Hudson River Opportunity

[Steve Freeman]

Although I have not heard anything on the radio or TV, the NY Times
this morning pointed out that the pilot of the Airbus is a certified
glider pilot. I think this provides the SSA with a rare opportunity to
potentially increase our membership by taking the following actions:

1. Immediately contact the major air carriers in the US and point out
the advantages the pilot had due to his glider training and how it
would help their entire group of pilots if they all had at least a
minimal experience in a glider. Suggest that they strongly encourage
all of their pilots to go out to their local glider club and take 2 or
3 rides to get a feel for piloting a glider. I know that they will
argue that they are able to train for this in the sim but this is much
less expensive and provides an opportunity to gain from the experience
of CFI's that work exclusively in the arena of unpowered flight. The
SSA could also suggest that they would be willing to discount the
flight cost at any club that air carrier pilots go to for flights.
Further, they also might suggest that if the air carrier wants to
provide this training for all of their pilots, the SSA will coordinate
so that the air carrier only has to make one payment to the SSA and
then they will reimburse the clubs around the US that provide the
service. I know this sounds like a coordination nightmare but it is a
rare opportunity to get a large number of already existing pilots
exposed to glider flight. If only 1% pursue the experience it would be
worth it. We moan and complain all the time about where we are going
to find new members. Here it is starring us in the face.

2. Find someone in the organization that knows the pilot and make a
personal appeal to him to mention when interviewed that although his
training at the airline was the largest factor, his training as a
glider pilot also helped and he would encourage all pilots to get some
training in gliders. If he is as good as they say and has as much
experience teaching crisis management he should be more than willing
to extol any training that helps in an emergency.



Nothing ventured nothing gained.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 16, 7:49*am, Steve Freeman > wrote:

> Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Wiki is amazing. They already have a full article on the incident
including a bio of the captain which includes his contact
information. You can send him an email with your suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549


Andy

[kirk.stant]

On Jan 16, 8:49*am, Steve Freeman > wrote:
> Although I have not heard anything on the radio or TV, the NY Times
> this morning pointed out that the pilot of the Airbus is a certified
> glider pilot. I think this provides the SSA with a rare opportunity to
> potentially increase our membership by taking the following actions:
>
> 1. Immediately contact the major air carriers in the US and point out
> the advantages the pilot had due to his glider training and how it
> would help their entire group of pilots if they all had at least a
> minimal experience in a glider. Suggest that they strongly encourage
> all of their pilots to go out to their local glider club and take 2 or
> 3 rides to get a feel for piloting a glider. I know that they will
> argue that they are able to train for this in the sim but this is much
> less expensive and provides an opportunity to gain from the experience
> of CFI's that work exclusively in the arena of unpowered flight. The
> SSA could also suggest that they would be willing to discount the
> flight cost at any club that air carrier pilots go to for flights.
> Further, they also might suggest that if the air carrier wants to
> provide this training for all of their pilots, the SSA will coordinate
> so that the air carrier only has to make one payment to the SSA and
> then they will reimburse the clubs around the US that provide the
> service. I know this sounds like a coordination nightmare but it is a
> rare opportunity to get a large number of already existing pilots
> exposed to glider flight. If only 1% pursue the experience it would be
> worth it. We moan and complain all the time about where we are going
> to find new members. Here it is starring us in the face.
>
> 2. Find someone in the organization that knows the pilot and make a
> personal appeal to him to mention when interviewed that although his
> training at the airline was the largest factor, his training as a
> glider pilot also helped and he would encourage all pilots to get some
> training in gliders. If he is as good as they say and has as much
> experience teaching crisis management he should be more than willing
> to extol any training that helps in an emergency.
>
> Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Well...one could also suggest that all airline pilots should attend
the Air Force Academy and then gain experience flying F-4s - a jet
that (from personal experience) requires a high level of airmanship
and stick and rudder skills!

Seriously, It probably all adds together - there is no substitute for
broad experience!

Kirk

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 16, 9:48*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:

> Well...one could also suggest that all airline pilots should attend
> the Air Force Academy and then gain experience flying F-4s - a jet
> that (from personal experience) requires a high level of airmanship
> and stick and rudder skills!

I noted that he did not have a seaplane rating and that one probably
would have been useful. He landed downstream though, perhaps he had
no other option with the altitude available. I don't know the Hudson
but it must have a fair current as the Airbus is reported to have gone
4 miles downstream before it was secured.

My only experience with the F4 was in a sim at Yuma. I crashed it
twice on approach before I understood what the shaking pedals meant ;)

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 8:57*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:48*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > Well...one could also suggest that all airline pilots should attend
> > the Air Force Academy and then gain experience flying F-4s - a jet
> > that (from personal experience) requires a high level of airmanship
> > and stick and rudder skills!
>
> I noted that he did not have a seaplane rating and that one probably
> would have been useful. *He landed downstream though, perhaps he had
> no other option with the altitude available. *I don't know the Hudson
> but it must have a fair current as the Airbus is reported to have gone
> 4 miles downstream before it was secured.
>
> My only experience with the F4 was in a sim at Yuma. *I crashed it
> twice on approach before I understood what the shaking pedals meant ;)
>
> Andy

It looks like he landed downwind as well. Everything else being equal
I'd probably prefer to land upWIND and downSTREAM to minimize the
relative speed between the aircraft and the water (in this case he got
the latter, but not the former). Given the reported 3,200' of altitude
when the bird strike happened it would seem he had few options. If
you look at the flight trace it appears from where the plane ended up
that they had enough to get to LGA runway 13 or TEB runway 24. But
perhaps the trace ends after the 4 miles of downstream drifting Andy
mentions. TEB and LGA are 10nm apart and the Airbus was roughly
between the two (a bit north) so if they were at 3200 feet when the
power went out they'd need a glide ratio of less than 10:1 to get to
the closer of the two. I don't know the glide angle of an unpowered
A320, but given the need to overfly densely populated real estate (in
one case midtown Manhattan) you gotta figure the Hudson looked pretty
attractive.

9B

[[email protected]]

>On Jan 16, 11:48*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
>...gain experience flying F-4s...

....what with its 1.1 to 1 glide ratio?

