US Airways 1549 ditches in the Hudson

[Really Ancien]

Who else thought of

Airport '77 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

?

Not me, I immediately thought of
Kegworth air disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Damon.

[gonzo]

I know that  but still feel something could be designed that would reduce the risks a lot more.

Gun turrents AKA the bomber aircraft of the second world war?!?

[TimC]

The plot on FlightAware is a little bizarre, in that it ends in the middle of the Hudson approaching KLGA, and the flight is listed as "Departure: La Gaurdia, Arrival: La Gaurdia, Duration: 0-06".

At least it appears that everyone got off alive, and the aircraft didn't break it's back on landing.  In fact, they are saying that it's floating
down the river at quite a rate of knots (40 or so !)  They do have several tugs attached to it now, and I guess they are probably trying to stop it, or at least control it.

The track starts just north of La Guardia (which is on the East River) and ends heading south on the Hudson, to the west of Manhattan. The captain landed longitudinally down river, not across it. That may be one of the significant factors in the survival of the aircraft, and thus the passengers. The tide and current were flowing together, probably at around 7-8kts, which would remove a significant amount of the kinetic energy of the aircraft as it touched down at around 100-110kts groundspeed. The aircraft would have been quite lightly-fuelled for the short flight to Charlotte (about 500nm, or an hour and 15 minutes flying time), so the wings would have provided a lot of buoyancy.

You'll note that a very significant proportion of the passengers standing on the wing are not wearing lifejackets. I wonder how many of them were reading their newspapers or picking their noses while staring into space while the safety brief took place? Very few of them would have survived had they entered the water and stayed in it at those temperatures for more than a few minutes. It really is worth paying attention, folks!

We really need a pilot here, perhaps one who flies airbuses.

At your service, sir.

[clarion]

My dad used to head up the labs for Rolls-Royce, which included working with the testbeds at the Sinfin facility.

One of the more bizarre jpbs they did was build a cannon for firing dead birds into engines.  Unfortunately, a dead pigeon doesn't do the damage of a pigeon strike, so they did a lot of testing before setting up a regular order for frozen chickens.

My protestations that very few chickens could be involved in a strike on an RB-211, even were the plane on the ground, were dismissed

[clarion]

The pilot was clearly very skilful, however, and I am impressed, but the aircraft design helped enormously, both in landing and flotation.  It was good that the water was pretty still - I wouldn't fancy being in an incident like that in the ocean, but nonetheless, the pilot and his crew deserve recognition.

[Mr Larrington]

I know that  but still feel something could be designed that would reduce the risks a lot more.

Gun turrents AKA the bomber aircraft of the second world war?!?

Guns?  Old skool.  We need FRIKKIN' LASERS!

Someon on the news this morning said that the reason many of the passengers weren't wearing life jackets was because the plane was not expected to fly over large bodies of water very often and therefore the seat cushions would suffice as flotation devices instead.  I am not an expert, but to my untutored mind this seems to fall into the classification of Clearly Bollocks.  TimC?

[Kathy]

I'm just grateful that all reports say 100% survivors.

I have a question: were there any doggies or kitties travelling on the plane? If so, they would have been in cages in the hold. 

Can someone please reassure me that either there were no non-avian animals aboard, or that all potential pet passengers were rescued?

Ta. I'll feel sad otherwise.

[Thor]

Guns?  Old skool.  We need FRIKKIN' LASERS!

Flamethrowers.  Barbecue those suckers. 

[αdαmsκι]

There are various piccies on The Guardian's website.

[TimO]

The track starts just north of La Guardia...

Doh, thanks for the clarification, it's obvious really when you think about it!

I'll just claim that I was about to leave for home, when I saw things happening on BBC News 24, so blame it on a late night at work.

[David Martin]

My dad used to head up the labs for Rolls-Royce, which included working with the testbeds at the Sinfin facility.

My dad did his apprenticeship at the RR foundry in Bristol.

Small world.

[clarion]

Indeed.  My dad would spend at least one day a week at Bristol, with regular trips to London and (more rarely) Glasgow & Sunderland, or overseas.  But he knew the A38 pretty well

[gonzo]

I now remember some research I once did regarding bird strikes. After a bird strike, they work out what theanimal was. On one occasion, at over 3000ft, they got a 'bird strike' which, upon investigation, turned out to be a cat!

[Regulator]

Tim

You don't happen to fly the VS007/8 London-LA-London route do you?  Just wondering whether we might have had you as our pilot on the recent US trip.

[TimC]

Tim

You don't happen to fly the VS007/8 London-LA-London route do you?  Just wondering whether we might have had you as our pilot on the recent US trip.

Sometimes, Greg. I fly the A340 (600 and 300) and can be rostered on any route that aircraft flies: LAX (VS7 and 23), JFK (VS3, 9, 45), EWR (VS1, 17), BOS (VS11), IAD (VS23, 55), MIA (VS5), ORD (VS39), CPT (VS603), LOS (VS651), JNB (VS601), NBO (VS671), BOM (VS350), DEL (VS300), DXB (VS400), HKG/SYD (VS200, 238), PVG (VS250), NRT (VS900) plus occasional one-offs to Barbados, Orlando, Puerto Rico, Manila and a few others. We don't get stuck on any specific route; the rostering is nominally random within certain criteria.

