US Airways A320 Crash Into Hudson River

Remember the success rate of crews put through that scenario in the sim?

Same as the AA jet that had the engine depart the mount taking off from O'Hare. Once the pilot in the sim (as opposed to the real world crew) knew what had happened he/she always succeeded in bring the jet back safely.

Well, in the American case, all they had to overcome was a thrust and weight imbalance. If you know it is coming, it isn't insurmountable. In the Sioux City scenario, without the use of flight controls, it is exponentially more difficult. IIRC, no one was ever able to duplicate what DENNY FITCH did in that airplane.
 
Heck it's really fun when the CFI-G pulls the tow release the first time at 200'. Until I did that for the first time I rarely gave a power failure on takeoff any second thought. Now I tend to be more aware of what is around me, and actively look for places to put down. In the glider I actively talk to myself about where I would go if the rope were to disconnect itself until I can make a normal pattern back to the RWY.


True, true. You think you're getting a taste of "do or die" approaches during all those normal approaches when learning to glide, but man, after the first 200-foot AGL turnaround you understand what that's really all about.

But it is fun, because by that point you should be able to handle it. One of our members got his first taste with a real rope break (on a dual flight), at about 300. That must be even more fun... :D

And gliding a +100,000 lb jet into the Hudson? Even more fun... if you're a glider pilot. :D
 
ha! the local ABC news station just called out to the airport wanting to do an interview for the 10 PM news. i spent the time on the phone trying to explain how my experience level doesnt really compare.
 
True, true. You think you're getting a taste of "do or die" approaches during all those normal approaches when learning to glide, but man, after the first 200-foot AGL turnaround you understand what that's really all about.

But it is fun, because by that point you should be able to handle it. One of our members got his first taste with a real rope break (on a dual flight), at about 300. That must be even more fun... :D

And gliding a +100,000 lb jet into the Hudson? Even more fun... if you're a glider pilot. :D

The 200' ones are easy, cuz you just turn around...the really interesting breaks are the 3-500' breaks, cause you have more options, so you need to pick one NOW and stick with it. The most interesting break I had was on the checkride. Examiner pulled the release at 50'. Kinda interesting to look at a tost ring flapping about 10' feet in front of you. Pulled the brakes, and landed ahead.
 
I love how they're comparing it to the highjacked flight that ditched after the highjackers insisted on taking the helm.

If you're talking about the Ethiopian Airlines 767 that went in off the beach in the Comoros: I think the crew was still at the controls, but they flew beyond fuel range at the insistence of the hijackers, who would not listen to reason (surprise surprise!).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...vCrQKZmOy3BQ&q=ethipoian+airlines+crash&hl=en

The crew took the coastal route in order to be able to ditch near shore when the inevitable happened (they knew damn well they did not have the legs to make Australia, which is what the hijackers wanted).

The good news: the three hijackers were killed. :smile:


Not to malign those pilots, but they sure had a lot more time to prepare than this US Airways crew did, and that ditching did not go very well at all(although it could have been worse). I think the same is true for most similar ditchings.
Conditions and just plain luck are always a factor, I guess.

More info:
http://www.airsafe.com/journal/issue6.htm
 
ha! the local ABC news station just called out to the airport wanting to do an interview for the 10 PM news. i spent the time on the phone trying to explain how my experience level doesnt really compare.

Tony,

Think about how your experience level compares *to theirs*. Do the interview, you'll do us proud! :yes:
 
Tony,

Think about how your experience level compares *to theirs*. Do the interview, you'll do us proud! :yes:

nope, im too chicken. passed them off to the DPE in Des Moines. Hes done this sort of thing before, and has bout 40 yrs or better experience on me, and has actually flown a jet.
 
Same as the AA jet that had the engine depart the mount taking off from O'Hare. Once the pilot in the sim (as opposed to the real world crew) knew what had happened he/she always succeeded in bring the jet back safely.

Not so in the UA232 scenario. I'm sure that the success rate was 0% among crews that hadn't been briefed on how Haynes, Fitch et al solved the problem. I'm pretty sure it was 0% *even after* the crews had been briefed as well!

