What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Hats off to the crew of USAirways 1549

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wanted to correct this part. After watching a segment on Dateline, I found out the airline stewardess was in fact, trying to get the back door open after all. Lucky for all, they couldn't get it to open, and only then did she direct them to the front.

wj

I heard a report that the rear doors are purposefully locked closed by the "ditching switch" to prevent water from entering the cabin.:cool: I haven't flown Airbus, anyone here who can confirm or deny?
 
Not to negate the pilot and crews fortune and professionalism, but 1549 reached a peak altitude of 3200 ft and it would have been closer to either return to La Guardia or take the 7000' 19 runway at Teterboro than ditch it where they did. I know everything is 20-20 in hindsight, but it will be interesting to see why these options weren't taken.

ajay

The same article states:
The controller sent the aircraft back toward LaGuardia, but the jet's pilots saw an airfield below ? Teterboro Airport in New Jersey ? and asked to land there, Church says. They got the OK but realized they could not reach Teterboro and told the controller that they would have to ditch in the Hudson.
 
Other successful ditching

I remember JAL landed a DC-8 in San Fran Bay in late 1967. The people jumped into life rafts and paddled to shore. Most didn't even get their feet wet.
They put it on a barge and towed it over to the Coast Guard Station and hauled
it to the UAL maint. base. After overhauling the entire plane it was placed back in service for the duration.
 
RE: TEB or LGA

Understand he cleared the GW bridge by 250ft and that would not give him enough alt. to make TEB which is a bit far that low.
 
In this particular case (I don't know about others) the crew did not get disconnected. The flight control computer was designed to prevent the crew from stalling the airplane. They were doing a slow flight (relative) fly by at an airshow...got it behind the power curve, and waited too long to push the power levers up. Because of spool up lag time, etc., the speed continued to decay and regardless of how hard both pilots pulled on the pilot control input devices (I don't know if they can really be called sticks) the computer would not let the AOA increase beyond a programed value.
I believe their was some major software rewrites after that accident.


The famous video of the incident where the crew flew a perfectly good airplane into the trees at airshow in France. It was actually the Airbus testpilot trying to demonstrate a capability that the fly-by-wire A320 has. If the aircraft senses that you are too slow and reaching a critical angle of attack , it will automatically increase power to full thrust. This protection is provided in all phases of flight except when below either 100' or 50'...I can't remember. You wouldn't want it then because you wouldn't be able to land. It will increase to full thrust even with the throttles pulled to flight idle.
Again, the aircraft did exactly as it was told to do. Pilot error.:(
 
Best decision in question?

Understand he cleared the GW bridge by 250ft and that would not give him enough alt. to make TEB which is a bit far that low.

The data points from flightaware indicate they just began their descent at GW bridge, more like 2000-2500 feet. Moreover, looks like they glided about 8 miles from there. It would have been 4 or 5 to either TEB or LGA.

Based on these facts I would say he underestimated his glide to TEB and didn't make the best decision, but unless there was something on his EFIS telling him his dead stick glide area, I doubt anyone could have.
 
The famous video of the incident where the crew flew a perfectly good airplane into the trees at airshow in France. It was actually the Airbus testpilot trying to demonstrate a capability that the fly-by-wire A320 has. If the aircraft senses that you are too slow and reaching a critical angle of attack , it will automatically increase power to full thrust. This protection is provided in all phases of flight except when below either 100' or 50'...I can't remember. You wouldn't want it then because you wouldn't be able to land. It will increase to full thrust even with the throttles pulled to flight idle.
Again, the aircraft did exactly as it was told to do. Pilot error.:(

Jim, is it true with just the RAT out and no APU, the side stick controller is inop and the airplane has to be flown with a trim wheel? A friend called this evening (another retired guy) and said he heard that's what the situation was.
 
The famous video of the incident where the crew flew a perfectly good airplane into the trees at airshow in France. It was actually the Airbus testpilot trying to demonstrate a capability that the fly-by-wire A320 has. If the aircraft senses that you are too slow and reaching a critical angle of attack , it will automatically increase power to full thrust. This protection is provided in all phases of flight except when below either 100' or 50'...I can't remember. You wouldn't want it then because you wouldn't be able to land. It will increase to full thrust even with the throttles pulled to flight idle.
Again, the aircraft did exactly as it was told to do. Pilot error.:(
Actually, the pilot was an airline pilot, not an Airbus test pilot. But, you are correct that the aircraft did exactly what it was designed to do. The pilot simply did not understand the potential consequences of doing a full aft stick pass at very low altitude. If he had attempted such a manoeuvre with a "conventional" aircraft, the aircraft would have stalled and dropped a wing, ending in a major catastrophe. Mind you, no idiot would have attempted such a manoeuvre in a conventional aircraft.
 
