View Full Version : U.S. Airways Plane Crashed in the Hudson River
Comsmith22
01-15-2009, 15:51
Blessings and Prayers... to all
olhamada
01-15-2009, 17:55
Yeah, I'm sitting here at LGA waiting to get out. I think one of my friends was on the flight - trying to confirm. Amazing bit of piloting and EMS response - all on board survived. Evidently lost both engines at FL 32 and made an incredible landing without touching a wing to the water. Simply incredible.
Salute to the pilots, no LOSE of Life!
Comsmith22
01-15-2009, 18:15
the Pilot was an old fast mover Driver ( F-4's) ... and set it down it the best place possible...
I'll take water over concrete any day...
Defender968
01-15-2009, 18:40
Kudos to the pilot for giving the passengers a chance sounds like he/she did a hell of a job putting her down in the water.
Thoughts out to the passengers and their families.
The responders were quick...and the pilot left no one behind, making sure all were off the aircraft before he left it himself. Well done all around.
Reading the articles and seeing the photographs make me hyper-ventilate a little. It appears there were some good leaders on board getting everyone out in an orderly manner which I'm sure helped matters. I'm regularly flying alone with my kids and it really makes me panic to think about a situation like this one with people having to evacuate a plane in the water and me having to deal with 3 non-swimmer kids amidst a lot of people freaking out. I guess I've always thought that if we went down, that would be it - quick and painless. For some reason, this scenario is much more frightening to me.
I seriously applaud the pilot for all of his actions. Good man. I'll just pray that whenever I fly, I get a guy like him up front.
AngelsSix
01-16-2009, 06:33
Hudson River hero is ex-Air Force fighter pilot
By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press Writer Amy Westfeldt, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 16, 4:31 am ET
NEW YORK – The pilot who guided a crippled US Airways jetliner safely into the Hudson River — saving all 155 people aboard — became an instant hero Thursday, with accolades from the mayor and governor and a fan club online.
The pilot of Flight 1549 was Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III, 57, of Danville, Calif., an official familiar with the accident told The Associated Press. Sullenberger is a former fighter pilot who runs a safety consulting firm in addition to flying commercial aircraft.
Sullenberger, who has flown for US Airways since 1980, flew F-4 fighter jets with the Air Force in the 1970s. He then served on a board that investigated aircraft accidents and participated later in several National Transportation Safety Board investigations.
Sullenberger had been studying the psychology of keeping airline crews functioning even in the face of crisis, said Robert Bea, a civil engineer who co-founded UC Berkeley's Center for Catastrophic Risk Management.
Bea said he could think of few pilots as well-situated to bring the plane down safely than Sullenberger.
"When a plane is getting ready to crash with a lot of people who trust you, it is a test.. Sulley proved the end of the road for that test. He had studied it, he had rehearsed it, he had taken it to his heart."
Sullenberger is president of Safety Reliability Methods, a California firm that uses "the ultra-safe world of commercial aviation" as a basis for safety consulting in other fields, according to the firm's Web site.
Sullenberger's mailbox at the firm was full on Thursday. A group of fans sprang up on Facebook within hours of the emergency landing.
"OMG, I am terrified of flying but I would be happy to be a passenger on one of your aircraft!!" Melanie Wills in Bristol wrote on the wall of "Fans of Sully Sullenberger." "You have saved a lot of peoples lives and are a true hero!!"
The pilot "did a masterful job of landing the plane in the river and then making sure that everybody got out," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. "He walked the plane twice after everybody else was off, and tried to verify that there was nobody else on board, and he assures us there was not."
"He was the last one up the aisle and he made sure that there was nobody behind him."
Gov. David Paterson pronounced it a "miracle on the Hudson."
A woman who answered the phone at Sullenberger's home in Danville hung up on a reporter who asked to speak with the family.
Candace Anderson, a member of the Danville town council who lives a few blocks from Sullenberger, said it was an amazing story and she was proud to live in the same town as the pilot.
