-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
US AIRWAYS Crash in the Hudson River
- Thread starter foampositz
- Start date
It sounds kind of "purple" to be a legit AP story, expecially the "why Sullenberger chose to risk the lives" bit. And I find it somehow kind of difficult to believe that ATC would give a "pfft, no big deal, return to LGA and land". It's real early in the investigation for anyone, even "unnmaed sources" to be making big assertions.
I dunno. I might be wrong, but I call bullshit. Where'd you find this, anyway?
Seems to be a modification of this legit AP article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090117/ap_on_re_us/plane_splashdown
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090117/ap_on_re_us/plane_splashdown
As much as I dislike speculation and am reluctant to participate, I will add this in light of some new unfortunate "leaks" and the likelihood that media hype will run with it. Just so you know.
Below are NYT images of the flight path (if they can be believed) and a Google of the area. So one can see where some controversy might arise. (Teterburo was not an option IMHO) I will not second guess the flight crew. I have flown the A-320 and out of LGA many times, and I believe I would have made the same decision. But I can't know for sure, not actually having been in their specific situation. Obviously the Hudson ditching needed less of a power-out turn, and had a much greater margin for error than LGA which required overflight of Manhattan, and certain many/all fatalities if landing short - which was a distinct possibility. Dropping the landing gear - which is not done in a ditching - would have shortened the glide distance to LGA if it was done. (what was the wind?) Nevertheless, there will be some controversy until the NTSB accident investigation is completed. So don't bank on anything, yet. But then Monday morning quarterbacking is always so very easy, isn't it?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/15/nyregion/20090115-plane-crash-970.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/15/nyregion/20090115-plane-crash-970.html
Below are NYT images of the flight path (if they can be believed) and a Google of the area. So one can see where some controversy might arise. (Teterburo was not an option IMHO) I will not second guess the flight crew. I have flown the A-320 and out of LGA many times, and I believe I would have made the same decision. But I can't know for sure, not actually having been in their specific situation. Obviously the Hudson ditching needed less of a power-out turn, and had a much greater margin for error than LGA which required overflight of Manhattan, and certain many/all fatalities if landing short - which was a distinct possibility. Dropping the landing gear - which is not done in a ditching - would have shortened the glide distance to LGA if it was done. (what was the wind?) Nevertheless, there will be some controversy until the NTSB accident investigation is completed. So don't bank on anything, yet. But then Monday morning quarterbacking is always so very easy, isn't it?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/15/nyregion/20090115-plane-crash-970.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/15/nyregion/20090115-plane-crash-970.html
I have no ax to grind for or against the crew --- so I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb here and make a WAG (that's as in a Wild Ass Guess -- the media's doing it and they're clueless, so why not me?? ) as to the possibilities of landing @ either Teterboro or a RTB to LaGarbage since there is speculation about the possibilities of successfully landing on either airport ...
NFW ... i.e., no fucking way ... they didn't have enough altitude and were in a lousy position over the ground to attempt it.
Based upon the radar track -- I "think" they got hit @ the Bronx Zoological/Botanical Gardens @ 3000' .... roughly 5 miles +/- from the end of either runway, assuming he's going to land upwind ... don't take MY word for it, look at a map and measure it.
My opinion, based upon experience and many, many power-off High-Key's, PPEL's, training hops, one real one and so forth: he could not have made it to either airport if he had tried. Especially when the gear/flaps came down -- assuming they could have been brought "down & locked" w/ windmilling hydraulics in the allotted time -- good luck on that one -- or -- if he couldn't have got them down or just got a partial it's just one more "speed brake" which would have brought them down even faster -- like even faster than just being in a power-off turn to the runways available, that is ...
I "think" I'd rather make the attempt at bellying in on the river rather than testing the landing characteristics of the rooftops on either side of the Hudson ... all things being equal, I'd rather NOT be put to the test.
Bottom line (for me): they made the best out of a bad situation and they were incredibly, incredibly LUCKY to boot ... a perfect marriage of skill & chance in the annals of aviation ...
Once again, talk is cheap. And opinions and especially the "poll" on this thread are worth exactly what they "cost" to put up here ... i.e., little or nothing.
Now back to my nap ... :sleep_125
NFW ... i.e., no fucking way ... they didn't have enough altitude and were in a lousy position over the ground to attempt it.
Based upon the radar track -- I "think" they got hit @ the Bronx Zoological/Botanical Gardens @ 3000' .... roughly 5 miles +/- from the end of either runway, assuming he's going to land upwind ... don't take MY word for it, look at a map and measure it.
My opinion, based upon experience and many, many power-off High-Key's, PPEL's, training hops, one real one and so forth: he could not have made it to either airport if he had tried. Especially when the gear/flaps came down -- assuming they could have been brought "down & locked" w/ windmilling hydraulics in the allotted time -- good luck on that one -- or -- if he couldn't have got them down or just got a partial it's just one more "speed brake" which would have brought them down even faster -- like even faster than just being in a power-off turn to the runways available, that is ...
