US Airways flight 1549 goes down in Hudson Rive

[Guest woxof]

CBC has a place specifically for pilots to post comments regarding this accident:

Pilot comments sought

Woxof's comment.

We know extremely little about what happened. Creating a hero out of the pilot is as bad as prejudging that is must have been an error. One must keep a completely unbiased and open mind like most investigators do. Remember, AC 767 pilots and AT 330 pilots were considered heros, but then the full truth came out.

However...I hope that the flight crew are the heros that the media and many others are claiming.

[Guest rattler]

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

Amazing video, thank you.

[handyman]

"All commercial airliners are required to have a ditch switch according to Federal Aviation Administration regulations."

?? Where's the ditch switch on my NG?

We fly FAA registered 747-400's and they don't have this switch! Is this a NEW reg?

[Guest woxof]

You can see the Concorde in the video. It is on the USS Intrepid museum very close by. Maybe the Airbus should be added to the museum.

[CanadaEH]

One must keep a completely unbiased and open mind like most investigators do.

Why not? Given the stories by passengers on that flight he obviously did something right for them to all walk/swim away from this crash.

[Guest woxof]

Why not? Given the stories by passengers on that flight he obviously did something right for them to all walk/swim away from this crash.

A bunch of pax in Gimli and tha Azores said similar. Passengers, as most investigators will tell you, don't necessarily and don't usually have a lot of detailed info on the root causes of an accident.

Of course, as you said, the pilot's likely did something right and hopefully....everything right.

[Azure]

CNN live feed of removal of aircraft from the Hudson.

http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream2

[Guest rattler]

The BBC has posted a new video showing the aircraft just prior to touchdown, during and after. You can view it at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7835497.stm

Also according to CNN, one engine remains attached.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The right engine of a US Airways plane that landed in the Hudson River Thursday is still attached to the aircraft, the National Transportation Safety Board said Saturday.

Heavy cranes were positioned Saturday to lift the US Airways jetliner out of the partially frozen Hudson River.

1 of 3 more photos »  Previously, the agency said both engines were on the river bottom. The NTSB on Saturday said divers did not see the right engine earlier because of low visibility in the water.

Authorities said they would begin trying to remove the plane from the icy river about 2 p.m.

Police already have recovered an aircraft door, 15 pieces of luggage, flotation cushions and other parts of the aircraft.

All belongings and debris will be turned over to the NTSB as part of the investigation, police said.

The flight data and cockpit voice recorders -- both critical to determining exactly what happened during the brief flight Thursday -- remained Friday on the aircraft, which was still largely submerged in the Hudson River but was secured to moorings.

Strong currents and cold water thwarted divers' efforts to retrieve the recorders from the tail section of the jetliner, NTSB spokeswoman Kitty Higgins said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/17/hudson.plane.crash/

[SimBoy]

I caught this frame on YouTube... very weird...

SimBoy

[pictues]

A bunch of pax in Gimli and tha Azores said similar. Passengers, as most investigators will tell you, don't necessarily and don't usually have a lot of detailed info on the root causes of an accident.

Of course, as you said, the pilot's likely did something right and hopefully....everything right.

this incident is different, so you are saying maybe somehow the pilots told the geese to fly in front of them????? No these pilots are heros, how the heck do you think that there is more to this story? just curious

[Super 80]

[Guest woxof]

this incident is different, so you are saying maybe somehow the pilots told the geese to fly in front of them?????  No these pilots are heros, how the heck do you think that there is more to this story? just curious

Actually, each incident is different from other incidents. There is always more to the story. Sometimes and hopefully positive, sometimes not. Perhaps mostly minor details.

Silly statements can be made about asking birds to do something. But more importantly, assumptions are frequently made that someone is a hero or a heel without sufficient information is in my opinion quite unsafe for a pilot(and others).

Why?...it shows that you jump to conclusions and that inevitably, in other ways will lead to a very unsafe situation.

Keeping an open mind is not criticism. Overreacting to doing so or prejudging is foolish.

[handyman]

Sure would like to hear more details of the actual technique used as he first hit the water. The control response and how it felt in the cockpit.

1. Pilot did a great job landing...no doubt there!

2. Airbus was much stronger than I predicted.

3. Aircraft floated much longer than I predicted it may.

[Guest rattler]

From an interview with the crew:

Note re the Ditch Switch.....