The data points from flightaware indicate they just began their descent at GW bridge, more like 2000-2500 feet. Moreover, looks like they glided about 8 miles from there. It would have been 4 or 5 to either TEB or LGA.

Based on these facts I would say he underestimated his glide to TEB and didn't make the best decision, but unless there was something on his EFIS telling him his dead stick glide area, I doubt anyone could have.

As I said in my previous post, it is a good thing the pilot did not have an irrational fear of water or the outcome would have been much worst. Even after the fact and knowing the surrounding area, the best decision for the safety of those on the plane and on the ground was the Hudson ditching.

-Winds were from the North East so the 8 miles gliding is downwind.
-Trying to get back to LGA even though only 5 miles, is INTO the wind and over the city-not good.
-The GW bridge is 624 ft MSL, the elevation at TEB is only 9 ft MSL but there are many 600 ft obstacles on the way to it.
-Trying to get to TEB would involve passing over congested area, obstacles, then a turn to line up with runway.

Trying to make it back to an airport when the best place to land is straight ahead is the kind of piloting that usually ends up killing those in the aircraft and frequently many on the ground. I'm certain that would have been the case if the pilot had tried to make it either back to LGA or to TEB.
 
From 1549's highest point TEB would have been to the South West and just as many turns as the Hudson option. Runway 19 parallel's the Hudson.
I don't see how you see "just as many turns." The aircraft was already turning south bound when the failure occurred. Look at the Flightaware flightpath, the Hudson option was basically a straight ahead glide. TEB would have been a right turn to the airport, followed by a left turn to line up with the runway, with (how much?) feet loss per turn. Turning a low speed, low altitude, no power aircraft loaded with fuel over a congested area with many tall obstructions is a recipe for disaster.
 
I heard a report that the rear doors are purposefully locked closed by the "ditching switch" to prevent water from entering the cabin.:cool: I haven't flown Airbus, anyone here who can confirm or deny?

There is a ditching push-button located on the overhead panel on the First Officer's side. Basically it closes all valves below the waterline, ie the outflow valve, ram air inlet, avionics ventilation inlet, and pack flow valves. It does not lock any doors when pushed. Under normal circumstances the only time you would push it is on the ground during deicing/anti-icing and heavy rain situations to keep the fluid out.

The Ram Air Turbine would supply hydraulic power to one of the 3 hydraulic systems. This would supply pressure to most of the flight controls, but not all. It would also power the emergency electrical system giving the Captain's side basic instrumentation.
 
From 1549's highest point TEB would have been to the South West and just as many turns as the Hudson option. Runway 19 parallel's the Hudson.

Ajay, you're beating a bad drum and it sounds awful.

Jet transports have a good glide ratio but it is with a clean wing and speed is relatively high, like maybe 200-250 knots depending on weight. When it is time to land much energy has to be dissipated at just the right spot relative to the touch down point. This is done by extending gear and flaps - if there is hydraulic power to do it - and as speed bleeds off, drag goes up quick and without engine power, the only way to control sink is to keep increasing the angle of attack until the touch down. There is no such thing as an on speed stable approach at normal landing speeds (120-140) without engine power.

What Capt. Sullenberger decided was the best and safest thing to do under the circumstances.

He set up a glide down the river and when at a flare height, leveled off to dissipate speed and landed in the water as slow as possible. It was a classic water landing, perfectly executed, and not a soul was lost.

It is not the same as losing an engine in your RV, Ajay.
 
Just a comment

In my life time I have never seen anything like this. There were no weak links in the chain of responsibility and execution anywhere that I can see. I mean every single one including the airplane crew, the passengers, ferry boat captains and crews, emergency teams, divers, everyone. Only in America. Well done!

Bob Axsom
 
I think it is clear that something bad happened to this airliner and that the outcome was remarkably good.

