to fly.

Yes you do! And the weather has been great - you need to be flying! If you need a BFR - lemme know. ;) You're in the area, right?

See your PMs...

bradl
Jan 18, 2009, 05:39 PM
ATC audio clip is available, courtesy of LiveATC (http://www.liveatc.net).

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/us-airways-1549-audio/msg31936/#msg31936

Note: you must register with the forums there to listen to the clip.

BL.

Abstract
Jan 18, 2009, 06:19 PM
Like I said, I may have been mistaken. His son may have been the co pilot but I'm pretty sure I rememeber him saying his son's the pilot.

He's a 72 years old driving instructor, who has a 57 year old son? :confused: I guess he was 14 when he conceived him.


Right. Find out what his name is, and I'll tell you if he's the pilot's father. ;)


Since I don't think you'll answer me, I'll tell you what your 72 year old driving instructor's name is. If he really is the father of the pilot, then your driving instructor's name should be Chesley, same as the pilot's name. The pilot, his father, and his grandfather all share the name, Chesley, since the pilot's full name is Chesley B Sullenberger III.

I already knew the answer. I just don't believe what you say and wanted to test you this time.

Kamera RAWr
Jan 19, 2009, 07:34 AM
Since I don't think you'll answer me, I'll tell you what your 72 year old driving instructor's name is. If he really is the father of the pilot, then your driving instructor's name should be Chesley, same as the pilot's name. The pilot, his father, and his grandfather all share the name, Chesley, since the pilot's full name is Chesley B Sullenberger III.

I already knew the answer. I just don't believe what you say and wanted to test you this time.

You sure took the long way 'round to call BS :p

IJ Reilly
Jan 19, 2009, 10:58 AM
Plane lost both engines at same time

The flight recorders confirm the pilot's statements about his emergency landing in the Hudson River.

New York -- A jetliner that landed in the Hudson River lost power simultaneously in both engines after reaching an altitude of 3,200 feet, the plane's "black box" recorders revealed Sunday.

The details that emerged confirmed the harrowing circumstances under which the pilot of the US Airways flight carrying 155 people maneuvered the plane over New York City and safely into the water after striking a flock of birds Thursday afternoon.

"The captain makes a radio call to [air traffic control] calling mayday and reports that they hit birds, lost both engines and were returning to LaGuardia" airport, said Kitty Higgins of the National Transportation Safety Board, releasing cockpit transmissions captured on flight data and voice recorders.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-plane19-2009jan19,0,2841164.story

So, we can apparently forget any possibility that the crew accidently shut down a good engine.

dmr727
Jan 19, 2009, 07:21 PM
So in case the geeks here are curious, my wife got home last night and I proceeded to steal and rummage through her Airbus abnormal checklist:

There is a checklist for dual engine failure (ENG DUAL FAILURE).

It says that the 320 will glide up to 2.2 nautical miles per 1000 feet of altitude, assuming a clean condition doing 280knots indicated. Also, there's a green dot that displays on the speed tape of the Captain's PFD (Primary Flight Display) that indicates maximum L/D, or best glide.

This checklist assumes the airplane is at altitude when the engines flame out, which of course wasn't the case. All in all, including the section where it goes through the ditching items, the checklist is three pages in length - far too long for the amount of time they had. According to the airline pilot rumor mill (read: speculation) the Captain called for this checklist, and they didn't make it all the way through. That's the reason why they didn't push the Ditching pushbutton - they just didn't get to that item.

There is also a separate ditching checklist (Ditching), which is far, far shorter. If there's also a dual engine failure, it refers you to the checklist above, once the ditching items are complete.

In other words, the writers of the checklists didn't anticipate a dual engine failure so close to the ground. It's not that they weren't thorough - they even have an area where it gives pitch attitudes for best glide if the engines failed due to volcanic ash (thinking the ash might gum up the pitot tubes - knocking out the airspeed indicators).

Anyway, I thought this was interesting.

