US Airways A320 Crash Into Hudson River

Last edited:
John Collins said:
Coast Guard video of water landing and rescue. The airplane shows up at 2:02:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e6_1232166872
Click to expand...

Wow, watch at 3:06 on LiveLeak's timer (not the USCG timestamp)... guy walking down to the end of the right wing slips off the trailing edge into the water, and another guy comes and helps him get back on the wing!

(easier to see in full screen mode)

That view from across the river really shows how fast the current was moving...
 
Last edited:
Seeing the tape, doesn't it look like it was submerged?

I wonder if Air Alaska went down and didn't come back up or if they bobbed out there for a while. I think they went in upside down or straight in though?
 
If you are referring to the Alaska Airlines MD80 that crashed after the trim jackscrew failure, they hit the water at very high speed- there was no surviving that one.
 
wby0nder said:
For sure one can say that Capt Sullys glider rating didn't hurt him!
Click to expand...

definitely.

they got a phone interview with an area guy who flies for United. They wanted an interview about "Commercial pilot safety training" What they didnt know was that they really wanted an interview about "Airline Pilot recurrent training" and thats not something that I know enough about to talk about, especially on the news.
 
SCCutler said:
If you are referring to the Alaska Airlines MD80 that crashed after the trim jackscrew failure, they hit the water at very high speed- there was no surviving that one.
Click to expand...
They were also inverted and hit nose first. That is the most chilling CVR I have heard too. That last recorded message was, I think the FO, saying just before they hit "Ok here we go!" You know that he meant 'here we go to die. Apparently there are also recorded many screams from the back of the plane.

A guy who worked for me was going to take that flight, but decided to stay at the meeting he was at for an extra day.
 
Some of the ATC conversation is being released
"This is cactus 1549, hit birds, we lost thrust in both engines," the flight's pilot told controllers at New York's LaGuardia International Airport at approximately 3:27 p.m. Thursday. "We're turning back towards LaGuardia."
The flight, bound for Charlotte, North Carolina, had barely reached 3,000 feet (914 meters) when pilot C.B. "Sully" Sullenberger made the emergency call, National Transportation Safety Board member Kitty Higgins said at a news conference Saturday.
Controllers immediately began preparations to clear a runway for an emergency landing, but less than a minute later, Sullenberger reported the aircraft wouldn't make it, Higgins said.
"We're unable. We may end up in the Hudson," he said, according to Higgins.
When a controller asked if the pilot wanted to try for an airport about six miles away in New Jersey, the pilot responded, "We can't do it."
The last communication from the plane to controllers, Higgins said, was the pilot saying, "We're gonna be in the Hudson."
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/17/hudson.plane.crash/index.html

There is also a link to some of the 911 calls. In the got it wrong Mr. Witness catagory is this call
"I'm witnessing a airplane. It's going down. It's on fire," a man, calling from the Bronx, told a 911 operator at 3:29 p.m., three minutes after the plane left LaGuardia.
Click to expand...
I wonder why he thought it was on fire? But it struck me as interesting considering that I thought I read on here not too long ago that most people will report hearing the engine sputter when witnessing a GA crash even if the engine was running fine.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/17/hudson.plane.crash/index.html
 
I think one of the passengers said fire was coming from one of the engines after the bird strike. The guy on the ground might have seen the airplane then. Dunno for how long, but reports from the NTSB interview said they were still attempting re-starts while running the emer checklists. Maybe that's why they missed the ditch switch. That means (to me anyway) that they hadn't hit the fire button yet. Greg would know more about the fuel controllers, cutoffs and all that work on big motors.

smigaldi said:
Some of the ATC conversation is being released
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/17/hudson.plane.crash/index.html

There is also a link to some of the 911 calls. In the got it wrong Mr. Witness catagory is this call
I wonder why he thought it was on fire? But it struck me as interesting considering that I thought I read on here not too long ago that most people will report hearing the engine sputter when witnessing a GA crash even if the engine was running fine.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/17/hudson.plane.crash/index.html
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I think one of the passengers said fire was coming from one of the engines after the bird strike. The guy on the ground might have seen the airplane then. Dunno for how long, but reports from the NTSB interview said they were still attempting re-starts while running the emer checklists. Maybe that's why they missed the ditch switch. That means (to me anyway) that they hadn't hit the fire button yet. Greg would know more about the fuel controllers, cutoffs and all that work on big motors.
Click to expand...
Good point there could have been something coming out of the engine that was fire like. I saw a UAL 747 suck in a cargo container on take off once and it did have an interesting plume appear out the back end of the engine.
 
smigaldi said:
They were also inverted and hit nose first. That is the most chilling CVR I have heard too. That last recorded message was, I think the FO, saying just before they hit "Ok here we go!" You know that he meant 'here we go to die. Apparently there are also recorded many screams from the back of the plane.

