Airliner crashes into Hudson River after LGA departure

In article e452f9d1-7e41-400a-9d21-
, says...
On Jan 15, 5:32*pm, Shirl wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
CNN is reporting all 135 on board got off the plane (and didn't get
wet!) Apparently a flock of geese got in the way soon after takeoff,
and both engines sucked in birds. Damn the luck...

Depends how you choose to view it. I'd say their luck was pretty damn
good!

Once, at general aviation speeds, we saw a flock of what seemed to be
canada geese at constant bearing out our windscreen. Sailers say
"Constant bearing means collision".

Just sailors say that? - jeez, whereabouts do *you* touch down on the
RWY?

--
Duncan

On Jan 15, 4:01*pm, Kingfish wrote:
Holy smokes! CNN is reporting an airliner went down in the Hudson
after departing LaGuardia. I heard something about birdstrikes, but
can't imagine a double engine failure due to that(?) They sure picked
a cold day to go swimming... Hope everybody is ok...

If you go to

http://www4.passur.com/lga.html

and search to about 15:26pm, you'll see the ill-fated flight. He gets
up to around 3400 feet, and then makes an immediate 180 trying to get
back to La Guardia. Seeing that was impossible, he headed for the
Hudson, and very nearly collided with a Eurocopter flying north at
1000 feet along the river. The copter pilot dodged out of the way,
then circled back to where the plane hit the water.

I'm absolutely astonished that plane didn't flip when it hit the
water. They got real lucky today, as it's absolutely freezing up here
right now.

Guy Elden Jr writes:

I'm absolutely astonished that plane didn't flip when it hit the
water.

Why?

Guy Elden Jr writes:
I'm absolutely astonished that plane didn't flip when it hit the
water.

Witness said they held the nose up and that it looked like a normal
landing only on water instead of a runway. Amazing job.

Shirl wrote:
Witness said they held the nose up and that it looked like a normal
landing only on water instead of a runway.

Surprise!

On Jan 15, 5:02*pm, John Smith wrote:
Shirl wrote:
Witness said they held the nose up and that it looked like a normal
landing only on water instead of a runway.

Surprise!

Who knew, Airbuses float...JG

Witness also said gear was down. If true, was bad decision.

Big John

************************************************** ************
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:54:53 -0700, Shirl
wrote:

Guy Elden Jr writes:
I'm absolutely astonished that plane didn't flip when it hit the
water.

Witness said they held the nose up and that it looked like a normal
landing only on water instead of a runway. Amazing job.

Tech Support wrote:

Witness also said gear was down. If true, was bad decision.

How many airliners have you successfully ditched? So who are you to
second-guess this astonishingly perfect outcome?

Big John

Way too big.

Tech Support wrote in message
...
Witness also said gear was down. If true, was bad decision.

Big John

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

I wonder if the gear was still down from take off, and they didn't have time
or power to lift it.

On Jan 16, 11:20*am, Tech Support wrote:
Witness also said gear was down. If true, was bad decision.


I know what usually happens if a GA plane ditches with the gear down,
and only assume the same would happen to a big transport. After
hearing more about the pilot's background and experience I seriously
doubt he would make that kind of mistake. Witnesses are notoriously
unreliable, especially the casual observer, non-aviation type. At any
rate, the captain made the right decision when put in a tight spot.
The jet could have made it back to LGA on one engine easily enough,
losing both is a nightmare scenario.