US Airways A320 Crash Into Hudson River

bjohnson said:
Another question that comes to mind is: Is it SOP to have the APU running on departure? If so, I assume it would provide enough electrical power for all systems.
Click to expand...

The answer is no. After the engines are started, there really isn't a reason to keep it running. In these fuel cost concious times, the less it runs the cheaper it is.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Shouldn't engine outs be a standard part of an emergency checklist for any pilot in any plane?
Click to expand...

Dealing with a single engine failure is a regular, practiced procedure in multiengine airplanes.

Dealing with simultaneous failures of all engines is not. Let me know how many times you practice gliding in the Aztruck.
 
Good grief. Now some people I know are speculating that the airline will be fined for killing migratory birds under the migratory bird protection act.
 
According to the news, now some passengers are saying that the same flight 2 days earlier experienced an engine failure. No more details. Also, who knows if the same flight 2 days earlier was using the same equipment.
 
I've seen reports that confirm its the same actual airplane in those reports, but no validation of the actual claim that the engines had trouble. I've heard "engine failure" and just "loud bangs" in these 'reports'.
 
Greebo said:
Good grief. Now some people I know are speculating that the airline will be fined for killing migratory birds under the migratory bird protection act.
Click to expand...
I think that is baseless speculation by a few who have no clue what they are talking about. But jsut want to rant about something.
 
TMetzinger said:
Dealing with a single engine failure is a regular, practiced procedure in multiengine airplanes.

Dealing with simultaneous failures of all engines is not. Let me know how many times you practice gliding in the Aztruck.
Click to expand...

Understood, but if you look at the post I was responding to, Dave said it should be practice for people operating in and out of that airspace. My point was I didn't see how it should apply to that airspace more than any other.

Obviously if you have a multi engine aircraft you're less concerned with losing both engines than with losing one engine because it's not particularly likely to lose both at once. My point was it's probably not a bad idea to at least think about it, regardless of where you're flying out of.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Understood, but if you look at the post I was responding to, Dave said it should be practice for people operating in and out of that airspace. My point was I didn't see how it should apply to that airspace more than any other.

Obviously if you have a multi engine aircraft you're less concerned with losing both engines than with losing one engine because it's not particularly likely to lose both at once. My point was it's probably not a bad idea to at least think about it, regardless of where you're flying out of.
Click to expand...

I know I think about where to set down in regards to open spaces before every takeoff, but I am usually in a single, or a light twin where climb performance may be marginal. It's a formal part of my pre-takeoff briefing ("If we lose power below 1500 feet, we'll turn left and head for the open space south of the high school"). When I've departed TEB and LGA in little airplanes I've usually said that the water is my ditching point, as there are just no other options.

In more capable airplanes, where climb performance with an engine out is guaranteed, I wouldn't think that sort of consideration comes into play. Most major airports are surrounded by people nowadays, so the same thing applies to DCA, IND, ORD, MDW, DTW, .....
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Shouldn't engine outs be a standard part of an emergency checklist for any pilot in any plane?
Click to expand...

Of course. I was thinking of practicing the whole scenario, engines out and the glide to the river ditching, if airport couldn't be made.
 
TMetzinger said:
When I've departed TEB and LGA in little airplanes I've usually said that the water is my ditching point, as there are just no other options.
Click to expand...

While I've not flown into TEB and LGA, I have done HPN and FRG. For at least a good portion of flight around NYC, water is a good ditching point if you can make it. Generally that's been my thought as well.

Dave Krall CFII said:
Of course. I was thinking of practicing the whole scenario, engines out and the glide to the river ditching, if airport couldn't be made.
Click to expand...

Certainly not a bad idea to do, although I'd suspect in sim training they focus on what are the more likely scenarios. My point was more that it's something that's good to think about.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Certainly not a bad idea to do, although I'd suspect in sim training they focus on what are the more likely scenarios. My point was more that it's something that's good to think about.
Click to expand...
The only time I've practiced dual engine failures in the sim was for "fun" when we had time left over at the end. They were not part of the curriculum. I managed to make the runway both time (JFK in the King Air and McConnell AFB in the Lear). I also vaguely remember "ditching" in San Francisco Bay because the sim instructor thought how cool is was the way the airplane bobbed up and down in the water when you did it successfully. I don't even remember what sim that was in.