A guy who worked for me was going to take that flight, but decided to stay at the meeting he was at for an extra day.
Click to expand...

Chilling, indeed- those guys fought like hell to the bitter end. At one point, flying inverted, one comments that "...at least we're flying..."
 
Greg Bockelman said:
AdamZ said:
Also in the event the FO was flying the plane in the event of the emergency such as this one would the Captain automatically or usually take over the stick?
Click to expand...
Short answer is, "It depends." on how comfortable the Captain was with letting the First Officer handle it. In this case, if the First Officer was flying the airplane, the Captain was certainly within his rights and probably was expected to take over.
Click to expand...

AvWeb is reporting that FO Skiles was flying the leg. They state in the article that Sully immediately took over the controls.


http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/USAirwaysFlight1549Crew_SawBirdsFillWindshield_199597-1.html
 
What is amazing is how little splash there was.

Capt. Scully made a greaser on water - draining every last bit of lift and speed. Another reason the choice of the Hudson was a great one is it was an effectively unlimited length runway.
 
The Pilot Chesley Sully Sullenberger is supposed to be on The Today show in the morning 7:00 to 9:00 on NBC. I only hope that Matt knows what questions to ask.
 
wabower said:
I think one of the passengers said fire was coming from one of the engines after the bird strike. The guy on the ground might have seen the airplane then. Dunno for how long, but reports from the NTSB interview said they were still attempting re-starts while running the emer checklists. Maybe that's why they missed the ditch switch. That means (to me anyway) that they hadn't hit the fire button yet. Greg would know more about the fuel controllers, cutoffs and all that work on big motors.
Click to expand...

Getting a fire just after takeoff would not make you want to pull the fire handle right away. Besides fire coming out the back end you still my be generating thrust. So you don't want to give that away until you don't need it anymore. Besides if the fire were to get too hot the engine should burn itself off of the airplane and fall off.
 
LearDriver said:
Besides if the fire were to get too hot the engine should burn itself off of the airplane and fall off.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a "feature". I can just see the salesman saying. "And with this baby if you get a fire it burns so hot at the coupling that the engine just drops right off and is no longer a problem!!" ;)
 
wabower said:
Dunno for how long, but reports from the NTSB interview said they were still attempting re-starts while running the emer checklists.
Click to expand...

I don't remember if the Airbus has an Auto Relight feature. Been too long. But if it did, the engines would continue to try to start until inhibited.

Maybe that's why they missed the ditch switch.
Click to expand...

Given the timeline of the whole flight, one can be forgiven for not getting to that switch. It would show up in a prepare for ditching checklist that would be run when you have plenty of time for it.

That means (to me anyway) that they hadn't hit the fire button yet.
Click to expand...

Well, it is very possible that they did not get a fire indication in the cockpit. The detectors are inside the cowling but OUTSIDE of the engine. The fire they saw was more than likely coming from the core of the engine and would not set off the fire detectors right away.

Greg would know more about the fuel controllers, cutoffs and all that work on big motors.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know the nuts and bolts of it, just that they work.
 
As odd as it sounds Scott, it's true. Our engine struts are designed the same way. The mounting bolts are designed to melt at a certain temp thus allowing the motor to depart the aircraft. As for the fire on takeoff, an engine still producing thrust, fire or no, is better than no engine at all. We are trained to let the engine burn untill we get to a sfe altitude and get the airplane cleaned up. After we are stable, we then run the ENGINE FAILURE OR FIRE checklist. Unnerving at first, but you get used to seeing the bright red light in the sim.
 
And for those curious, on the mighty E-3 the Fire Switch has a few functions: Close the Fuel shutoff, close bleed air, open generator controll breakers, arm the fire bottle squibb, inhibit the ignition, and on the two inboards close the hydraulic shutoff valves. A lot happens when the swich is pulled. Honestly the biggest issue with pulling the switch is making sure you get the correct one. Bad juju if you shut down the wrong motor. Thant's on the spot DQ stuff right there if done in the sim or airplane.
 
AWACSEng said:
Bad juju if you shut down the wrong motor.
Click to expand...
Also bad juju (though not quite as bad) if you shut down an engine when there was actually no fire. I've had the fire light come on for a bleed air leak. That why they teach you if there are no other indications of a fire to bring the throttle to idle and wait 15 seconds to see if the light stays on.
 
