Just seeing the news now:

US Airways A320, bird strike after departure from La Guardia, New York. Crashed in Hudson River.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/15/new.york.plane.crash/index.html

Apparently everyone got out.  Amazing piloting job there.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/15/new.york.plane.crash/index.html?eref=rss_topsto...

Interesting Press conference, sounded like a pre flight briefing from flight crew.

Excellent job by the pilots. Case in point: The media is actually calling it a forced landing, rather than using the term "crash".

Looks like everyone survived, and only one or two minor injuries, besides being wet and cold.

So good that everyone survived..

that's a true miracle for a water landing!!!

oh wait... is it a water LANDing?

Yes, I'm aware of the differences between a "crash" and a "forced-landing", I'm just saying that the media actually is not jumping on this as a cataclysmic entry into the water, as they usually do.

It's very obvious that the pilots did an excellent job ditching the aircraft, and the media is actually making a point of saying that for once. It just surprised me.

The only stupid questions on television that I've heard yet is why the pilot did not turn to avoid the birds.  
(This stuff happens in the literal blink of an eye, and at such a high closure rate, once you see the flock of birds, it's too late.)

An outstanding piece of airman ship. I would be most surprised if (after the price has been agreed) some interesting video of this does not surface. It landed in front of the Intrepid in view of the Empire State, both places full of people and camcorders. It would also be interesting to see if the engines are still on the wings or not. This would indicate what sort of landing it made. If it "landed" on the water they would normally be ripped off, as they are designed too or if they are still on, possibly indicating that the pilot stalled her onto the water tail first. I think I am also right in saying that this is the first ditching of an airliner where the aircraft did no break up and all walked/floated away.

Matt

pepper_airborne wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 4:52am:


Scream a string of cuss words while wildly yanking at the yoke and stomping the rudder pedals and smashing the throttle through the quadrant....well that's how I would save everybody.  Smooth and professional.  That's right.  Just like Top Gun.  Captain Truck.

A highly trained pilot just showed us BBC 6'o'clock news viewers how to land the Just Flight A320 onto lovely FSX default water using 'professional simulation software' ...what a larf

.mic

Mic, is probably just to visualize the concept of such a landing for people, not that it actually is a real simulation of how such a thing would go... i hope.

C wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 3:12pm:


Really? Well, i suppose that would be a specialist to most people, although he will probably get mocked by his buddys on the airfield.

pepper_airborne wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 3:16pm:



To be fair, he was only doing a visual representation for the BBC to use, and certainly not expressing opinions.

Anyone know what speed you would have to come in at?

Using a 737/A320 configuration (engines on pylons).

I would imagine, that if you come in too fast (excess of 150 knots), the speed of the water would ram the engines off the mounting, and cause severe damage to the wing, breaking up the fuselage.

And if you come in too slow, you have to pitch up higher to maintain a slow descent rate...damaging the tail.

Well, I'm no 737 mechanic. I understand why they would be designed to be removed.

But it seems kinda counter-intuitive, don't you think? I sure would prefer to have my CFMs remain mounted on my plane during forward flight.  

expat wrote on Jan 17^th, 2009 at 8:14am:



Kinda like those bike systems, when you are pedaling forward it hooks up to the rear wheel and transmits power, and when you are freewheeling or pedaling backwards it disconnects. So that your legs arent ripped off

Someone, please come up with a car analogy

expat wrote on Jan 17^th, 2009 at 12:18pm:

well, now they've hoisted the plane out the water... and it seems only the left engine is missing, the other remained attached

here's the source, but it's in portuguese... (has pictures anyways)


they also did a --very poor, i might add --flash animation explaning how an aircraft turbine works and how birds can get sucked into them, followed by an animation of the landing itself...

if i'm not mistaken, this is a world's first, right? the safe alighting of an aircraft in the water without tearing it to pieces?

Cheers

Regardless of all the peripheral issues.........this has got to be the absolute best pilot-skilled, Divinely-intervened, angel-on-each-and-every-one-of-their-shoulders piece of airmanship that I have ever seen or heard of.

Just getting the "visual" in FSX of enacting the event gave me the chills.  And gave me some insight as to how truly talented and gifted that the aircrew was/is!

This was definitely disaster snatched from the arms of fate and turned into pretty much a fairy tale ending.

God bless all those involved!  Obviously it was not any of their times to go!

Quote:



Still can't believe that in such a tourist rich environment that not a single bit of video footage has emerged outside of a couple of CCTV cameras. Not a single visitor to Concord noticed a ditching Airbus

Matt