While it's a good thing to think about, you can't really train for every scenario. It would depend on where and when the engines quit. Also, in training they usually have the ceiling and/or visibility dialed down or it is night. It's fortunate that these weren't the conditions the other day. In any case, I think it would be instinct to head for the biggest unobstructed area you could see, which in many cases would be water. This might be a little different mindset than in a small plane which you could land in a smaller space.
 
Everskyward said:
The only time I've practiced dual engine failures in the sim was for "fun" when we had time left over at the end. They were not part of the curriculum. I managed to make the runway both time (JFK in the King Air and McConnell AFB in the Lear). I also vaguely remember "ditching" in San Francisco Bay because the sim instructor thought how cool is was the way the airplane bobbed up and down in the water when you did it successfully. I don't even remember what sim that was in.

While it's a good thing to think about, you can't really train for every scenario. It would depend on where and when the engines quit. Also, in training they usually have the ceiling and/or visibility dialed down or it is night. It's fortunate that these weren't the conditions the other day. In any case, I think it would be instinct to head for the biggest unobstructed area you could see, which in many cases would be water. This might be a little different mindset than in a small plane which you could land in a smaller space.
Click to expand...

Same here. I've only done three total engine failures in the sim. The first was because my sim partner secured the wrong engine on a no-autofeather V1 cut before I had a chance to say anything (Beech), and the second because the sim instructor hit the wrong button during our LOFT (we were cruising at FL230 when the Q decided to live up to its name and become the quietest turbo-prop ever). The third was when we had some extra time and decided to see how far a 1900 could glide. Total engine failures aren't anywhere in our curriculum. We do A LOT of single engine work, and hyd failures, electrical failures, flight control failures, fires, etc, but no engine work just isn't covered. The odds of a total power loss are so slim, our time is much better spent practicing the emergencies we might conceivably see in real life.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Or perhaps not... thanks for the definition.

I'm trying to squeeze a miracle out of this somehow for you Grant but, given the high density of birds at all times it is probably more a question of why this has not happened sooner, maybe that's your miracle! Indeed it should probably be a standard part of the local emergency checklist for anybody flying there.
Click to expand...
Dave, I don't need any more miracles, Leslie already married me!:blowingkisses:
 
Everskyward said:
Also, in training they usually have the ceiling and/or visibility dialed down or it is night. It's fortunate that these weren't the conditions the other day.
Click to expand...
In another of my questions about the habits of geese, do they typically fly in clouds or at night? :dunno:
I certainly never see them in those conditions!:smilewinkgrin:
 
gprellwitz said:
I certainly never see them in those conditions!:smilewinkgrin:
Click to expand...
It's IMC after all, and they don't wear anticollision lights. :smilewinkgrin:

I have only had a few (small) birdstrikes and they were day VFR. I have no idea if geese are IFR rated or if they are authorized to fly at night. :dunno:
 
Everskyward said:
It's IMC after all, and they don't wear anticollision lights. :smilewinkgrin:

I have only had a few (small) birdstrikes and they were day VFR. I have no idea if geese are IFR rated or if they are authorized to fly at night. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Two of my three strikes were on MVFR days, but they were scud running down low in visual conditions. :mad3: I also almost hit Santa two years ago, but even he was in VMC. No joke.
 
Teller1900 said:
Same here. I've only done three total engine failures in the sim.
<snip>
The odds of a total power loss are so slim, our time is much better spent practicing the emergencies we might conceivably see in real life.
Click to expand...

We know some pilots and others that might feel differently as of late. How much time can it take to practice a few? 6 minutes? It will happen again sometime, somewhere.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
We know some pilots and others that might feel differently as of late. How much time can it take to practice a few? 6 minutes? It will happen again sometime, somewhere.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest problem with trying to do this kind of thing in the sim is the terrain mapping. Even the best and newest box in Flight Safety's fleet (the one I flew a couple months ago) that uses Google Earth photos as the basis for its visuals, can only render so much detail when you're down low. It may look like a giant green fiend out in front of the airport in the sim, but in real life we would have just killed a bunch of kindergartners trying to land on top of their school.