Accident: US Airways A320 at New York on Jan 15th 2009, ditched in Hudson River

By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Jan 18th 2009 01:38Z, last updated Sunday, Jan 18th 2009 14:22Z

In another news conference the NTSB reported about the result of the interviews with the flight crew. Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorders have not yet been evaluated.

The first officer (15,643 total flying hours) was new on the Airbus and had collected only 35 hours on that type so far. Flight US1549 from La Guardia to Charlotte was the last leg of their 4 day roster. The first officer was pilot flying, the captain was pilot monitoring on that leg.

The first officer said, that somewhere between 2500 and 5000 feet he saw a flock of birds to the right of the airplane and thought, they'd be above the birds. The flock was in a line formation (not in V-formation) and perfectly spaced. When the captain looked up from the instruments, he saw the windscreen "filled with birds", big dark brown birds. They heard several booms, both engines ran down resulting in total loss of thrust, the power loss was symmetrical. The captain took control of the airplane ("my aircraft" responded by the first officer with "your aircraft"), the first officer began to execute the dual engine failure checklist, a long 3-page checklist thought to normally be performed at cruise altitude. The checklist got never completed until touchdown, therefore the "ditch button" was not activated.

In the initial radio conversations with air traffic control after the bird strike the captain decided to not try La Guardia because they were too low, too slow, pointed the wrong way and there were too many buildings (obstacles). When Teterboro was brought up, the captain also decided not to attempt going there because Teterboro was even farther away, he had never been there and they'd have needed to fly over populated areas with catastrophic consequences if they didn't make it. Therefore he said "We're gonna be in the Hudson" and deliberately steered the airplane to touch down near a vessel on the river. He called for flaps 2, which were set by the first officer and called "Brace for impact". They lost electricity upon impact with the water. When he called "Evacuate", the flight attendants had already opened the doors.

The captain praised his crew: "I could not be more happy that we got everybody off the airplane" and attributed the outcome to the professionalism of his crew.

There was little communication on the flight deck, both pilots knew what they had to do and had split their tasks, the captain flying the airplane and the first officer attempting to restart the engines.

Late Saturday (Jan 17th) the Airbus A320 N106US was brought back onto dry ground again. Damages are mainly visible to the flaps and the right hand engine (which is still attached), while the fuselage looks almost undamaged. The black boxes (cockpit voice and flight data recorders) have been removed from the aircraft and are being sent to Washington for analysis.

http://avherald.com/h?article=41370ebc/0001&opt=0

[Fido]

I notice that the cargo doors are open in the picture just above. Did that happen on impact or were they opened just before the picture was taken?

[sustainable]

they would have had to open the cargo doors underwater to drain it before trying to lift it out.

[Fido]

That would be an interesting task. The forward door looks to be in the fully open position.

[Guest]

Just a dumb thought, but with large modern aircraft, nobody looks out the front window anymore. With nose up attitudes of 10-15 degrees, you almost have to raise your seat up to the highest level to see out the window.

They are watching engine parameters, v-speeds, rotation rate, and everything except outside the window. Positive rate is usually called by looking at instruments....., hey look out the window.

My rant. I've slowed rotation, or climbed rapidly by spotting a hazard out the window.

These guys did a great job, simple as that.

Good job.....

P.S. Don't be afraid to look out the window at what is in front of you.

[Guest rattler]

That would be an interesting task. The forward door looks to be in the fully open position.

In this video (1.47) the fwd hold hatch appears to be only partly open. http://news.google.com/nwshp?sourceid=navclient&topic=n

[Kip Powick]

Passed to me...... POST # ONE

from a retired pilot....

These are the thoughts of a couple of pilots and put out just for your interest and perusal

The first individual wrote this..........

Hero Pilot Faces Mandatory Retirement, Reduced Pension

At age 57, Chesley Sullenberger hardly qualifies as a geezer in my book. But as commercial airline pilots go, the man who is being hailed for his flawless emergency landing of a U.S. Airways jet in the Hudson River is certainly getting up there in years.

The San Francisco Examiner summarized their local hero's extensive background:

If a Hollywood producer called central casting in search of an actor to play a pilot in a disaster movie, he would probably wind up with somebody who looked a lot like "Sully" Sullenberger: the silver hair of experience, the trimmed mustache of precision and the kind of twinkly, fatherly eyes that lend confidence when accompanying a friendly "Welcome aboard."