I am seeing posts that the pilot made all sorts of mistakes and other posts about the good job he did. My view is that very little is known about the incident. We don't know how much power was available or the exact cause for the loss of power in one or both engines. We don't know if it was theoretically possible for the airplane to reach a long runway whether or not it would have been wise. We just don't know much at all.

I am just as uncomfortable with deifying the pilot as I am with condemning him at this point. The crew very well may have done a job comparable with the job done by the crew of the Gimli Glider or the Sioux City flight 232 accident. These were very well handled incidents that did not involve any miracles.

We will find out in time what happened! I learned the lesson long ago that what may seem to be obvious in an aircraft accident is often not what is found to be true.

I think this thread is serving little purpose at this point and won't be disappointed if someone decides it should be closed.
 
Ajay, you're beating a bad drum and it sounds awful.

Jet transports have a good glide ratio but it is with a clean wing and speed is relatively high, like maybe 200-250 knots depending on weight. When it is time to land much energy has to be dissipated at just the right spot relative to the touch down point. This is done by extending gear and flaps - if there is hydraulic power to do it - and as speed bleeds off, drag goes up quick and without engine power, the only way to control sink is to keep increasing the angle of attack until the touch down. There is no such thing as an on speed stable approach at normal landing speeds (120-140) without engine power.

What Capt. Sullenberger decided was the best and safest thing to do under the circumstances.

He set up a glide down the river and when at a flare height, leveled off to dissipate speed and landed in the water as slow as possible. It was a classic water landing, perfectly executed, and not a soul was lost.

It is not the same as losing an engine in your RV, Ajay.

David,

You found me out, I'm just an arm chair observer, and I'm only looking and interpreting the evidence in my limited fashion. Nevertheless, it tells me a story that he could've made TEB. I haven't seen anything to discount it yet.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE1549/history/20090115/2026Z/KLGA/KLGA/tracklog
plot out the coordinates.
On his descent he was pointed straight at TEB. The winds were favorable. Look at the altitudes, look at the ground speeds. I think an issue might have been whether he could've burned ENOUGH altitude to land at TEB, not whether he could've made it. Maybe he needed the extra range because he didn't have auxiliary power and flaps to bring it down at a faster slower rate?

ajay
 
Ajay, Please give the drum a rest. All the details will come out in the NTSB report. You weren't there, you have no idea what systems were operational in the airplane, and you have no idea what the view was out the windshield. Playing coulda, woulda, shoulda at this point doesn't prove anything.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
David,

You found me out, I'm just an arm chair observer, and I'm only looking and interpreting the evidence in my limited fashion. Nevertheless, it tells me a story that he could've made TEB. I haven't seen anything to discount it yet.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE1549/history/20090115/2026Z/KLGA/KLGA/tracklog
plot out the coordinates.
On his descent he was pointed straight at TEB. The winds were favorable. Look at the altitudes, look at the ground speeds. I think an issue might have been whether he could've burned ENOUGH altitude to land at TEB, not whether he could've made it. Maybe he needed the extra range because he didn't have auxiliary power and flaps to bring it down at a faster slower rate?

ajay

Even if you figure he could have made it to the airport doesn't mean that would have been the safest choice. You have to remember that this aircraft was full of fuel and would have been to heavy to land on a runway. The outcome could have been worse if the pilot had tried to land at the airport. Very good pilot decision making in this case.
 
Glad to hear it. This once again highlights the uselessness of the rumor mill. The previous post claiming that flight data is relayed from the aircraft in real time seemed hard to believe in light of the great lengths they go to to recover the box.

We can second guess the crew all we like, but I gotta say that if I was riding in an airliner at 3000 ft with two shredded engines and all I suffered was some cold toes, I'd be pretty thankful.
 
...and it's not too bad a glider....

....We can second guess the crew all we like, but I gotta say that if I was riding in an airliner at 3000 ft with two shredded engines and all I suffered was some cold toes, I'd be pretty thankful.

...seems to be around 20 to 1 glide ratio if my estimates are correct.
That would be around 10 to 12 sm for the 3000 ft max altitude they reached.

A bit better than our RVs...:)
 
Here is a good video from YouTube of the landing and the rescue.

My hat is off to everyone involved, including the passengers who remained calm and exited the airplane w/o grabbing their belongings, panic, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top