NEW YORK (AP) – A US Airways plane crashed into the frigid Hudson River on Thursday afternoon after striking a bird that disabled two engines, sending 150 on board scrambling onto rescue boats, authorities say. No deaths or serious injuries were immediately reported. Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown says the US Airways Flight 1549 had just taken off from LaGuardia Airport enroute to Charlotte, N.C., when the crash occurred in the river near 48th Street in midtown Manhattan.
Brown says the plane, an Airbus 320, appears to have hit one or more birds.
A law enforcement official said that authorities are not aware of any deaths and that the passengers do not appear to be seriously injured. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the rescue was still under way. The plane was submerged in the icy waters up to the windows. Rescue crews had opened the door and were pulling passengers in yellow life vests from the plane. Several boats surrounded the plane, which appeared to be slowly sinking. Government officials do not believe the crash is related to terrorism. “There is no information at this time to indicate that this is a security-related incident,” Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner said. “We continue to closely monitor the situation which at present is focused on search and rescue.” Witnesses said the plane’s pilot appeared to guide the plane down. “I see a commercial airliner coming down, looking like it’s landing right in the water,” said Bob Read, who saw it from his office at the television newsmagazine “Inside Edition.” “This looked like a controlled descent.”
New York City firefighters and the U.S. Coast Guard are responding to the crash.
#28–heavy==how much heavy jet time have you logged as first pilot?
Its true enough though that birds can come up on you without time to react. Other times, you have time to change course or to raise your nose sharply just before impact.
Question==if you are put into a situation with NO options and you basically ride out the situation, how “heoric” and skillful are you?
The old definition of a hero applies: The victim of someone elses mistake.
Just for reference, here’s what happens when you don’t know what you’re doing.
#34–QB==its pretty obvious to me that that Pilot did not have power or control to his flight control surfaces. Do you think a pilot with 1000’s of hours of experience would dip his wings thru inattention or lack of skill? Maybe he just didn’t have that heroic attitude?
Silly Hoomans. Always looking for “heros” when it is wonderful enough to have competent people in positions doing what they were trained to do.
What was Sully’s option? Run back into the passenger compartment and yell he didn’t know what to do?
Is this mindless attitude that gives us the political/religious culture that we have today.
Well the AP report was wrong to say the plane crashed into the river. It very purposely landed on the Hudson River, because it lost both engines and probably would have CRASHED onto the hard runway. Crashing into a river, implies it took a nose dive and had little chance of rescue. It was probably a very odd sight to see, but no doubt the plane came down and skimmed the water until it plowed in to a stop. And while no passengers died. There were minor injuries and exposure trauma.
The thing that bugs me about this is the apparent near disregard for bird strike conditions, but the airport. They watch the air traffic and weather conditions. But I guess the bird flocks they ignore and hope for the best. Can’t delay a flight for a couple dozen geese or something. Well if herds of cows flew, they would! They’re just playing the odds that nothing bad will happen, by scheduling flights with little regard to anticipating this reoccurring problem. It was already noted that such flocks DO show up on radar.
BTW, the Tv news didn’t loose the opportunity to point out air travels high survival rate for crash landings. Calling the reverse a myth. But just what are they labeling as plane crashes, that skews the percentage as high as 95%!? I would call a crash, a landing that the plane can’t reasonably be recovered from for future service. IOW, a total right off. So I’m wondering if the industry isn’t calling fender benders as “crashes” too? Just to make the survival rate numbers more favorable? All the planes that have either exploded in the air or nose dived straight into the ground, that I’ve heard about over the last 20 years, have had like a zero survival rate. So how did it suddenly get to 95%? Have there been hundreds of very very minor crashes, since then. Is a landing gear tire coming off, considered a “crash”. Is bumping too hard into the airport terminal considered a “crash”? Who’s making up these cheery Reagonomic like safety figures?
#37–Glenn== excellent contrarian post. I thought the same thing.
Its all definitional isn’t it?
#18 bobbo.. your such an arse sometimes..
while i recognize your sarcasm..it does reveal alot in the somewhat stubborn stances you take
on many issues..most interesting.
