US AIRWAYS Crash in the Hudson River

[teabag53]

Not to take away from the good flying skills and smooth procedural execution but the lack of swell on the Hudson vice open ocean may have played a significant part in the success of said ditching. Bottom line: The crew did well and LUCK was with them too. Enough of my speculation.

 

[GroundPounder]

Wink and Pugs,

Thinking it over, I can see that it makes sense, as there isn't that moment when the FO might not do anything waiting for the Capt. to take over. Thanks for the insight.

 

[eddie]

The reason is that both Capt and FO train to the same standards. One should not be significantly better then the other in simple stick and rudder stuff.

Is the distinction between the two then only made for purposes of seniority?

 

[Xtndr50boom]

I just think that most crews would probably have done as good of a job.

Totally disagree; aviation history is littered with airplane pieces and human corpses due to various f-ups by the crews. UA 173 or Alaska 261, anyone? http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19781228-1

And next to those pieces are stories of the crews doing it right. UA 232, BA 9, are but some of the best examples.
Whether everyone is trained to do the same thing is irrelevant. What is relevant is this USAir CREW, when faced with a potential disaster, did it right!

 

[exhelodrvr]

Totally disagree; aviation history is littered with airplane pieces and human corpses due to various f-ups by the crews. UA 173 or Alaska 261, anyone? http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19781228-1

And next to those pieces are stories of the crews doing it right. UA 232, BA 9, are but some of the best examples.
Whether everyone is trained to do the same thing is irrelevant. What is relevant is this USAir CREW, when faced with a potential disaster, did it right!

"Totally disagree; aviation history is littered with airplane pieces and human corpses due to various f-ups by the crews."
That's not the question. The question is would most (i.e. more than half) of crews at this level of flying handle that situation at that level of skill.

 

[Xtndr50boom]

"Totally disagree; aviation history is littered with airplane pieces and human corpses due to various f-ups by the crews."
That's not the question. The question is would most (i.e. more than half) of crews at this level of flying handle that situation at that level of skill.

My original statement answered that by saying that reasonably qualified crews invariably f**k up things they should be proficient in. It's the human factor.

Unfortunately, if you look at historical data re: airliner ditchings, most ended much, much worse than this one

 

[Morgan81]

...when faced with a potential disaster, did it right!

Do we really know that yet? I'm not saying anything yet, and I'm sure not saying I could do anything any better. I just want to see what the NTSB says first, that's all.

 

[Xtndr50boom]

Do we really know that yet? I'm not saying anything yet, and I'm sure not saying I could do anything any better. I just want to see what the NTSB says first, that's all.

Agreed, but a short notice ditching situation, good landing (being the plane didn't break apart on touchdown), and everyone survived... The crew may have screwed something up, but the results speak volumes; everybody lived

 

[bunk22]

My original statement answered that by saying that reasonably qualified crews invariably f**k up things they should be proficient in. It's the human factor.

True.

Unfortunately, if you look at historical data re: airliner ditchings, most ended much, much worse than this one

Statistics? Information? Show please.

Agreed, but a short notice ditching situation, good landing (being the plane didn't break apart on touchdown), and everyone survived... There had to have been something the crew screwed up, but the results speak volumes; everybody lived

Proof please. Can't say it without proving it first. Have inside information the rest of us don't?

 

[jcj]

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11462406

At the very end of the article:

One longtime commercial pilot who has spent years as a company flight instructor warned that before dubbing Sullenberger a hero, investigators need to determine whether crew error contributed to the emergency.

The pilot, who did not want to be named, was skeptical that bird strikes shut down both engines.

"I've seen it happen too many times in the simulators — you get a flameout in one engine, and the quick response is to shut down the wrong one," the pilot said.

I don't want to second guess the pilot, because he got everyone off alive regardless. But the "anonymous flight instructor" raises an interesting point for the investigators.

Two engines were shut down by a birdstrike in this tragedy:

http://www.elmendorf.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123070056

Won't that be pretty quickly determined by review of the FDR?

 

[exhelodrvr]

My original statement answered that by saying that reasonably qualified crews invariably f**k up things they should be proficient in. It's the human factor.

Unfortunately, if you look at historical data re: airliner ditchings, most ended much, much worse than this one

How many ditchings under similar circumstances - engine failure at a high enough altitude and with enough airspeed so that the crew had time to analyze and decide where to go, followed by a smooth water surface to land on, and (judging from the water surface as shown on the news last night) not much wind - have there been?

If your original statement were "some reasonably qualified crews ..." it would be accurate.

 

[nzachman]

The crew did an excellent job. I'm not sure that every pilot would be able to do the same though.........I voted for no..........just because I know of many pilots who would spazzz out in that situation.

 

[wink]

Is the distinction between the two then only made for purposes of seniority?

If by seniority you mean years at the company, not necessarily. It is possible to have a FO that has been with the airline longer then the Captain if the FO has decided not to upgrade to Captain and end up at the bottom of the Captain list for bidding schedules and vacation and the Captain moved up at his first opportunity and is very junior in the left seat. The real distinction is that the Captain is in command and the duty fall guy regardless of how many years or hours he has. That is why he gets the big bucks.

 

[Xtndr50boom]

Statistics? Information? Show please.

Ditching, http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=REED

CFIT into water, http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=RECW

Once you filter out the GA and the ubiquitous Pan third world C-47s and DC-3s, you find most ditchings or water CFITs result in fatalities.

Proof please. Can't say it without proving it first. Have inside information the rest of us don't?

Link from flight tracker showing the speeds, altitudes, positions, and timing, http://www.webcitation.org/5dsK6uWg1

I'm not saying the pilot (s) is the second coming, but it's better to be lucky than good, and IMHO, ditching a commercial airliner and not having any fatalities is absolutely SH, and a testament to properly trained crews and proper decision making

 

[Xtndr50boom]

How many ditchings under similar circumstances - engine failure at a high enough altitude and with enough airspeed so that the crew had time to analyze and decide where to go, followed by a smooth water surface to land on, and (judging from the water surface as shown on the news last night) not much wind - have there been?

If your original statement were "some reasonably qualified crews ..." it would be accurate.

Sorry, just don't have the time or the inclination to look it up. Probably not many, though.

I stand corrected.