Good ol' Double Ugly--proof that even a barn can fly if you strap
enough thrust to it. ; )

Phantoms Phorever!

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:00:08 -0800, ablackburn6 wrote:
> It looks like he landed downwind as well. Everything else being equal
> I'd probably prefer to land upWIND and downSTREAM to minimize the
> relative speed between the aircraft and the water (in this case he got
> the latter, but not the former).
>
If he'd turned right to land upwind and upstream he would have been quite
a way from all potential rescue boats and hypothermia might have claimed
lives while help arrived. Would he have had time to take this into
consideration when deciding where to put it? Judging by the sat pic on
the BBC web site they seem to have only had 4 minutes between the bird
strike and the splash.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7833025.stm

Another point: I spent the winter of 76/77 in NYC and remember ice on the
Hudson. None of the pictures I've seen show ice round the ditching site,
but what's the ice situation up-river where he'd have sat down if he'd
turned right?

> Given the reported 3,200' of altitude
> when the bird strike happened it would seem he had few options. If you
> look at the flight trace it appears from where the plane ended up that
> they had enough to get to LGA runway 13 or TEB runway 24.
>
IIRC there are hills west of the George Washington Bridge that extend a
few miles along the NJ shore on both directions but I don't remember how
high they are. Would these have obstructed or posed a risk to a straight-
in approach to TEB 24 from his turn point? The satpic shows a dogleg
round the north of Manhattan Island, turning toward the river over the
lake just south of van Corlandt park and then tracking down the eastern
river bank until he was well past the GW bridge.

I don't know how accurate that track is, but it would certainly keep him
well clear of all tall buildings and the GW bridge superstructure.

> but given the need to overfly densely populated real estate (in
> one case midtown Manhattan) you gotta figure the Hudson looked
> pretty attractive.
>
Can't argue with that, particularly if, as reported, he had no flaps!


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Mike the Strike]

> Can't argue with that, particularly if, as reported, he had no flaps!
>

Early video of the aircraft in the water appears to show the flaps at
least partly deployed. Other reports also claim the left engine
separated on impact but the right one is still attached.

Mike

[jcarlyle]

Martin,
Martin,

Two observations regarding your post:

1. No ice in the river. Cold as all get out (air temp 20F), but no
ice.

2. Slats and flaps were deployed. Pictures in the NY Times this
morning showed the plane tied up at a NYC pier with the slaps and
flaps still out on the left wing.

"Sully" did a fantastic job ditching, but to me the real wonder was
the boats pulling everyone out so quickly. With such cold air, a swift
current, and some people immersed in the river after falling off the
wings, it's amazing no one was lost. If "Sully" landed where he did to
be near boats, he deserves all the thanks we can give him!

-John

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:00:08 -0800, ablackburn6 wrote:
> Another point: I spent the winter of 76/77 in NYC and remember ice on the
> Hudson. None of the pictures I've seen show ice round the ditching site,
> but what's the ice situation up-river where he'd have sat down if he'd
> turned right?
>
>
> Can't argue with that, particularly if, as reported, he had no flaps!
>

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

It might be best to talk to the pilot first. It is entirely possible that
he got his glider ratings 20 or more years ago and has not thought about
any of that for a long, long time. We wouldn't want to get egg on our
faces. (A search through FAA records for gliding instructors in my
sparsely populated mid-west state turns up more than 50, but at least half
these guys were ratings collectors who got the rating back when the 2-22
was a modern trainer and they haven't been near a glider since they got
the paper.) I hope that is not the case in this instance.



At 14:49 16 January 2009, Steve Freeman wrote:
>Although I have not heard anything on the radio or TV, the NY Times
>this morning pointed out that the pilot of the Airbus is a certified
>glider pilot. I think this provides the SSA with a rare opportunity to
>potentially increase our membership by taking the following actions:
>
>1. Immediately contact the major air carriers in the US and point out
>the advantages the pilot had due to his glider training and how it
>would help their entire group of pilots if they all had at least a
>minimal experience in a glider. Suggest that they strongly encourage
>all of their pilots to go out to their local glider club and take 2 or
>3 rides to get a feel for piloting a glider. I know that they will
>argue that they are able to train for this in the sim but this is much
>less expensive and provides an opportunity to gain from the experience
>of CFI's that work exclusively in the arena of unpowered flight. The
>SSA could also suggest that they would be willing to discount the
>flight cost at any club that air carrier pilots go to for flights.
>Further, they also might suggest that if the air carrier wants to
>provide this training for all of their pilots, the SSA will coordinate
>so that the air carrier only has to make one payment to the SSA and
>then they will reimburse the clubs around the US that provide the
>service. I know this sounds like a coordination nightmare but it is a
>rare opportunity to get a large number of already existing pilots
>exposed to glider flight. If only 1% pursue the experience it would be
>worth it. We moan and complain all the time about where we are going
>to find new members. Here it is starring us in the face.
>
>2. Find someone in the organization that knows the pilot and make a
>personal appeal to him to mention when interviewed that although his
>training at the airline was the largest factor, his training as a
>glider pilot also helped and he would encourage all pilots to get some
>training in gliders. If he is as good as they say and has as much
>experience teaching crisis management he should be more than willing
>to extol any training that helps in an emergency.
>
>
>
>Nothing ventured nothing gained.
>

[Greg Arnold[_2_]]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> It might be best to talk to the pilot first. It is entirely possible that
> he got his glider ratings 20 or more years ago and has not thought about
> any of that for a long, long time. We wouldn't want to get egg on our
> faces. (A search through FAA records for gliding instructors in my
> sparsely populated mid-west state turns up more than 50, but at least half
> these guys were ratings collectors who got the rating back when the 2-22
> was a modern trainer and they haven't been near a glider since they got
> the paper.) I hope that is not the case in this instance.


He is not listed on the members section of the SSA website.