—-
-anyway…here is a great money shot of the plane sitting all alone before any rescue efforts show up, and only a few people on the wing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregorylam/3200201574/sizes/l/
kudos for composites…note how high the plane is sitting out of the water..the A320 definitely floats very well..
also of note is the great timing tide-wise
of the landing..note how calm the water is..the hudson river is one fast river when on the slopes of the tide cycle.. 3pm is right around the time direction change.
of all the lousy timing factors that created the incident, good timing prevailed on the otherside of the curve to bring things nicely
in balance.
all in all, the only real downside was that the ebil, slimy BofAC banking execs on board didn’t accidentally drown while stepping onto the wing.. *rimshot*
-s
#39–soundwash==thank you. I wouldn’t call it sarcasm though===would you?
I’ve always made the best decisions in my life when presented with a different point of view and then allowed to think thru the issue again. Then again. Then again.
That is a wonderful picture in your link. Eerie solitude.
I’ve heard one woman had two broken legs. I wonder how that happened?
http://huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/bird-strike-what-may-have_n_158271.html
The last video on the page shows a single engine compressor stalls. Still lots of power in this case. Listen to the calm matter of fact voices. Heroes all.
In such a complex system as commercial airtravel has become, it’s unavoidable that something go wrong at some point. The airbus A320’s takeoff speed is 75 meters per second so by 3 minutes into the flight they were going much faster, any assertion that the pilot should have avoided this would be ludicrous. Bringing this plane down, full of fuel, in an urban area, without engines, that requires a cool head and formidable skill!
#42–amarangadingdong==not very humble to spout off on something you obviously know nothing about:
1. Take off speed has little to nothing to do with climb speeds.
2. Climb speed is based on air space restrictions more than the maximum capability of the aircraft.
3. The flaps never came up on the aircraft so again the potential max speed of the aircraft is irrelevant.
4. Birds the size of geese, especially in a flock can often be seen so as to avoid. As I stated, you do have to be “looking outside the cockpit” which many commercial pilots on Instrument Flight Plans tend not to do.
5. The pilot has a choice when he lost both engines at 3000 feet–u-turn to takeoff airport, slight turn to New Jersy airport a few miles away, or a left turn to flop in the river. NO CHOICE REALLY.
6. No pilot ever practices landing in water gear up. For that they rely on years/hours of standard runway landing experience. Cool head and skill are sorted out in initial training. High time commercial pilots are about as standard a product as I can think of==uniformily highly qualified-no one more skilled than another, not a hero among them.
Hmmmm. Wrong on every point. Good post otherwise.
Bobo
What I do know, even at minimum stall speed the plane is moving very fast.
I don’t know where you get your information, did the pilot say where the flaps were? Who said the birds were geese?
Do you know how much glide that thing has when loaded with passengers and fuel? Even if you did you’d need air speed and altitude and that information has not yet been released.
I really doubt any of your conclusions are based on anything but your own assumptions, business as usual eh bobo?
Check this out folks.
Boboo is getting to be more of an idiot every day.
What I don’t understand is – did both engines happen to ingest birds? And did the aircraft then immediately lose all power? But wasn’t there some talk of returning to the airport?
For most aircraft, it’s usually not a good idea to land an aircraft in water given any kind of land choice because of the drowning risk. But this jet had something called a “ditch switch” that closes all the small openings in the aircraft in prep for a water ditching. Interesting. I wonder if there is any validity to NOT opening the door hatches until rescue is upon them to keep the jet acting as an enclosed bubble for a longer period of time?
Still, all this could have resulted in disaster as it would have only taken one wingtip to catch the water and tear the jet apart. That this did not happen is a tribute to the flying skill of the pilot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DAsrbtR4wY
RBG
some random data-thoughts(?)