"You look at his training, you look at his experience. It was just the right pilot at the right time in charge of that plane that saved so many lives," Anderson said. "He is a man who is calm, cool, collected, just as he was today."
Sullenberger's co-pilot was Jeff Skiles, 49, of Oregon, Wis., a 23-year US Airways veteran.
"He was OK," said his wife, Barbara. "He was relieved that everybody got off."
Check out at about the 1 minute mark (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/us_world/Meet_the_Man_Who_Saved_the_Baby_on_Flight_1549_New _York.html) of this NBC Chicago video interview of one of the passengers who helped get others, including a 6 month old baby and his mother, out of harms way.
A question with words to the effect "Were women and children evacuated first?"
You already know the answer.
Comsmith22
01-16-2009, 10:15
It appears that the folks closest to the exits were the first and folks followed normal "unassing" procedures ... and the Pilot and co-Pilot were the last out after making sure there was no one left on board...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/15/2009-01-15_hero_of_the_hudson_pilot_of_us_airways_f.html
Hero of the Hudson: Pilot of US Airways Flight 1549 saved every passenger with miracle landing
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Updated Friday, January 16th 2009, 9:09 AM
"To friends and family, he's just "Sully." To the rest of the world, Chesley Sullenberger is now a miracle worker with a pilot's license.
The former Air Force fighter pilot remained cool, calm and collected both before and after successfully ditching his US Airways flight into the Hudson River.
"That pilot is a stud," said one police source. "After the crash, he was sitting there in the ferry terminal, wearing his hat, sipping his coffee and acting like nothing happened."
Sullenberger, 57, looks more like Clark Kent than Superman: He's balding, slightly built, with a thin mustache. But he emerged from the slowly sinking fuselage of Flight 1549 as one of Gotham's brightest heroes, able to land engineless airplanes in a single try.
"Brace for impact," he warned the passengers before ditching the plane, a voice of lone calm in the seconds before they crashed.
Sullenberger wasn't done once his plane was down. He undid his safety belt and walked the length of the plane to make sure all the passengers were safely outside, Mayor Bloomberg said.
Once finished, Sullenberger turned around and made a second pass as the plane steadily took on water - and only then did he finally exit."
This is an incredible story. Thoughts out to the pilot and crew!
Also just watched Mayor Bloomberg on Fox handing out awards to some very deserving rescue operators!:lifter
Was wondering if anyone else caught it?
Holly
......You already know the answer.
Something about water. Lots of non-swimmers around. Look out the window and see water - thats it - head for the exit.
Lots of exits on a plane. Most head for the same door they came in.
When I get on an aircraft I like the read the little book about the aircraft, look up and spot the nearest exits. Sometimes its behind you.
[...] look up and spot the nearest exits. Sometimes its behind you.
I make sure it's next to me. I like the extra leg room (and I'm, only 5' 6") and the seat in front of me does not recline. :D
Pat
I watched this unfold (as I pretty much have FOX news on all day) and immediately called a friend in NYC. As I spoke to my friend, an LEO, I got a lot of info before the news would even put it out. He told me the response was immediate to the crash site and NYPD divers went into the water pretty quickly and into the sinking plane to check it one more time for anyone left behind.
LaGuardia and JFK always set off "shot gun" blasts to scare off the birds. I lived next to JFK and it always sounded like I was still living next to Ft. Bragg.
Sullenberger did a great job! WOW! I can only hope that whenever I fly I get such a great pilot!!! :lifter
Dozer523
01-16-2009, 14:33
I make sure it's next to me. I like the extra leg room (and I'm, only 5' 6") and the seat in front of me does not recline. :D
Pat
Did you know that if you are traveling with children (16 or under, even if you are not sitting with them -- say, they're behind you, with your spouse) you are not allowed to sit in that seat? I guess they think you might have an "emotional conflict" between opening the door and grabbing your kid. Not a critism of the rule, just a statement of fact.