>
>
> At 14:49 16 January 2009, Steve Freeman wrote:
>> Although I have not heard anything on the radio or TV, the NY Times
>> this morning pointed out that the pilot of the Airbus is a certified
>> glider pilot. I think this provides the SSA with a rare opportunity to
>> potentially increase our membership by taking the following actions:
>>
>> 1. Immediately contact the major air carriers in the US and point out
>> the advantages the pilot had due to his glider training and how it
>> would help their entire group of pilots if they all had at least a
>> minimal experience in a glider. Suggest that they strongly encourage
>> all of their pilots to go out to their local glider club and take 2 or
>> 3 rides to get a feel for piloting a glider. I know that they will
>> argue that they are able to train for this in the sim but this is much
>> less expensive and provides an opportunity to gain from the experience
>> of CFI's that work exclusively in the arena of unpowered flight. The
>> SSA could also suggest that they would be willing to discount the
>> flight cost at any club that air carrier pilots go to for flights.
>> Further, they also might suggest that if the air carrier wants to
>> provide this training for all of their pilots, the SSA will coordinate
>> so that the air carrier only has to make one payment to the SSA and
>> then they will reimburse the clubs around the US that provide the
>> service. I know this sounds like a coordination nightmare but it is a
>> rare opportunity to get a large number of already existing pilots
>> exposed to glider flight. If only 1% pursue the experience it would be
>> worth it. We moan and complain all the time about where we are going
>> to find new members. Here it is starring us in the face.
>>
>> 2. Find someone in the organization that knows the pilot and make a
>> personal appeal to him to mention when interviewed that although his
>> training at the airline was the largest factor, his training as a
>> glider pilot also helped and he would encourage all pilots to get some
>> training in gliders. If he is as good as they say and has as much
>> experience teaching crisis management he should be more than willing
>> to extol any training that helps in an emergency.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing ventured nothing gained.
>>

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:44:49 -0800, jcarlyle wrote:

> 2. Slats and flaps were deployed. Pictures in the NY Times this morning
> showed the plane tied up at a NYC pier with the slaps and flaps still
> out on the left wing.
>
I thought I'd seen a report of partial deployment. However, I also
remembered reading the report of the Air Transat Landing in the Azores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

That was an A330. It lost all hydraulics when the engines stopped, which
meant no flaps or spoilers. I didn't recall what type of Airbus that was
and assumed, wrongly, that the same problem would also get the A320. I'm
certain having flaps would have helped the ditching a lot, especially as
most of the fuel for the flight would have been on board.

> "Sully" did a fantastic job ditching, but to me the real wonder was the
> boats pulling everyone out so quickly. With such cold air, a swift
> current, and some people immersed in the river after falling off the
> wings, it's amazing no one was lost. If "Sully" landed where he did to
> be near boats, he deserves all the thanks we can give him!
>
Yes, a very good call indeed.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Mike the Strike]

On Jan 16, 3:28*pm, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:44:49 -0800, jcarlyle wrote:
> > 2. *Slats and flaps were deployed. Pictures in the NY Times this morning
> > showed the plane tied up at a NYC pier with the slaps and flaps still
> > out on the left wing.
>
> I thought I'd seen a report of partial deployment. However, I also
> remembered reading the report of the Air Transat Landing in the Azores.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
>
> That was an A330. It lost all hydraulics when the engines stopped, which
> meant no flaps or spoilers. I didn't recall what type of Airbus that was
> and assumed, wrongly, that the same problem would also get the A320.

Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. They
may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
hydraulic power for control to be retained.

Mike

[jcarlyle]

I'm almost positive there was a RAT to keep hydraulics for the flight
controls working - there certainly is on Boeing aircraft.

-John


On Jan 16, 5:35 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
> strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. They
> may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
> hydraulic power for control to be retained.
>
> Mike

[Tech Support]

Who knows with the French????

Must be some 320 drivers in group who can comment on this?

Big John

************************************************** *****************************
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:43:53 -0800 (PST), jcarlyle
> wrote:

>I'm almost positive there was a RAT to keep hydraulics for the flight
>controls working - there certainly is on Boeing aircraft.
>
>-John
>
>
>On Jan 16, 5:35 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>>
>> Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
>> strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. They
>> may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
>> hydraulic power for control to be retained.
>>
>> Mike

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:43:53 -0800, jcarlyle wrote:

> I'm almost positive there was a RAT to keep hydraulics for the flight
> controls working - there certainly is on Boeing aircraft.
>
Yes, same on the Airbus. However, on both the 767 (Gimli) and A330 (Air
Transat) the RAT only provided enough hydraulic power to drive the
primary flight controls and brakes, so both landed 'hot' with no flaps
deployed.

One account I read said the A330 had 30 mins battery backup for its glass
cockpit and radios. It landed after 19 minutes on glide. The Gimli 767's
glass cockpit quit with the engines, leaving just basic mechanical
instruments for navigation and landing, so they were lucky that P2 knew
the area and that the radios had backup batteries.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 2:35*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Jan 16, 3:28*pm, Martin Gregorie
>
> > wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:44:49 -0800, jcarlyle wrote:
> > > 2. *Slats and flaps were deployed. Pictures in the NY Times this morning
> > > showed the plane tied up at a NYC pier with the slaps and flaps still
> > > out on the left wing.
>
> > I thought I'd seen a report of partial deployment. However, I also
> > remembered reading the report of the Air Transat Landing in the Azores.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
>
> > That was an A330. It lost all hydraulics when the engines stopped, which
> > meant no flaps or spoilers. I didn't recall what type of Airbus that was
> > and assumed, wrongly, that the same problem would also get the A320.
>
> Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
> strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. *They
> may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
> hydraulic power for control to be retained.
>
> Mike

I think the A320 has a RAT for hydraulics as I doubt you can certify
an airplane that turns into a lawn dart without engine power.

TEB shows a field elevation of 9 feet. There are cliffs between the
airport and the Hudson, but if you are clear of the GW Bridge road
deck you are above the cliffs too. I recall reading a report that the
crew requested clearance into TEB but obviously didn't go there. It
wouldn't have been a straight-in from where they were. At least on the
river there are no obstacles if you end up short of your intended
touch down point.

I've had to make some hard decisions about final glide, but this was
higher stakes than any of those.

9B

[Mitch]

[IMG]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii80/mhudson126/Balls.jpg[/
IMG]

<a href="http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii80/mhudson126/?
action=view&current=Balls.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://
i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii80/mhudson126/Balls.jpg" border="0"
alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Mitch]

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii80/mhudson126/Balls.jpg

[Tech Support]

I posted this on RAP but the comment made by my friend fits the
situation exactally and I like to spread good things around.

