Hudson River Ditching Pilot Tells Her Story

MachFly said:
2225 Eastern??


I'm sorry but flying at night so low over such cold water on a single engine airplane is just stupid.
Click to expand...

She accepted a higher level of risk than you would but I don't think that's stupid. She was more prepared (PFDs) than many of us who have flown up and down that scenic route.

However, by your logic, every time we fly period... is stupid to those that refuse to trust their lives in a flying machine, (single or twin).

Stupid is improper fuel management or continued VFR into IMC.
 
Last edited:
redtail said:
She accepted a higher level of risk than you would but I don't think that's stupid. She was more prepared (PFDs) than many of us who have flown up and down that scenic route.

However, by your logic, every time we fly period... is stupid to those that refuse to trust their lives in a flying machine, (single or twin).

Stupid is improper fuel management or continued VFR into IMC.
Click to expand...


Buddy I got no problem tacking risks as long as they are justified. I've done this and a lot more dangerous stuff in an airplane than this, but let's not make the discussion about me.
The reason why I say it's stupid is because there is no need for it. She could have transitioned though bravo or easily flown over it, there is no need to put yourself in a situation where your 100% depended on your engine. See at night rescue is much harder because they need to find you, it's not like you're strobes are going to stay on. She got lucky that hudson river isn't very wide, so they were able to send a rescue boat from a nearby location. Imagine if the same thing would have happened over long island sound...
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
Buddy I got no problem tacking risks as long as they are justified. I've done this and a lot more dangerous stuff in an airplane than this, but let's not make the discussion about me.
The reason why I say it's stupid is because there is no need for it. She could have transitioned though bravo or easily flown over it, there is no need to put yourself in a situation where your 100% depended on your engine. See at night rescue is much harder because they need to find you, it's not like you're strobes are going to stay on. She got lucky that hudson river isn't very wide, so they were able to send a rescue boat from a nearby location. Imagine if the same thing would have happened over long island sound...
Click to expand...

There's no need for a lot of the risk that pilots accept, but we've all accepted risk that others would not. Whether or not it's stupid,depends on the mission. We're 100% dependent on our engine every time we lift off, especially when there's nothing but trees, houses and buildings all around the airport:rolleyes:

No doubt she could have transitioned the bravo if permitted. That would have been at 1500 ft most likely. A little higher, a little less scenic and a few more seconds to decide if you're going for the river or the Palisades Parkway with cars! Big deal.

As for flying over it much higher like I do when crossing the Long Island Sound, that's not the point of flying the scenic corridor of the Hudson. The whole idea is the view, in the SFRA or Skyline Route (bravo 1300-1500)
 
Last edited:
As I've said before, she had the forethought to have floatation devices for both of them. When I flew my daughter and son-in-law on this same flight a week earlier, with NO floatation devices....THAT was stupid:eek:.

I picked them up from Caldwell airport and we flew from the Alpine Tower to Coney Island, then back up the Hudson northbound, past the Alpine Tower and back over to CDW. That's an awful lot of time over water at 1000' with no emergency landing options but the river! If I'd had the same problem as that pilot and flew just as well, making an excellent mayday call as she did, we still would have probably drowned:yikes:
 
The plane sank in 7 minutes? I was always told that low wing planes will float for a long time, even with fuel because gas is less dense than water. Can someone explain why it sank so fast :confused:
 
Mtns2Skies said:
The plane sank in 7 minutes? I was always told that low wing planes will float for a long time, even with fuel because gas is less dense than water. Can someone explain why it sank so fast :confused:
Click to expand...

It aint a canoe. Sometimes they float for awhile, sometimes they sink in seconds. You cant count on the first one happening.
 
I'm impressed that the passenger managed to make not one, but two cell phone calls in the 40 seconds before splashdown.

Oh, okay, he probably called after they were floating in the Hudson. The article doesn't make that clear.

And I sure hope he told his wife whom he was spending the day with BEFORE making that phone call.... :eek:
 
Jay Honeck said:
I'm impressed that the passenger managed to make not one, but two cell phone calls in the 40 seconds before splashdown.

Oh, okay, he probably called after they were floating in the Hudson. The article doesn't make that clear.

And I sure hope he told his wife whom he was spending the day with BEFORE making that phone call.... :eek:
Click to expand...

Yeah the last call was after they were in the water.


Mike I said:
I caught recordings of the mayday and most of the incident response on the LiveATC feeds I run in the NYC area, and compiled a recording of the incident:

Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong link. I meant to post the link to the 911 call. Let me see if I can find it.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
Those suggesting it was no big deal and that an onshore landing might have been a better choice have missed something...

.
Click to expand...
MachFly said:
2225 Eastern??


I'm sorry but flying at night so low over such cold water on a single engine airplane is just stupid.
Click to expand...



It happened at 5:25PM Eastern, 2225Z. Just after sunset in NYC but still light in the sky.
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
Oh yeah, I agree with that.

I never said that she completely screwed it up, it could have ended much worse than it did. It's just that all you guys seem to think that she did some super amazing thing, that is not the case.
Click to expand...

I don't think a pilot has to be super amazing to deserve respect; I'm satisfied with competent, especially when handling an emergency.
 
MachFly said:
If you were to ask me if she did a good job with it, I'd say "yes". However I really think there were much better options.
Click to expand...

And later analysis showed that Sully could have made it back to the airport, but there was no way for him to know that at the time.
 
redtail said:
Don't forget, you also have cliffs on the Jersey side! You better not come up short while stretching the glide:yikes:
Click to expand...

And of course, "stretching" the glide is a misnomer, because in reality it's shortening the glide!
 
No one has mentioned the best part about the press coverage. Here's an example of a regular person flying a regular plane. No mention of GA being millionair's pasttime.
 
redtail said:
There's no need for a lot of the risk that pilots accept, but we've all accepted risk that others would not. Whether or not it's stupid,depends on the mission. We're 100% dependent on our engine every time we lift off, especially when there's nothing but trees, houses and buildings all around the airport:rolleyes:

No doubt she could have transitioned the bravo if permitted. That would have been at 1500 ft most likely. A little higher, a little less scenic and a few more seconds to decide if you're going for the river or the Palisades Parkway with cars! Big deal.

As for flying over it much higher like I do when crossing the Long Island Sound, that's not the point of flying the scenic corridor of the Hudson. The whole idea is the view, in the SFRA or Skyline Route (bravo 1300-1500)
Click to expand...

Okay this isn't going anywhere, now we're just discussing risk management. The thing about risk management is if you have your own opinion (which most people do) you will not agree with someone else's.
 
MachFly said:
Okay this isn't going anywhere, now we're just discussing risk management. The thing about risk management is if you have your own opinion (which most people do) you will not agree with someone else's.
Click to expand...

That's my point:D

Your opinion is, what she did was stupid. Mine is, it wasn't.

Now if you had said that my flight along the same route, a week earlier (in daylight), (with two passengers and zero floatation devices) was stupid, then I'd agree..:yes:
 
Last edited:
redtail said:
Now if you had said that my flight along the same route, a week earlier (in daylight), (with two passengers and zero floatation devices) was stupid, then I'd agree..:yes:
Click to expand...

Well...in the interest of avoid another 3 page discussion I'll just shut up now.

Although I will say that I have done that too :D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top