Timothy Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Airbusses have a "waterline"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Every aircraft has a "waterline". It's a structural definition point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Thanks Conehead. Wonder if they'll be adding a Plimsoll line after this event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmikes@imap.cc Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Terrible writing... at it's best. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7833317.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Here is another for consideration: January 15, 2009 US Airways Flight 1549, an Airbus 320, Crashes into the Hudson Smart Plane Design Guided Pilot of Flight 1549 To Airbus 320 Safe Landing (Photograph by Bebeto Matthews/AP Photo) The likely hero of the crash of Flight 1549 is the pilot, who set a malfunctioning airplane into the Hudson River without a loss of life on board or on the ground. It was an impressive piece of flying, for sure, but it was not a miracle: Experts say airplanes are designed to fly without any engine power. "There are FAA design requirements that state that an airplane has to be maneuverable even in complete power failure," says Kevin Darcy, an accident investigation expert with Safety Services International, who has taught advanced accident investigation topics at the FAA and at the NTSB. The windmilling of engine blades as they move through the air can be enough to power the hydraulic flaps and landing gear needed to guide an airplane to the ground, Darcy says. "If that doesn't generate enough power, then they have to install ram-air turbines that run automatically." Flying under these conditions would be tough but not impossible. "Even in a normal landing the pilots bring the power down and the airplane glides nicely," Darcy says. "There is a little less control authority with just windmilling Commercial airline pilots do not train specifically to "ditch" their airplanes. (Ditching is a controlled crash into water.) The instances are rare, even though forced landings due to multiple engine failures over land are more common and the landing procedures are similar. "In general terms the crew and pilots have procedures in the event of multiple engine losses," he says. "But you won't find this in the training curriculum. It's something so rare that there is no emphasis." The FAA uses language to describe the way an airplane handles under duress, stating that the control of a distressed airplane has to be guided safely "without exceptional piloting skill." That may be the case today in New York City, but there are 146 passengers, five crewmen and a metropolis that feel the pilot did a damn good job. —Joe Pappalardo http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/scie...ah_buzz&mag=pop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydee Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QRH procedures work well, time permitting, which in this case was a luxury they didn't have. These guys had precious little time to start consulting ditching checklists. What was done IMO was done by "seat of the pants" flying. aka experience ! Congratulations to them both for a job well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadairguy Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 So if that was a Jazz aircraft would it have had life jackets for the passengers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 So if that was a Jazz aircraft would it have had life jackets for the passengers? Unbelievable airmanship. Simply amazing. It'll be interesting to see if either of the powerplants are still on wing when they pull it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakelad Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 It'll be interesting to see if either of the powerplants are still on wing when they pull it out. Understand left engine detached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 So if that was a Jazz aircraft would it have had life jackets for the passengers? Did anyone use the life jackets from the airplane? Were there any? I have looked closely and I see people in life jackets AFTER they are in rescue craft. but all of those people standing on the wing look to be not wearing lifejackets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadairguy Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Did anyone use the life jackets from the airplane? Were there any? Good point. I just assumed the passengers were wearing US Airways life jackets and not life jackets from the boats that had picked them up. In any case, perhaps Jazz (and TC) should re-think whether life jackets need to be carried on flights that will remain within 50 miles of land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Based on these photos, it would appear that most passengers did not have life preservers initially... Later, some are in life preservers -- but whether they were retrieved from the aircraft or not isn't clear, although the two orange ones in the last photo might be crew members... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IFG Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 It's worth giving the pilot his due. What a pro to have at the controls of a routine flight like this! Definitely his due - & more But, dagger, you might be surprised at the number of "pro"-s that are out there flying the line (in between directing their pilot-negotiators to rape the share-holders, of course ). The thing is, many airline pilots volunteer for the sort of safety work that Captain Sullenberger has done, or engage in training at some point in their careers. Surpirise is not in this crew rising to the occasion, but would be the contrary. And in deference to those pilots who, faced with other daunting challenges, did not have the 'Hollywood' outcome, rest assured that, in addition to consummate performance, serendipity was also in Capt. Sullenberger's corner yesterday. This in no way diminishes that crew's accomplishments (I hope they never have to pay for a beer again), indeed I'm sure they would endorse what I'm saying, humility being the pilot's virtue & all Cheers, IFG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 CBC has a place specifically for pilots to post comments regarding this accident: Pilot comments sought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Chesley B. Sullenberger, the US Airways pilot whose splashdown in the Hudson River yesterday has been described as perfect, miraculous, and even heroic, has a storied aviation career. He was a flight instructor, an airline accident investigator, an F-4 pilot in the United States Air Force, and, maybe most relevant to yesterday’s crash landing, a certified glider pilot. More specifically, Sullenberger has earned a “C” badge from the Soaring Society of America (SSA), which oversees gliding (or soaring) clubs around the country. So what exactly is gliding, and what does it have to do with safely parking an Airbus 320 in a river? Soaring is still a relatively small aviation niche, where pilots learn to fly small, unpowered gliders. These specialized planes are either towed into the air by powered planes, or launched by ground vehicles or winches, much like a kite. Staying aloft means watching the air and ground for potential sources of lift—a city or town, for example, tends to release rising hot air, and mountain ranges can whip winds upwards in waves. Glider pilots must fly with a Federal Aviation Administration examiner, and pass a written test, to receive certification. And although the SSA’s badges have no direct relation to certification—one pilot we spoke to referred to them as “gliding merit badges”—they can generally indicate the amount of time a pilot has spent in the cockpit of gliders, meeting specific knowledge, distance and maneuver criteria. Sullenberger’s “C” badge is the third in a series of ABC ratings, received after gliding for at least an hour without an instructor, and landing within a relatively small area (500 ft.) with an instructor. It’s impossible to say for sure whether Sullenberger’s gliding experience played a part in yesterday’s landing (he has yet to speak to the press about the incident), but when Russ Hustead, a gliding instructor and owner of Arizona-based Sky King Soaring, first saw the news, he had a hunch. “I hypothesized right away that this pilot, whoever he was, was a glider,” says Hustead, who specializes in motorgliders, which can take off under their own power. Most of Hustead’s customers are commercial pilots, including airline captains, looking to add a glider rating to their licenses. “Part of my training is getting them over that initial fear, of the engine failing,” he says. “Airline pilots think, if they only have two engines, the worst that could happen is you could lose one. Gliders realize that the worst that could happen is you lose both.” Aircraft designed for gliding typically have glide ratios of 30 or 60 to 1, meaning that, with one mile of altitude, they could travel for 30 or 60 miles before landing. An Airbus 320 has a significantly worse glide ratio, but the basic rules of gliding, Hustead says, are universal. “If you lose all your power, your nose is pitched up, and you’re going to reach a stall in a matter of seconds. Unless pilot pushes the nose down, and starts accelerating, he’s a dead duck.” Hustead believes that Sullenberger’s glider instincts kicked in quickly. “When the engine turns off, whether you cut it off in a motorglider or it goes out on its own, your mind instantly switches to glider mode. He was smart enough to get the nose down, and consider himself a glider, and figure out where to glide to,” says Hustead. Unpowered landings are also a crucial part of glider training—after keeping the nose down for much of the approach, the pilot must pull off what amounts to a full-stall landing, reducing speed until the wings are no longer producing lift, and bringing the nose back up. The result is an extremely low-speed, low-impact landing. To Humstead, that matches descriptions of Sullenberger’s Hudson River landing. “That’s a glider’s instinct. It’s the most perfect landing on water I’ve ever heard of,” says Hustead. If Sullenberger’s gliding experience turns out to have helped saved lives, it wouldn’t be the first time. In 1983, Air Canada Flight 143 ran out of fuel 41,000 feet over Ontario with 61 passengers onboard (the culprit was an embarrassing mix of human error and faulty fuel gauges). Captain Robert Pearson, a certified glider, was able to safely land the Boeing 767 at a small airport in Manitoba. “I always say that glider pilots are the safest pilots. When the engine goes out, you’re ready for it,” says Hustead. “I would also hazard a guess that it’s a good reason for power pilots to get their certification. They can come down here—I’ll take them up anytime.” —Erik Sofge http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/scie...ah_buzz&mag=pop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 PopularMechanics is really going to town on this incident. The following link will provide you with a visual of the "Ditch Switch" and it's location on the overhead Panel. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/scie...ah_buzz&mag=pop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innuendo Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Chesley B. Sullenberger, the US Airways pilot whose splashdown in the Hudson River yesterday has been described as perfect, miraculous, and even heroic, has a storied aviation career. He was a flight instructor, an airline accident investigator, an F-4 pilot in the United States Air Force, and, maybe most relevant to yesterday’s crash landing, a certified glider pilot. As it happens Bob Pearson, (Gimli, if there is anyone who does not recognise the name), was active in the Gliding Club at Hawkesbury just west of YUL., in fact I think he served as club Prez for a while. Not sure about Captain Piche but it looks like these guys are quick studies, a bit like being dumped in the deep end of the pool for your first swimming lesson. I can remember trying deadstick work in the DC-9 sim a long time ago, (nothing formal), and the sim flew very well, but trying to judge a flight path cold, with little idea of distance from available altitude, was not easy. Obviously great work all these gents. Edit: Just read the quote to the bottom and I guess I am repeating the info about Bob. Sorry about that, but I will let my post stand for the rest of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Evidently both engines departed the aircraft. The US Airways Airbus A320 that crashed into the Hudson River yesterday has been towed to a dock in New York’s Battery Park, but it is missing both CFM-56 turbofan engines and divers, thwarted by strong currents and cold weather, have been unable to recover both the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) from the tail of the aircraft. All 155 passengers and crew members survived the emergency water landing after the U.S. Airways Flight 1549 apparently lost power in both engines after taking off from Runway 4 at LaGuardia Airport and reportedly striking a flock of birds. National Transportation Safety Board member Kitty Higgins, leading a team of 20 federal investigators, expressed confidence that the engines and recorders would be recovered. Higgins said that the Army Corps of Engineers was working to map the aircraft’s water run and that side-scan sonar would be used to find the engines, which presumably detached at impact. Photos of the aircraft show the flaps and slats extended. She said the recorders would be removed from the ten-year-old aircraft once it was lifted out of the water and onto a barge for transport. That is expected to occur tomorrow. The flight crew underwent drug testing today and will be interviewed by investigators tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Evidently both engines departed the aircraft. ...As they are want (wont?) to do. HUGE absorbtion of ditching impact. This accident will go into the history books as the textbook way of doing such a thing. Will be interesting to see the reaction of the tree/bird - lovers: We've given ground on aviation safety for noise abatement and birds. Maybe it's time to counter both with #4 Birdshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=hiIZUF6oN-A Notice Concorde in the background, I guess they could just leave the A320 there as a museum exhibit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 "All commercial airliners are required to have a ditch switch according to Federal Aviation Administration regulations." ?? Where's the ditch switch on my NG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 your NG is Canadian Registered and therefore does not require it per the FAA. The regs are different here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 so a Southwest NG would have this magical switch? I bet it's under the captain's seat so when he's reaching down to hug his a$$ he can flip it at the same time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 The ditching switch may be in the FAA certification standards today, but I highly doubt that US registered 737s would be equipped with them as a matter of course. The 737 was certified many years before that standard would have been in place. The coverage that "the switch" is getting is a little over the top, IMHO. The QRH ditching procedure for Boeings has the crew carry out the same actions that the ditching switch does on the A320, it's just not a single action to make it happen. The switch is a great idea, but that in itself does not necessarily make an Airbus "safer" when ditching than a Boeing would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 The following link shows a US Coast Guard video of USAir 1549. The landing happens on the left side of the screen at 2 minutes into the video (3:31:01 p.m.) but it's not very clear. Once they realize that the aircraft is in the water, they zoom in the camera and you get a pretty good close-up of the initial evacuation. The first ferry arrives on the scene about 3:40 after they landed. The speed of the river current is fairly evident in the later minutes of the video. Pretty amazing stuff! USAir 1549 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.