Quote

Great job by the Air Bus driver. As always, the media passed right on
over what he did that marked him as a REAL pilot :-) After he went
post impact and had lost both fans, ATC gave him a clear corridor into
Teterboro. He had scant seconds to make the decision and he made the
right one. He looked at Teterboro, glanced at the altimeter, figured
the angles and did the math. He decided in that nano second that he
couldn't make Teterboro, and THAT decision made his entire salary for
a lifetime career. The rest was just good flying.

You can always count on the media to miss the main point.

Unquote

Big John

************************************************** *********************************

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:53:49 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>On Jan 16, 2:35*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 3:28*pm, Martin Gregorie
>>
>> > wrote:
>> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:44:49 -0800, jcarlyle wrote:
>> > > 2. *Slats and flaps were deployed. Pictures in the NY Times this morning
>> > > showed the plane tied up at a NYC pier with the slaps and flaps still
>> > > out on the left wing.
>>
>> > I thought I'd seen a report of partial deployment. However, I also
>> > remembered reading the report of the Air Transat Landing in the Azores.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
>>
>> > That was an A330. It lost all hydraulics when the engines stopped, which
>> > meant no flaps or spoilers. I didn't recall what type of Airbus that was
>> > and assumed, wrongly, that the same problem would also get the A320.
>>
>> Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
>> strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. *They
>> may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
>> hydraulic power for control to be retained.
>>
>> Mike
>
>I think the A320 has a RAT for hydraulics as I doubt you can certify
>an airplane that turns into a lawn dart without engine power.
>
>TEB shows a field elevation of 9 feet. There are cliffs between the
>airport and the Hudson, but if you are clear of the GW Bridge road
>deck you are above the cliffs too. I recall reading a report that the
>crew requested clearance into TEB but obviously didn't go there. It
>wouldn't have been a straight-in from where they were. At least on the
>river there are no obstacles if you end up short of your intended
>touch down point.
>
>I've had to make some hard decisions about final glide, but this was
>higher stakes than any of those.
>
>9B

[nimbus]

In this potential dramatic incident, I think that the pilots and
passengers were also very lucky.

I remember pictures of another ditching during winter, (I am not sure
it was the Hudson) were there were many survivors from the ditching
itself but.....most of them died by hypothermia because the water was
freezing. The time that rescue came....it was too late. Only a few
were able to reach ground thanks to the courage of some people would
could help them from ground.

[jcarlyle]

You're talking about Air Florida Flight 90, which went into the
Potomac River in Washington, DC back in 1982. A famous video shows one
bystander jumping into the icy river to rescue a woman who was too
cold to hang onto a rope.

-John

On Jan 17, 7:24 am, nimbus > wrote:
> In this potential dramatic incident, I think that the pilots and
> passengers were also very lucky.
>
> I remember pictures of another ditching during winter, (I am not sure
> it was the Hudson) were there were many survivors from the ditching
> itself but.....most of them died by hypothermia because the water was
> freezing. The time that rescue came....it was too late. Only a few
> were able to reach ground thanks to the courage of some people would
> could help them from ground.

[nimbus]

Yes indeed ! That's what I had in mind..
Bruno

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 16, 6:53*pm, wrote:
>
> I think the A320 has a RAT for hydraulics as I doubt you can certify
> an airplane that turns into a lawn dart without engine power.

I have spent much of my career working on Douglas jets and am not
nearly so familiar with Airbus. I did a bit of research yesterday.
Yes A320 has a RAT and it automatically deploys on loss of AC bus 1
and 2 which would happen if both engines lost power (and the APU was
not running). The RAT powers the hydraulic system that feeds the
primary flight controls and the slats. I think flap hydraulics are
provided by a battery driven pump when land recovery mode is selected.
If the APU was running, no electrical or hydraulic power is lost.

Unlike Douglas and I think Boeing jets, the Airbus RAT drives a
hydraulic pump and there is a hydraulic driven generator for
electical power. Douglas ADG (Air Driven Generator, DC-10, MD-10 ,
MD-11) is an electrical generator that can be used to power an
electric hydraulic pump.

Andy

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 16:57 16 January 2009, Andy wrote:
>On Jan 16, 9:48=A0am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
>
>I noted that he did not have a seaplane rating and that one probably
>would have been useful. He landed downstream though, perhaps he had
>no other option with the altitude available. I don't know the Hudson
>but it must have a fair current as the Airbus is reported to have gone
>4 miles downstream before it was secured.

The Hudson is an estuary, and the current past Manhattan runs both ways.
To know which way the river was running, he would have had to know the
state of the tide. Maybe he should have had some training as captain of a
racing sailboat.

Jim Beckman

[Peter Higgs]

Hi All, When we first saw those pictures of the passengers standing on
the wings we did not realise that there were no engines on the underside
of the wings. They had snapped off in the landing, making the plane a
much better boat.

I wonder if this is an Airbus design feature, which could be activated by
the 'Ditch Switch'. Next time I see any of the lads from Chester, I
will ask them just what the Ditch Switch does.

They certainly make very good planes at Broughton.

Pilot Pete

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:45:03 +0000, Peter Higgs wrote:

> I wonder if this is an Airbus design feature, which could be activated
> by the 'Ditch Switch'. Next time I see any of the lads from Chester, I
> will ask them just what the Ditch Switch does.
>
At least one thing it does is to close all vents and drain pipes on the
underside of the plane to keep it afloat as long as possible.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 10:07*am, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:45:03 +0000, Peter Higgs wrote:
> > I wonder if this is an Airbus design feature, which could be activated
> > by the 'Ditch Switch'. Next time I see any of the lads from Chester, I
> > will ask them just what the Ditch Switch does.
>
> At least one thing it does is to close all vents and drain pipes on the
> underside of the plane to keep it afloat as long as possible.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

From the USAirways A320 Pilot Handbook...

Ditching PB (Guarded) (PB = push button)
ON: The operating system sends a "close" signal to the outflow valve,
emergency rams air intake, avionics ventilation inlet and extract
valves, pack flow control valves, and forward cargo isolation out
valve (if installed).

