Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Is Flight 1549 Likely Going To Improve Things  
User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6255 times:

I would like to start a discussion on the type of aviation and airline design improvements that may or are likely to come from Flight 1549. I do not want to discuss the crash or list and discuss NTSB investigation. I do not want to keep talking about the actions of the crew. There is another thread for that.

One of the truly amazing things is that virtually the entire ditching event was documented via pictures and videotape. Virtually 100% of the plane was recovered as well. This is unlike many aviation crashes where a lot of information just isn't known - and most of what is known is technical things in the hands of the NTSB (or equivalent agencies around the world), and not released for a year or more (if ever).

That is going to provide some incredibly valuable information and lessons. For example, I am sure that the Airbus will be doing a detailed evaluation of how their airframe stood up to the ditching - with implications for future airplane design.

I know that the concept of this thread is to speculate - but, I cannot think of a more educated group of people to speculate on what kind of lessons will be learned and how it will likely improve things in the future.

So given what we know - what kinds of things will be evaluated that will likely produce changes - in what areas? What kind of things has the event likely validated (possibly cementing some concept in place for all future aircraft and procedures)?


One item that I think will be obvious: A low altitude ditching checklist and simulator training.

Might their be a recommendation for the ferries (and other ships) to have a modest number of emergency blankets available for when they engage in rescue events (which they are required to respond to and are somewhat common).

I suspect that the analysis of how well the Airbus stood up to the ditching may well change design standards (lock in whatever Airbus used, or perhaps require some improvements, or parts of both).

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSCCutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5393 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5941 times:

Never say never, and I am no Airbus apologist, but unless and until I read well-documented and authoritative evidence that the A320's FBW systems allowed a rollback of still-functioning aircraft engines, I don't believe it.


...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5805 times:

I can assure you there will be no "ditching" training at the airlines. This is the only time this has happened, and the reason it went so well was because it happened in NYC and in the Hudson River. Had it happened anywhere else, including the ocean by NYC rather than the relative calm of the Hudson people would have died. Had they not been in a busy shipping lane, people would have died. While the entire crew did an incredible job, had any of these circumstances changed the outcome would not have been nearly as good.

One event is not enough to cause for wasting valuable training time and resources adding yet another checklist to an already crowded group of checklists. The odds of both engines being hit by birds on the same takeoff are extremely low. Further, there wasn't time to do much in the way of checklist performance.



DMI
User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5727 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
One event is not enough to cause for wasting valuable training time and resources adding yet another checklist to an already crowded group of checklists. The odds of both engines being hit by birds on the same takeoff are extremely low. Further, there wasn't time to do much in the way of checklist performance.

One event is not enough to cause changes in protocol? 9/11 as an event was more than enough to change quite a bit...so was TWA 800, the Everglades Express flight on Valujet, Tenerife, etc etc...



When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
User currently offlineLoveTheSkies From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5666 times:



Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
I can assure you there will be no "ditching" training at the airlines.

I had my first ditching training as a F/A 19 years ago in initial training and my most recent one during my last recurrent, June of 2008.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8204 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5628 times:



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 3):
One event is not enough to cause changes in protocol?

My 2c amateur opinion is that airlines will think about ditching, but there is nothing really to do regarding it. The slide deployment issue is interesting. This is relatively simple -- does an aircraft float in water in such a way that slides can be used?

Otherwise, what are you gonna do -- the pilots have 60-90 seconds to make the really important decisions. Every situation is different. Do the best you can, that is the strategy, that is the checklist.

As others have said, the probably of double bird strike is less than 1 in 100 million... it was a freak accident, and even in good circumstances the probability of survival is dismal. The "aviation system" is not designed to be safe for double bird strikes. It is hard to think how, in all earnestness, they could make a plan for something that.


User currently offlineSoxfan From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 862 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5621 times:



Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
The odds of both engines being hit by birds on the same takeoff are extremely low.

True, but there are other reasons why both engines may stall, such as mechanical malfunction.

Perhaps there were certain features on the Airbus aircraft which are not on Boeings, that might cause Boeing to add said feature or features? I have no knowledge about the technical aspects/specifications of planes so I can't back up the feature differences with examples, but is it even a remote possibility?