Hey, Bob! We need you at Gaston's this year!

This just released:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=6673258&page=2

He had been scheduled to give his first public interview on Monday morning to NBC "Today" show host Matt Lauer, but the appearance was canceled Sunday at the request of the U.S. Airline Pilots Association.

Stephen Bradford, president of the pilots association, which represents the pilots on Flight 1549, said he had asked Sullenberger not to engage in any media activities for the time being. He said this was because the pilots association has "interested party" status with the NTSB which allows it to participate in the investigation.

"If the NTSB perceives that we are in any way compromising the objectivity of the investigation by innocuously releasing information to the media, our status will be rescinded and we will be unable to help determine the causal factors leading up to this very positive and well-documented outcome," he said.

Bob Bement said:
The Pilot Chesley Sully Sullenberger is supposed to be on The Today show in the morning 7:00 to 9:00 on NBC. I only hope that Matt knows what questions to ask.
Click to expand...
 
Steve said:
Hey, Bob! We need you at Gaston's this year!

This just released:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=6673258&page=2

He had been scheduled to give his first public interview on Monday morning to NBC "Today" show host Matt Lauer, but the appearance was canceled Sunday at the request of the U.S. Airline Pilots Association.

Stephen Bradford, president of the pilots association, which represents the pilots on Flight 1549, said he had asked Sullenberger not to engage in any media activities for the time being. He said this was because the pilots association has "interested party" status with the NTSB which allows it to participate in the investigation.

"If the NTSB perceives that we are in any way compromising the objectivity of the investigation by innocuously releasing information to the media, our status will be rescinded and we will be unable to help determine the causal factors leading up to this very positive and well-documented outcome," he said.
Click to expand...

Unions. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to supress some "not so good" news about the cause of the double engine failure.
 
Steve said:
"If the NTSB perceives that we are in any way compromising the objectivity of the investigation by innocuously releasing information to the media, our status will be rescinded and we will be unable to help determine the causal factors leading up to this very positive and well-documented outcome," he said.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a load of horse scat to me. The guy was flying the freakin' plane - how can anything he says not be authoritative and relevant to the investigation? The only thing the flight crew speaking publicly will compromise is the option to hide/cover-up/or otherwise spin what happened.
 
PittsDriver said:
The only thing the flight crew speaking publicly will compromise is the option to hide/cover-up/or otherwise spin what happened.
Click to expand...
Given the inevitability of lawsuits, don't you think that is important? I am not suggesting that there should be any coverup to authorities. But it is prudent to avoid situations where a slip of the tongue could aid an ambulance chaser.

-Skip
 
Cancelled? Damn, I was hoping we could get some info on this incident.

Steve said:
Hey, Bob! We need you at Gaston's this year!

This just released:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=6673258&page=2

He had been scheduled to give his first public interview on Monday morning to NBC "Today" show host Matt Lauer, but the appearance was canceled Sunday at the request of the U.S. Airline Pilots Association.

Stephen Bradford, president of the pilots association, which represents the pilots on Flight 1549, said he had asked Sullenberger not to engage in any media activities for the time being. He said this was because the pilots association has "interested party" status with the NTSB which allows it to participate in the investigation.

"If the NTSB perceives that we are in any way compromising the objectivity of the investigation by innocuously releasing information to the media, our status will be rescinded and we will be unable to help determine the causal factors leading up to this very positive and well-documented outcome," he said.
Click to expand...
 
SkyHog said:
Unions. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to supress some "not so good" news about the cause of the double engine failure.
Click to expand...

We are not the UAW. ALPA does not suppress stuff. Besides, the NTSB is VERY good at what they do.
 
Everskyward said:
Also bad juju (though not quite as bad) if you shut down an engine when there was actually no fire. I've had the fire light come on for a bleed air leak. That why they teach you if there are no other indications of a fire to bring the throttle to idle and wait 15 seconds to see if the light stays on.
Click to expand...

Id have to say that is airframe/company specific. We are trained to honor the light. Ive had the same scenario (bleed air leak w/fire light) and shut down the engine IAW our ops specs.
 
AWACSEng said:
Id have to say that is airframe/company specific. We are trained to honor the light. Ive had the same scenario (bleed air leak w/fire light) and shut down the engine IAW our ops specs.
Click to expand...
I would say it's airframe specific, although it's been that way in all the jets (all small) which I have flown. Our company is silent on this other than to follow the manufacturer's recommendations.
 