Steve (Retired -USAirways)

[jcarlyle]

If you go here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/this_video_apparently_comes_from.php
there is an uncut video from a surveillance camera. It shows the last
few seconds of 1549's water landing, the exit of the passengers, and
the arrival of three ferries. Plane lands at about 2 minutes in, a lot
of passengers out within a minute, the first ferry arrives within 4
minutes.

-John

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 6:45*am, Peter Higgs >
wrote:
> Hi All, When we first saw those pictures of the passengers standing on
> the wings we did not realise that there were no engines on the underside
> of the wings. They had snapped off in the landing, making the plane a
> much better boat.
>
> I wonder if this is an Airbus design feature, which could be activated by
> the 'Ditch Switch'. Next time I see any of the lads from Chester, I
> will ask them just what the Ditch Switch does.
>
> They certainly make very good planes at Broughton.
>
> Pilot Pete

I'm pretty sure it's a design feature. The underwing mounting of big
fans like that creates a pretty big downward pitching moment when they
hit something as dense as water. It could easily cause the plane to
submarine/break up/tumble upon contact with the water. The force is in
the opposite direction as typical thrust loads and presumably you can
design a mount that shears under that type of load.

I doubt you'd need (or want!) a button that sheds the engines, though
it raises the possibility of all kinds of practical jokes in the
cockpit.

9B

[John Smith]

wrote:

>> They had snapped off in the landing, making the plane a
>> much better boat.
>>
>> I wonder if this is an Airbus design feature,

> I'm pretty sure it's a design feature. The underwing mounting of big

I should be examinated then why the feature didn't work on the right side.

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

At moments 3:57 and 4:17 a bizjet buzzes the site; who knows about that?

At 17:44 17 January 2009, jcarlyle wrote:
>If you go here:
>http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/this_video_apparently_comes_from.php
>there is an uncut video from a surveillance camera. It shows the last
>few seconds of 1549's water landing, the exit of the passengers, and
>the arrival of three ferries. Plane lands at about 2 minutes in, a lot
>of passengers out within a minute, the first ferry arrives within 4
>minutes.
>
>-John
>

[[email protected]]

On Jan 17, 6:45*am, Peter Higgs >
wrote:
> Hi All, When we first saw those pictures of the passengers standing on
> the wings we did not realise that there were no engines on the underside
> of the wings. They had snapped off in the landing, making the plane a
> much better boat.
>
> I wonder if this is an Airbus design feature, which could be activated by
> the 'Ditch Switch'. Next time I see any of the lads from Chester, I
> will ask them just what the Ditch Switch does.
>
> They certainly make very good planes at Broughton.
>
> Pilot Pete


Slightly off topic but..... http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/
CM

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 17, 11:15*am, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> At moments 3:57 and 4:17 a bizjet buzzes the site; who knows about that?

The one that looks like the Concorde sitting on the deck of the
Intrepid? :-)

If there is a low flying jet I am missing it.

Darryl

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

There is a clock running in the lower left of the video; pause at 3:57 and
start again. You can back it up and repeat. Try the same thing at 4:16.



At 20:01 17 January 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>On Jan 17, 11:15=A0am, Nyal Williams wrote:
>> At moments 3:57 and 4:17 a bizjet buzzes the site; who knows about
that?
>
>The one that looks like the Concorde sitting on the deck of the
>Intrepid? :-)
>
>If there is a low flying jet I am missing it.
>
>Darryl
>

[jcarlyle]

Nyal, Darryl called it correctly - it's the Concorde sitting on the
Intrepid!

-John

On Jan 17, 4:00 pm, Nyal Williams > wrote:
> There is a clock running in the lower left of the video; pause at 3:57 and
> start again. You can back it up and repeat. Try the same thing at 4:16.
>
> At 20:01 17 January 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> >On Jan 17, 11:15=A0am, Nyal Williams wrote:
> >> At moments 3:57 and 4:17 a bizjet buzzes the site; who knows about
> that?
>
> >The one that looks like the Concorde sitting on the deck of the
> >Intrepid? :-)
>
> >If there is a low flying jet I am missing it.
>
> >Darryl

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Fooled me; it appeared to be in the air. Hm-m, do you think the captain
saw that and thought the river was a runway? <grin>

At 21:16 17 January 2009, jcarlyle wrote:
>Nyal, Darryl called it correctly - it's the Concorde sitting on the
>Intrepid!
>
>-John
>
>On Jan 17, 4:00 pm, Nyal Williams wrote:
>> There is a clock running in the lower left of the video; pause at 3:57
>and
>> start again. You can back it up and repeat. Try the same thing at
4:16.
>>
>> At 20:01 17 January 2009, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 17, 11:15=A0am, Nyal Williams wrote:
>> >> At moments 3:57 and 4:17 a bizjet buzzes the site; who knows about
>> that?
>>
>> >The one that looks like the Concorde sitting on the deck of the
>> >Intrepid? :-)
>>
>> >If there is a low flying jet I am missing it.
>>
>> >Darryl
>
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

As I recall the engines used to fall off Boeing 707s fairly regularly in
flight, something to do with the fact that the pylons were secured to the
wings with frangible shear bolts

At 19:35 17 January 2009, wrote:
>On Jan 17, 6:45=A0am, Peter Higgs
>wrote:
>> Hi All, When we first saw those pictures of the passengers standing on
>> the wings we did not realise that there were no engines on the
underside
>> of the wings. They had snapped off in the landing, making the plane a
>> much better boat.
>>
>> I wonder if this is an Airbus design feature, which could be activated
>by
>> the 'Ditch Switch'. Next time I see any of the lads from Chester, I
>> will ask them just what the Ditch Switch does.
>>
>> They certainly make very good planes at Broughton.
>>
>> Pilot Pete
>
>
>Slightly off topic but.....
>http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPE=
>RGT/3384/
>CM
>

[howdy]

On Jan 16, 8:10*pm, Tech Support <> wrote:
> Who knows with the French????
>
> Must be some 320 drivers in group who can comment on this?
>
> Big John
>
> ************************************************** ******************************
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:43:53 -0800 (PST), jcarlyle
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >I'm almost positive there was a RAT to keep hydraulics for the flight
> >controls working - there certainly is on Boeing aircraft.
>
> >-John
>
> >On Jan 16, 5:35 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> >> Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
> >> strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. *They
> >> may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
> >> hydraulic power for control to be retained.
>
> >> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Howdy,

Just a few comments here. After the birdstrike, a left downwind back
to rwy 4 was quickest and most logical, or a short hop to the longer
runways at EWR (Newark), if they had power (same direction).
Obviously they didn't, so they were lined up for the Hudson.
Teterboro was a poor option because the route is over a densley
populated area and the 320 has a poor glide ratio (but great XC
speed!). Attempting to land at an unfamiliar airport, while trying to
set up and configure the airplane and while running out of altitude,
would have been off the scale risky. Did I mention that they were
heavy, though probably around 25k or so below gross weight. The
Hudson was a good choice and took the pressure off. It's like looking
for a landout field and finding a mile long hay field that's just been
cut and cleared. Why risk going over a forest to get to the airport
that's in marginal gliding distance? Good decision.