Pilot: "Request push, which way should we face?" JFK Ground: "You better face the front, sir, or you'll scare the pax!"
User currently offlineAeroHero128 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5516 times:



Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 3):
9/11 as an event was more than enough to change quite a bit...so was TWA 800, the Everglades Express flight on Valujet, Tenerife, etc etc...

Most of these events logged several hundred deaths, and many of these catastrophes were later found to be at least partly avoidable in retrospect. Flt 1549 really cannot be discussed in the same breath as the above disasters.

1) The sole casualty of AWE1549 was N106US itself. In fact, the plane was still largely intact, even if not airworthy.
2) Apart from legalizing a mass hunt for all fowl in the world, bird strikes will continue to evade our control for the foreseeable future. All we can do is design our planes to withstand them and our engines to ingest them as best as possible.
3) Even though Capt Sullenberger and the crew handled the whole thing beautifully, NO ONE could've guessed that it all would've ended so happily. Ditching is never a sure science, be it into the Hudson, the Atlantic, the ice caps, or the Sahara. The only guarantee is that you WILL hit the ground/water, soon. The fact that all ~150 people are still with us today is the result of, yes, a crew's skill and a plane's ruggedness, but primarily of LUCK.

As for what changes will happen in the future, AWE1549 will be cited as a specific successful ditch, but the curriculum in ditch training will not change much, if at all. That's because AWE1549 didn't change what we knew about ditching, but rather reinforced it.



Proceed on course...
User currently offlineTaxPilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 97 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5328 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Thread starter):
One item that I think will be obvious: A low altitude ditching checklist and simulator training.

Absolutely

Quoting AeroHero128 (Reply 7):
Most of these events logged several hundred deaths, and many of these catastrophes were later found to be at least partly avoidable in retrospect. Flt 1549 really cannot be discussed in the same breath as the above disasters.

I disagree. This potentially fatally disastrous situation, which resulted in a successful outcome, leaves us with a huge amount of valuable information to advance aviation safety. Otherwise, the NTSB investigation could be stopped now and the report written.

I think that this could also modify an age old mindset of pilots. That is "Don't Ding the Airplane". If you can get the plane on the ground with little or no damage, then the passengers will be OK. Going for the river, instead of trying to stretch it to make Teterboro, assured the destruction of the aircraft, but possibly avoided a deadly disaster.

Even from a "Bean Counters" standpoint, the total write-off of the aircraft, is far less than the economic loss of life and property destruction that could have happened.

We always have lots to learn and Flight 1549 will greatly contribute to our data base.


User currently offlineSNA350 From Belgium, joined Dec 2005, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5188 times:

Training in simulators is impossible because there is no A/C data available for such conditions
and I don't think Airbus will do ditching tests to obtain them



Aircraft flown: B733, B734, B736, B737, B738, B744, B752, B763, B772, A319, A320, A321, A343, A346, Do328, CRJ7, E190
User currently offlineAdam42185 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 408 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5087 times:



Quoting 2175301 (Thread starter):
Might their be a recommendation for the ferries (and other ships) to have a modest number of emergency blankets available for when they engage in rescue events (which they are required to respond to and are somewhat common).

I believe the transport authorities have contracts with the ferries which have them help in emergency situations such as this. I would presume things like extra blankets and life jackets are already on board. (life jackets obviously always on board ferries)

Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 3):
One event is not enough to cause changes in protocol? 9/11 as an event was more than enough to change quite a bit...so was TWA 800, the Everglades Express flight on Valujet, Tenerife, etc etc...

I have heard a saying that "The FARs are written in red ink" meaning that a new rule comes when someone dies or is in an accident.

That being said, nobody died in US1549 so I dont think any new FARs will come of it, but I do think that there is something to be said for idea of training pilots to land a plane in water in a proper manner. I dont think this will be a part of basic or required training, but as supplemental training for captains and such. I am still in college so dont know how the airlines work quite as well as I would like to yet, but are there airlines that have more specialized training for unique situations? or is it pretty much assumed that all situations with any likelyhood of happening are taken care of in normal training?


User currently offlineAfricawings From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4986 times:

I disagree with many of you here.

The Airbus design and the special "water seal" feature it has proved its worth. The life rafts all worked, the ditching process worked. It will become re-empasized as part of all airline crew training. The fact that I now know for a fact that there is a small chance for survival in an emergency ditching gives many of us tremendous hope.