Sullenberger has decades of experience not only flying planes-first F-4's for the US Air Force and since 1980 all kinds of aircraft for US Airways-but of studying and teaching how to fly them more safely. His resume shows experience flying everything from a glider to a jumbo jet.

After both engines blew, Sullenberger reportedly told his 150 passengers to "brace for impact because we're going down" before maneuvering over a bridge and between skyscrapers to land the plane safely on the river. He walked the legnth of the sinking jet twice to verify that noone was aboard before exiting himself. The Wall Street Journal described Sullenberger's handling of what it called "one of the rarest and most technically challenging feats in commercial aviation":

Although commercial jetliners are equipped with life vests and inflatable slides, there have been few successful attempts at water landings during the jet age. Indeed, even though pilots go through the motions of learning to ditch a plane in water, the generally held belief is that such landings would almost certainly result in fatalities.

Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III, a veteran US Airways pilot, pulled it off while simultaneously coping with numerous other challenges.

Might Sullenberger's 40 years of experience have something to with this feat? It's well worth asking, since until last year, the hero pilot would have been less than three years away from forced retirement. In December 2007, after decades of debate, the federal government finally passed a law raising the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots from 60 to 65. Until 2006, the United States wouldn't even allow foreign planes with pilots over 60 to land at American airports.

One reason older pilots wanted to keep working was to make up for their decimated pensions. When U.S. Airways went bankrupt (for the first time) in 2002, the company's underfunding of its pension plan had reached some $2.5 million. The federal government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. agreed to take over the plan, but is covering only a fraction of the losses.

As the Chicago Tribune reported at the time, older pilots who wanted to keep working faced opposition even from some of their own colleagues, who worried that "safety may be compromised since pilots in their 60s may find it tougher to battle fatigue or rebound from jet lag than younger colleagues."

These folks might want to ask the passengers on U.S. Airways Flight 1549 if they would have preferred a 30-year-old at the controls today.

POST # TWO (rebuttal??)from the second pilot

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX I feel that I have the right to add my two cents worth to XXXXX XXXXXXXXX comments in his writeup on the flight of US Airways 1549 as referenced above, which appeared in your most recent email newsletter of January 16th, 2009. Please feel free to publish this under opposing points of view, if you so choose as I feel the article proper to be rather overly prejudice in favor of the Captain and to him alone in its overall content. In fact, I hope that you might also send this out as I may be seriously missing something here and I don't want to be..!.

Although, like everyone else, I too am very glad that there was no loss of life along with little or no injury, etc., in this incident. But, for me at least, the seemingly never ending media attention this has been getting has grown a bit nauseous for a few reasons. May I also humbly suggest that some of the success of this outcome can be attributed to plain old good luck and opportunity of the day. That, rather than the great, quote/unquote, "skills", of the Captain.

Assuming that both engines actually blew, which is a rare occurance, that rather than, in the mist of the confusion, one of them didn't get inadvertently shut down. Which I hesitate to be even saying here. However, we all know, that there are documented cases where some, "less skilled pilots perhaps", have done just that. But apart from all of that, the weather that day had also co-operated and, as I understand it, you could see for miles. That, very obviously, being very much a contributing factor to the success of it all and hardly something that can be attributed to the skill and airmanship of the Captain. We must all wonder what the final outcome might have been if there had been a lot of cloud cover that day?.

As the author of your article would suggest, we all shiver at the thoughts of a water landing in a jet aircraft and indeed we all do. But if confronted with no other choice but landing on a river instead of a cabbage patch somewhere, I'm wondering if the Captain here didn't have many miles of very wide river to choose from? Albeit some of which may have had bridges or other obstacles, perhaps? But, since water landings are something we never practice in real life, all we can do is what the manuals would suggest and, in this case, the Captain got blessed with a very good measure of luck in doing so. To me at least, there were much higher degrees of skill, (along with some luck, no doubt), to be pondered when we think of Captain Pearson and his First Officer in Gimli incident, many years back. That, not to mention, the Air Transat Captain and FO who glided many miles to safe outcome in the Azors, both of which were at airports and, in the latter case, it was in the middle of the night.

