17
   

Flight 1549 praise is being over done.

 
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 05:55 pm
@dagmaraka,
I believe Bill is saying that it shouldn't have been such news.

Sure, plane landed in the Hudson. Normal affair, nothing to see here, carry on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it was news mainly because planes even when hit by birds do not normally crash, however it should had been news for a few days at most in my opinion.

And making the crew amazing heros for day after day is a little over done as the subject of this thread stated for the reasons given.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 06:13 pm
@BillRM,
Given your logic and views. The firefighters and others that reacted on 911 were just doing their job and should never be spoken of again. Pity.
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 06:42 pm
@Intrepid,
what intrepid said.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 06:54 pm
@Intrepid,
Given your logic and views. The firefighters and others that reacted on 911 were just doing their job and should never be spoken of again. Pity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First the crew did not climb aboard after the bird hits but was doing a very routine and very safe job up to that moment. After that hit their lives was on the very same line as the passengers.

The fire fighters however did climb into the buildings after the plane hits and the buildings was on fire so it is not the same sitution in any regard.

Hell that generation of plane can even land itself under auto pilot and I am not sure but perhaps even take off under auto pilot the flight crew is there for when the ****/birds hit the fan otherwsie the two pilots can read newspapers or hit on the females or male stewards. All in all a bus driver need to be normally more aware and in control then a pilot of a new generation of jets.

As a side note the whole job of the space shuttle crew in a routine landings is to lower the wheels they do nothing else normally but monitor the systems and hopefully be ready to react to an emergence. Once they was allow to apply the brakes on landing but as they did tend to over do the braking and wear out the tires so the computer was also given the braking job.

Once the landing program is loaded into the old computer system the crew of a space shuttle could go to sleep and wake up in time to lower the wheels and if they do not care to wake up then the ground can also lower the wheels for them.

The new generation of passneger jets had similar or superior abilities.

The crew in this case did a workman job of reacting and doing a ditching however they are not firefighters or anyone else that normally place themselves into harm way.

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 07:05 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Landing the plane without casualties was asking a lot of them.
They did that and you think they shouldn't be praised for it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The man ditch an aircraft and did a very workman job of so doing but neither that fact or the fact that all his passsengers walk away should turn him into some kind of a superhero, in my opinion.

There are examples of better flying in fact amazing flying that sadly did not result in everyone walking away.

The one I had already posted about where a flight crew was able to control their plane with only the ability to adjust the engines power.

They did not save everyone just half of the crew/passengers however it was an hour long situtation that to this day no one could match even in a similator.


Frankly I have the impression you are displaying the bravado, ignorance and inexperience of a perhaps novice pilot here. You have failed to consider the essential details of the event as it actually happened, and I doubt that you have ever ditched an aircraft with nearly a full fuel load.

In the first place the sudden loss of thrust occurred just below 3000 ft after takeoff from the northwest runway at Laguardia. At that moment the flaps had just come up and the aircraft was very nose high executing the required steep noise abatement climbout over upper Manhattan: all the pilots could see out the windscreed was sky, no horizon. With the sudden loss of thrust they had to get the nose down quickly to avoid a decel & stall. Over upper Manhattan, as they were, and travelling at about 4 miles/minute they had just enough altitude for an easy left turn down the Hudson: a delay due to confusion, indecision or mere uncertainty of even 20 seconds would have caused them to overshoot the river; dooming them all to a crash landing in the urban area of New Jersey across the river - they simply wouldn't have had the altitude & airspeed for a S turn back to line up with the river. In short the situation didn't permit any missteps, hesitation or indecision - any error, even if corrected would likely have been fatal - to everyone onboard and many others as well.

The ATC recordings of the pilot's dialogue with Departure control confirms that he made the right choices quickly and without delay, concentrating on the essentials and using all the aircraft's potential energy for a controlled ditching in the river in a situation that gave him no slack at all.

I've watched seasoned pilots deal well with a cold cat shot or engine failure just off a carrier's catapult and survive. I've also seen others, just as good, hesitate for a second or two and pay for it with their lives. We all only hoped that if the moment came we would have the presence of mind to do everything perfectly. Only fools were sure they were immune to such errors.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 07:32 pm
@georgeob1,
In my very very very minor training one of the first thing they did drill into my very hard head was at any moment have a plan landing point pick out in case of an engine failure in advance.

As the engine in my case was a two cycle toy, an engine failure at any point between the take off and the landng was far more likely then in a passenger jet!

My wonderful instructor without warning even once kill the engine on me when I was only a hundred feet off the ground with the nose up in a climb!

We both being very heavy the plane was over it normal takeoff limt also and acting like an old WW2 bomber. I bended the wheel on that landing and did a few hundred dollars of damage.

In any case I do remember asking the gods that if the engine was going to fail it would not do so until I gotten to 500 feet at least.

