In the movie, the NTSB was receiving input from Airbus telling them that simulation showed that the plane could have returned to Laguardia and until the one engine was recovered, that it could have supplied power. I thought that part of the film may have had some artistic liberty in it but in the end the NTSB got it right. I liked the film and two lines stick in my recollection: The one board member calling it a crash into the Hudson and being corrected that it was a LANDING in the Hudson; the other being the comment that the board doen't normally have the pilot testifying after a crash.
Another thing I thought about was the proficiency of Sully. I recall riding on Patco from Philly to Lindenwold and noteing that the motorman was pushing a buttom to close the doors and a button to start the train which then automatically accelerated to speed and came to a stop at the next station with the doors opening. On the return back to Philly, he was using the throttle to operate the train accellerating and decelerating into the next station. As the motorman was in an open area (not a closed cab) I was able to ask him why. He explained that it was to maintain his proficiency, as the normal braking initiated by a track beacon was fine for dry rail but on wet rail the train would slide through the station. He wanted to be familiar with the operation of the equipment for when he needed it.
Later on, I came across an article that Southwest Airlines chose not to use autopilot landing systems because they wanted their pilots to keep their proficiency.
The movie gives credit to the ferry boats and the other people who assisted in the recovery of the passengers. A true story of things going right. Thankfully this didn't happen at night or in a fog. I highly recommend it.
Electroliner 1935 In the movie, the NTSB was receiving input from Airbus telling them that simulation showed that the plane could have returned to Laguardia and until the one engine was recovered, that it could have supplied power. I thought that part of the film may have had some artistic liberty in it but in the end the NTSB got it right. I liked the film and two lines stick in my recollection: The one board member calling it a crash into the Hudson and being corrected that it was a LANDING in the Hudson; the other being the comment that the board doen't normally have the pilot testifying after a crash. Another thing I thought about was the proficiency of Sully. I recall riding on Patco from Philly to Lindenwold and noteing that the motorman was pushing a buttom to close the doors and a button to start the train which then automatically accelerated to speed and came to a stop at the next station with the doors opening. On the return back to Philly, he was using the throttle to operate the train accellerating and decelerating into the next station. As the motorman was in an open area (not a closed cab) I was able to ask him why. He explained that it was to maintain his proficiency, as the normal braking initiated by a track beacon was fine for dry rail but on wet rail the train would slide through the station. He wanted to be familiar with the operation of the equipment for when he needed it. Later on, I came across an article that Southwest Airlines chose not to use autopilot landing systems because they wanted their pilots to keep their proficiency. The movie gives credit to the ferry boats and the other people who assisted in the recovery of the passengers. A true story of things going right. Thankfully this didn't happen at night or in a fog. I highly recommend it.
Proficiency is gained through recurrent training and those who fly the "heavy iron" as we in aviation call those big birds is simply a fact of life. The majority of that training happens in full motion flight simulators rather than aircraft that are very costly to fly. Such training reinforces the choice of actions in any given situation so much so it becomes reflexive rather than something that has to be thought out. I can picture the motorman doing the same to maintain his proficiency.
Most airliners today are capable of category III landings, aka "autoland". No pilot input required unless something is not right. That's where the constant training pays off. Witness Asians 214 were the pilots did not have the skills to save their ship from disaster. There is danger in becoming a "button pusher" and relying too heavily on automation. Pilots at most U.S. airlines are required to do so many manual landings per year in order to maintain that proficiency.
There was only one mistake made by Sully and Stiles. There are vent door that should be closed during a ditching. They didn't get that done in the short time available. Had they gotten them closed the plane would not have sunk. Still, in aviation circles, those two are regarded as heros.
Norm
The NTSB report makes the damage on the plane seem to be not to intense. However, it sunk and had to be salvaged I presume. What becomes of the plane? Do they scrap it? Part it out? Patch it up and put it on the used lot for sale?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingWhat becomes of the plane?
Flyguys are pretty fussy about what goes into their airplanes - I doubt anything got parted out.
As I recall, both engines came off, which would have done some pretty significant damage in and of itself. Too, at that point, the Hudson will be pretty brackish (salty) which won't do anything good to any of the parts.