Soft Target
01-16-2009, 14:41
I watched this unfold (as I pretty much have FOX news on all day) and immediately called a friend in NYC. As I spoke to my friend, an LEO, I got a lot of info before the news would even put it out. He told me the response was immediate to the crash site and NYPD divers went into the water pretty quickly and into the sinking plane to check it one more time for anyone left behind.
LaGuardia and JFK always set off "shot gun" blasts to scare off the birds. I lived next to JFK and it always sounded like I was still living next to Ft. Bragg.
Sullenberger did a great job! WOW! I can only hope that whenever I fly I get such a great pilot!!! :lifter
Heard a guy, on one of the radio shows, that works with the bird guys and he said that their efforts are really hindered - get ready for this - the PETA crowd and others. I suppose the ducks getting hit by a jet strike is more humane than scaring them off. Some things never change.
Heard a guy, on one of the radio shows, that works with the bird guys and he said that their efforts are really hindered - get ready for this - the PETA crowd and others. I suppose the ducks getting hit by a jet strike is more humane than scaring them off. Some things never change.
Soft: That doesnt surprise me one bit. Sssh, don't give them any ideas otherwise they will be boycotting flying!! PETA is one of the reasons a lot of the energy producing windmills in CA were dismantled...cuz of the birds flying into them. PETA has too much time on their hands, they need to go out and get real jobs like the rest of us! :lifter :D
Did you know that if you are traveling with children (16 or under, even if you are not sitting with them -- say, they're behind you, with your spouse) you are not allowed to sit in that seat? I guess they think you might have an "emotional conflict" between opening the door and grabbing your kid. Not a critism of the rule, just a statement of fact.
Yep. I'm a retired airline dispatcher. My favorite seat is the jumpseat, but my wife hates to sit alone. ;)
Pat
Edit to add: The person with direct access to the exit must also be able to read and understand the operating instructions and be able to follow the verbal and hand-signaled instructions of the aircrew.
AngelsSix
01-16-2009, 17:00
I have only a few places I used to sit on an aircraft. I was a mech, so like PSM, I prefer jump seats; however, having been out of the industry for some time, I now make a point of choosing my seats to be either all the way up front, all the way in the back or the over wing seats.
These days the way things have gone in airports and aircraft I prefer to drive. No checking luggage, no delayed flight, no crowds and no one telling me I can't bring my guns!!:lifter
I have only a few places I used to sit on an aircraft. I was a mech, so like PSM, I prefer jump seats; however, having been out of the industry for some time, I now make a point of choosing my seats to be either all the way up front, all the way in the back or the over wing seats.
These days the way things have gone in airports and aircraft I prefer to drive. No checking luggage, no delayed flight, no crowds and no one telling me I can't bring my guns!!:lifter
Only the very front or very back...am with you on that!
Agree with driving...if at all possible!
Am curious, honestly, if there was a wheelchair-bound passenger, what would happen in this situation?
Thankfully, no-one seems to have been disabled in this situation.;)
Holly
Am curious, honestly, if there was a wheelchair-bound passenger, what would happen in this situation?
Holly
They are told that they will be the last to be evacuated. And no one who is unable to operate the exit doors or windows are allowed in those seats. The company's operations manual fills in where the FARs are unclear. For instance, an obese person in the aisle seat, without direct access to the exit, could conceivably block others from a rapid evacuation and the company may have a policy of not allowing them in the exit row.
Pat
The Clint Eastwood directed movie with Tom Hanks is now out.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjKEXxO2KNE
I watched it last night and enjoyed it.
The Clint Eastwood directed movie with Tom Hanks is now out.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjKEXxO2KNE
I watched it last night and enjoyed it.
I haven't seen it, but the NTSB investigators are not happy with their portrayal in the film. Is it negative towards them? They are all BTDT folks in their specific areas of expertise and are not interrogators. If their findings lead to possible civil or criminal legal action, that falls to other agencies. And any recommendations for regulatory or procedural changes are passed on to the FAA; they do not make changes themselves.