Also, lest we all forget, "Captain Perfect", in this case also had a First Officer who, "presumably", wasn't sitting on his hands on that day, albeit a snotty nosed, "30 year old", perhaps . But I don't see him, (or her?), receiving any such acclamations in all of this media hoopla that's been going on since the event. We must also not forget that there were flight attendants onboard as well who, we must assume, were instrumental in that successful water evacuation without loss of life. Even though your author, along with the media, to me at least, seems to be subtly suggesting that the Captain did it all single handedly. Whatever happended to commending good old crew team concept here..?

I don't want to touch on the mandatory retirement issue as expressed in his newsletter article, except to say, hey, we can't all stay forever, can we! All of our personal financial situations, etc., at retirement being set aside, there are younger people who want, (and even deserve), our jobs. After over 30 years in the business myself, I learned a long time ago that many, (if not most), of these, so referenced, "30 year old pilots", are a whole lot more keen, up to date and knowledgeable than us, much older, types who have grown just simply a bit complacent and lazy, etc., over the years. With all of our, "silver hair of experience, trimmed mustaches of precision and our twinkly fatherly eyes", etc., all notwithstanding. Wow; where did your author ever come up with that one and, I am, quite frankly, taken back by what I perceive to be such a lopsided take on it all here.

and added this

Just a final word on the article) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Good morning again XXXXXXXXX

and with these last few lines I'll need no further followup, nor will I any longer be asking for equal time, thanks. However, I take it that while you were also, evidently, acting as newsletter editor, you reproduced the article for distrubtion in its entirety and where ever Captain XXXXXXXXXX may have dug it up is of little consequence to it all.

I took it as nothing short of a blatant and arrogant, (not to mention very nauseous), failure to ever recognize the entire rest of the crew and for their contributions to the success of it all. But if that all wasn't enough, it even went so far as to further snub younger and very capable pilots while doing so. (wow!) The underlying theme or tone of it all seeming being, that us older dudes should be allowed to stay on the job site as long as we may like, or until we're off to the nursing home maybe?.

Over my last number of years at work I can remember a very welcome change in attitude taking place as was clearly evidenced in such mandatory courses as cockpit resource management, (CRM), and recognizing good crew concept and the likes.

Anyhow, I'll take this in good spirt as an isolated case where an article got sent out in very poor taste that may not, necessarily, reflect the attitude and sentiments of our group as a whole, because we are a professional group after all.... aren't we.... and I thank you again.

Sincerely,

[Canus Chinookus]

My rant. I've slowed rotation, or climbed rapidly by spotting a hazard out the window.

I've called for delayed rotation numerous times over the years for migratory birds. I've even pitched up higher than 15 degrees for a short time to get above the birds, shortly after lift off. Bottom line is you can't avoid them if you don't see them.

[Canus Chinookus]

I just want to point out the 15,000 plus hour FO who was new to type, was the pilot flying when it all went down. The Captain took control and did the landing.

Not trying to second guess, but trying to decide how I would have handled it. In my training as a Captain it was recommended the FO flies while the captain handled keeping track of the big picture, making decisions, and running the checklists. Considering in my situation if my FO had only 35 hours on type, I think I would have been the one attempting the restart as there would have been no time for a checklist... that would have gone out the window having a dual engine failure(I'm assuming here) at such a low altitude. If there was any hope of a restart it would have had to be by memory and by any method. I think I'd also take the time to ask my FO who had more float experience before deciding who should land! Or maybe letting the FO fly until I abandoned the restart, and land it myself... interesting.

Would I land with only takeoff flap out? Or full flap? I think I'd go full flap as I think I'd still have a nose up attitude and would be going as slow as possible.

Every time I read about an emergency I try to put myself in their place and work out a strategy, since learning from other's experiences is just as important as learning from your own.

Whatever they did obviously worked as they all made it out alive. I'm still amazed that plane held together!

[Don Hudson]

Kip;

I fully concur with your friend's views - there is no heroism here, only experience brought to the fore, some luck and a very good airplane. I suspect Captain Sullenberger would say the very same thing - it is what we do when called upon - the rest, as they say, is for free.

There were a lot of engineers, lawmakers, policy-makers, instructors and safety people riding "in" that airplane. But for them, the outcome could have been substantially different.

To tone it down even more appropriately, we might contemplate the future of America West/US Airways also, if the outcome had been substantially different.