The sim is wonderful for a lot of things, but when it comes to off airport landings...that's just not what it's designed for. And statistically, even after this incident, I still don't think a dual engine failure is of big enough concern for the airlines and sim companies to completely revamp their way of doing things. Single engine isn't all that uncommon, and we practice that ad nausium, but IMHO there's just no good way or reason to practice total engine failures in the sim.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
We are not the UAW. ALPA does not suppress stuff. Besides, the NTSB is VERY good at what they do.
Click to expand...

Greg is exactly right. Keep in mind that our union dues pay the salaries of some very capable lawyers who deal not only with contractual issues but regulatory, safety, and incident/accident response. While US Airways pilots are not represented by ALPA their union (USAPA) is organized very similarly. I am sure the union lawyers strongly recommended that he wait until the investigation was complete before making public statements or appearances. If you (SkyHog) have a problem with this you should directly address the choice of the Captain and not blame the union. He made a choice to follow the recommendation (NOT REQUIREMENT) of the union and wait for a later date. More than likely you will hear from him after the investigation is complete. This is all to protect pilots from lawsuits that could be filed based on incomplete comments or reporting by the media who could twist his public statements. It is always better for the pilot to have a completed NTSB report on your side when you walk into the courtroom.

Keep in mind the guy is a hero and everyone knows it. The union wants nothing more than to put him on every television program they can and put the public back on the side of the airline pilot. In the meantime they have a legal obligation to represent his best interests and protect him to the best of their ability.
 
The real reason for the US Airways A320 crash in the Hudson:
 

Attachments

  • TALIBAN GEESE.jpg
    TALIBAN GEESE.jpg
    243 KB · Views: 10
Unbeliever said:
There's no such thing as a Congressional Medal of Honor either.

It's just the "Medal of Honor".

--Carlos V.
Click to expand...
This is true. It's name is confused, however, by the existence of the "Congressional Medal of Honor Society" (www.cmohs.org). Note, though, that they seem to always refer to it as the "Medal of Honor", which, as you pointed out, is the correct name.
 
For you NPR fans, Garrison Keillor sang a tribute to the WHOLE CREW on last weekend's Prairie Home Companion. It's available in podcast format.

There were the usual technical problems trying to put aviation facts into rhyme, but it was still pretty cool.
 
Some pictures of the recovery
 

Attachments

  • DSC02659.jpg
    DSC02659.jpg
    77.2 KB · Views: 22
  • DSC02674.jpg
    DSC02674.jpg
    78 KB · Views: 22
  • DSC02688.jpg
    DSC02688.jpg
    61.7 KB · Views: 27
  • DSC02678.jpg
    DSC02678.jpg
    65.6 KB · Views: 21
Actually, one engine was still attached, showing soft body damage, and a feather and "goo" were sent off for analysis.

The other engine has been located, and should be recovered today, weather permitting.
 
TMetzinger said:
Actually, one engine was still attached, showing soft body damage, and a feather and "goo" were sent off for analysis.
Click to expand...

Those were NOT feathers . . .

usair.jpg
 
The technical term for the "goo" is snarge. When I heard that in a class, I laughed out loud untill I realized it wasn't a joke. Thought it was the instructor's regional twist on language.
 
AWACSEng said:
The technical term for the "goo" is snarge. When I heard that in a class, I laughed out loud untill I realized it wasn't a joke. Thought it was the instructor's regional twist on language.
Click to expand...

Well that's one word I've certainly never heard before!
 
AWACSEng said:
Google it, it's true!
Click to expand...

Yeah, NPR interviewed the lady who is in charge of Snarge investigation for the gov'mt. She determines what species the birds were using various techniques. I think she said they average 40 samples a week but it's been a while since they aired that segment. It was pretty interesting actually.
 
Last edited:
I was at OSH today for the annual ski plane fly-in at pioneer airfield. It was pretty cool.

The highlight of the fly-in, however, was when the newly re-designed US Air jet did a low & slow fly over to display the new safety features specifically designed for jets departing NYC over the Hudson River.

I got a pretty good photo of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top