Are they still there?

[skywords]

It sure was nice to wake up to some good news for a change. I am referring to the US Air flight that ditched in the Hudson. Congrats Capt. Sully!!

I am wondering if the water landing tore the engines free from the wings? My guess is yes. Anyone care to venture a guess, we will find out shortly when they raise it from the water.

 

[puff4]

Could be, but maybe not. The captain was smart enough to bring it in with gear-down, so that likely slowed the craft quite a bit before it actually hit the water. We'll find out in a few hours - they are hauling it out of the water presently.

Related item, check out this QT video.... pretty interesting...

http://flightaware.com/analysis/allflights_movie.rvt

 

[Nickodell]

That was one more outstanding piece of airmanship by a professional American airline pilot, like Al Haynes's miraculous crash-landing at Sioux City in 1989. Also reminds one that there hasn't been a fatality on a scheduled American airline flight in two years, during which several million flights have taken place.

It's amusing to hear the nonsense coming from news comentators, though. On ABC this morning, the good lady was saying to her co-anchor "Captain Sullenberger is also a licensed glider pilot, Tom, which probably helped him control the plane to a safe landing." Hey, darling, airline pilots practice engine-out procedure endlessly, from initial training to type certification, plus simulator work. And the relationship between a glider (or more correctly, sailplane) and an 80-ton A320 is like a trail bike to a Hummer.

 

[puff4]

Interesting images. I mostly looked at the KZNY tracking since that appears to be the most accurate near the city. In the second one I roughly estimated the tracking using Google Earth (the roads on the first map are not accurate).

He was so low that must have had to very carefully thread that plane along the roads above NYC.... and then he carefully avoided going over/under/into the George Washington Bridge - so, landing safely in the Hudson was not his only unbelievable skill! (click to view full size to see it better)

 

[Eleven]

Are those altitude numbers feet? Meters?

 

[puff4]

I believe that's in hundred-feet, which is pretty dang scary. It's an amazing trip.

Go here....

http://fboweb.com/s/tr/qt2.aspx

...type in "AWE1549" and click the "SEARCH" button. Draw a box around the flight to zoom up. Exact locations along the route can be seen in the "Location" bit at the bottom of the map... as you move your pointer you can see where it was at each point along the way... match those to the reported positions and heights.

 

[Nickodell]

Hi, Kevin: Those charts are great (albeit the second line of data is obviously faulty, as it registers Flight Level 320 [32,000 ft.] and zero kts. air speed!) They illustrate another error by the newsreaders, that the pilot flew over the George Washington Bridge. The track show the plane passing over the Manhattan side approach roads, which would have been scary enough both to the passengers and to motorists below.

If the maximum altitude the flight reached was actually 3,500 feet, that is terrifyingly low, especially when passing over a dense urban area like Greater New York. Sullenberger and the passengers were lucky that there was the Hudson River there. If this had happened at an inland airport with no convenient river, things would probably have ended far differently.

 

[puff4]

Yes, it's actually a good thing he never got to Teterboro airport... that could have been a real disaster if he came up short or couldn't get aligned fast enough. All in all, he ditched in a good place... there are ferrys going back and forth there all day long, so he was sure to get a fast rescue. Whenever I go to speak in NYC I always drive up to Weehawken, park at the Sheraton and take the ferry to NY... it's a really pleasant and relaxing way to get into the city, plus they also give you a bus pass to get where you need to go. Of course, they now have a brand new ferry terminal up there. That's the same ferry that rescued many of the passengers.

 

[jumpinjan]

Chesley (Sully) Sullenberger III.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/15/2009-01-15_hero_of_the_hudson_pilot_of_us_airways_f.html

 

[Nickodell]

Hi, Kevin: I couldn't find any reference to his landing wheels-down, and would be very surprised if he did for two reasons: 1) it is much more likely to cause the plane to pitch over and land upside down, or at least on its nose, which would have left the passengers a jumbled mass of injured and dead, and made evacuation impossible; 2) leaving the gear up and the gear doors closed not only makes for a smoother crash-landing whether on water or rough/soft terrain, it helps prolongue the time it takes for water to enter.