When we all take our seats on a plane in the future we will pay special attention to the emergency exits and life raft wearing procedures. Boeing and Airbus will look into improvements to ensure its aircraft are water tight in the future. Are you kidding me?

There will be lots to research and discuss on this. Might even approach the govt. for a grant under the economic stimulus bill to study water ditching options and procedures.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4927 times:

As in the case of any ship sinking, the first questions always asked is were the life boats deployed and were there enough of them, in this incident that for me is the major question, were enough life rafts, slides etc. availabe for all pax. The slide did float but it appeared to be small, so a lot of pax actually had to stay on the wings of the a/c, if no boats were around to pick them up the extent of the tragedy would have increased.
How do you get the entire slide or the major portion of it to function as a raft, how do you get more rafts for all pax, those are my suggestions.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4088 times:



Quoting Africawings (Reply 11):
The Airbus design and the special "water seal" feature it has proved its worth.

What special "water seal" feature? Both Airbus and Boeing have procedures to seal the areas below the water. Airbus has a switch that combines several functions that Boeing has to do in sequence, but the end result is the same. Apparently, the flight crew didn't even have time to activate the ditching button on the Airbus anyway.

Quoting Africawings (Reply 11):
Boeing and Airbus will look into improvements to ensure its aircraft are water tight in the future.

They're watertight now...being able to float adequately is a FAR that all commercial transports have to meet.

Tom.


User currently offlineMax777geek From Italy, joined Mar 2007, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3988 times:



Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
I can assure you there will be no "ditching" training at the airlines.

I think there is already a gliding training in place for such a power loss. Shall this changed something, having a military backgrounds with gliding experience at the commands, wouldn't it be a good suggestion to increase the training level ?

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
This is the only time this has happened

Oh, please.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
the reason it went so well was because it happened in NYC and in the Hudson River. Had it happened anywhere else, including the ocean by NYC rather than the relative calm of the Hudson people would have died. Had they not been in a busy shipping lane, people would have died. While the entire crew did an incredible job, had any of these circumstances changed the outcome would not have been nearly as good.

Every passenger and crews was going to die if they even landed perfectly in a desert airport in the north pole, climbing down the ladder without proper coating at -20c. Would this mean that wasn't matter of the ditch if they survived ?

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
One event is not enough to cause for wasting valuable training time and resources adding yet another checklist to an already crowded group of checklists.

Every event even if single is useful to improve. One of the things that will came out from this event is that the checklist run time was less than the flight time left, so the famous ditching button could not be operated properly. May have the ships took more time to reach the plane, this could have been making the difference in low temperature exposure, so it seems to me an extremely valid reason to revise the ditching checklist running time, in order to speed up the reaching of the famous button. IT could be placed up maybe ? It could be the first thing to do, even, so in case the height of the power loss is even lower, that could be advantageous. And you don't think this came out of the event ?
That would be very stupid if the next ditching button will not be pressed by a time issue.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
The odds of both engines being hit by birds on the same takeoff are extremely low.

I think they way more extremely frequent than you may know, but since they don't block both engines they don't make the new.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
Further, there wasn't time to do much in the way of checklist performance.

That's why we're here, to learn and improve. Next time you'll be on a plane your same life could be saved for this reason. Id think about it.


User currently offlineShankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1528 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3940 times:



Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
One event is not enough to cause for wasting valuable training time and resources adding yet another checklist to an already crowded group of checklists. The odds of both engines being hit by birds on the same takeoff are extremely low. Further, there wasn't time to do much in the way of checklist performance

Its not one event. Go check out an aviation accident database. It has happened before and will happen again. Don't also forget different flight phases - see recent Ryanair landing incident in Rome

What this accident did support is one of aviations oldest adage:

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Check out the ATC recording. the crew have made up their mind and all their resource is clearly directed at flying the aircraft. BTW whats the co-pilots name?

I am sure at a detailed level there will be many lessons to be learnt about crew actions and pax and airframe survivability.

I agree that lady luck was on their side that day, but it is possible to carry out actions that improve ones chances of success and everyone including ATC, flight crew, cabin crew, passangers and boat crew managed to get everything to line up that day.

One factor that also made a huge difference was daylight. Could that brilliant flare have been carried out in darkness?



