PDA

View Full Version : US Airways Flight 1549 crashes into Hudson River



Asad Khawer
01-15-2009, 04:04 PM
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/58432/original.jpg


A US Airways plane has crashed into the Hudson River, sending passengers fleeing for safety in the frigid waters.

New York City firefighters are responding to the crash, the Associated Press reported. It was not immediately clear if there were injuries.

Witness Barbara Sambriski, a researcher at The Associated Press, said, "I just thought, 'Why is it so low?' And, splash, it hit the water."

CNN reported the plane is US Airways flight No. 1549 and showed footage of the jet in the water surrounded by several ferries with helicopters overhead.

According to the US Airways Web site, the flight departed LaGuardia International Airport at 3:03 p.m. and was scheduled to arrive in Charlotte at 5:16 p.m.

The New York Times is reporting the flight had 146 passengers and five crew members on board. The Times, citing a local TV news report, said the plane may have hit a flock of birds and the pilot was attempting to return to the airport.


Just after 3:30 pm Thursday MSNBC broke into regular coverage to show live shots of a US Airways plane in the Hudson River, with people standing on the wings.

Flight 1549 took off from Laguardia on it's way to Charlotte at 3:26 pm.

People were seen standing on the wings and getting onto ferries.

Shortly after the crash, the fuselage sunk below the water line after floating.

The plane appeared wholly intact.

The pilot reported a possible bird attack shortly after takeover. 164 passengers and 5 crew members were onboard, MSNBC reports.

There were reports the pilot went into a flock of geese.

The weather is very cold but clear.


Watch a video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/usair-plane-crashed-in-hu_n_158263.html)| Source 1 (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/plane-reported-down-in-hudson-river.html) | Source 2 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/usair-plane-crashed-in-hu_n_158263.html)

American
01-15-2009, 04:27 PM
I saw that Asad, currently watching the news on T.V.:eek::eek:

ThrottleUp
01-15-2009, 04:29 PM
What a fantastic job by the flight crew. Ditching a crate like that is never easy and now Im hearing that everyone survived, I hope we hear more news that confirms this. Also lets not forget the FAs who no doubt went about their business and the pax who kept their heads and got outta there.

Big up the ferry-boat massive!

zacharace
01-15-2009, 05:16 PM
What skill--and possibly luck--to ditch her in the Hudson, instead of smack-dab in the middle of Manhattan. Great work by the crew. Glad to hear everyone's OK.

FITZY
01-15-2009, 05:31 PM
It is being reported that both engines were lost due to bird ingestion approximately 45 seconds after takeoff. The crew was initially cleared for an emergency landing at KTEB, just across the river in NJ, but was unable to make it and pulled off what seems to be a an excellent water landing.

Does anybody know enough about the A-320 to guestimate a touchdown speed under these conditions? They would have had fuel for LGA to Charlotte.

tommchowat
01-15-2009, 06:33 PM
Awesome. You always tend to look at the safety briefing card in the seat in front of you at that picture of the plane floating quite nicely on water and have a laugh to yourself, because you automatically assume that on contact with water the plane just breaks into pieces. The pilot must've hit it just right.

Asad Khawer
01-15-2009, 06:41 PM
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/5220/usairhudsonfullht2.jpg

The picture says it all. Beautiful, seems everyone is definitely okay! :D:D

mach7
01-15-2009, 06:52 PM
I think that anyone who can land an aircraft in water and not have it break in half is hero in my books!

JimPadgett
01-15-2009, 07:44 PM
I wonder why there isn't a preferated cone on the front of engines to deflect birds??? Like a a cowcatcher for jet engines..

just my 2 cents....

ReggieF5421
01-15-2009, 08:15 PM
Awesome job.

I believe this is the first fully successful ditching of a jet transport loaded with passengers.

Great job by everyone, the pilots, the FA crew and even the pax who followed instructions and did not panic. Must have been scary with water coming in the cabin and waiting in line to go out the exits. Also standing on the wing in water up to their knees waiting for rescue.

Jim,

I remember some screens like that we used on our A-3 Skywarriors for high power tests after engine work/ engine changes. But they are not useable for flight.