An airline pilots salary and career is a curious thing to contemplate; many beancounters do, but for the wrong reasons - maybe a few will cast their eyes towards the Hudson River with some recognition of what this member of our small community did - a number of us earn our entire career salary in five minutes, something neither financial people, shareholders or even some management, ever understand - it is upon such five-minute periods that the life of an airline turns. I wonder how many executives and investors truly attempt to understand that?

But there is another side to this, Kip and I know you see it. People today are crying out for leadership of the kind Captain Sullenberg exhibited. Fed up with an incessant effluent of corporate greed, unethical governance, millions-for-failure, and political failures in action everywhere, ordinary people everywhere are looking for the very embodiment of someone who has nothing to do with financial, speculative, economic or political "values", seeking human values instead - there is so little venue for such today. Courage, address, vision, and leadership so often are absent precisely when they are needed most, until a pin-point moment in time when the air fills with an awesome magic unimagined moments before - people walking out on a wing in the middle of one of the coldest days on record, alive and rescued within minutes, in a city which "deserves" it's heroes.

We needn't look far for another wonderful example: There is no mystery as to why hundreds of thousands of Canadians are accompanying Americans this coming Tuesday. How many thousands of "victory" parties were held on election night? How many tears of deep joy shed in relief and pure emotion at the prospects of following such a grand, larger-than-life man? Why? It is fascinating, as our connected world immerses us, beyond our choice now, in a stream of reality which most of the time is very tough to take.

You've perhaps heard the term "everyman", referenced in literature or elsewhere, far away from an unceasing, ubiquitous world of business? Captain Sullenberger is "everyman" right now and thousands, no, millions have crowned their hero even though you, I and the airline pilot community strongly eschew such attention and adulation - it is not in an airline pilots' nature to accept attention for merely doing what professional ethics and values command; - but for the fact that it is so very human and so natural and unforced a very human and public outpouring, an airline pilot would turn eyes away and return, perhaps affected but not unduly so, to the cockpit for the next cycle.

There are really two stories here, and I for one am embracing and enjoying both but you know upon which side of the fence we all stand. Thanks for the post.

[Mitch Cronin]

I'm still amazed that plane held together!

...and not only did it hold together for that, but it's still pretty darned together even after all the abuse it's been getting with boats running into it all over the place, and at the docks! Imagine tying the poor bird up, jammed against a wharf like that! ...now that's being "rode hard and put away wet"!...

I reckon more than a few people are re-examining their anti-Airbus prejudices these days.

320's are good little airplanes!

As for whether the Captain deserves all the hooplah... I bet he knows he doesn't, but seeing his wife beaming with pride on TV must have given him quite a charge.

I felt good for him seeing that.

[Guest rattler]

From the black box.

New York jet plunge data released 

The cockpit flight recorder was put on display for reporters

Flight data recorders show the engines of the US airliner which ditched in the Hudson River in New York cut out simultaneously, investigators say.

The Airbus A320 reached a top altitude of 3,200ft (975m) after take-off, then apparently collided with birds, the National Transport Safety Board said.

But it was still too early to draw firm conclusions, a spokeswoman added.

All 155 passengers and crew of Flight Flight 1549 survived the landing on the Hudson, which made headlines worldwide.

They were rescued by boats from the sinking aircraft, with its captain the last to leave.

The wreckage of the plane was lifted by crane from the icy waters onto a barge late on Saturday.

'Sound of thumps'

Kitty Higgins of the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed on Sunday that ice floes in the river were slowing the search for an engine thought to have separated from the plane when it ditched on Thursday afternoon.

911 callers describe the crash scene

But she said that the "black box" data appeared to confirm pilot testimony that the plane had collided with a flock of birds.

"About 90 seconds after take-off, the captain remarks about birds," she said, quoting the data recorder.

"One second later the cockpit voice recorder recorded the sound of thumps and rapid decrease of engine sounds. The captain acknowledges that both engines have lost power and he takes control of the aircraft."

Earlier, the plane's pilot, Capt Chesley B "Sully" Sullenberger, and his co-pilot, Jeff Skiles, described for the Board how they had suddenly seen "big, dark-brown birds" approaching, then registered them hitting the plane.

Capt Sullenberger took the decision to ditch the plane in the river dividing Manhattan from New Jersey.