Pat
I haven't seen it, but the NTSB investigators are not happy with their portrayal in the film. Is it negative towards them? They are all BTDT folks in their specific areas of expertise and are not interrogators. If their findings lead to possible civil or criminal legal action, that falls to other agencies. And any recommendations for regulatory or procedural changes are passed on to the FAA; they do not make changes themselves.
Pat
I got the impression the main problem (this is just based on what I saw in the movie and not what actually potentially happened in reality) is that they were
a) jumping to conclusions based on early simulator trails and testing based on the data they had (not conclusive) and were asking some hard questions of the two pilots as to were they very very sure they had absolutely no chance of turning back to La Guardia or making it to Tetobero.
b) the data they had from ACARS indicated the left/port engine was in idle and still functionining and had not been destroyed in the bird strike and that the pilots could potentially have still had sufficient power from the left engine to turn back and land and that POTENTIALLY/MAYBE, the pilots either a) panicked b) made an error in judgement to check that indeed both engines were destroyed or so badly damaged by the bird strikes they could not operate or function or if they made a mistake in thinking both were out of comission immediately after the bird strike
They could not conclusively confirm if ACARS was right or wrong as the port engine was dislodged during the ditching and was not found until later when they were able to inspect the engine and then determine the damage was so extensive, it was impossible to have re-started or used the engine in any capacity due to the massive damage it suffered from the bird strike.
ACARS had given the wrong data or information to the investigators.
I don't know the time line of the actual investigation and the actual process the pilots went through at main hearing about the crash where two simulators were in action conducting simulated landings at La Guardia and Tetobora and in both cases, both crews were successful in their landings.
Sully contended the trails were flawed and the results in-correct because it did not take into account two factors:
1-actual time for the pilots to actually make a decision to turn back from the time of the bird strike (i think i am right about this but feel free to correct me someone if i have made an error) which was far greater (they agreed on 35 seconds in the movie after conducting an attempted re-start of both engines to add on before the simulator pilots made their turns back to the respective air strips)
2-the simulator pilots had 17 practice runs at making the landing after the bird strikes, unlike the two actual pilots in the incident who had never faced such a scenario before in any training with losing both engines at 2800 feet above sea level and and had to depend on the best guess estimations that they would not make it back to either airports after attempting the engine re-starts running through the procedures.
3-The risks were far greater attempting a turn back and then crashing into the city if they got it wrong (which was why he turned for the hudson).
I think this was what happened but again, I don't mind being corrected on the points above.
I can imagine the NTSB have a job to do and tough questions to ask so that, I think we have to accept.
I got the impression the main problem (this is just based on what I saw in the movie and not what actually potentially happened in reality) is that they were
a) jumping to conclusions based on early simulator trails and testing based on the data they had (not conclusive) and were asking some hard questions of the two pilots as to were they very very sure they had absolutely no chance of turning back to La Guardia or making it to Tetobero.
b) the data they had from ACARS indicated the left/port engine was in idle and still functionining and had not been destroyed in the bird strike and that the pilots could potentially have still had sufficient power from the left engine to turn back and land and that POTENTIALLY/MAYBE, the pilots either a) panicked b) made an error in judgement to check that indeed both engines were destroyed or so badly damaged by the bird strikes they could not operate or function or if they made a mistake in thinking both were out of comission immediately after the bird strike
They could not conclusively confirm if ACARS was right or wrong as the port engine was dislodged during the ditching and was not found until later when they were able to inspect the engine and then determine the damage was so extensive, it was impossible to have re-started or used the engine in any capacity due to the massive damage it suffered from the bird strike.
ACARS had given the wrong data or information to the investigators.
I don't know the time line of the actual investigation and the actual process the pilots went through at main hearing about the crash where two simulators were in action conducting simulated landings at La Guardia and Tetobora and in both cases, both crews were successful in their landings.