You talking about needing several hundreds of pounds of extra weight for something which never happens in the life of most aircraft. The screens we used for power runs would not stop a two pound bird we were told and they were pretty substantial.

My brother-in-law who was an acoustic design engineer for P&W tells me that the engines are designed to survive one, sometimes two five pound birds. But multiple hits are going to take out any engine in the air. Even prop aircraft have lost engines and props from bird strikes.

Some reports say they hit geese. I doubt that, but those birds weigh 15-20 pounds. They are lucky none hit and took out the windshield.

gmbfly98
01-15-2009, 08:38 PM
It is being reported that both engines were lost due to bird ingestion approximately 45 seconds after takeoff. The crew was initially cleared for an emergency landing at KTEB, just across the river in NJ, but was unable to make it and pulled off what seems to be a an excellent water landing.

Does anybody know enough about the A-320 to guestimate a touchdown speed under these conditions? They would have had fuel for LGA to Charlotte.

According to the last known radar return, the plane was traveling at 153kts and 300 feet. Looks like Vref is between 112kts and 147kts, and since this was a near-full plane (weight-wise), I would guess around 120kts on touch-down.

But the only thing for sure, is that it would have been less than 153kts.

loki
01-15-2009, 09:11 PM
One issue with some sort of screen is that if it fails, you have just added a lot more debris that is going to go straight into the engine. As well as adding something that could potentially ice up and interfere with air flow to the engine.

There have been other successful ditchings, but not many.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/ditch.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditching

http://www.mediafire.com/?ytqnfm2kibq

Edited to remove unfinished sentence....

Bridget
01-15-2009, 09:54 PM
I only came close to having to ditch once, a C-47, and I had a lot more time and a few alternatives. My guess is that one engine failed and the other was dicky, probaly hit the APU staart if he had time. Lucky he did'nt do an invluntary 9/11. Magnicent flying, on a par with the Brit crew that deadsticked that Boeing in at Heathrow last year, or the Gimli Glider, or BA 007 20 odd years ago when she lost all four engines in a volcanic cloud. hats off to the crew and I hope they get the recognition they desreve. thsi could have been a real tradgedy

Bridget
01-15-2009, 09:56 PM
One issue with some sort of screen is that if it fails, you have just added a lot more debris that is going to go straight into the engine. As well as adding something that could potentially ice up and interfere with air flow to the engine.

There are plenty of flocks of geese around here that

There have been other successful ditchings, but not many.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/ditch.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditching

http://www.mediafire.com/?ytqnfm2kibq

you could heat the screen (--your goose is cooked--sorry could not resist :) )

I agree about FODDING the engine is the screen goes blooie though

FlyingKiwi
01-15-2009, 10:38 PM
Hats off to the crew, ditching a jet like that seldom ends well, but this seems to have been a textbook example of getting it right.

Bridget
01-16-2009, 12:50 AM
More chance of pulling it off with something like a CRJ or any rear engine jet as you can skid in on the belly, while underwing engines tend to scoop up the water, could break off, or overstress the wings, causing them to break. Lucky it was a river, probaly would not have been as lucky at sea with waves to contend with

kingnorris
01-16-2009, 01:54 AM
The captain is a retired Air Force fighter pilot. He actually went thru the plane twice to make sure everyone was rescued before he finally left. A true hero in my book!

tigisfat
01-16-2009, 02:23 AM
More chance of pulling it off with something like a CRJ or any rear engine jet as you can skid in on the belly, while underwing engines tend to scoop up the water, could break off, or overstress the wings, causing them to break. Lucky it was a river, probaly would not have been as lucky at sea with waves to contend with

The underwing-nacelle type aircraft do just as well. The nacelles are designed to break off quickly and without drama. Just look up the 767 that did it a bunch of years ago on youtube.

tigisfat
01-16-2009, 02:27 AM
"The pilot reported a possible bird attack shortly after takeover."


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!:D:p

That's from the OP. You gotta love internet news sources, even if they're found on a major website.