JNB
Jan 19, 2009, 07:30 PM
And the latest tidbit is that the same ship (N106US) flying the same route a few days ago suffered a compressor stall on climb out, but continued normally to CLT.

Let the speculation commence. :rolleyes:

IJ Reilly
Jan 19, 2009, 07:57 PM
Anyway, I thought this was interesting.

Indeed!

So what number on the dual engine out checklist is the step "pray to the deity of your choice"?

JNB
Jan 19, 2009, 08:27 PM
Indeed!

So what number on the dual engine out checklist is the step "pray to the deity of your choice"?

Not in Dual-Engine out, but it is in the Ditching Procedures, last item on Page 3… :p

dmr727
Jan 19, 2009, 09:19 PM
Not in Dual-Engine out, but it is in the Ditching Procedures, last item on Page 3… :p

Heh! Awesome!

IJ Reilly
Jan 19, 2009, 10:53 PM
Great

:)

dmr727
Jan 19, 2009, 11:41 PM
I'm curious JNB - what airplane is that for? Seems to be a light twin with the plural 'mixtures' - maybe a 310?

sushi
Jan 20, 2009, 03:22 AM
Learning to fly can be an exercise in humiliation.
Isn't that the truth.

Interesting that the media hasn't said a word about the First Officer. He was up there too. :)
Kind of curious about that as well.

Credit is also due to certain passengers who reportedly helped calm down their more hysterical fellows and kept the movement out of the plane orderly. Had there been mass panic inside the plane we could have had some drownings or a stampede.
True. These passengers made a difference.

Not in Dual-Engine out, but it is in the Ditching Procedures, last item on Page 3… :p
Heh! Awesome!
No kidding.

JNB
Jan 20, 2009, 05:31 AM
I'm curious JNB - what airplane is that for? Seems to be a light twin with the plural 'mixtures' - maybe a 310?

Yup, C310. Good catch.

jzuena
Jan 20, 2009, 01:44 PM
In other words, the writers of the checklists didn't anticipate a dual engine failure so close to the ground. It's not that they weren't thorough - they even have an area where it gives pitch attitudes for best glide if the engines failed due to volcanic ash (thinking the ash might gum up the pitot tubes - knocking out the airspeed indicators).

Ash can do more than just block the ram and/or static air ports, it can cause the engines to flame out. There have been a couple of 747s that lost all four engines from it. I don't think the A320 engines are any less susceptible to flameout due to ash.

ALPA's Volcanic Ash Hazards to Airliners fact sheet (http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Documents/ALPA_DocumentsView.aspx?itemid=1470&ModuleId=1316&Tabid=256)

jzuena
Jan 20, 2009, 02:09 PM
So in case the geeks here are curious, my wife got home last night and I proceeded to steal and rummage through her Airbus abnormal checklist:

There is a checklist for dual engine failure (ENG DUAL FAILURE).

It says that the 320 will glide up to 2.2 nautical miles per 1000 feet of altitude, assuming a clean condition doing 280knots indicated. Also, there's a green dot that displays on the speed tape of the Captain's PFD (Primary Flight Display) that indicates maximum L/D, or best glide.

This checklist assumes the airplane is at altitude when the engines flame out, which of course wasn't the case. All in all, including the section where it goes through the ditching items, the checklist is three pages in length - far too long for the amount of time they had. According to the airline pilot rumor mill (read: speculation) the Captain called for this checklist, and they didn't make it all the way through. That's the reason why they didn't push the Ditching pushbutton - they just didn't get to that item.

There is also a separate ditching checklist (Ditching), which is far, far shorter. If there's also a dual engine failure, it refers you to the checklist above, once the ditching items are complete.

In other words, the writers of the checklists didn't anticipate a dual engine failure so close to the ground. It's not that they weren't thorough - they even have an area where it gives pitch attitudes for best glide if the engines failed due to volcanic ash (thinking the ash might gum up the pitot tubes - knocking out the airspeed indicators).

Anyway, I thought this was interesting.