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9483 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3932 times:



Quoting Max777geek (Reply 14):
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2):
The odds of both engines being hit by birds on the same takeoff are extremely low.

I think they way more extremely frequent than you may know, but since they don't block both engines they don't make the new.

(My emphasis)

Max777geek: I think you need to read what Pilotpip said again.  Smile


User currently offlineMax777geek From Italy, joined Mar 2007, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3875 times:



Quoting David L (Reply 16):
Max777geek: I think you need to read what Pilotpip said again.

Yeah, every birds ingestion lead to a complete power loss in your opinion ?


User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1690 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

Successful landing

Successful evacuation

Possible issue with passenger opening real door (I have heard that it was already known that only front exits should be opened after ditching)

Possible issue about recovering people in the water while waiting for outside rescue

And as mentioned check list modifications

Obviously the existing procedures worked well, but all interested parties are going to want to review for possible lessons learned.



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3641 times:



Quoting Max777geek (Reply 14):

I think there is already a gliding training in place for such a power loss. Shall this changed something, having a military backgrounds with gliding experience at the commands, wouldn't it be a good suggestion to increase the training level ?

Two airlines, four training events and I've never done any training like you mention. We have a memory item for dual engine failures but don't practice it. Hell I was in recurrent when it happened.

Quoting Max777geek (Reply 14):

Oh, please.

Please tell me another time a part 121 airline has ingested birds or other FOD causing a power loss on all operating engines?

Quoting Max777geek (Reply 14):

Every passenger and crews was going to die if they even landed perfectly in a desert airport in the north pole, climbing down the ladder without proper coating at -20c. Would this mean that wasn't matter of the ditch if they survived ?

You're right. And they likely would have died if it hadn't been in a calm body of water that happened to be one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. The speed at which the rescuers got there was the reason they survived. Even if that crew had done everthing the exact same way with the exact same outcome anywhere else, people would have died.

Quoting Max777geek (Reply 14):

Every event even if single is useful to improve. One of the things that will came out from this event is that the checklist run time was less than the flight time left, so the famous ditching button could not be operated properly. May have the ships took more time to reach the plane, this could have been making the difference in low temperature exposure, so it seems to me an extremely valid reason to revise the ditching checklist running time, in order to speed up the reaching of the famous button. IT could be placed up maybe ? It could be the first thing to do, even, so in case the height of the power loss is even lower, that could be advantageous. And you don't think this came out of the event ?
That would be very stupid if the next ditching button will not be pressed by a time issue.

The ditching button didn't need to be pushed because the outflow valve is closed on takeoff. If the engine failure had occured at cruise this would not have been the case because the aircraft computers would have been in a depressurization mode rather than pressurizing for the climb. When you're that low to the ground, you try to relight the engines.

If there is one thing I can see coming out of this, it's leaving the APU running on aircraft like the Airbus and Embraer 170/190 that are pretty much electric. If you lose both engines you lose a lot of control surfaces. US Air actually wants it turned off but the pilots leave it running to burn more fuel, they also often elect to taxi on two engines to run up costs.

Quoting Max777geek (Reply 14):

I think they way more extremely frequent than you may know, but since they don't block both engines they don't make the new.

They happen very often. I've had 4 in 9 years of flying. One through an engine. It went through the bypass section, made a mess. We returned to the airport but the engine never stopped making full power. So yeah, it happens. I've had two close calls with geese in the last week. One today going into 22R at ORD. The probability of what happened to 1549 happening again are about the same as a lightning strike bringing down an aircraft.

Quoting Max777geek (Reply 14):

That's why we're here, to learn and improve. Next time you'll be on a plane your same life could be saved for this reason. Id think about it.

10 legs in the last 3 days. One to LGA and trying to figure it out in my mind how they did it.



DMI
User currently offlineEtops1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1038 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3625 times:

From what I understand, united's A320 water evacuation procedures is to NOT use the overwing exits for evacuation. I think that might change.

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10998 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3613 times:



Quoting Shankly (Reply 15):
One factor that also made a huge difference was daylight. Could that brilliant flare have been carried out in darkness?

On the flip side, birds are diurnal creatures (diurnal being the opposite of nocturnal). How many bird strikes happen at night? It must be an exceedingly rare event amongst exceedingly rare events.

