Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lessons Learned From US 1549  
User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

It's been quite a while since Sully and crew saved the day in New York, so what lessons did the aviation industry take away from it, if there were any? Is there any better BASH protection for LGA or any of the NYC airports? Do airlines incorporate the scenario of a simultaneous engine flameout? Or was this something that most likely will not happen again, so we look at it as a one-in-a-million case?


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3482 times:

Im not really sure what lessons there are to be learned from the incident. The only thing I can think of is to male sure pilots know how to attempt a successful water landing. They couldn't really control the position of the birds, there isn't much you can do to protect the engines from bird ingestion.

User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3673 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3231 times:

The NTSB made a bunch of recommendations. Most of them fall under the procedures of what to do after a bird strike like this actually happens, not because the flight crew of this accident did anything wrong, but because they had to rely basically on the speed of their wits rather than on any established training or procedures in order to save the passengers. The NTSB wants there to be procedures and training in place for dual engine failure and other "abnormal" situations, which there currently are not.

They were also concerned that the pilots wasted valuable time trying to restart engines that could never be restarted because they were damaged. They didn't blame the flight crew for that - that was the procedure - but they want there to be real engine status indicators in the cockpit, so the pilots know if engines are damaged beyond the ability to be restarted. You can get this in a $15,000 car, so why can't airline pilots have similar info?

They also made various recommendations relating to engine design, testing and certification regarding bird strikes.

[Edited 2010-07-03 15:34:16]


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2936 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 2):
but they want there to be real engine status indicators in the cockpit, so the pilots know if engines are damaged beyond the ability to be restarted. You can get this in a $15,000 car, so why can't airline pilots have similar info?

Because the engines are not similar at all, and if your car tells you the engine is dead even if it's not, it's no big deal, whereas for a plane with all engines out, it's a very big deal.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinejimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2782 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 2):
You can get this in a $15,000 car,

What are you referring to? The best most cars have is a check engine light, which comes on for just about anything, minor or major.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3673 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

Quoting jimbobjoe (Reply 4):
What are you referring to? The best most cars have is a check engine light, which comes on for just about anything, minor or major.

And when you take that car to a dealer (or even an auto parts store), they will read the code that generated that indicator light and tell you exactly what the problem is. All cars generate codes internally for hundreds of internal functions - they just don't tell you because there's nothing much that most individual drivers (who are not well trained) can do with that information. For example, here are the codes generated by the Chrysler PT Cruiser, which is a car that costs (as I said) about $15,000: http://jeep-club.irtech.com/images/paul/non_image/troublecode.html

More expensive cars have even more potential trouble codes that can be generated, because they have even more internal sensors and more sophisticated computers.

There are many faults that airliners can detect and report, but engine damage is not one of them. And there's no real excuse for that, a position with which the NTSB agrees.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineaviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1360 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2660 times:

Sully didn't save the day. LUCK saved the day.

I dare suggest that if you could put a hundred crews, flying pretty much any modern airliner, in Sullenberger's exact situation, the results would be more or less the same.

The most critical factor was nothing more than plain old luck -- specifically, the time and place where things went wrong.

As it happened, it was daylight and the weather was reasonably good; there off Sullenberger's left side was a 12-mile runway of smoothly flowing river, within swimming distance of the country's largest city and its flotilla of rescue craft. I wouldn't say the water landing was easy, but....

Sullenberger performed admirably in the face of a serious emergency, as did his first officer, and his jetliner. He needed to be good, but he needed to be lucky as well. He was. Had the bird-strike occurred over a different part of the city, at a slightly different altitude, or under slightly different weather conditions, the result was going to be an all-out catastrophe, and no amount of talent, skill, or fly-by-wire technology was going to matter.



PS

[Edited 2010-07-04 17:59:01]


Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineSchweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 639 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

I recall the sight of the passengers unfortunately standing on the wing, ankle-deep in freezing water, some of them likely wearing flip-flops (don't get me started on that!).

If this had been an overwater or ETOPS configured aircraft, the passengers would have had big circular life-rafts to wait in. If they hadn't been rescued so quickly, what might have happened when the plane continued sinking?

I've been in plenty of ETOPS 737NGs with life-rafts stowed overhead in FC by door 1 and also above the overwing exits. They are comforting to have around! You never know when you might end up in water.

This should be a lesson from the ditching--all mainline a/c should be overwater-equipped.

Regards--


User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2727 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2524 times:

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 7):
This should be a lesson from the ditching--all mainline a/c should be overwater-equipped.

What about outsourced vendor aircraft that fly on the same route?

Should an Embraer or Canadair flying LGA-CLT also be overwater equipped?


User currently offlineSchweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 639 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

GoBoeing, you are right. I should have said all aircraft--LGA-CLT is a perfect example of how a non-overwater plane could end up in the drink.

I was thinking it would be cheaper to equip only mainline planes--economics being what it is. But, yessirree--ALL passenger planes ought to have overwater equipment, no matter if it costs a couple-hundred pounds of weight. After all, even a little plane from STL to MCI could end up in the mighty Miss. Although in the case of an RJ, maybe the door slides alone would be sufficient.

I think CO has the right idea for all 737s to be "overwater", for fleet and route optimization, and....just in case. Now to get the FAA to require it for all scheduled passenger aircraft over a certain size.


User currently offlineLtbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13202 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

Another major lesson has been to improve controling large bird life near airports to reduce the risks of heavy ingestion as happened with US 1549. Problem has been the animal rights extremists who demand no killing of innocent birds. Unless it is a highly endangered species, the birds have to be killed or whatever it takes to prevent an aircraft crash.

