Plane Crashes into Hudson River

[IJ Reilly]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[snberk103]

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]

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]

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]

glad they are all okay, great job by the pilot.

 

[dmr727]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/tex...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]

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!

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]

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]

I wonder if the birds that took the plane down are the same that damaged a gas station and some cars.

 

[r.j.s]

I wonder if the birds that took the plane down are the same that damaged a gas station and some cars.

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

 

[themoonisdown09]

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

Terrorist birds indeed!

 

[iParis]

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]

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]

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?