I suspect that the only way much of anything got reused from the airplane was as recycled metal.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Murphy Siding The NTSB report makes the damage on the plane seem to be not to intense. However, it sunk and had to be salvaged I presume. What becomes of the plane? Do they scrap it? Part it out? Patch it up and put it on the used lot for sale?
The Hudson is salt water at that point. Once an aircraft is dunked in salt water it is scrap. No chance of salvaging parts. The plane is in a museum in North Carolina.
tree68As I recall, both engines came off, which would have done some pretty significant damage in and of itself.
Only one engine came off, although the other one lost most of its casing which included the bypass ducting, and that is a great deal of the visible 'mass' of the engine. The Hudson was so turbid that no one could see the engine still on the wing while the plane was in the water.
Norm knows more about this than I do, but my understanding was that the engine mounts were intentionally designed NOT to overstress any part of the wing structure, but to fail cleanly and separate. In some cases this didn't happen quite as anticipated; there was a famous American crash (flight 191 in 1979) where improper maintenance caused an engine mount to let go at takeoff power, and the engine rotated itself forward and around the front of the wing ... where the control hydraulic lines were helpfully bunched. It was stressed in the accident investigation that control would not have been lost due to the engine departing in the manner it did (!) had it not taken out the controls at a critical phase of flight.
RMENorm knows more about this than I do, but my understanding was that the engine mounts were intentionally designed NOT to overstress any part of the wing structure, but to fail cleanly and separate. In some cases this didn't happen quite as anticipated; there was a famous American crash (flight 191 in 1979) where improper maintenance caused an engine mount to let go at takeoff power, and the engine rotated itself forward and around the front of the wing ... where the control hydraulic lines were helpfully bunched. It was stressed in the accident investigation that control would not have been lost due to the engine departing in the manner it did (!) had it not taken out the controls at a critical phase of flight.
Spot on, but I'm not familiar with the old DC-10's.
Today's Chicago Tribune has an article related to the NTSB report on USAir Flight 1549. The report made several safety recommendations to mitigate any possible recurrences. Most of them were rejected by the FAA and its European counterpart for a variety of reasons, some of them self-serving.
sounded like that bus driver was not familiar with how to drive near RR tracks or didn't know that bus. He should never have kept trying to move and messing up, sounded like he was in the clear the first time and should have stayed put. Some school bus drivers are great, but others are not, we've had local accidents with school buses speeding, drivers drunk or high on drugs and causing accidents. Glad I didn't have to take a bus to school, could walk to grade school and high school I rode a local transit bus, not one from a school.
that movie is on my rental list. He was a hero as far as I'm concerned, he did what needed to be done and no lives were lost. The military trains their pilots very well and it shows. And people are too much button pushers today, don't know what to do when something goes wrong. I drive a classic 1966 Chevy Bel Air that belonged to my Dad and it has no power steering, power brakes or a/c. I'd rather have a car without a lot of gadgets, more stuff to go wrong. It's what I'm used to and can deal without a/c as I never drive very far on a hot day.
RME tree68 As I recall, both engines came off, which would have done some pretty significant damage in and of itself. Only one engine came off, although the other one lost most of its casing which included the bypass ducting, and that is a great deal of the visible 'mass' of the engine. The Hudson was so turbid that no one could see the engine still on the wing while the plane was in the water. Norm knows more about this than I do, but my understanding was that the engine mounts were intentionally designed NOT to overstress any part of the wing structure, but to fail cleanly and separate. In some cases this didn't happen quite as anticipated; there was a famous American crash (flight 191 in 1979) where improper maintenance caused an engine mount to let go at takeoff power, and the engine rotated itself forward and around the front of the wing ... where the control hydraulic lines were helpfully bunched. It was stressed in the accident investigation that control would not have been lost due to the engine departing in the manner it did (!) had it not taken out the controls at a critical phase of flight.
tree68 As I recall, both engines came off, which would have done some pretty significant damage in and of itself.
Some of the questions about the aircraft that was US AIR FLT 1549 in the following linked site @ http://www.carolinasaviation.org/commercial/miracle-on-the-hudson-flight-1549/travel-to-cam
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.