#44 if you’d like to see the flight data info (speed altitude location etc, i have provided the radar data for you below.. it was available in real time..(you just have to know where to look)
further…i looked up the stall speed for the a320 (at 64tons weight) and it averages between 130kts-140kts (with 120-149 being the on the outside of the envelope extremes)depending on flap position, fuel load, weight, head/tailwinds and several other variables. also, iirc typical rule of thumb for gliding is around 3 nautical miles glide for every 1,000ft . -this is obviously is
variable on the aircraft in question.
the a320 has a glide ratio of 17:1 *powered*, its my understanding that unpowered, an aircraft of this type’s glide ratio drops to around 12:1 (12 units forward for every 1 unit of decent)
FWIW..simplicity-wise..
if you figure 12:1 @ 3200ft at say 185kts you get about 8.95nautical miles of glide (in a straight line)or about 2min 52 sec glide time to find a place
to put down… given that he landed roughly 3min after the strike..i’d say the numbers are pretty close to the reality of what happened..
it appears at the last radar contact at 300feet he was doing 153kts.
a decent water landing would have him flare up a bit at the last possible moment to get the nose up to prevent submarining, planting the tail in the water first.
luckily, most modern jetliners engines today have shear bolts holding the engines on so that they will break off in the event of excessive force *without ripping the wings off* so if in such a rare event, the pilot still has a chance to fly/glide the craft on remaining engines (if any) should something create such force.
from what i can tell from some pics sent to me from mates downtown and vids on youtube, it look like the engines have sheared off. -this no doubt helped immensely in keeping the wings on the plane (and it staying afloat) as it contacted the water..people in west side office high rises who saw the plane land, said
it corkscrewed a bit when it landed.
shear bolts ftw.. 🙂
also of note, alot of fuel is stored in wing tanks. -this feature also helps reduce the possibility of a fireball on landing, or a major fuel spin in *picture perfect* belly/water landings..more importantly, keeps environmental whack jobs from camping out on your companies door steps in the absence of such features… ;P
i think in the aftermath, much will be said as to the overall a320’s design, use of carbon fiber composite materials (lightweight strength & helping it stay intact and floating longer) as well as standard commercial aviation safety design features (like the shear bolts)attributing it’s part in the survival of this water landing..
all the hoopla about it floating is kinda silly if you ask me..having a fully intact a320 on the water should float nonetheless if only because the main cabin, by virtue of
being pressurized is water tight.
-not to mention the landing gear helping
with flotation to some degree..*shrug*
-s
—
Time LatitudeLongitude kts Feet Location/Type
03:26PM 40.80 -73.87 151 1800 New York TRACON
03:27PM 40.83 -73.87 174 2800 New York TRACON
03:27PM 40.86 -73.88 194 3200 New York Center
03:28PM 40.88 -73.90 202 2000 New York TRACON
03:28PM 40.86 -73.93 215 1600 New York Center
03:29PM 40.83 -73.95 194 1200 New York TRACON
03:29PM 40.82 -73.97 191 1300 New York Center
03:30PM 40.78 -74.00 189 400 New York TRACON
03:31PM 40.75 -74.02 153 300 New York TRACON
CHART SOURCE:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE1549/history/20090115/2026Z/KLGA/KLGA/tracklog
of some interest.. (2 il-76’s collided yesterday in russia too)
J.A.C.D.E.C. – Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre: http://www.jacdec.de/
—-
-i’m just a by-product of 35hrs of tandem
sailpane(glider) flying and a 15yrs+ flight sim user(really just an end user enthusiast)
#48–soundwash==and that data, and no information.
So, was he cool headed?
Did he demonstrate extraordinary skill?
Did he have any other “real” options?
was he a hero?
#49:
“#48–soundwash==and that data, and no information.”
(in retrospect it was *disconnected*
and not framed properly at all. i’ve been
lazy lately. *sigh*
—
i provided the data so one can have a launchpoint to make their own assessments
and peak some curiosity..and to prove that
there is *plenty of information available
to the armchair critic to back all sorts of
“speculation” -as it were.
–
but if you insist..;o
cool headed: no clue until we hear the voice cockpit tape.. his action speak that he was level headed enough to explore all options and make the right call in a very short time. plus,
he most likely has had many hair raising incidents in his career that have taught him how to control his emotions better than one who is only say 10yrs on the job.. –
(i just looked him up..apparently he has 7yrs as an air force pilot, given that, he might have even been a bit jovial in his reactions.
so yeah..puckered but cool enough to get the job done..)
extraordinary skill: eh, not really, given that he’s a 30yr+ pilot with military experience and has a keen interest in safety. -and is a serious “student” of airline crashes and procedures in general. this by virtue would give him much to draw upon.. plus, he’s old school, his generation takes their work seriously and no doubt, with pride, adding to his potential.