It is interesting, and it seems the 320 actually glides pretty well (for an airliner). From FL230 [roughly 23000 feet if there are any non-pilots left] you would get more than 50nm if the ground is at sea level.

Indeed!

So what number on the dual engine out checklist is the step "pray to the deity of your choice"?

Maybe Airbus uses the equally telling KYAG step on their checklist :eek:

Consultant
Jan 20, 2009, 03:51 PM
Luggage reimbursement:
$5000 check to each traveler

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/01/20/usairways.passengers/index.html

dmr727
Jan 20, 2009, 06:09 PM
Ash can do more than just block the ram and/or static air ports, it can cause the engines to flame out. There have been a couple of 747s that lost all four engines from it. I don't think the A320 engines are any less susceptible to flameout due to ash.


Yep - that's what I was talking about. The 319/320/321 checklist I was referring to specifically discusses dual engine flameout due to ash, and gives additional guidance if the static ports are blocked as well.

IJ Reilly
Jan 20, 2009, 07:09 PM
I took off once with my pitot tube blocked. That was fun. Made pretty good time considering I was flying a zero knots indicated.

sushi
Jan 20, 2009, 07:54 PM
It is interesting, and it seems the 320 actually glides pretty well (for an airliner). From FL230 [roughly 23000 feet if there are any non-pilots left] you would get more than 50nm if the ground is at sea level.
That's a bit farther than I expected. Around a 13 to 1 glide ratio if my math is correct.

Sure beats a helicopter in autorotation. The chin bubble (by your feet) is a good indication of your landing area.

I took off once with my pitot tube blocked. That was fun. Made pretty good time considering I was flying a zero knots indicated.
Ha ha. That sounds like fun.

IJ Reilly
Jan 20, 2009, 11:20 PM
Ha ha. That sounds like fun.

Oh, yeah. Long story how it happened, but the short version is I had one of those old-fashioned flapper covers over the tube. The top part got bent down a little so it didn't flap open in the wind. I actually did one takeoff run and couldn't figure out why the AS indicator just kept bouncing on the peg, so I aborted. Taxied back and did another walk-around. Still didn't see anything wrong, so I added 10 flaps and tried it again. Couldn't keep the airplane the ground in that configuration. Finally the little light bulb went on in my head -- I looked over at the wing and saw the culprit. Had about 100 hours in the book at that point. So what did my CFI tell me about these situations? Oh, right -- fly the airplane! Suddenly it made sense. Climbed out on the VSI and tach and was fine, once I stopped sweating.

sushi
Jan 21, 2009, 04:22 AM
Oh, yeah. Long story how it happened, but the short version is I had one of those old-fashioned flapper covers over the tube. The top part got bent down a little so it didn't flap open in the wind. I actually did one takeoff run and couldn't figure out why the AS indicator just kept bouncing on the peg, so I aborted. Taxied back and did another walk-around. Still didn't see anything wrong, so I added 10 flaps and tried it again. Couldn't keep the airplane the ground in that configuration. Finally the little light bulb went on in my head -- I looked over at the wing and saw the culprit. Had about 100 hours in the book at that point. So what did my CFI tell me about these situations? Oh, right -- fly the airplane! Suddenly it made sense. Climbed out on the VSI and tach and was fine, once I stopped sweating.
Interesting.

True words about flying the airplane/helicopter or whatever first. Got to keep the shinny side up. :)

In the case of this accident, if I understand correctly they did not have time to complete the ditching checklist. How many steps are there? Must have been quite a few. If so, I bet there will be an update after this incident.

With the military helicopters that I flew, all emergency procedures were required to be committed to memory. One of which, in a Cobra, required the pilot to recognize and apply the immediate action within 1 second to ensure survivability. The Cobra had many other interesting quirks compared other helicopters since it has the only rotor system of it's kind.

IJ Reilly
Jan 21, 2009, 10:58 AM
Interesting.