[Thor]

The pilot is always hailed as a hero when accidents are survived, but in this case, his actions really seem to have been exemplary.  I wonder how much was due to luck and how much he was able to take into account the factors mentioned by Tim - hitting the river longitudinally, direction of tide / current etc.

The rescue services also did a tremendous job, getting to the aircraft so quickly.  If an aircraft departing London City ditched in the Thames, would the London authorities have the resources to respond as competently?

[andygates]

I now remember some research I once did regarding bird strikes. After a bird strike, they work out what theanimal was. On one occasion, at over 3000ft, they got a 'bird strike' which, upon investigation, turned out to be a cat!

Another evolutionary leap cruelly cut short.

[Bledlow]

The pilot is one of the most experienced out there: 57 years old, 40 years flying, 29 years with the airline, & before that a USAF fighter pilot. He's also (very conveniently) a glider pilot, a former instructor, & runs a safety consultancy business in his spare time.

If you were going to pick the ideal pilot for an incident like this, he'd probably be on the list.

Shame about his name, though - Chesley Sullenberger III

Profile - BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Profile: Captain Chesley Sullenberger

[TimC]

The pilot is always hailed as a hero when accidents are survived, but in this case, his actions really seem to have been exemplary.  I wonder how much was due to luck and how much he was able to take into account the factors mentioned by Tim - hitting the river longitudinally, direction of tide / current etc.

The rescue services also did a tremendous job, getting to the aircraft so quickly.  If an aircraft departing London City ditched in the Thames, would the London authorities have the resources to respond as competently?

He will have had no choice over the direction of landing - the Hudson isn't wide enough to land east-west at that point, and he was in a left turn (towards south) when he realised that he had insufficient performance to return to La Guardia or get to any other clear area, so the landing had to be southerly. The fact that the current and tide were in his favour was pure luck! Captain Sullenberger certainly is an extremely experienced pilot, with most of the qualities and qualifications you'd want if you had to face such a situation - his crew and passengers were very lucky to have had him with them. They were also extremely lucky that it was a benign day, it was still daylight, and they happened to land just where several ferries and other boats could react within a couple of minutes to get them out of the cold.

Luck played more than a little in this, as it often does, but that's not to take away from this captain, his crew, and the various rescuers. A good job all round.

[TimC]

Someon on the news this morning said that the reason many of the passengers weren't wearing life jackets was because the plane was not expected to fly over large bodies of water very often and therefore the seat cushions would suffice as flotation devices instead.  I am not an expert, but to my untutored mind this seems to fall into the classification of Clearly Bollocks.  TimC?

I have heard that the US authorities may allow flotation cushions (ie the seat squabs) to be provided instead of lifejackets on aircraft that don't travel over large areas of water. That may be the case here. If so, I withdraw my earlier comment about not listening to the safety brief!

[David Martin]

Someon on the news this morning said that the reason many of the passengers weren't wearing life jackets was because the plane was not expected to fly over large bodies of water very often and therefore the seat cushions would suffice as flotation devices instead.  I am not an expert, but to my untutored mind this seems to fall into the classification of Clearly Bollocks.  TimC?

I have heard that the US authorities may allow flotation cushions (ie the seat squabs) to be provided instead of lifejackets on aircraft that don't travel over large areas of water. That may be the case here. If so, I withdraw my earlier comment about not listening to the safety brief!

Looking at the pictures a large number of the passengers are wearing lifejackets.  Given the circumstances, there may not have been the time to remind everyone to put on their life jackets as the priority would be (Correct me if I am wrong) bracing for impact and then exiting the plane ASAP. It would be the few who can think clearly when all hell breaks loose who would have remembered to put the life jacket on. (and personally, given the choice of being able to exit the plane immediately or grab the life jacket, I'd take the option of getting out.) Given a bit longer to exit the plane (being a bit further from the doors, one might then grab the lifejacket and put it on as you go. Some may have been physically unable to reach under the seat for the LJ as well.

Damned fine landing though..

..d

[nuttycyclist]

Flotation - I notice that in some of the later photos there seems to be a lot of "things" in the water.  Seat cushions does spring to mind.  Any comments?

Life Jackets - I also noticed that of the people I've seen on the news, not everybody was wearing them correctly.  As TimC said - PAY ATTENTION AT THE BACK!!!!

[matthew]

Firstly, congratualtions to the pilots and cabin crew.

Regarding the life jackets, there are reports that the first ferries to arrive on scene were throwing their life jackets to the survivers. therefore it is possible that the aircraft was not equipped with jackets and would also explain why they were not properly fitted. But take nothing away from the boats, getting flotation aides to the passengers quickly was the right thing to do.

Matthew

[border-rider]

Someon on the news this morning said that the reason many of the passengers weren't wearing life jackets was because the plane was not expected to fly over large bodies of water very often and therefore the seat cushions would suffice as flotation devices instead.  I am not an expert, but to my untutored mind this seems to fall into the classification of Clearly Bollocks.  TimC?

I have heard that the US authorities may allow flotation cushions (ie the seat squabs) to be provided instead of lifejackets on aircraft that don't travel over large areas of water. That may be the case here. If so, I withdraw my earlier comment about not listening to the safety brief!

I regularly fly out of Newark on US internal flights, and I don't recall the lifejacket being part of the safety drill.  But maybe I don't pay enough attention.

[groucho]

Heathrow Runway 3 on the Thames! Initial landing tests on the Hudson seem to work. Now for the take-off!