Sully wasn't the first.

Eerily similar in some aspects:

But moments later, as the spray cleared, the Pontchartrain's crew could see tiny figures walking on the wings of the floating, shattered plane.
Click to expand...

Video:

 
Last edited:
amazing all survived given the condition of that plane after ditching!
 
I guess they didn't all survive:

Ogg continued to fly until his death in 1991, but the ditching stayed in his mind. His widow recalled asking him, as she sat by his deathbed, about a faraway look on his face.
"I was thinking of those poor canaries that drowned in the hold when I had to ditch the plane," he said.
Marilyn Ogg remembers her father getting teary-eyed years later about those canaries, too, and two dogs that were lost in the cargo hold.
 
I'm amazed that the plane was re-usable. I guess the A-320s are a POS compared to the Douglas!

-Skip
 
My point exactly!!
Despite all the media hype surrounding Flt1549 (there are rumors Larry King has exclusive interview rights with the remaining members of the bird family) the bottomline is ditching planes successfully on water is far from a miraculous feat. It's actually quite doable as these examples have shown and Sully had as ideal a set of circumstances to pull it off as any pilot has had in similar situations, i.e. a wide area of calm flat water, a shallow descent from low altitiude and low air speed.
So who's playing Sully in the "miracle" movie? :rolleyes:
 
RedBaron6 said:
a shallow descent from low altitiude and low air speed.
Click to expand...
Yes..because the airplane automatically does the above every time. There is no timing or skill involved. Basically, just sit back, and the airplane will gently land into the water. If it doesn't go well, just press the reset button and try again.
 
jesse said:
Yes..because the airplane automatically does the above every time. There is no timing or skill involved. Basically, just sit back, and the airplane will gently land into the water. If it doesn't go well, just press the reset button and try again.
Click to expand...

Of course there was timing and skill involved. Sully deserves much credit for sticking that landing beautifully. He couldnt have done it any better.
HOWEVER if you listen to the media hype you'd think a water landing has never been tried before nevermind sucessfully pulled off.
"It's a miracle" they cried. Uh no it wasn't a miracle.
It was a highly skilled pilot faced with a potentially deadly problem who's only option was to put it in the water and he did so. After the bird strikes Sully had everything else go his way from his shallow altitude (HUGE reason for the successful ditch - if they had any kind of height when the engines quit they would not have been horizontal but more vertical to the water when hitting it) to the weather to the lack of chop on the river to the boats close enough for an almost immediate rescue.
 
RedBaron6 said:
...from his shallow altitude (HUGE reason for the successful ditch - if they had any kind of height when the engines quit they would not have been horizontal but more vertical to the water when hitting it) ...
Click to expand...

huh?? If they wouldve had more altitude they possibly couldve made it back to an airport. how does the altitude at engine failure affect the glide angle at touchdown?? This CFI-Glider wants to know.
 
RedBaron6 said:
After the bird strikes Sully had everything else go his way from his shallow altitude (HUGE reason for the successful ditch - if they had any kind of height when the engines quit they would not have been horizontal but more vertical to the water when hitting it)
Click to expand...

Please DO explain this.
 
Wtf is a shallow altitude?
 
tonycondon said:
huh?? If they wouldve had more altitude they possibly couldve made it back to an airport. how does the altitude at engine failure affect the glide angle at touchdown?? This CFI-Glider wants to know.
Click to expand...


I don't even want to know...


The real work Capt. Sully did was in the first minute or so after the engines quit.
 
Greg I think he's saying the decent angle wouldl be much steeper. Of course this fails to take into account the fact that:

A) The plane had a better chance of making it back to LGA or TEB if it had more altitude; and

B) The plane can glide and circle so it wouldn't have to ditch at a steep angle.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well that does not make sense either. The descent angle is what it is, regardless of altitude.
Click to expand...

I know and I am just guessing that he's looking at the landing from say 7k feet vs 3K feet on to the same stretch of river .

I'm in 100% agreement with you and Jesse. Just don't know why I tried to explain what I thought he was thinking sigh.
 
tonycondon said:
huh?? If they wouldve had more altitude they possibly couldve made it back to an airport. how does the altitude at engine failure affect the glide angle at touchdown?? This CFI-Glider wants to know.
Click to expand...


Say what??
"How does altitude at engine failure affect the glide angle at touchdown"?
You might want to rethink this. At least I hope you do.
The glide angle at touchdown for a jet suffering power loss and descending down from 3,000 feet is quite different from that of a jet suffering power loss and descending down from 10,000 or 15,000 or 20,000 feet. What saved Sully is that he didn't have all that far to descend and had enough forward momentum to keep the plane level with the water when he put her in the drink.
 
Where's the popcorn smiley???
 