Incidentally, why does everyone keep calling this a CRASH? A crash is an out-of-control impact. Any fool can crash, and scores do each year. People rarely walk away from crashes. What this pilot performed was a crash landing, i.e. a controlled off-airport landing.

 

[skywords]

Could be, but maybe not. The captain was smart enough to bring it in with gear-down, so that likely slowed the craft quite a bit before it actually hit the water. We'll find out in a few hours - they are hauling it out of the water presently.

Related item, check out this QT video.... pretty interesting...

http://flightaware.com/analysis/allflights_movie.rvt

Kevin
I guarantee the gear was up. That is the standard procedure for ditching any aircraft. Catastrophic failures occur when the gear is down. The turbines were almost surely torn from their pylons upon impact with the water at 140 mph. They would be the first thing to contact the water.

This is what happens when a seaplane pilot forgets to retract the wheels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6e3n1RYvsI

 

[lgurley]

And the engines seem to have dissapeared in the mud.

 

[jumpinjan]

Fox News video of landing

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video...//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480412,00.html

 

[skywords]

Wow I was wondering if the touchdown was caught on a security camera. It looks like it was as smooth a landing as one could make in the water. I guess we can thank maybe homeland security for this footage? You can see the swift current in the later footage.

The fact that this was an Airbus I think was one reason it stayed afloat. Much of the aircraft being composite honeycomb and foam core sandwich gives it buoyancy. Just my opinion I think an older all aluminum aircraft would have gone under very quickly. My Percival Pembroke flight manual says you have ten seconds to get out before it became a submarine. Hence the roof hatches with rafts in them.

Back to my original question of are they still there? One is and the other is not. The right engine remained and the left separated. That explains why it was listing to the right in the water.

Thanks for finding that Jan

 

[Eleven]

I think Jose has stuffed the other one in a Spare Alpine. That's why they can't find it.

 

[Nickodell]

Druge Reports has an item today that the same aircraft, flying the same flight number from the same airport a few weeks ago, had a compressor stall in one engine just after takeoff. For the uninitiated, this condition, also called an axi-symmetric stall or compressor surge, results when the compressor turbine blades at the front of the engine momentarily lose the ability to draw air in, compress it and pass it on to the rest of the engine. What results resembles a backfire on a reciprocating engine - flame shoots out of the front of the engine, accompanied by a loud bang.

The shockwave from this hit the side of the aircraft, causing passengers to think that something had broken off and hit the fuselage. Scary as hell, but not all that unusual; however, strange coincidence that the same plane should suffer engine trouble twice in a short time.

Here is how not to start a turbojet engine. Take note of the vaporized fuel streaming back from the exhaust nozzle before the engine lights up. Luckily, they shut down and didn't take off with a "cooked" wing underside. I'm glad I wasn't in a window seat on the RH side, watching the blowtorch under all that fuel in there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X14iH0tkgFo&feature=related

 

[mikephillips]

They're saying that the initial listen to the "black box" tapes has several thuds, then simutaneous loss of power in both engines. Seems to support the multiple bird strike reports. And, can you imagine the work going on upfront. The co-pilot is heard both going through engine restart procedures and emergency landing/ditching documentation. Got to keep a cool head.

 

[Series6]

Did you hear about the guy that got bumped off another airline's flight and was put on this one? I only heard part of the news story but I think he's planning to sue the company he originally booked the flight with...

 

[Nickodell]

Did you hear about the guy that got bumped off another airline's flight and was put on this one? I only heard part of the news story but I think he's planning to sue the company he originally booked the flight with...

Some people are never satisfied! This guy has a story that he'll tell and retell for the rest of his life, and now he's complaining?

 

[MikeH]

The one thing I wondered about it is the ferries. Where they told to get out of the way for the ditching or was that just dumb luck that they weren't crossing at the time the plane hit the water?