Quoting Max777geek (Reply 14):
That's why we're here, to learn and improve. Next time you'll be on a plane your same life could be saved for this reason. Id think about it.

Broken English excused, this was an excellent post. There is so much to learn from this accident, and we are absolutely blessed that we have 155 witnesses that are around to tell about it. Yes, 155. Sure, the captain and co-pilot will have the most useful information... AS FOR WHAT CAPTAINS AND CO-PILOTS SHOULD DO in this situation. We also have information on what Flight Attendants should do next time to increase the chances of survival. AND, believe it or not, we have a bunch of passengers, at least most of whom did the right thing, and whose decisions, even if just to follow orders, allowed everyone to get out, and no one to be seriously injured.

And, we have N106US! In exactly 2 major pieces. We now know what happens to a plane when it hits water. We didn't know that before, but now we know it!

If you don't think you can learn much from a "perfect" plane crash, you're nuts. Duplicate that !@$^!

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 19):
The speed at which the rescuers got there was the reason they survived. Even if that crew had done everthing the exact same way with the exact same outcome anywhere else, people would have died.

That's why Sully aimed for the boats. He has stated in at least 2 interviews that he picked the Hudson and in particular that part of the Hudson because there would be boats nearby.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 19):
US Air actually wants it turned off but the pilots leave it running to burn more fuel, they also often elect to taxi on two engines to run up costs.

Do you know that to be true? Or are you speculating? Because I fly a lot on US, and I can tell you definitively that US pilots very often taxi on one engine. I also know that Sully said to Couric that the first thing they did was restart the APU.

It's quite a charge you just made to suggest that US's pilots taxi on two engines and leave the APU running for the express purpose of wasting fuel. Is that what you meant to convey?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3581 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 21):

Do you know that to be true? Or are you speculating? Because I fly a lot on US, and I can tell you definitively that US pilots very often taxi on one engine. I also know that Sully said to Couric that the first thing they did was restart the APU.

It's quite a charge you just made to suggest that US's pilots taxi on two engines and leave the APU running for the express purpose of wasting fuel. Is that what you meant to convey?

There are a number at many airlines that do things like this because they're disgruntled. I've been in the jumpseat a number of times when this happened. Nobody will know if the APU was running or restarted until the FDR data is released. Everybody on that crew has been coached by Union and Company Attorneys on exactly what to say, and what not to say. This is why it was more than a week before any interviews were granted.

We're not co-pilots. We're first officers. I'm getting tired of hearing that phrase and even Sully had to correct Larry King on that term tonight.

You guys need to understand something. Checklists and training are not always the answer. Experience and the ability to think critically are usually the difference in these outcomes. Take a look at the Saudia fire years ago for a negative example of this. If it were possible to recreate every possible outcome of an emergency, we'd never have any. The entire crew's quick thinking, and improvisation had a very positive effect on the outcome. Fly the airplane first, fix the problem second, talk to ATC third.

Yes, we will learn from this, just like we'll learn from the Continental run off at DEN. I highly doubt we'll see dramatic changes in procedure, training or design as a result. If anything these two incidents show how well things can go when everybody does their job when things get bad.



DMI
User currently offlineMax777geek From Italy, joined Mar 2007, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3506 times:



Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 19):
Two airlines, four training events and I've never done any training like you mention. We have a memory item for dual engine failures but don't practice it. Hell I was in recurrent when it happened.

That's why I said "I think".

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 19):
Please tell me another time a part 121 airline has ingested birds or other FOD causing a power loss on all operating engines?

I was thinking more to a double power loss for any reasons, or a positively ended ditching (guess after a total power loss). I can't tell you what and when, but Im pretty sure I did read occasionally in the seven pages of this forum, that somebody recalled positively ended accidents like this. This was exeptional for a series of reasons tough.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 19):
The speed at which the rescuers got there was the reason they survived.

Not the speed of the ships, but the exceptionally lucky series of coincidences that brought to a perfect team work the way it should do, also including the ground people like the air traffic controller who warned the proper emergency patrols way very quickly. And as it's been already reported, that's not the speed of the boats, but mainly that Cpt Sully intended to waterland the plane the closest possible to the ships in order for people to be pulled up the quickest possible way.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 19):
The ditching button didn't need to be pushed because the outflow valve is closed on takeoff.