NASA has now done some research into a fly-by-wire type system that reverts to automatic differential thrust controls if the control surfaces are rendered useless. Not sure how well they got it working, but I don't think it's been made a certification requirement yet, so my guess is it's fairly marginal.
 
nope, im too chicken. passed them off to the DPE in Des Moines. Hes done this sort of thing before, and has bout 40 yrs or better experience on me, and has actually flown a jet.

Lowell Weir? He'd do great, I think - But I hope he doesn't tell the engine failure story he told me after my checkride! :yikes: :rofl:
 
Well, in the American case, all they had to overcome was a thrust and weight imbalance. If you know it is coming, it isn't insurmountable. In the Sioux City scenario, without the use of flight controls, it is exponentially more difficult. IIRC, no one was ever able to duplicate what DENNY FITCH did in that airplane.

Greg, can you remind me again who was most responsible for the incredible feat of bringing the United DC10 to a controlled landing with no functioning control surfaces? It seem as if I have forgotten.
 
Greg, can you remind me again who was most responsible for the incredible feat of bringing the United DC10 to a controlled landing with no functioning control surfaces? It seem as if I have forgotten.

He doesn't get NEARLY the credit he deserves. :nonod:
 
Lowell Weir? He'd do great, I think - But I hope he doesn't tell the engine failure story he told me after my checkride! :yikes: :rofl:

yep, thats him. whats the story? i dont remember hearing it.

and Greg, that could very well be the case with this situation. Who knows how much the FO contributed, Im sure it was significant. Captains get all the credit...
 
He doesn't get NEARLY the credit he deserves. :nonod:

Greg:

For what it's worth, while I did not know the name of the instructor pilot who was on-board and manipulated the throttles (essentially, developed an entirely new and never-before-tested flight regime, getting it right the very first time), I did know that it *was* that person who did the kneeling-by-the-pedestal thing.

Didn't he, because of the importance of handling power all the way down, go in without any form of restraint at all?

In any event, joking tossed aside, thank you for bringing Denny's name to the fore. Are you and he well-acquainted?
 
Didn't he, because of the importance of handling power all the way down, go in without any form of restraint at all?

I don't know the answer to that question. I wouldn't be surprised, but IIRC the Flight Engineer seat may have enough range to be able to reach the throttles. I know the 727 did. My gut feeling is that he took the FE seat and the FE went to the jumpseat.

In any event, joking tossed aside, thank you for bringing Denny's name to the fore. Are you and he well-acquainted?

Not real well acquainted. I have flown with him on the 777 a couple of times and his wife is a Flight Attendant for us. I have flown with her many times.
 
Being the safety-conscious pilot his resume indicates he is, I am certain he's mentally thought through the "what would I do" options for LGA. Even if it was never practiced in a sim.

Speaking of "options at your home field", drop the nose sometime, when at 300-500' after departure, and see what's out front of you... my instructor did that--pulled power and had me get the nose down, and straight-ahead options appeared that I'd never seen before in the nose-high attitude--I'd only been aware of the options off to the side prior to that experience.

Seems like a good idea wherever you are.

When I first started flying (and now when I'm in airplanes I'm still getting comfortable with) I don't do this as much as I should because my mind is focused on flying the plane, as it should be. However when I'm flying a plane I have sufficient comfort/experience with where I can divert a bit of brain power, I definitely make a point of doing this. When I'm in cruise I'm always thinking about it.
 
The 200' ones are easy, cuz you just turn around...the really interesting breaks are the 3-500' breaks, cause you have more options, so you need to pick one NOW and stick with it. The most interesting break I had was on the checkride. Examiner pulled the release at 50'. Kinda interesting to look at a tost ring flapping about 10' feet in front of you. Pulled the brakes, and landed ahead.

That sounds like fun. I should try that sometime . . .
 
Captains get all the credit...
They get the blame too, LOL, not that there is any blame here. I was just speaking in general.

I think if I was any member of the crew I'd rather my name not get released... or is it just me? :confused:
 
Well, in the American case, all they had to overcome was a thrust and weight imbalance. If you know it is coming, it isn't insurmountable. In the Sioux City scenario, without the use of flight controls, it is exponentially more difficult. IIRC, no one was ever able to duplicate what DENNY FITCH did in that airplane.
He was on the O'Reilly Factor tonight near the beginning of the show speaking about the US Air incident. In speaking about the Sioux City incident he still gave a lot of credit to Al Haines.

