U.S. Airways Plane Crashed in the Hudson River

[Saoirse]

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!!!

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by PSM

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Saoirse

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!!!

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.

[Saoirse]

Originally Posted by Soft Target

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!

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

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]

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!!

[echoes]

Originally Posted by AngelsSix

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!!

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

[PSM]

Originally Posted by echoes

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

[hoot72]

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.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by hoot72

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

[hoot72]

Originally Posted by PSM

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.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by hoot72

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!

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]

Originally Posted by hoot72

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/articl...lains-in-sully