True words about flying the airplane/helicopter or whatever first. Got to keep the shinny side up. :)

"Fly the airplane" never really made sense to me until this happened. I mean, of course I'm flying the airplane. Then you get hit by the unexpected and are forced to prioritize in a hurry. That's when you remember, fly the airplane (and worry about the other stuff later). Worked for me, and I suspect that's pretty much what worked for this US Air crew.

dmr727
Jan 21, 2009, 12:06 PM
In the case of this accident, if I understand correctly they did not have time to complete the ditching checklist. How many steps are there? Must have been quite a few. If so, I bet there will be an update after this incident.


You're right, I think you're going to see some changes. The ditching checklist itself has only nine checklist items prior to splashdown (there are six items afterwards). Thing is, it has a conditional statement at the beginning that states that if the engines are *not* running, then you should instead run the dual engine failure checklist, which is what the crew did.

The dual engine failure checklist includes the ditching items at the end of it, and is huge. Including the ditching items, I count 28 steps with several conditional situations (where you branch around the checklist depending on the situation), and all in all it covers three checklist pages. It's way too long to run in a short period of time.

So I'd guess you'll see some reorganization for situations like this. And like IJ mentioned, the crew did a good job of not getting hung up in the checklist, and just 'flew the airplane'.


With the military helicopters that I flew, all emergency procedures were required to be committed to memory.

At US Airways, there aren't any memory items. They have emergency action items, which are listed at the front of the QRH, but those still aren't memorized. They're just placed at the front for easy retrieval. The dual engine failure checklist isn't included here, btw. It's buried on page 27.

JNB
Jan 21, 2009, 12:14 PM
Another positive outcome of all this is that with the data recovered from the FDR, Airbus believes that they will be able to incorporate specific training (including sim scenarios) to replicate this condition in the existing curriculum.

I'll bet when they run a dozen or so crews through it none of them manages to complete it successfully. Sorta like Sioux City…

dmr727
Jan 25, 2009, 02:29 AM
Just got this tonight. Might be interesting to some:

FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE

ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX

SUBJECT: US AIRWAYS Flight US1549 ACCIDENT IN NEW YORK

OUR REF: USA US1549 AIT N°2 DATED 23rd JANUARY 2009
Previous ref: USA US1549 AIT N°1 DATED 16 JANUARY 2009

SUBJECT: US AIRWAYS Flight US1549 ACCIDENT IN NEW YORK

This is an update to the AIT N°1 issued on 16th January 2009.

The information which follow has been approved for release by the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) and represent the highlights from the initial analysis of the available data: mainly Digital Flight Data Recorder, aircraft components, ATC script and radar.

The A320 aircraft was operating a scheduled flight US1549 from New York, La Guardia airport to Charlotte, Virginia on 15th January 2009, when the aircraft ditched on the Hudson river shortly after take-off at 15:30 local time.

The aircraft performed a normal flex take-off in slats/flaps configuration 2 from La Guardia airport with the co-pilot as Pilot Flying.

At time T0, soon after the aircraft was in clean configuration at an airspeed of about 210kts, both engines suffered a simultaneous and sudden loss of thrust at about 3000ft pressure altitude. The engines N1 decreased abruptly to 35% and 15% on engines 1 & 2 respectively. This sudden and simultaneous loss of engine thrust is consistent with the reported bird strike on both engines and also with the initial observations from the remaining engine 2. (Recovery of engine 1 being still in progress).

The captain took immediately control of the aircraft making smooth nose-down pitch inputs to maintain the airspeed at about 200kts.

At approximately T0+20 sec, the crew changed the aircraft heading towards the Hudson river.

There was no more response from the engine N°2. The engine N°1 continued to deliver a minimum thrust (N1 around 35%) for about 2 minutes and 20 seconds after T0.

At approximately T0+2min20sec, the crew attempted at about 500ft/200kts a quick relight on engine 1 without success.

The crew then selected slat/flap configuration 2 which was achieved.

From then on and until the ditching, the heading remained almost constant. The speed decreased from 200kts to 130kts.