Some say these are miracles. The survivals aren't miracles. The miracle is we have professionals willing to constantly improve their skills and therefore improve the survivability of such incidents. Without that dedication, there would be no chance of survival.
 
Reminds me of the Gilmi Glider - that pilot also was also supposedly an experienced glider pilot.

(waiting for Tony and the other glider goobers to ring in about how we ALL should be taking glider lessons)

OK, I was thinking of this also:

Gimli glider looses power at 410, glider rated pilot lands as a closed airfield, all live.

Our own Lance Flynn has engine out in the Mooney, is a glider rated pilot, lands dead stick at an airport, pilot and plane were fine.

This latest Airbus, brought in dead stick by a glider rated pilot...

Coincidence? I'm beginning to think not.

New aviation goal for 2009, glider add-on.
 
OK, I was thinking of this also:

Gimli glider looses power at 410, glider rated pilot lands as a closed airfield, all live.

Our own Lance Flynn has engine out in the Mooney, is a glider rated pilot, lands dead stick at an airport, pilot and plane were fine.

This latest Airbus, brought in dead stick by a glider rated pilot...

Coincidence? I'm beginning to think not.

New aviation goal for 2009, glider add-on.
wye

Now thats eye opening. I'm gonna consider that as well
 
wye

Now thats eye opening. I'm gonna consider that as well

On the other hand, it looks like if you have a glider rating, you are more likely to be in an airplane that has engine failure. I think I will pass. :D:rofl::rofl:
 
That sounds like fun. I should try that sometime . . .

Great way to scare the hell out of the recommending instructor too! When you tell me that he only needs one more flight, and then you release immediately on takeoff, Im sure that he's let his nerves get to him and goofed up something simple. spend the whole time around the pattern in the towplane going 'oh rats!'

Bill - glad to hear it! Im sure Sarah up in Chilhowee will be glad to have you.
 
I've been thinking since this accident that it's probably a good thing that the captain had a glider rating, and how that meant he was a "true" aviator and not just someone who had gone through a ratings mill.

IMHO, the people who get ratings that aren't "required" are probably better pilots. It'd be nice to be able to do some research on how much that affects performance in the most catastrophic incidents, the ones that are so rare that they aren't been done in the sim.

Since I don't work for the FAA, it's not really possible to do much research. But, FWIW, there are a few examples I can think of:

* The Gimli Glider: Capt. Robert Pearson was a glider pilot.
* UAL 232: Capt. Al Haynes had only ATP-AMEL, CP-ASEL, B-727 and DC10 types, and FE-Turbojet and Recip, but Denny Fitch (the training captain who was deadheading on board the flight and actually manipulated the throttles in the cockpit after he got up there) has a Commercial Seaplane rating as well as a bucketful of type ratings from the Super Connie all the way up to the 777
* USA 1549: Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, as we've mentioned, has Comm-G. FO Jeff Skiles has some CFI ratings, but otherwise what you'd expect. Sully also has some quals aside from ratings: In his "off" time he owns a safety consulting business and has a pair of Master's degrees including one in Industrial Psychology.
* Aloha 243: FO Madeline Tompkins had a commercial glider rating
* United 811: Capt. David Cronin had both seaplane and glider ratings.

Since these all had a relatively positive outcome (survivors, at least!) and all had pilots aboard with "non-essential" ratings (in terms of what is needed to get to the point of being an airline pilot), at first glance it would appear that having "real" pilots with additional, seemingly unimportant ratings is a very good thing.
 
yep, thats him. whats the story? i dont remember hearing it.

He had a friend who learned to fly in 1928 and subsequently flew a daily route from somewhere in southwestern Iowa up to Des Moines (mail or something) in a single-engine airplane. Engine technology was obviously very primitive back then, and he averaged two engine failures PER FLIGHT. :yikes: :hairraise: And not just brief failures, complete failures that resulted in dead-stick landings in random fields, where he'd pull out the tools, fix the engine, and take off again. Amazing.
 