RedBaron6 said:
Say what??
"How does altitude at engine failure affect the glide angle at touchdown"?
You might want to rethink this. At least I hope you do.
The glide angle at touchdown for a jet suffering power loss and descending down from 3,000 feet is quite different from that of a jet suffering power loss and descending down from 10,000 or 15,000 or 20,000 feet. What saved Sully is that he didn't have all that far to descend and had enough forward momentum to keep the plane level with the water when he put her in the drink.
Click to expand...

So you think that if he lost the power at 10 or 15 or 20 thousand that he would have gone in vertical? You aren't making sense. You need to explain yourself better because there are a lot of us that have some knowledge of this stuff that do not understand where you are coming from.

Also it might help us understand where you are coming from if we knew what your aviation background is.
 
Last edited:
RedBaron6 said:
Say what??
"How does altitude at engine failure affect the glide angle at touchdown"?
You might want to rethink this. At least I hope you do.
The glide angle at touchdown for a jet suffering power loss and descending down from 3,000 feet is quite different from that of a jet suffering power loss and descending down from 10,000 or 15,000 or 20,000 feet. What saved Sully is that he didn't have all that far to descend and had enough forward momentum to keep the plane level with the water when he put her in the drink.
Click to expand...

Okay, this tells me that you probably aren't a pilot, and if you are, you're probably one of the idiots that doesn't understand the treadmill problem either.
 
RedBaron6 said:
Say what??
"How does altitude at engine failure affect the glide angle at touchdown"?
You might want to rethink this. At least I hope you do.
The glide angle at touchdown for a jet suffering power loss and descending down from 3,000 feet is quite different from that of a jet suffering power loss and descending down from 10,000 or 15,000 or 20,000 feet. What saved Sully is that he didn't have all that far to descend and had enough forward momentum to keep the plane level with the water when he put her in the drink.
Click to expand...

You obviously aren't a pilot...nor are you even a flight sim pilot. Perhaps you fly paper airplanes? Probably not, if you did, you'd understand this... You're very wrong and arguing with some people that are quite knowledgeable and actually fly airplanes *and* airliners.

For the most part, the higher you are the better off you're going to be.
 
Last edited:
RedBaron6 said:
Say what??
"How does altitude at engine failure affect the glide angle at touchdown"?
You might want to rethink this. At least I hope you do.
The glide angle at touchdown for a jet suffering power loss and descending down from 3,000 feet is quite different from that of a jet suffering power loss and descending down from 10,000 or 15,000 or 20,000 feet. What saved Sully is that he didn't have all that far to descend and had enough forward momentum to keep the plane level with the water when he put her in the drink.
Click to expand...

Well, there went what was left of that tiny little itsy bitsy shred of credibility that you may have had left.

According to your logic the space shuttle is a myth.
 
The best response to a troll is no response at all.
 
FlyNE said:
Well, there went what was left of that tiny little itsy bitsy shred of credibility that you may have had left.

According to your logic the space shuttle is a myth.
Click to expand...

Are you comparing the configurations of the space shuttle to that of a commercial jet?? :nono: Doesn't fly!! (pun intended)

The issue here is quite simple. A jet that loses power at 10,000 feet will touchdown on the water at a different angle than a powerless jet descending down from 3,000 feet. Hilarious how you're all struggling with this.
 
RedBaron6 said:
The issue here is quite simple. A jet that loses power at 10,000 feet will touchdown on the water at a different angle than a powerless jet descending down from 3,000 feet. Hilarious how you're all struggling with this.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're so sure you're right, how about you teach us why this is.

Will the airspeed be different too?
 
RedBaron6 said:
The issue here is quite simple. A jet that loses power at 10,000 feet will touchdown on the water at a different angle than a powerless jet descending down from 3,000 feet. Hilarious how you're all struggling with this.
Click to expand...

When was the last time you glided an airplane? Any airplane? The feds would never certify any aircraft that could not land in a controlled manner after total power loss. Even helicopters can glide; it's called autorotation.

There have been instances in the past when airliners lost all power at cruising altitude and landed just fine. One was the "Gimli Glider," a 767 that ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet in July of 1983 and landed at the airport in Gimli, Manitoba. Both engines quite dead. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

And one more: an Airbus A330 ran out of fuel over the Atlantic and deadsticked into airport at the Azores. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

In '96 a DC-9 ran out of fuel and landed in Tampico, Mexico. http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/allegro.htm

And many years ago a 707, I think it was, had all four engines die 120 miles east of LA while descending from cruise altitude, and it glided in and landed. The passengers didn't know anything was wrong until it coasted to a stop on the runway and couldn't taxi. Can't find a link to that one.

So, once again, try to convince us that an airliner's glide steepens uncontrollably as it descends. You watch too many movies, maybe.

Dan
 
RedBaron6 said:
Are you comparing the configurations of the space shuttle to that of a commercial jet?? :nono: Doesn't fly!! (pun intended)

The issue here is quite simple. A jet that loses power at 10,000 feet will touchdown on the water at a different angle than a powerless jet descending down from 3,000 feet. Hilarious how you're all struggling with this.
Click to expand...
What are your aviation qualifications?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top