A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 26th 20, 05:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Doug Levy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA
  #2  
Old September 26th 20, 09:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:48:36 PM UTC-7, Doug Levy wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA


That's pretty cartoonish - here is the accident investigation report:
http://data2.collectionscanada.gc.ca...e011083519.pdf
The bottom line is that all those involved had exactly zero training in how to do metric fuel load calculations.

Tom
  #3  
Old September 26th 20, 11:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Bralla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:48:36 PM UTC-7, Doug Levy wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA


If anyone wants to read the book about this (Freefall by William and Marilyn Hoffer) just pay for shipping (~$8) I'll send you mine.

Steve
  #4  
Old September 27th 20, 12:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA


Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
Glider?

The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?) became a
CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli and
Hudson incidents were glider pilots.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

  #5  
Old September 27th 20, 04:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kinsell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 546
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

On 9/26/20 5:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA


Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
Glider?

The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?) became a
CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli and
Hudson incidents were glider pilots.



Pardon me playing Captain Obvious, but the both involve landing
airliners with no power and no loss of life. But none of this is
exactly breaking news.

One thing that was interesting from the Gimli incident that wasn't
covered in that clip, the 767 had in-op fuel gauges and was allowed to
make the flight. Not the primary cause of the accident, but would have
provided much earlier notification of a problem than having an engine
flame out.

-Dave
  #6  
Old September 27th 20, 05:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

The last Boeing I flew was the 727 and it had fuel gauges behind a panel
on the under side of the right wing.* There was also a calibrated drip
stick.* I imagine the 767 has similar provisions and I also imagine that
the aircraft's MEL does not include the fuel gauges in the cockpit.* But
then I'm just imagining things...* In the first article I read about
this incident, a long time ago, they mentioned the inoperative cockpit
gauges and I think it mentioned that the flight was legal with no
in-cockpit gauges.

On 9/27/2020 9:28 AM, kinsell wrote:
On 9/26/20 5:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA


Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
Glider?

The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?) became a
CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli and
Hudson incidents were glider pilots.



Pardon me playing Captain Obvious, but the both involve landing
airliners with no power and no loss of life.* But none of this is
exactly breaking news.

One thing that was interesting from the Gimli incident that wasn't
covered in that clip, the 767 had in-op fuel gauges and was allowed to
make the flight.* Not the primary cause of the accident, but would
have provided much earlier notification of a problem than having an
engine flame out.

-Dave


--
Dan, 5J
  #7  
Old September 28th 20, 04:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Michael Opitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

At 16:32 27 September 2020, Dan Marotta wrote:
The last Boeing I flew was the 727 and it had fuel gauges behind a

panel
on the under side of the right wing.* There was also a calibrated drip
stick.* I imagine the 767 has similar provisions and I also imagine that


the aircraft's MEL does not include the fuel gauges in the cockpit.* But


then I'm just imagining things...* In the first article I read about
this incident, a long time ago, they mentioned the inoperative cockpit
gauges and I think it mentioned that the flight was legal with no
in-cockpit gauges.



Dan,

That was just it. The dripsticks do read in Pounds, and the crew
thought that because they were in Canada, the sticks would be
reading in Kilos. The crew assumed wrong by a factor of 2.2,
so they had less than half the fuel than they thought when they
had finished fueling. Lots of errors... Obviously no before fueling
dripstick readings, or paper calculations after getting the fuel offload
receipt from the fuel truck, etc....

RO




  #8  
Old September 28th 20, 06:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

Thanks for the followup.

I guess it's all the fault of that stupid metric system! =-O Got my
asbestos undies on...

On 9/28/2020 9:34 AM, Michael Opitz wrote:
At 16:32 27 September 2020, Dan Marotta wrote:
The last Boeing I flew was the 727 and it had fuel gauges behind a

panel
on the under side of the right wing.Â* There was also a calibrated drip
stick.Â* I imagine the 767 has similar provisions and I also imagine that
the aircraft's MEL does not include the fuel gauges in the cockpit.Â* But
then I'm just imagining things...Â* In the first article I read about
this incident, a long time ago, they mentioned the inoperative cockpit
gauges and I think it mentioned that the flight was legal with no
in-cockpit gauges.

Dan,

That was just it. The dripsticks do read in Pounds, and the crew
thought that because they were in Canada, the sticks would be
reading in Kilos. The crew assumed wrong by a factor of 2.2,
so they had less than half the fuel than they thought when they
had finished fueling. Lots of errors... Obviously no before fueling
dripstick readings, or paper calculations after getting the fuel offload
receipt from the fuel truck, etc....

RO





--
Dan, 5J
  #9  
Old September 29th 20, 03:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

On Monday, September 28, 2020 at 8:45:06 AM UTC-7, Michael Opitz wrote:
At 16:32 27 September 2020, Dan Marotta wrote:
The last Boeing I flew was the 727 and it had fuel gauges behind a

panel
on the under side of the right wing.* There was also a calibrated drip
stick.* I imagine the 767 has similar provisions and I also imagine that


the aircraft's MEL does not include the fuel gauges in the cockpit.* But


then I'm just imagining things...* In the first article I read about
this incident, a long time ago, they mentioned the inoperative cockpit
gauges and I think it mentioned that the flight was legal with no
in-cockpit gauges.



Dan,

That was just it. The dripsticks do read in Pounds, and the crew
thought that because they were in Canada, the sticks would be
reading in Kilos. The crew assumed wrong by a factor of 2.2,
so they had less than half the fuel than they thought when they
had finished fueling. Lots of errors... Obviously no before fueling
dripstick readings, or paper calculations after getting the fuel offload
receipt from the fuel truck, etc....

RO


The dripsticks don't read in pounds (a unit of weight), they read in cm (a unit of distance). The dripstick reading was converted to liters (a unit of volume) using fuel tank tables for the 767. The pilots and the ground crew screwed up when converting the volume (liters) to mass (kg) by using the wrong conversion factor (specific gravity) as I mentioned earlier. They ended up with a figure in pounds when the assumed it was kg, off by a factor of 2.2. This is all covered in agonizing detail in the accident investigation report that I referenced earlier. Incredibly, none of the crew, either ground or air, received any training in making these calculations.

Tom
  #10  
Old September 27th 20, 05:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 8:28:45 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
On 9/26/20 5:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA


Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
Glider?

The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?) became a
CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli and
Hudson incidents were glider pilots.



Pardon me playing Captain Obvious, but the both involve landing
airliners with no power and no loss of life. But none of this is
exactly breaking news.

One thing that was interesting from the Gimli incident that wasn't
covered in that clip, the 767 had in-op fuel gauges and was allowed to
make the flight. Not the primary cause of the accident, but would have
provided much earlier notification of a problem than having an engine
flame out.

-Dave


That is covered extensively in the accident report. The pilots violated the Minimum Equipment List, making it an illegal flight. The incident would never have occurred if their fuel computer was working, or if they used the correct specific gravity for fuel (they used the value for lb/l instead of kg/l, resulting in the loading of less than half the fuel required).

Tom
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sulleburger (USA Flt 1529) landing in the Hudson Animation J3mia03 Aviation Photos 0 February 16th 10 11:57 PM
Sulleburger's (USA Flt 1529) landing in the Hudson Animation J3mia03 Aviation Photos 1 February 16th 10 11:28 AM
Hudson landing animation John Cochrane Soaring 4 November 13th 09 09:44 PM
Check this Approach & Landing out! nmg175 Naval Aviation 5 September 27th 06 02:07 AM
Landing Check Lists Nyal Williams Soaring 24 December 31st 05 12:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.