Skip Miller said:
Given the inevitability of lawsuits, don't you think that is important? I am not suggesting that there should be any coverup to authorities. But it is prudent to avoid situations where a slip of the tongue could aid an ambulance chaser.
Click to expand...
It's not only prudent but probably prohibited by US Air for the crew to talk to the media, at least if the guy wants to keep his job. I know it is for us in the event of an accident and I only work for a little charter company. No talking to the media, or to anyone else for that matter, in the event of an accident, unless it's officially required.
 
Everskyward said:
It's not only prudent but probably prohibited by US Air for the crew to talk to the media, at least if the guy wants to keep his job. I know it is for us in the event of an accident and I only work for a little charter company. No talking to the media, or to anyone else for that matter, in the event of an accident, unless it's officially required.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that to be true. I am allowed to speak on certain topics to the press for my company. But that came only after they, public affairs, signed me off. Official spokesman are used most of the time. Even when I do meet the press I have to a PA person with me. That is corporate policy for everyone but the CEO.
 
I heard this evening that the NTSB has made a statement about the FDR information. One (1) second after the pilots were heard calling "birds!", both engines lost power simultaneously. I think that puts to an end any silly speculation about shutting down the wrong engine, as if we haven't already discounted it.
 
gprellwitz said:
I heard this evening that the NTSB has made a statement about the FDR information. One (1) second after the pilots were heard calling "birds!", both engines lost power simultaneously. I think that puts to an end any silly speculation about shutting down the wrong engine, as if we haven't already discounted it.
Click to expand...

There are those that just WANT to believe the crew fu.... uhh... messed up. :mad3::mad3:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
There are those that just WANT to believe the crew fu.... uhh... messed up. :mad3::mad3:
Click to expand...

Yeah, But Kitty Higgins of the NTSB said "Miracles happen because a lot of everyday things happen for years and years and years" "These people knew what they were supposed to do and they did it and as a result, nobody lost their life."
That seems like a ringing endorsement, especially this early in the investigation.

Source: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090118/Plane.Splashdown/
 
Greg Bockelman said:
There are those that just WANT to believe the crew fu.... uhh... messed up. :mad3::mad3:
Click to expand...

especially those who were convinced they had a nice, fat, slam dunk lawsuit against the airline and the crew a la Travis Barker and DJ Whatshisname.
 
gprellwitz said:
Yeah, But Kitty Higgins of the NTSB said "Miracles happen because a lot of everyday things happen for years and years and years" "These people knew what they were supposed to do and they did it and as a result, nobody lost their life."
That seems like a ringing endorsement, especially this early in the investigation.

Source: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090118/Plane.Splashdown/
Click to expand...
This sounds familiar from yesterday...

KennyFlys said:
Some say these are miracles. The survivals aren't miracles. The miracle is we have professionals willing to constantly improve their skills and therefore improve the survivability of such incidents. Without that dedication, there would be no chance of survival.
Click to expand...
 
KennyFlys said:
Originally Posted by gprellwitz
Yeah, But Kitty Higgins of the NTSB said "Miracles happen because a lot of everyday things happen for years and years and years" "These people knew what they were supposed to do and they did it and as a result, nobody lost their life."
That seems like a ringing endorsement, especially this early in the investigation.

Source: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...ne.Splashdown/
Click to expand...
This sounds familiar from yesterday...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KennyFlys
Some say these are miracles. The survivals aren't miracles. The miracle is we have professionals willing to constantly improve their skills and therefore improve the survivability of such incidents. Without that dedication, there would be no chance of survival.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So you're saying that Kitty is really Kenny, Kenny?? :D:rofl:
 
Steve said:
This just released:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=6673258&page=2

He had been scheduled to give his first public interview on Monday morning to NBC "Today" show host Matt Lauer, but the appearance was canceled Sunday at the request of the U.S. Airline Pilots Association.
Click to expand...


I can't find anything at that URL about the interview being cancelled. Can anybody else find another source confirming the cancellation?

Jim
 
gprellwitz said:
Yeah, But Kitty Higgins of the NTSB said "Miracles happen because a lot of everyday things happen for years and years and years" "These people knew what they were supposed to do and they did it and as a result, nobody lost their life."
That seems like a ringing endorsement, especially this early in the investigation.

Source: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090118/Plane.Splashdown/
Click to expand...

You had a crew that can execute their basic training and were over a very suitable landing site. The odds were high in their favor, no miracle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top