his ilk appreciates flying by the seat of your pant sand having intimate knowledge of the craft they operate.. -something that imo, has been “bread out” of the current generation at all levels almost by design..
he merely excels at his job and his water landing affirms it.
real options:
first one was go back to LGA..no good.
he’d have to do a 180deg circle-in approach to runway 22 (which he took off from)and a long sweeping 270deg or so turn (similar to the path he eventually took to the river) to approach runway 13 from the west.
with only 3minutes of glide time after the strike ,the odds of having a clear (or clearing) a runway at LGA @ 3pm in time is
wishful thinking.. discussing circle-in vs straight-in approach, deadstick runway length issues, the tailwind from approach from the west..ad nauseum..ack..brain cramp..LGA is N/G..
Teterborough airport presented an almost straight in approach from where he was at birdstrike..but his best option put him
on the short runway(6000ft or so) which he’d have to hook a left to land. the longer 7000ft runway would have required two turning maneuvers to line up on..would have defiantly eaten up all his residual energy, esp traveling
just above stall speed. -i don’t think he had enough altitude to pull it off..and even with the engines off, the environmental wackos would bitch about letting a commercial liner land there after they fought so hard
via noise abatement arguments to keep heavy craft out..so there..;p
the hudson was perfect. tide was just coming off its peak, so it was relatively smooth and moving very slow. -plenty of room and lots of boats controlled by non-governmental entities
so you know someone will actually move their arse getting to you. to top it off, no population density issues.. you’ll only end up killing yourself and passengers in worst case scenario.
was he a hero?
NO. he’s just an experienced kick-arse pilot
doing his job. (-too bad the co-pilot doesn’t even exist in this media frenzy.)
personally, i’m really tired of the media slapping a hero title on people that are just doing their job to the best of their abilities..
a commuter waiting on a train platform
jumping down on the tracks in the subway when a train is coming to help someone who fell off the platform is a good case for a hero.
firefighters, police, airline pilots etc, doing what they are trained/payed to do
are not heroes..ever.
ok…enough of this. there will a
hundred more “crash” articles in the
coming days to waste time on..
-s
#50–sound==thanks for reading thru my typo’s. No==you are wrong. Data without analysis is more than lazy. As your faulty analysis shows, it is too often a cover for ignorance.
1. “many hair raising incidents in his career that have taught him how to control his emotions better than one who is only say 10yrs on the job” /// No. “Basically” coolness and calmheadedness is a personality trait you mostly either have or don’t. If you don’t have it, no amount of training can beat it into you. If you do have it, once you get the situation specific training, then you have it. So, after 3 or 6 months depending on the issue, you either will demonstrate competency, or most likely, you never will.
2. Along the lines of #1–most pilots do not have many hair raising experience thereby gaining this coolness you allude to. Most have a few experiences and instead they rely on their basic nature and their training.
3. “apparently he has 7yrs as an air force pilot, given that, he might have even been a bit jovial in his reactions” /// Whats your basis for this nonsense? He was an F-4 jockey. They are all assholes overcompensating for being short little bastards with low flight time.
4. “extraordinary skill: eh, not really” /// Whats up? Short attention span???? You say not really and then follow that with just exactly would be “extraordinary experience.” Ironically, you are wrong twice because those experiences, attitudes, and interests would be commonly found in most if not all high time pilots==the type that fly heavy jets.
5. “he merely excels at his job and his water landing affirms it.” /// Thats the question and your bald statement doesn’t add any proof, facts, logic, or analysis. The water landing shows nothing except that he had control of his air surfaces, and then he came in hot and maybe in the wrong direction.
6. Return to LGA /// I agree. Turns increase your sink rate.
7. Teterborough /// I agree and note with appreciation your humor.
8. too bad the co-pilot doesn’t even exist in this media frenzy /// Good Call. I agree. His involvement could have gone from ziltch to practically landing the a/c himself by calling out parameters to the First Pilot==sounds like he was closer to zilch though.
So–your analysis is mostly wrong on the main points, yet you arrive at the correct answer. Fun huh?