I "think" I'd rather make the attempt at bellying in on the river rather than testing the landing characteristics of the rooftops on either side of the Hudson ... all things being equal, I'd rather NOT be put to the test.
Bottom line (for me): they made the best out of a bad situation and they were incredibly, incredibly LUCKY to boot ... a perfect marriage of skill & chance in the annals of aviation ...
Once again, talk is cheap. And opinions and especially the "poll" on this thread are worth exactly what they "cost" to put up here ... i.e., little or nothing.
Now back to my nap ... :sleep_125
I think that the key for people to realize, to pile on "the godfather's" post above...
The decision was made to ditch. A review of engine failure NTSB reports shows that many died "trying to extend the glide to an availible runway, resulting in a stall and corresponding loss of alititude."
Being able to make the decision to land in the water is tough. Once that decision was made, however, it was easier to execute, and obviously executed very well. That's where I think the real talent of this aircrew was.
Since it has been confirmed that the Captain took control of the aircraft from the flying FO I feel the need to revisit this post. The post above makes it sound like the Captain would only take control of the aircraft from the FO if he couldn't handle it. I didn't mean to imply that. There are a few good reasons a Captain might take control of an aircraft in an emergency, even though the FO is more then up to the task. It isn't procedure and it isn't often done. I am sure that on check rides, Capt. Sully doesn't brief that he will always take control of the aircraft in an emergency. But he is the Captain. He can take the airplane if he wants. That isn't to say the FO could not have done as good of a job. The Captain may have simply wanted to take the final responsibility and not burden the FO with the memory/reputation of a water landing gone bad. After all, we don't practice them.
Some of the posts above may have begun to blur the lines we have previously drawn. Most, however, are not speculative as to the appropriateness of the crews actions. Even so, I think we can all agree that, given there were virtually no injuries, the uniqueness of the incident, and the interest we all have in the airmanship, this mishap is a natural for a more permissive thread then normal. My opinion, anyway.
Agree ... plus there were no next-of-kin issues to any degree that needed to be respected as a result of this accident.
Also, the whole thing has been front & center ever since the day it went down (literally) in the middle of the largest media circus/center in the world -- well, front & center except for now, as the media has grown bored w/ it and "moved on" to the next "if it bleeds, it leads" story -- plus there were no national security/military operational questions involved ....
Soooooooooooo .... it seems that it's really quite a different animal than most accidents we are are forced to deal with ... yea-as ???
The only thing I think is REALLY over the top on this thread is the poll.
I mean, talk about speculation as to what you woulda', coulda', shoulda' done .... if only you'd been there ... if only it had happened on a Wednesday ... or a Friday .... or a sunny day .... or .... or ....
If I may post this question: When an A320 loses both engines what powers the controls systems and do you get a "feel" for the plane in a dead stick situation? I know they are fly by wire and I am assuming that it is battery power but there has to be a bunch of hydraulic pumps that are running though.
And, please disregard my other stupid post above... I fixed it as soon as I realized it was a fabrication.
And, please disregard my other stupid post above... I fixed it as soon as I realized it was a fabrication.
If by that you mean the boundless media frenzy of worship and adoration for our as yet untested and unaccomplished commander in chief (respect to our new CinC, just stating the facts), and our soon to be bleeding Treasury, yup.
I never flew the 320, but some constants remain ...
The FAA aircraft design requirements hold that an airplane has to be maneuverable even in the event of a total loss of engine power. This is usually accomplished through the windmilling of the turbine blades which provides "enough" residual hydraulic power for different levels of flight controls and gear operation, depending on the aircraft. If windmilling pressure is not design-sufficient, the design must include a RAT (ram air turbine) that runs automatically to run pumps or the flight controls need to be able to be powered by an APU -- again, I can't speak to the 320 specifically -- just generalities.
There was a KLM 747 that lost all 4 of 'em ... all 4 engines ... in 1989 after flying through a volcanic cloud generated by Mt. Redoubt @ 150 miles away ... the Dutchies were at altitude on descent into Anchorage for a refueling stop and were able to maintain control until engines were re-lit and @ 14,000' of altitude was lost -- and that's w/ a lot of local terrain up @ 11,000 MSL. This was a BIG shit-storm at the time, as there was a LOT of volcanic activity around the Pacific Rim. Point of fact, there always is a whole lotta' shakin' going on around the Rim ...
Agree ... plus there were no next-of-kin issues to any degree that needed to be respected as a result of this accident.
Also, the whole thing has been front & center ever since the day it went down (literally) in the middle of the largest media circus/center in the world -- well, front & center except for now, as the media has grown bored w/ it and "moved on" to the next "if it bleeds, it leads" story -- plus there were no national security/military operational questions involved ....
Soooooooooooo .... it seems that it's really quite a different animal than most accidents we are are forced to deal with ... yea-as ???
The only thing I think is REALLY over the top on this thread is the poll.
I mean, talk about speculation as to what you woulda', coulda', shoulda' done .... if only you'd been there ... if only it had happened on a Wednesday ... or a Friday .... or a sunny day .... or .... or ....
Wasn't Obama on the radio to Capt Sully talking him through the whole thing?