User currently offlineSchweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 639 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2426 times:

I agree, large bird reduction near airports is one of the most basic lessons here.

Kill them or frighten them away--they'll find somewhere else to nest.


User currently offlinebrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1723 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2426 times:

Quoting Ltbewr (Reply 10):
the birds have to be killed or whatever it takes to prevent an aircraft crash

That will never work. When you slaughter one flock, another will move in and take up the space. And the circle will continue until the birds eventually end up being on the highly endangered list. This has been seen countless times in other places where populations of animals have been eradicated to make life easier for humans -- only to have another animal population move in to the available territory.

In some cases, the animal population that has moved in has caused even greater damage than the population that was removed.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2727 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 9):
I was thinking it would be cheaper to equip only mainline planes--economics being what it is. . . .

. . . ALL passenger planes ought to have overwater equipment, no matter if it costs a couple-hundred pounds of weight. After all, even a little plane from STL to MCI could end up in the mighty Miss.

Okay, that makes more sense. Half of the takeoffs and landings made in the United States by 121 air carriers are not mainline equipment.


User currently offlinejimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2258 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 5):
And when you take that car to a dealer (or even an auto parts store), they will read the code that generated that indicator light and tell you exactly what the problem is.

Ah. That's a fair point, though I would disagree that they tell you the exact problem. They tell you an exact symptom. You can't have a sensor for every problem under the sun. In either a car engine or a jet engine. (God knows half the time you get a check engine light it's because the sensor itself as failed, not because there is an engine problem.)


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5162 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 7):
If this had been an overwater or ETOPS configured aircraft, the passengers would have had big circular life-rafts to wait in. If they hadn't been rescued so quickly, what might have happened when the plane continued sinking?



This particular aircraft was equipped for over-water operations, with life jackets and slide/rafts.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3177 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 7):

If this had been an overwater or ETOPS configured aircraft, the passengers would have had big circular life-rafts to wait in. If they hadn't been rescued so quickly, what might have happened when the plane continued sinking?
Quoting longhauler (Reply 15):
Quoting Schweigend (Reply 7):
If this had been an overwater or ETOPS configured aircraft, the passengers would have had big circular life-rafts to wait in. If they hadn't been rescued so quickly, what might have happened when the plane continued sinking?



This particular aircraft was equipped for over-water operations, with life jackets and slide/rafts.

Correct. It just so happened that one of the rafts malfunctioned.

I think that FAs should be required to demo the Life vests on all flights, not just tell you about them. A lot of passengers carried their seat cushions out with them as they evacuated, few had life vests on.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offline737tanker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1790 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 16):
I think that FAs should be required to demo the Life vests on all flights, not just tell you about them.


I believe that already happens, at least it does on every SWA flight.


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7194 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1698 times:

How about requiring all birds over 5 lbs be equipped with transponders?    This should appeal to the present administration; it is just about as feasible as a lot of their other proposals.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1668 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 5):
And when you take that car to a dealer (or even an auto parts store), they will read the code that generated that indicator light and tell you exactly what the problem is. All cars generate codes internally for hundreds of internal functions - they just don't tell you because there's nothing much that most individual drivers (who are not well trained) can do with that information.

Jet engines have this too, with *far* better diagnostic information. Your typical jet engine today can provide thousands of messages, for pretty much every possible fault of every possible component (on both channels, since they're all dual-redundant on the electronics side).

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 5):
There are many faults that airliners can detect and report, but engine damage is not one of them.

It's absolutely one of them, but you're not distinguishing between maintenance messages and flight crew messages. Flight crews don't need to know, or care to know, *why* an engine isn't doing what it's asked to do, they just need to know it's not so that they can respond appropriately. There is no in-flight maintenance you can perform on a modern FADEC engine beyond cycling the EEC's and restarting. The crew in this case knew what they needed to know...neither engine was capable of producing enough thrust for continued safe flight.

Tom.


User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3177 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

Quoting 737tanker (Reply 17):
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 16):
I think that FAs should be required to demo the Life vests on all flights, not just tell you about them.


I believe that already happens, at least it does on every SWA flight.



WN does it on all flights, and if I remember, so does Alaska. But on US and I think CO, they only demo the vest if the flight goes over water, if it doesn't, when the FA says the life vest speech over the intercom, and the other FA's hold up the back of the safety card, pointing to the life vest illustration.



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
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...
Capt. Sully Retires Today From US. posted Wed Mar 3 2010 08:01:34 by fxramper
US 1549 Charity Auction-Signed Flying Goose Piñata posted Tue Jan 26 2010 17:56:49 by AndrewUber
Who Gains From US Airways Reduced Profile At BOS? posted Sun Jan 3 2010 17:14:04 by Reggaebird
From US Mainland To Hawaii - Which Aircraft Types? posted Fri Dec 11 2009 21:53:17 by Jawed
Amazing Time Lapse Footage Of US 1549 Recovery posted Tue Nov 24 2009 01:50:34 by Canoecarrier
9L 3407 Families Helped By US 1549 Co-pilot posted Fri Oct 30 2009 08:18:24 by KBUF
Any Other ULH Routes Other Than To/From US? posted Thu Jul 9 2009 16:10:51 by UAL747
US 1549 On Discovery Channel 3/4/09 posted Wed Feb 25 2009 18:05:44 by Litz
Air NZ Faces Law Suit From US Resident posted Thu Sep 4 2008 21:44:36 by 777ER
Outbound From US Passport Control And Immigrations posted Fri Jun 13 2008 17:09:20 by Ualva