Any pilot I would assume had already had in his mind what actions he would take on take off if he had an engine failure at any point in the takeoff cycle.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 08:13 pm
@BillRM,
You do real pilots a disservice with your moronic ramblings. Get over yourself and recognize the reality of what happened and give credit where credit is due.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 08:15 pm
@georgeob1,
Adding to my comments any pilot and I am assuming that at this point it was the co-pilot who loss engine power in a climb would place the nose down and level the wings without thinking about it and then trim the aircraft for maxium glide. All this should had occur in the first few seconds after engine failure.

I had not hear the details but I am assuming that the pilot then declared it was his plane and place the co-pilot on the task of trying to restart at least one of the engines.

Now from hearing the radio traffic it would seem he was at this point he was trying to figure if he could land at an airport, but I have a feeling that even as he was talking to the air traffic controlers he was setting up for a river landing.

All this is drill into you by your first flight insturctor less alone all the advance training a passenger jet flight crew does and all the ten of thousands of dollars in flight similor time every year.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 08:17 pm
@Intrepid,
You do real pilots a disservice with your moronic ramblings. Get over yourself and recognize the reality of what happened and give credit where credit is due.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They did follow thier training and did a workman like job of doing a water landing.

What other credit do you think they are due?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 08:33 pm
@Intrepid,
You do real pilots a disservice with your moronic ramblings. Get over yourself and recognize the reality of what happened and give credit where credit is due.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am hardly an expert as the heavier plane I had flown had been a single engine piper and the only flying I had done with a passenger jet was an hour or so of similator time in an FAA approve 737 similator thank to a son-in-law who was in charge of it. God the rubber control was hard on that plane!

However as you seem so sure that my statements are moronic ramblings what flight training do you have?
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 09:16 pm
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_z2t3-2ANqrg/SY5OQW8fU1I/AAAAAAAAA0E/ooKMO4xBnJ0/s800/dig.jpg
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 09:21 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

You do real pilots a disservice with your moronic ramblings. Get over yourself and recognize the reality of what happened and give credit where credit is due.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am hardly an expert as the heavier plane I had flown had been a single engine piper and the only flying I had done with a passenger jet was an hour or so of similator time in an FAA approve 737 similator thank to a son-in-law who was in charge of it. God the rubber control was hard on that plane!

However as you seem so sure that my statements are moronic ramblings what flight training do you have?


It is your thread, but I am surprised that you are not keeping within the topic of the thread. My flight training, or lack thereof, has no bearing on what you started the thread about.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 09:58 pm
@Intrepid,
It is your thread, but I am surprised that you are not keeping within the topic of the thread. My flight training, or lack thereof, has no bearing on what you --------started the thread about
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume that mean no flight training on your part? In any case your statement that I am not a real pilot and was just doing moronic rambling is base on what? It is hardly an off topic question.

You do seem to have a point however that I am not a real pilot.

Weber define a pilot as follow: a person qualified to operate the controls of an aircraft or spacecraft.

I am surely not qualified to fly a spacecraft or a jet liner and as a ultralight under FAA rule 103 is consider not an aircraft but an air vehicle you might be right that I am not a pilot.

We will not go near the fact that I might had been a bad boy many years ago and might had log a few hundred hours on a piper without a license. License and qualified I assume had the same meaning.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 10:05 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

We will not go near the fact that I might had been a bad boy many years ago and might had log a few hundred hours on a piper without a license. License and qualified I assume had the same meaning.


non sequitur
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 10:20 pm
@Intrepid,
non sequitur

Perhaps but once more what is your back ground that allow you to state that my comments concerning flight is rambling?

I was nice enough to agree with you that I am in fact not a real pilot after all.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 11:49 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:


I was nice enough to agree with you that I am in fact not a real pilot after all.


I think that has been evident from the start of this thread. Your grammar and syntax aren't much to brag about either.

The only thing remarkable about the thread and your posts is your persistence in passing judgement about things of which you are so obviously ignorant.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 06:33 am
@georgeob1,
Nice insult however what does my poor grammar and syntax have to do with the subject at hand and what more what is so very remarkable about a crew following years of their trainings and doing a successful water landing under near ideal conditions?

Are we so very hard up on heroes that we have a need to manufacture them given any excuse of any kind to do so?

A brief pat on the back seem all that would had been call for in this situation.

dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 06:42 am
@BillRM,
"nice enough" to admit you were pretty much lying?

what planet are you from?

...so done here, what a waste of time you are, Bill.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 06:46 am
@BillRM,
Extraordinary means to safely counter an extraordinary situation were employed by the pilot and CREW of the flight. He was given a minute or two to make a decison and , knowing that he couldnt make it to Teeterboro, he gently set the damn thing down in the water where rescue was available, all without a single loss of life .
You seem to use your modest experience as a pleasure craft pilot (in training) to provide judgement about whether or not the pilot and crew of 1549 should be honored is, to me, rather small minded.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2009 06:53 am
@farmerman,
Ill take Georgeob's reading on this as accurate, since he seems to be the one whos actually administered over pilots on a flight deck of a carrier. (Where every landing is a safe crash)
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/17/2022 at 11:46:54