36
   

Plane crashes into Hudson River

 
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 12:45 pm
@Linkat,
It's in the FAA transcript, large flock of big brown birds about to collide with airplane - next question is why none of the radars of the ground reported it.

By way of an aside nobody else is reporting, today I went through La Guardia and saw the airline getting picketed by a (presumed) member of PETA holding up a sign saying "Bird Killers"!
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 12:48 pm
@High Seas,
Awesome! Don't ya just love Peta!
High Seas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 02:40 pm
@Linkat,
Well, Linkat, I'm a member of PETA and contribute to any number of similar organisations, especially the one that brought wolves back to Yellowstone. But I also fly, and after looking at all measures airports have taken to keep birds and airplanes apart at all times, I've concluded that only other birds can accomplish that successfully:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/060727-F-2907c-106.JPG
http://www.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?id=123024177
Quote:
The company is helping the base run its bird aircraft strike hazard program, which rids the base of birds that pose bird strike problems for aircraft operating from there. The company uses falcons, hawks and owls like, left to right, Chipper, a Harris Hawk; Goldie, a lanner hawk; and Hurricane, an American kestrel.


A hawk trained to fly over the runways, takeoff paths and final approaches is more effective than just about anything humans have tried so far.
Linkat
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 02:56 pm
@High Seas,
I do support some animal organizations (especially my local no-kill animal shelter) - but to be honest PETA takes it to a whole new level. Many members are just plain insane. I mean really the airline thing is just one example. I certainly do not support peta.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 04:26 pm
Here is an interesting video with a flight simulation of this landing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7834499.stm

It also has another water landing (real video) that shows why there's the need to land perfectly level. If a wing dips you cartwheel.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 04:59 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
.........
It also has another water landing (real video) that shows why there's the need to land perfectly level. If a wing dips you cartwheel.

The portion of the video is of Ethiopian Airlines 1996 crash over the Comoros after running out of fuel: the pilot was trying to fight off the highjackers at the time of impact. It was a crash, not a controlled ditch. There's no cartweeling unless impact is at very high speed - in fact his wing came off the fuselage - and in spite of everything, there were 45 survivors out of 172 people on board. There might have been more if all the passengers had belts on. Besides, there's no waves in rivers, unlike the oceans.

None of this is to detract from the superb piloting skills of the US airways man who ditched the Airbus in the Hudson!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 12:36 am
from page 88 Vanity Fair june 2009
Quote:
Over the months after he made the decision not to try for the runway, multiple simulations of it have been run, and not a single pilot has been able to stretch the glide to La Guardia

Sounds conclusive, but it is not. Were the simulations started from the point where the bird strike happened, or from the point where miracle pilot called off the La Guardia try???? He lost a lot of altitude immediately after the strike, which on pilots forums it was claimed that this was in large part caused by pilot choices not by aerodynamic laws. If simulations started from the strike say that Sully was right then that will be good enough for me, but so far we just don't know. Why we don't know is an interesting question in and of itself.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 01:03 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

from page 88 Vanity Fair june 2009
Quote:
Over the months after he made the decision not to try for the runway, multiple simulations of it have been run, and not a single pilot has been able to stretch the glide to La Guardia

Sounds conclusive, but it is not. Were the simulations started from the point where the bird strike happened, or from the point where miracle pilot called off the La Guardia try???? He lost a lot of altitude immediately after the strike, which on pilots forums it was claimed that this was in large part caused by pilot choices not by aerodynamic laws. If simulations started from the strike say that Sully was right then that will be good enough for me, but so far we just don't know. Why we don't know is an interesting question in and of itself.

It sounds like a glided landing at an airport is a lot riskier.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 01:09 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It sounds like a glided landing at an airport is a lot riskier.


Had he made the runway the airplane would not have been destroyed, and emergency aid would have been at the scene. If he could have made La Guardia he should have gone there.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 02:34 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
It sounds like a glided landing at an airport is a lot riskier.


Had he made the runway the airplane would not have been destroyed,
and emergency aid would have been at the scene.
If he could have made La Guardia he should have gone there.

I suspect that the river was a more forgiving landing area.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 09:43 am
@OmSigDAVID,
That would matter if that was Sullys explanation for ditching, then we would move on the the experts who say that keeping the plane from breaking up and thus sinking like a stone upon impact with the water was far from a sure thing.

The unanswered question is did this $50 million plane need to be destroyed? It is pretty clear that at the time Sully called off the airport attempt he made a good call. What is unknown is had he made better choices immediately after calling "my aircraft" would he have had the combination of altitude and speed to make it back to La Guardia.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 10:09 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I suspect that the river was a more forgiving landing area.


a couple of friends who are pilots disagree

"As a light aircraft pilot, I can try to answer a more specific question: if your aircraft has a total engine failure, are you more likely to survive over land or sea? And the answer to this is that, generally, you are much more likely to survive over land.

If you suffer a total engine failure, your plane becomes a great big glider. Over land, you would select a field beneath you to land in, set the aircraft for the correct gliding speed, and carry out what is not enormously dissimilar from an ordinary landing. This is the sort of thing that is practiced a lot during training, and most pilots would be able, most of the time, to carry out such a landing without serious damage to the plane or occupants.

Over the sea, such a forced landing is called a "ditching", and you do pretty much the same thing, and the chance of survival up till now is broadly similar to that over land. The problem is that, unlike a forced landing in a field, after which you can sit down and relax with a nice cup of tea, after a forced landing in the sea, your troubles are only just starting. In a light aircraft, you have a couple of minutes to get out before the aircraft sinks, and this is not necessarily easy as the pressure from the water will tend to make opening the doors tricky. Once you are out, although legally you will have a lifejacket with you and so presumably won't drown, you have to get yourself rescued before hypothermia sets in: even in the middle of summer, survival times without a liferaft in the open seas are typically just a few hours, and getting a search and rescue helicopter to pick you up can take longer than that, even if S&R already know exactly where you are, which they are highly unlikely to."

...although this case wasn't in the open sea I suspect the problems of landing on water are scarier for pilots
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 10:19 am
@panzade,
Quote:
If you suffer a total engine failure, your plane becomes a great big glider. Over land, you would select a field beneath you to land in, set the aircraft for the correct gliding speed, and carry out what is not enormously dissimilar from an ordinary landing. This is the sort of thing that is practiced a lot during training, and most pilots would be able, most of the time, to carry out such a landing without serious damage to the plane or occupants.


The Vanity Fair piece claims that pilots routinely turn their aircraft into gliders for up to 50 miles of the decent into the destination. It is only in the last few minutes before landing that they again use engine thrust. A lot was made at the time about Sully's experience with gliders, which may have been of some help as aircraft met the water, but it would have made little difference in his ability to reach land as all pilots have a lot of practice with glide flight.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/23/2019 at 11:42:53