If birds can takeover, attack and then systematically down airliners, we're friggin' screwed as a species.:cool:

Asad Khawer
01-16-2009, 02:56 AM
HAHA, I just read that! :p

JimPadgett
01-16-2009, 05:31 AM
I was really thinking about a cage of vertically mounted riving knifes coming to a point. It's purpose would be to make a big bird much smaller :-) I could be light weight enough and still be resistant to failure.

I know the pilots did a great job, but lets face it if the timing had not been just right this could have been very catastrophic.

Distorted Humor
01-16-2009, 08:38 AM
I personally say that the pilot needs all the honors that can be thrown at him.

perhaps we can go three years without a loss of life in a commerical flight in the US..

Now, how many of you will try to recreate it in Flight sim?

andrewclaridge
01-16-2009, 12:38 PM
Captain Chesley Sullenberger is a true hero in my book, and deserves all the praise he is currently getting. No-one in the media seems to mention the first officer at all though, I am sure they will have played their vital role in this too.

Asad Khawer
01-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Captain Chesley Sullenberger is a true hero in my book, and deserves all the praise he is currently getting. No-one in the media seems to mention the first officer at all though, I am sure they will have played their vital role in this too.
Couldn't agree more my friend, especially with the latter part.

VERT002
01-16-2009, 08:15 PM
I would like to shake Captain Sullenberger's hand someday. Magnificent job. But I would also like to shake the hand of his Co-Pilot (Anyone heard the press mention his name at all?). I am sure he probably played a big part in a successful landing also.
Let's not forget the great job the Flight Attendants played in getting everyone safely off the plane, too. I haven't heard any press mention them either. Next time I fly, I am going to pay more attention to their pre-flight briefing for the passengers.

drobson
01-16-2009, 08:19 PM
I would like to shake Captain Sullenberger's hand someday. Magnificent job. But I would also like to shake the hand of his Co-Pilot (Anyone heard the press mention his name at all?). I am sure he probably played a big part in a successful landing also.
Let's not forget the great job the Flight Attendants played in getting everyone safely off the plane, too. Next time I fly, I am going to pay more attention to their pre-flight briefing for the passengers.
I don't think they have released the names of anyone other than the Captain yet. They are all under very strict rules about talking about the incident until it's been fully investigated.

Darrell

Bridget
01-16-2009, 10:06 PM
I personally say that the pilot needs all the honors that can be thrown at him.

perhaps we can go three years without a loss of life in a commerical flight in the US..

Now, how many of you will try to recreate it in Flight sim?

Britian has the Queen's Air medal, and the Queen's Commendation For Valuble Service In the Air, does the US have something smilar, as well, Britain has the George Cross and Geroge Medal, the two highest awards for gallantry belwo the VC--which is military only--Official thanks of Congrees, perhaps, or the Presidential Medal of Freedom, or, as this guy is ex service, coulod congress and the senate pass an amendment allowing the awared of the Medal of Honor in this case only?

metro752
01-16-2009, 10:37 PM
Announcement Regarding Flight #1549: Update #8
Jan. 16, 2009

US Airways has released the names of the crew on board Flight 1549.

Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger, III, age 58, joined US Airways (PSA Airlines) in 1980. He has a total of 19,663 flight hours.

First officer Jeffrey B. Skiles, age 49, joined US Airways (USAir) in 1986. He has a total of 15,643 flight hours.

Flight Attendant Sheila Dail, age 57, joined US Airways (Piedmont Airlines) in 1980 and has more than 28 years experience with the airline.

Flight Attendant Doreen Welsh, age 58, joined US Airways (Allegheny Airlines) in 1970 and has more than 38 years experience with the airline.

Flight Attendant Donna Dent, age 51, was hired by US Airways (Piedmont Airlines) in 1982 and has more than 26 years with the airline.

Roked
01-17-2009, 08:53 AM
Well that looks like one experienced crew.

Here is a link to the landing, altough you can barely see it: http://www.newsday.com/video/?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3349560

sandgate
01-17-2009, 01:47 PM
Announcement Regarding Flight #1549: Update #8
Jan. 16, 2009

US Airways has released the names of the crew on board Flight 1549.

Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger, III, age 58, joined US Airways (PSA Airlines) in 1980. He has a total of 19,663 flight hours.

First officer Jeffrey B. Skiles, age 49, joined US Airways (USAir) in 1986. He has a total of 15,643 flight hours.

Flight Attendant Sheila Dail, age 57, joined US Airways (Piedmont Airlines) in 1980 and has more than 28 years experience with the airline.

Flight Attendant Doreen Welsh, age 58, joined US Airways (Allegheny Airlines) in 1970 and has more than 38 years experience with the airline.

Flight Attendant Donna Dent, age 51, was hired by US Airways (Piedmont Airlines) in 1982 and has more than 26 years with the airline.

And on a cold wintry day in New York, all that experience came together with a measure of luck and 155 people retuned to their families. Happy New year!

Best regards
John

Flying Officer Jevans
01-17-2009, 02:42 PM
Fantastic. Well done to the crew for a perfect(in the circumstances!) landing. Couldn't have done it better myself. In fact, I probably would have done a hell of a lot worse!:D

I don't know what kind of medal they can give Captain Sullenburger, but he needs one.

Rockcliffe
01-17-2009, 03:19 PM
So who has tried to duplicate this?
Anyone made it to Teterboro?

meltsner
01-18-2009, 04:05 PM
Here's the link to Wikipedia's page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549. Has extensive information on everything about the crash. Capt. Sullenberger will remain a hero. He has several "medals" already -- received the 'key to the city' from Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and received phone calls from both the President and President-elect!!

tigisfat
01-19-2009, 12:52 AM
I just gotta play devil's advocate for a moment, (as usual);),
because I can't help but wonder.

What if the outcome were different? What if the Captain had done everything the same but the aircraft broke up and most were killed? Would we still be calling him a hero? Surely they wouldn't be saying anything bad, but I'll still stand by my guess that they wouldn't say anything good about him.

Distorted Humor
01-19-2009, 01:26 PM
So who has tried to duplicate this?
Anyone made it to Teterboro?

I have been trying with a A321 that comes with FSX, and so far I have spashed each time, but more further downriver then they had in real life, I haven't tried to get to Teterboro, but I don't think you could make it.

tigisfat
01-20-2009, 01:05 AM
I think it would have been possible to make it to teterboro. I just did with plenty of altitude to spare. In the end, I still side with the ditching because of the risk involved with landing at teterboro deadstick.

As you can see from the pics, I preserved my altitude and maintained 200KIAS until I knew I made it, so I landed hard and fast and roasted the brakes to get stopped.

The first pic shows the moment when the engines quit. The rest are self-explanatory.

tigisfat
01-20-2009, 01:26 AM
update: I made it back to la guardia as well. The steep turn to the left really helped dump some altitude. I used RWY 13.

sandgate
01-20-2009, 07:56 AM
I just gotta play devil's advocate for a moment, (as usual);),
because I can't help but wonder.

What if the outcome were different? What if the Captain had done everything the same but the aircraft broke up and most were killed? Would we still be calling him a hero? Surely they wouldn't be saying anything bad, but I'll still stand by my guess that they wouldn't say anything good about him.

Well, they wouldn't have been able to say "Why the hell did he plough into those buildings when he could have at least tried to ditch it in the river. You never know, he might have got lucky and some might have got out alive!" ;)

Distorted Humor
01-20-2009, 09:29 AM
Another big thing to remember is that in real life you would of spent some time (and thus, lost energy) confirm that both engines are out, dealing with the fire, and so on. I used the A321 and crashed it the two times out of three, though I did get close all three times, and my "landing" was flopping it off the runway but in the airport area. Though I can see why he was asking about teterboro, you just turn a little to the left and it is right in front of you.