Current and wind didn't matter too much because there wasn't too much
of either, and besides, with limited room to manuver, limited
altitude, high sinkrate and a touchdown speed of around 130kts, the
few knots that would be shaved off the touchdown speed would be
negligable and not worth it. Again, my guess is that they were
setting up for a left downwind to LGA, if they could get power
restored. Did you see the "aviation expert" Dr. Phil say that they
cleared the GW bridge by "only" 900 ft.? They just come out of the
woodwork, don't they? Nuf said.

The RAT (ram air turbine for those who don't know) probably didn't
deploy because one or both of the engines were at or near idle or the
APU was started. The engines can take a lot of abuse and still stay
lit at idle power, so they most likely still had electrics and
hydraulics. The flaps were out, although I'm not sure if they were at
3 or full. Procedure calls for full.

Left engine sheared off, hence the right wing submerged first. I
don't know that it's a design feature but I would guess that it is.
Lose the engine to save the wing. Makes sense to me. Ditching
pushbutton that Steve described is very helpful in these situations,
and I'm sure helped. Everyone I know is amazed that it stayed afloat
as long as it did. Had the rear doors been opened, it would have been
different.

I have no doubt that God was with them because everything came
together perfectly. Sully did an outstanding job of orchestrating an
improbable situation to a great outcome. It couldn't have happened to
a better, more capable guy, not that I would wish it on anyone. I
can't wait to talk to him and get all the details. Just remember that
he had Jeff in the cockpit with him and three highly trained flight
attendents in the back. I'm sure that Jeff flew the airplane sometime
during the 3 minute flight and, when he didn't, was busier than the
proverbial one armed paper hanger diagnosing or setting up the "majic
boxes" (not the black ones). The flight attendents were suddenly,
and without warning, thrown into a ditching situation that only a
small handful of airline crews have, since the beginning of aviation,
ever experienced. As far as we can tell at this point they, as a
team, did everything the best it could have been done and, I think
their 150 passengers would agree.

[brtlmj]

> You're talking about Air Florida Flight 90, which went into the
> Potomac River in Washington, DC back in 1982. A famous video shows one
> bystander jumping into the icy river to rescue a woman who was too
> cold to hang onto a rope.

Another hero, "the man in the water":
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925257,00.html

B.

[jcarlyle]

His name was Arland D. Williams, Jr. Here's a Wiki write-up about
him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arland_D._Williams_Jr. It mentions
that the Time article was written before Arland's identity was known.

-John


On Jan 18, 12:05 am, brtlmj > wrote:
>
> Another hero, "the man in the water":http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925257,00.html
>
> B.

[[email protected]]

NTSB: Pilot landed in Hudson to avoid catastrophe

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:30 PM EST
The Associated Press
By LARRY NEUMEISTER and DAVID B. CARUSO Associated Press Writers

NEW YORK (AP) — The pilot of a crippled US Airways jetliner made a
split-second decision to put down in the Hudson River because trying
to return to the airport after birds knocked out both engines could
have led to a "catastrophic" crash in a populated neighborhood, he
told investigators Saturday.


Capt. Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger said that in the few minutes he
had to decide where to set down the powerless plane Thursday
afternoon, he felt it was "too low, too slow" and near too many
buildings to go anywhere else, according to the National
Transportation Safety Board account of his testimony.


The pilot and his first officer provided their first account to NTSB
investigators Saturday of what unfolded inside the cockpit of US
Airways Flight 1549 after it slammed into a flock of birds and lost
both engines.
Co-pilot Jeff Skiles, who was flying the plane at takeoff, saw the
birds coming in perfect formation, and made note of it. Sullenberger
looked up, and in an instant his windscreen was filled with big, dark-
brown birds.


"His instinct was to duck," said NTSB board member Kitty Higgins,
recounting their interview. Then there was a thump, the smell of
burning birds, and silence as both aircraft engines cut out.


The account illustrated how quickly things deteriorated after the bump
at 3,000 feet, and the pilots' swift realization that returning to
LaGuardia or getting to another airport was impossible.


With both engines out, Higgins said, flight attendants described
complete silence in the cabin, "like being in a library." A smoky haze
and the odor of burning metal or electronics filled the plane.


The blow had come out of nowhere. The NTSB said radar data confirmed
that the aircraft intersected a group of "primary targets," almost
certainly birds, as the jet climbed over the Bronx. Those targets had
not been on the radar screen of the air traffic controller who
approved the departure, Higgins said.


After the bird impact, Sullenberger told investigators he immediately
took over flying from his co-poilot and made a series of command
decisions.
Returning to LaGuardia, he quickly realized, was out. So was nearby
Teterboro Airport, where he had never flown before, and which would
require him to take the jet over densely populated northern New
Jersey.


"We can't do it," he told air traffic controllers. "We're gonna be in
the Hudson."


The co-pilot kept trying to restart the engines, while checking off
emergency landing procedures on a three-page list that the crew
normally begins at 35,000 feet.


Sullenberger guided the gliding jet over the George Washington Bridge
and looked for a place to land.


Pilots are trained to set down near a ship if they have to ditch, so
they can be rescued before sinking, and Sullenberger picked a stretch
of water near Manhattan's commuter ferry terminals. Rescuers were able
to arrive within minutes.


