US Air in the Hudson

[GAHorn]

Last night after my client's had completed their sim lesson, at their request, we actually simulated the crash in the simulator, by taking off from LaGuardia and turning westbound, failing both engines, and ditching in the Hudson. No big choice to make actually, it's the only option.

It's very fortunate that no one was more seriously hurt or drowned. Very rare. I'm disappointed the rest of the crew, the ones who performed the majority of the job of evacuating the passengers, haven't rec'd more recognition for their fantastic performance.

Very fortunate indeed that the time of day coincided with the ferries being manned for rush hour, making them available for service...and the ferry crews who immediately swung into rescue-mode...an action they doubtless had little (if any) training for.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George having spent about 3 years flying over all that area in NYC I can tell you those ferries are always there. Granted there may have been one or two more than usual for rush hour but there are some all the time. You might be interested to know it was reported that the ferries and the crew actually do practice water rescues once a month. As much presents as they have on the water I'm not surprised.

[Brad Brady]

George having spent about 3 years flying over all that area in NYC I can tell you those ferries are always there. Granted there may have been one or two more than usual for rush hour but there are some all the time. You might be interested to know it was reported that the ferries and there crew actually do practice water rescues once a month. As much presents as they have on the water I'm not surprised.

Obviously, I don't know the area as well as you, Bruce, The Pilot thought maybe he could make Tetersburgh.....with Manhattan I believe, in between......He made a hard....and correct decision by going into the Hudson....He had seconds to make a decision....says a lot about his training.....I also heard that he sets up emergency training for the company.....looks like his ideas work!!!!!!!

[GAHorn]

I've flown the area considerably, including KJFK, KISP, and lots of Newark and Teterboro, but certainly not as fluent up there as you, Bruce.
I didn't mean to imply the ferry crews didn't know how to handle a water rescue. I just didn't think they'd had
much experience in dealing with ditched airliners, having doubted that would be in their training program.
They certainly all did a fine job.

[canav8]

Hey Guys if you want to see something really interesting have a look at this:
http://www4.passur.com/lga.html

Type in Jan 15 for the date.

Type in the time of: 1526

Start

Looks like they scared the hell out of N461SA, the helicopter outfit.


GREAT JOB.................

[n2582d]

George,
I noted the same thing--by watching the news one would think this was a single-pilot airplane. The F/O and flight attendants deserve a lot of credit as well.

On Dec. 31 I happened to be jumpseating home from CLT-SFO. The other jumpseat was taken by a guy named Sully. When I saw the news of the ditching the Capt. looked very familar. Then they talked about all his credentials. I would never have guessed as he was the most unassuming guy. Now I wish I hadn't been sleeping for half the ride to SFO. http://safetyreliability.com/about_us

[voorheesh]

The more we learn of this accident, the more we realize what an extraordinary event this was. The pilot is reported to be glider rated which, I believe is a large factor in his ability to make such an incredible approach and landing. A glider pilot has an instinctive ability to manage energy and put an aircraft in a position where a safe landing can be accomplished in a compressed timeframe and in an unanticipated location. There is a picture on the internet showing that the tail of the aircraft contacted the river first, allowing it to slow gradually and settle on to the water without losing control or breaking up. Do you think this pilot had some experience in taildraggers? I'll bet he did. Then there is the Airbus, an airplane with a "fly by wire" system where the pilot makes control inputs (pitch/role/yaw) through potentiometers and a computer that sends signals to the flight controls unlike more conventional airplanes where the control yoke/rudder pedals are "mechanically" connected. The computer in the airbus has a control envelope that will not allow inputs that will exceed aerodynamic capabilities or create unsafe flight conditions. (To our engineers this is an oversimplification, but...) It makes you wonder if this technology played some role in the successful outcome of this flight. When your engine(s) quit, the ship becomes a container to safely get the occupants back to earth. This guy could write the textbook on that.

[canav8]

Have a look at this video,
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-183256

[n3833v]

I am wondering, don't the engines have to be operating to apply reverse thrusters for landing on short runways? My thoughts are this was his only option.

John

[flyguy]

http://www.timesleader.com/news/_lsquo_ ... -2009.html

His story is one of an extraordinary fellow. It has always been felt that too many airline pilots were just airborne bus drivers and flew for only the bucks. The story of the 15 year old duster pilot kinda puts this guy in a different light, and the Miracle at 34th St. could have read "God is My Co-Pilot - but I have been preparing for this all my life"!

This story reveals one of the "big iron" drivers who is also a avid flyer too - - guys like our members here, who love airplanes - especially old Cessnas- - - Russ, Johneeb and the rest of you guys here on the forum who "earn" your living doing this, I hope you never have to encounter the same situation that "Scully" did but if it should happen I hope things turn out as well..

On going parts of the story

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Investi ... -2009.html

[n2582d]

The more we learn of this accident, the more we realize what an extraordinary event this was. The pilot is reported to be glider rated which, I believe is a large factor in his ability to make such an incredible approach and landing. A glider pilot has an instinctive ability to manage energy and put an aircraft in a position where a safe landing can be accomplished in a compressed timeframe and in an unanticipated location.

The one other double-engine failure that I can think of happened years ago in Canada. Again, it was the captain's skills as a glider pilot that saved the day. I think our airlines should pay for us to get our sailplane ratings. http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

[GAHorn]

I am wondering, don't the engines have to be operating to apply reverse thrusters for landing on short runways? My thoughts are this was his only option.

John

Thrust reversers are not considered in calculating landing or stopping distances. (That way their failure to perform doesn't penalize the anticipated operation.)

[johneeb]

I am wondering, don't the engines have to be operating to apply reverse thrusters for landing on short runways? My thoughts are this was his only option.

John

Thrust reversers are not considered in calculating landing or stopping distances. (That way their failure to perform doesn't penalize the anticipated operation.)

They do or did at Southwest until they went of the end of 31 at Midway. A policy that I hope Southwest has now dropped.

[voorheesh]

I believe George was referring to a performance rule that Part 25 airplanes like the airbus and 737 do not consider reverse thrust for either landing performance or for stopping after a rejected takeoff. I have been out of the airlines for over 10 years, but I recall that we had to be able to land within 60% of a destination airport runway length and 70% of an alternate airport runway length. Our performance charts considered runway gradient, contamination, etc. but did not consider reverse. This was a planning calculation that we met before release of our flight. If I remember, once airborne, we were not held to the rule and we certainly used reverse when it was necessary. I don't remember why SW did not use reverse at Midway but it was not because of a rule. Regarding Ole Gar's question, about why they didnt go for a runway last week, if the engines of that airliner flammed out, it was dependant on a ram air turbine (RAT) for electrical/hydraulic power to operate its primary flight controls. Flaps and slats would have been available but may have deployed slower and primary flight control may have been diminished because the RAT is not as powerfull as an engine. The approach speed for landing in that condition may have been higher than normal. Teterboro Airport has 6000' and 7000' runways and is surrounded by a congested area with towers and obstacles. To try and dead stick a crippled airliner into that scenario (including the lack of reverse) would have presented more hazards than what he faced by landing in the river (IMO). I do not know about the airlines today, but in the 80s and 90s we did not train for complete engine failures in simulators. We had to know what systems would be left if the engines quit and there may have been a speed chart, but that was about it. This was a case where a highly experienced pilot and crew made a correct decision and executed it flawlessly. It is an inspiration to all pilots. My reaction is to think about the what ifs and not take my enjoyable private flying for granted. This story tells me that we can be prepared and we can survive the unexpected.

[voorheesh]

Sorry, it was not Ole Gar's question but John Hess.