Ditching occurred 3 minutes and 30 seconds after the thrust loss in the following conditions:
- Airspeed was about 130kts (at the Gross Weight, Valpha max is 125kts and Valpha prot is 132kts)
- Pitch attitude was 10 degrees up and bank attitude was at 0 degree.
- Flaps and slats were in configuration 2. Landing gear up

It is to be noted that at all times during the event and up until the ditching, the normal electrical supply (AC and DC buses) and all three hydraulic systems were fully operational and the flight control law remained in Normal law.

In line with ICAO Annex 13 International convention, the US NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) continues the investigation assisted by Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) as State of aircraft manufacturer. Airbus continues to support the NTSB investigation with advisors on-site and in the various investigation working groups.

Airbus has no specific recommendations at this stage. Should there be the need for recommendation as a result of the investigation, operators will be notified accordingly.

VICE PRESIDENT FLIGHT SAFETY
AIRBUS

IJ Reilly
Jan 25, 2009, 11:44 AM
Completely wing level, splashdown at Va. Nice. I assume the Captain was fully hand-flying it at that point.

aethelbert
Jan 25, 2009, 12:37 PM
Nice. I assume the Captain was fully hand-flying it at that point.
Does the Hudson River not have an ILS approach system?

IJ Reilly
Jan 25, 2009, 02:18 PM
Does the Hudson River not have an ILS approach system?

No, but you can use the George Washington Bridge as a VASI.

Anyway, not sure how much you were joking, but I presume he could have used the autopilot to keep the wings level during the final descent.

dmr727
Jan 25, 2009, 03:29 PM
Actually, the Hudson has a GPS-A approach, which did the crew no good since the east side US Airways pilots can't do non-precision approaches. ;)

In all seriousness, my understanding was that the airplane was being 'hand flown', but you need to remember that this is an Airbus, so as long as the stick is centered, the computers will keep it wings level.

As my wife says, you don't really fly an Airbus - it's just a big video game.

IJ Reilly
Jan 25, 2009, 03:53 PM
As my wife says, you don't really fly an Airbus - it's just a big video game.

Which reminds me, the first time my CFI strapped a push-to-talk button onto the yoke I asked him if that's what I use to shoot down other airplanes. Not sure he got that I was joking.

Sun Baked
Feb 25, 2009, 05:26 PM
Yay, the lawyers have crash landed now.

Some Passengers Mull Lawsuits Over Life-Saving US Airways Crash-Landing (http://www.abajournal.com/news/some_passengers_mull_lawsuits_over_life-saving_us_airways_crash-landing/)

By Martha Neil

A US Airways pilot made aviation history last month and was hailed as a hero after he crash-landed his plane on the Hudson River and all aboard survived.

But some of the 150 passengers whose lives he saved are talking about suing the airline for damages, contending that a $5,000 check for "immediate needs" and a refund of the ticket price they paid isn't sufficient recompense for their emotional trauma, reports the London Times...OK, I would have at least expected them to pick up the ER visit, hotel room, and a new ticket to the destination along with the refund.

IJ Reilly
Feb 25, 2009, 05:54 PM
The airline has sent the passengers a letter of apology, a $5,000 (£3,500) cheque to assist with “immediate needs”, reimbursement for their tickets and a promise to be upgraded to first class on flights until March 10.

The compensation does seem stingy, and the upgraded flights (until March 10 -- who came up with that date?), laughable. I mean, how many of these survivors are going to be anxious to get on an airplane again just a few weeks after taking a dip in the frozen Hudson? This is especially interesting in light of Sullenberger's recent testimony before Congress about the airlines taking out experienced pilots by being cheap. If it wasn't for him, US Air would be liable for millions in damages. Probably without meaning to do so, they're just proving his point.

iJohnHenry
Feb 25, 2009, 06:15 PM
I mean, how many of these survivors are going to be anxious to get on an airplane again just a few weeks after taking a dip in the frozen Hudson?

This is laughable.

I would want to have his children, were I on that plane.

What a sick society.

IJ Reilly
Feb 25, 2009, 07:38 PM
Did you read what I wrote at all? This isn't about the pilot.