It all happened so fast, the crew never threw the aircraft's "ditch
switch," which seals off vents and holes in the fuselage to make it
more seaworthy.
As the details of the river landing emerged Saturday, investigators
worked to pull the airliner from the river. After they struggled most
of the day with logistics, a crane began trying to raise the submerged
jet late Saturday evening.


With its load of water, the craft was estimated to weigh 1 million
pounds. The process was expected to last into the night. The jet was
entirely submerged next to a sea wall in lower Manhattan and blocks of
ice blanketed the river surface.


The NTSB said sonar teams may have located the sunken left engine of
the plane. Preliminary radar reports identified an object directly
below the crash site.


Crews need to remove the cockpit voice and flight-data recorders and
find that engine. Divers originally thought both engines were lost,
but realized Saturday that one was still attached. The water had been
so dark and murky that they couldn't see it.


The investigation played out as authorities released the first video
showing the spectacular crash landing. Security cameras on a Manhattan
pier captured the Airbus A320 as it descended in a controlled glide,
then threw up a spray as it slid across the river on its belly.


The video also illustrated the swift current that pulled the plane
down the river as passengers walked out onto the wings and ferry boats
moved in for the rescue.


Authorities also released a frantic 911 call that captured the drama
of the flight. A man from the Bronx called at 3:29 p.m. Thursday,
three minutes after the plane took off.


"Oh my God! It was a big plane. I heard a big boom just now. We looked
up, and the plane came straight over us, and it was turning. Oh my
God!" the caller told 911.


At almost the same moment, the pilot told air-traffic controllers that
he would probably "end up in the Hudson."


Sullenberger was seen entering a conference room of a lower Manhattan
hotel, surrounded by federal investigators, before his interview
Saturday. The silver-haired pilot was wearing a white shirt and slacks
and seemed composed.


When a reporter approached him for comment, one of the officials
responded: "No chance."


NBC said "Today" show host Matt Lauer would interview Sullenberger
from Washington on Monday, a day before President-elect Barack Obama
is inaugurated.


His wife, Lorrie Sullenberger said "the enormity of the situation" had
only begun to sink in Friday night as she watched the news.


"It was actually the first time that I cried since the whole incident
started," she said on "The Early Show" on CBS. She also said the
family was making plans to attend the inauguration.


She suggested the happy ending was good for the country.


"I think everybody needed some good news, frankly," she said.


Experts say the threat that birds have long posed to aircraft has been
exacerbated by two new factors over the past 20 years: Airline engines
have been designed to run quieter, meaning that birds can't hear them
coming, and many birds living near airports have given up migrating
because they find the area hospitable year-round.


Canada geese, one of the most dangerous birds for aircraft,
historically migrate not because of cold but a lack of food. Winter
weather kills the grass they eat and sources of fresh water freeze
over.


But in developed areas, there is often both food and grass year round,
found in parks and golf courses.


And there isn't much that be done in the engineering of jet engines to
armor them against a strike without hurting their ability to generate
thrust.
The most vulnerable part of the engine is the fan, which can be bent
or smashed by an ingested bird. Pieces of busted blade then rip
through the rest of the engine like shrapnel.


Engines have been fortified so that they can stay intact in the event
of such a strike, but they usually cannot be restarted once they are
damaged, said Archie Dickey, an associate professor of aviation
environmental science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University's campus
in Prescott, Ariz.


He said hits hard enough to cause a total failure are rare, only
happening two or three times a year worldwide.


"That's extremely rare," Dickey said. "The chance of it hitting both
engines, I'd guess it is less than 1 percent."


Most bird strikes happen within five miles of an airport, lower than
1,000 feet, as planes are taking off or landing. Aircraft hit
thousands of birds every year, but they usually bounce off harmlessly.


The US Airways flight hit the birds at 3,000 feet, the NTSB says. That
caused a total engine failure, and the plane hit the river 3 1/2
minutes later.


"Brace! Brace! Head down!" the flight attendants shouted to the
passengers.


Then, they were in the water. Two flight attendants likened it to a
hard landing — nothing more. There was one impact, no bounce, then a
gradual deceleration.


"Neither one of them realized that they were in the water," Higgins
said.


The plane came to a stop. The captain gave a one-word command,
"Evacuate."

[Lew Hartswick]

jcarlyle wrote:

> If you go here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/this_video_apparently_comes_from.php
> there is an uncut video from a surveillance camera. It shows the last
> few seconds of 1549's water landing, the exit of the passengers, and
> the arrival of three ferries. Plane lands at about 2 minutes in, a lot
> of passengers out within a minute, the first ferry arrives within 4
> minutes.
>
> -John
That is some peice of video. The camera must have been remotely
controlled by either push buttons or key strokes, too bad it wasent
a joystick, it would have been smoother panning. Great coverage.
...lew...

[sisu1a]

> The investigation played out as authorities released the first video
> showing the spectacular crash landing. Security cameras on a Manhattan
> pier captured the Airbus A320 as it descended in a controlled glide,
> then threw up a spray as it slid across the river on its belly.
>
> The video also illustrated the swift current that pulled the plane
> down the river as passengers walked out onto the wings and ferry boats
> moved in for the rescue.

I think this is the video they refer to:
http://www.truveo.com/Newly-released-video-shows-plane-landing-on-Hudson/id/901984028
Nice flare...

-Paul

[Tech Support]

That accident was attributed to Pilot error as I remember.

Tried to take off with snow or frost or ice on wings.

Big John

************************************************** ****************



On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:40:05 -0800 (PST), jcarlyle
> wrote:

>His name was Arland D. Williams, Jr. Here's a Wiki write-up about
>him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arland_D._Williams_Jr. It mentions
>that the Time article was written before Arland's identity was known.
>
>-John
>
>
>On Jan 18, 12:05 am, brtlmj > wrote:
>>
>> Another hero, "the man in the water":http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925257,00.html
>>
>> B.