Does the button closes only that valve ? I tought the button closed every hole water may flow in (guess there's more than one) and I doubt that the plane keep pressurizing even if started descending, otherwise I guess the doors would have been opening a little harder. I doubt that the airbus software engineers didn't think about this.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 19):
If there is one thing I can see coming out of this, it's leaving the APU running on aircraft like the Airbus and Embraer 170/190 that are pretty much electric. If you lose both engines you lose a lot of control surfaces.

Isn't that why the rat came out automatically ?

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 19):
The probability of what happened to 1549 happening again are about the same as a lightning strike bringing down an aircraft.

We had one in Rome few days ago, a cessna executive jet travelling for organs transplant. And now please write 3 times in your next post "Max will win the superenalotto, a full six", thanks.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 19):

10 legs in the last 3 days. One to LGA and trying to figure it out in my mind how they did it.

by keeping cool I guess. I can remember situations in which I forcedly put myself to keep cool, but I wasn't with 154 other people life in my hands.

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
I also know that Sully said to Couric that the first thing they did was restart the APU.

This is been the first thing I asked to my pilot buddies. I remember on the 80 the apu took 70 seconds to start. how much did the airbus one takes ? did he have enough time ? if everything last a couple of minutes, and he spent one restarting the apu, how did he fly in that minute ? did the elecrical backup switch was used ? Couldn't have been used all the way to the ditching without loosing time restarting the apu ? of course anyone who knows what an apu is, that's the first thing they tought and so as well that includes Sully, just wondering about the time they got to have it running.

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
Broken English excused, this was an excellent post.

Thank you very much, I appreciate that, for mainly two reasons : Im italian and Im a system engineer  Smile


User currently offlineShankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1528 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3487 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
On the flip side, birds are diurnal creatures (diurnal being the opposite of nocturnal). How many bird strikes happen at night? It must be an exceedingly rare event amongst exceedingly rare events.

Accept the point although large wild fowl birds and mass roosting birds such as crows, pigeons, starlings etc are very active in the hour immediately before sunset and the half hour or so after sundown...at least the geese and ducks are on the lake next to me are!



L1011 - P F M
25 David L : Pilotpip said the chances of BOTH engines being hit by birds on the same take-off are extremely low. Your response to him referred to a SINGLE engine
26 Max777geek : Well, since Pilotpip revealed to be a professional pilot like I am not, I guess he knows better than me that birds strikes doesn't mean shutdown in a
27 Pilotpip : One of the major problems with this is that it would be no different than an engine failure in most cases. You fly the plane to a safe altitude, you s
28 R2rho : While the calm Hudson, the ships, etc have all certainly helped, you can still very easily have a fatal ditch in calm waters if you don't put the plan
29 Max777geek :
30 Isitsafenow : Thats an easy one........... Oct 1960 Logan airport, an EA L188 hit 200plus starlings and lost T.O. power in four engines. Two came back but the othe
31 Post contains links Ellehammer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751 "Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751, a McDonnell Douglas MD-81, took off from Stockholm-A
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Much Longer Is The DC-9 Going To Be Used? posted Fri Apr 7 2000 22:27:25 by DeltaMD11
How Is The Aloha 737 Hon To Oak Going posted Fri Mar 30 2001 17:33:53 by ATA L1011
What Is Flight Time From ALT To LAX On Their 67-4? posted Thu Mar 22 2001 01:15:24 by AirTangora
When Is CX Industrial Action Going To End! posted Sun Jul 8 2001 10:09:30 by Hkg_clk
How Are Easyjets New Airbuses Going To Save Money? posted Tue Oct 15 2002 23:23:52 by 777kicksass
Is Any Major Airline Going To Survive? posted Tue Apr 1 2003 04:03:36 by Captaink
Is A342 A7-HHK Going To Be Painted In QR Colours? posted Thu Dec 18 2003 07:25:18 by Dennys
What Is The Point Of Going To MLE posted Sun Jan 4 2004 07:22:44 by KLM11
How Is Independence Air From IAD To ROC? posted Tue Aug 3 2004 22:49:07 by Collegestud
A340-600HGW How Is Flight Testing Progressing? posted Wed Jan 4 2006 17:53:22 by WINGS