Hudson River Opportunity

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.

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

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/i...n126/Balls.jpg

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

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

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

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 |

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

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!

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