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:15:04 +0000, Nyal Williams wrote:

> At moments 3:57 and 4:17 a bizjet buzzes the site; who knows about that?
>
> At 17:44 17 January 2009, jcarlyle wrote:
>>If you go here:
>>http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/
this_video_apparently_comes_from.php
>>there is an uncut video from a surveillance camera. It shows the last
>>few seconds of 1549's water landing, the exit of the passengers, and the
>>arrival of three ferries. Plane lands at about 2 minutes in, a lot of
>>passengers out within a minute, the first ferry arrives within 4
>>minutes.
>>
It shows a lot more of a flow downriver than I'd expected. No other
footage I've seen has given any real idea of the rate of drift.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[brtlmj]

On Jan 18, 1:16*pm, Tech Support <> wrote:
> That accident was attributed to Pilot error as I remember.
> Tried to take off with snow or frost or ice on wings.

Icing in the engines disabled some sensors, and the pilots thought
they were developing much higher power than they really did. I recall
reading that the accident was avoidable - had they recognized what was
wrong and pushed the throttles forward...

B.

[TonyV[_2_]]

brtlmj wrote:
> On Jan 18, 1:16 pm, Tech Support <> wrote:
>> That accident was attributed to Pilot error as I remember.
>> Tried to take off with snow or frost or ice on wings.
>
> Icing in the engines disabled some sensors, and the pilots thought
> they were developing much higher power than they really did. I recall
> reading that the accident was avoidable - had they recognized what was
> wrong and pushed the throttles forward...

Shouldn't they have fire-walled the throttles regardless? I remember
reading about a Shorts driver, caught in a micro-burst, who did just
that - mandating an expensive engine hot section teardown. At the
"inquest" he was asked why he run his engines up to 120% of their rated
power. His answer was "I couldn't get any more".

Getting back to the Air Florida crash, the NTSB, when listening to the
cockpit voice recorder, immediately knew that the engines were not
producing enough power simply by the sound.

Tony V.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 17, 11:33*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jan 17, 8:27*pm, howdy > wrote:> On Jan 16, 8:10*pm, Tech Support <> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Everyone I know is amazed that it stayed afloat
> > as long as it did. *Had the rear doors been opened, it would have been
> > different.
>
> [snip]
>
> Notice some news reports are describing the rear door being partially
> opened (by a passenger) e.g. seehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090118/ap_on_re_us/plane_splashdown
>
> Darryl

Also note, AP is reporting the crew say they did not have time to
activate the ditch switch. e.g. see http://wcbstv.com/local/black.box.crash..2.911309.html

That sucker floated quite well if water was coming in the rear door
and the ditch switch was not activated.

Darryl

[ContestID67[_2_]]

What amazes me (and there is lots to be amazed about in all this) is
that there were no boats or bridges in the river to get in the way,
but there were quite a few very large boats (ferrys) that had fresh
crews, powered up and ready to go off for the afternoon commuter
rush. Maybe it is amazing that the river was wide enought at that
point, around Chicago you'd have a heck of a time finding a place to
land, except maybe Lake Michigan.

- John

[Tech Support]

Tony

You are probably right. Was a long time ago.

Think there was some discussion about snow or something on wing (long
time holding after de-ice) and power setting pilot used and
combination caused bird to not fly off normally in the snow storm on
R/W length available?

Is it just the American way for someone to risk his life to save
individuals involved in any kind of a catastrophe?

Big John
Big John



On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:51:31 -0500, TonyV
> wrote:

>brtlmj wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 1:16 pm, Tech Support <> wrote:
>>> That accident was attributed to Pilot error as I remember.
>>> Tried to take off with snow or frost or ice on wings.
>>
>> Icing in the engines disabled some sensors, and the pilots thought
>> they were developing much higher power than they really did. I recall
>> reading that the accident was avoidable - had they recognized what was
>> wrong and pushed the throttles forward...
>
>Shouldn't they have fire-walled the throttles regardless? I remember
>reading about a Shorts driver, caught in a micro-burst, who did just
>that - mandating an expensive engine hot section teardown. At the
>"inquest" he was asked why he run his engines up to 120% of their rated
>power. His answer was "I couldn't get any more".
>
>Getting back to the Air Florida crash, the NTSB, when listening to the
>cockpit voice recorder, immediately knew that the engines were not
>producing enough power simply by the sound.
>
>Tony V.

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:39:02 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:

> That sucker floated quite well if water was coming in the rear door
> and the ditch switch was not activated.
>
A report I saw today said the rear door was not opened. The cabin crew
realized it was partly underwater and stopped a passenger from trying to
open it.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 19, 9:32*am, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:39:02 -0800, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > That sucker floated quite well if water was coming in the rear door
> > and the ditch switch was not activated.
>
> A report I saw today said the rear door was not opened. The cabin crew
> realized it was partly underwater and stopped a passenger from trying to
> open it.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

There is at least one media report saying that a passenger was able to
partially open a rear door. There is also conflicting reports about
wether flight attendants tried to open the rear doors themselves first
or had asked passengers to do this before realizing this was a bad
idea. There are reports of passengers talking about water in the rear
of the plane fairly quickly. A door may have actually been partially
opened or this water from other sources may have made people think a
door was opened. I won't provide links here, it's easily googleable.
We will have to wait until clearer information to (hopefully) know for
sure, the NTSB report will be interesting reading.

Darryl

[John Smith]

TonyV wrote:

(Air Florida accident)
>> Icing in the engines disabled some sensors, and the pilots thought
>> they were developing much higher power than they really did. I recall
>> reading that the accident was avoidable - had they recognized what was
>> wrong and pushed the throttles forward...

I read that report not long ago, so I happen to remember the details:

Mistake 1: They used reverse thrust for push-back on ground. This was
against a clear company policy. Doing so, they sucked a lot of snow into
the engines.

Mistake 2: They forgot to engage the de-ice system of the engines. This
resulted in clogged probes, resulting in wrong power readings. (The
instruments showed much more power than the engines actually delivered.)

Mistake 3: The copilot realized during the take-off run that there was
not enough power. The captain ignored his warnings and continued the
take-off. He also ignored the fact that the take-off run needed 800
meters more than expected.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 17, 7:11*am, Andy > wrote:
> Yes A320 has a RAT and it automatically deploys on loss of AC bus 1
> and 2 which would happen if both engines lost power (and the APU was
> not running). *

Preliminary reports indicate the APU was running. The APU
manufacturer has even received a thank you message from one
passenger. I cannot see a deployed RAT in any of the salvage photos.
So either engines at or above idle, or the APU, would have been able
to provide normal electrical and hydraulic services.

Andy