And if he had crashed it into the water, he would of been noted for giving up the plane to avoid crashing into the buildings.

tigisfat
01-20-2009, 03:02 PM
Another big thing to remember is that in real life you would of spent some time (and thus, lost energy) confirm that both engines are out, dealing with the fire, and so on.


negative: the first step when faced with a loss of thrust is configuring the aircraft for max glide, then selecting a landing spot, and THEN troubleshooting/confirming whilst heading there-even if you're pretty sure that you know what will fix it. This way, no time is wasted. There is such a surplus of altitude speed involved with attempting La Guardia or Teterboro that I'm pretty sure there is no way for a trained pilot to not make it----BUT----I say that now; I wasn't sure before I tried it. The question the real aircrew had was one of the risk involved with trying.

SteveB
01-22-2009, 09:44 AM
I think it would have been possible to make it to teterboro. I just did with plenty of altitude to spare. In the end, I still side with the ditching because of the risk involved with landing at teterboro deadstick.

As you can see from the pics, I preserved my altitude and maintained 200KIAS until I knew I made it, so I landed hard and fast and roasted the brakes to get stopped.

The first pic shows the moment when the engines quit. The rest are self-explanatory.

Who gives a rats hell about making to an airport. Look at the real approach path he would of had to take, how many countless lives on top of the people on board could he have killed?

Besides that, your playing a video game, if you don't make it, reset, try again. He has one chance to save the lives of those on board and those on the ground. He made the right decision pure and simple.

Also, what was your weight as compared to this aircraft. That will make a HUGE difference. For all I/we know, you had 0 fuel in the tanks and no payload. Big difference there buddy.

Flying Officer Jevans
01-22-2009, 01:20 PM
You've made the point yourself. We are flying a simulation, so we are in no danger of killing anyone. Why not find out whether it was possible? tigsfat said himself he would still ditch in real life. Anyway, I'm sure he did it with the correct weight, but we may as well ask him..

tigisfat
01-23-2009, 02:43 AM
I did it at max gross weight because I had no clue what the real flight's loadout was. It was probably 7/8 full of passengers and something like 80% gas, so I figured it was going to be the simplest to do it the way I did.

Yes, I made it every time and being that I'm just a GA pilot, I'm sure the airliner guys could do it as well.

Sure, the sim gets plenty of things wrong-but only to a certain extent. The surplus of speed and altitude I had makes me pretty sure they could've made it. Am I the only one that's tried this in the sim?

The best part of playing a sim is playing out all the options. That's why I give a rat's hell about making an airport.;) I want to see how many I can make it too. If it were any smaller, I'd be attempting to set it down on a lawn in central park. Lighten up, dude.:p

azur
01-23-2009, 02:49 AM
Who gives a rats hell about making to an airport. Look at the real approach path he would of had to take, how many countless lives on top of the people on board could he have killed?

Besides that, your playing a video game, if you don't make it, reset, try again. He has one chance to save the lives of those on board and those on the ground. He made the right decision pure and simple.



No, we don't know he made the right decision. The NTSB, Pilots and US Airways have released little information thus you have insufficient information to make that statement. The crew may have made mistakes. There's nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate and considering the possibilities, like Teterboro - they could be correct.

I'm not saying the crew were incorrect, I'm stating that we can't say either way with full confidence. Most airliner incidents often aren't clean and simple, there's more factors than may immediately meet the eye. On more than one occasion I have jumped to a conclusion and then been totally wrong.

Wait until the accident report is released. Then we'll know the complete factual story.

metro752
01-23-2009, 03:32 AM
No, we don't know he made the right decision. The NTSB, Pilots and US Airways have released little information thus you have insufficient information to make that statement. The crew may have made mistakes. There's nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate and considering the possibilities, like Teterboro - they could be correct.

I'm not saying the crew were incorrect, I'm stating that we can't say either way with full confidence. Most airliner incidents often aren't clean and simple, there's more factors than may immediately meet the eye. On more than one occasion I have jumped to a conclusion and then been totally wrong.

Wait until the accident report is released. Then we'll know the complete factual story.



In order for me not to be banned from this message board I will say one thing after reading your first sentence.

You're a towel.

Oh, and I will say, you cannot really understand what is going on in the cockpit of even a small prop, or jet airliner, let alone an Airbus A320 just from your flight sim experiences alone.

The "wow I could really die factor" really kicks in.