Sully contended the trails were flawed and the results in-correct because it did not take into account two factors:
1-actual time for the pilots to actually make a decision to turn back from the time of the bird strike (i think i am right about this but feel free to correct me someone if i have made an error) which was far greater (they agreed on 35 seconds in the movie after conducting an attempted re-start of both engines to add on before the simulator pilots made their turns back to the respective air strips)
2-the simulator pilots had 17 practice runs at making the landing after the bird strikes, unlike the two actual pilots in the incident who had never faced such a scenario before in any training with losing both engines at 2800 feet above sea level and and had to depend on the best guess estimations that they would not make it back to either airports after attempting the engine re-starts running through the procedures.
3-The risks were far greater attempting a turn back and then crashing into the city if they got it wrong (which was why he turned for the hudson).
I think this was what happened but again, I don't mind being corrected on the points above.
I can imagine the NTSB have a job to do and tough questions to ask so that, I think we have to accept.
Jeez, dude, do you take notes when watching movies? Excellent review! :lifter
Correct that doing a sim of a known event is, mostly, useless except for use in future training. That said, you can't train for every conceivable scenario. BTW, the engine bolts are meant to shear in the event of a ditching.
I don't want to think that Eastwood would make a film that would purposely "sully" the reputation of the NTSB.
Pat
cback0220
09-25-2016, 07:08
I got the impression the main problem (this is just based on what I saw in the movie and not what actually potentially happened in reality) is that they were
a) jumping to conclusions based on early simulator trails and testing based on the data they had (not conclusive) and were asking some hard questions of the two pilots as to were they very very sure they had absolutely no chance of turning back to La Guardia or making it to Tetobero.
b) the data they had from ACARS indicated the left/port engine was in idle and still functionining and had not been destroyed in the bird strike and that the pilots could potentially have still had sufficient power from the left engine to turn back and land and that POTENTIALLY/MAYBE, the pilots either a) panicked b) made an error in judgement to check that indeed both engines were destroyed or so badly damaged by the bird strikes they could not operate or function or if they made a mistake in thinking both were out of comission immediately after the bird strike
They could not conclusively confirm if ACARS was right or wrong as the port engine was dislodged during the ditching and was not found until later when they were able to inspect the engine and then determine the damage was so extensive, it was impossible to have re-started or used the engine in any capacity due to the massive damage it suffered from the bird strike.
ACARS had given the wrong data or information to the investigators.
I don't know the time line of the actual investigation and the actual process the pilots went through at main hearing about the crash where two simulators were in action conducting simulated landings at La Guardia and Tetobora and in both cases, both crews were successful in their landings.
Sully contended the trails were flawed and the results in-correct because it did not take into account two factors:
1-actual time for the pilots to actually make a decision to turn back from the time of the bird strike (i think i am right about this but feel free to correct me someone if i have made an error) which was far greater (they agreed on 35 seconds in the movie after conducting an attempted re-start of both engines to add on before the simulator pilots made their turns back to the respective air strips)
2-the simulator pilots had 17 practice runs at making the landing after the bird strikes, unlike the two actual pilots in the incident who had never faced such a scenario before in any training with losing both engines at 2800 feet above sea level and and had to depend on the best guess estimations that they would not make it back to either airports after attempting the engine re-starts running through the procedures.
3-The risks were far greater attempting a turn back and then crashing into the city if they got it wrong (which was why he turned for the hudson).
I think this was what happened but again, I don't mind being corrected on the points above.
I can imagine the NTSB have a job to do and tough questions to ask so that, I think we have to accept.
Great review of the movie version, but that isn't the way it happened. A movie needs an antagonist and needs more drama then a few minutes of flight can fill. The NTSB is an amazing organization that does a very difficult job very well. The NTSB report, which is public, lauds Captain Sullenburg and the actions taken by the crew.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-07/crash-investigators-pan-their-portrayal-as-villains-in-sully