I don't know the answer to that question. I wouldn't be surprised, but IIRC the Flight Engineer seat may have enough range to be able to reach the throttles. I know the 727 did. My gut feeling is that he took the FE seat and the FE went to the jumpseat.



Not real well acquainted. I have flown with him on the 777 a couple of times and his wife is a Flight Attendant for us. I have flown with her many times.

Yes, he was on Bill O'Reilly tonight, and that's exactly what he did - switch seats with the FO. I believe he was very seriously injured.
 
He had a friend who learned to fly in 1928 and subsequently flew a daily route from somewhere in southwestern Iowa up to Des Moines (mail or something) in a single-engine airplane. Engine technology was obviously very primitive back then, and he averaged two engine failures PER FLIGHT. :yikes: :hairraise: And not just brief failures, complete failures that resulted in dead-stick landings in random fields, where he'd pull out the tools, fix the engine, and take off again. Amazing.

oh yea i remember that one.

and BTW, as much as I'd love to say that Sullivans Glider background was critical to the safe outcome of the USAir flight, I can't. First, I have no idea what his glider background is. Just because he has the Commercial and CFI-G doesnt mean he is anywhere near current or active in the sport. Nearest anyone can tell over on r.a.s., he's not a current member of the SSA.

From all accounts, he was no airplane driver, he was a pilot, and a true airman at that. That is the sort of attitude and skill level that leads to favorable outcomes. And it doesnt really matter where any of develop that attitude or skill level. You can do it in a 172, or by getting a tailwheel endorsement in a cub, or by flying a glider. It definitely doesnt hurt to get out and fly as many different types of aircraft as possible
 
oh yea i remember that one.

and BTW, as much as I'd love to say that Sullivans Glider background was critical to the safe outcome of the USAir flight, I can't. First, I have no idea what his glider background is. Just because he has the Commercial and CFI-G doesnt mean he is anywhere near current or active in the sport. Nearest anyone can tell over on r.a.s., he's not a current member of the SSA.

Current or no, he's at least comfortable with the idea of flying with no engines, which is a lot more than I can say for a lot of other pilots.
 
Current or no, he's at least comfortable with the idea of flying with no engines, which is a lot more than I can say for a lot of other pilots.

perhaps, but I can promise you now that If I have an engine failure in a 172, or (especially) a dual engine failure in the 421, the seat will probably need a good cleaning afterwards.
 
He had a friend who learned to fly in 1928 and subsequently flew a daily route from somewhere in southwestern Iowa up to Des Moines (mail or something) in a single-engine airplane. Engine technology was obviously very primitive back then, and he averaged two engine failures PER FLIGHT. :yikes: :hairraise: And not just brief failures, complete failures that resulted in dead-stick landings in random fields, where he'd pull out the tools, fix the engine, and take off again. Amazing.

Now THAT was a glider pilot.
 
I think if I was any member of the crew I'd rather my name not get released... or is it just me? :confused:

I'm with you, Mari. Especially on the statue and everything. Not anything I'd want.
 
oh yea i remember that one.

and BTW, as much as I'd love to say that Sullivans Glider background was critical to the safe outcome of the USAir flight, I can't. First, I have no idea what his glider background is. Just because he has the Commercial and CFI-G doesnt mean he is anywhere near current or active in the sport. Nearest anyone can tell over on r.a.s., he's not a current member of the SSA.

From all accounts, he was no airplane driver, he was a pilot, and a true airman at that. That is the sort of attitude and skill level that leads to favorable outcomes. And it doesnt really matter where any of develop that attitude or skill level. You can do it in a 172, or by getting a tailwheel endorsement in a cub, or by flying a glider. It definitely doesnt hurt to get out and fly as many different types of aircraft as possible
Had you excepted the TV interview I was going to say I thought you would be a good guy to speak to this point. It would seem that no one in the media has picked up on it yet.

It would have been a good way to show how GA and GA training leads to safer airline flights. But you said no to the interview befor eI got a chance to say why I thought you should have taken it. But the next time this happens you shoudl take the gig!!
 
I thought you should have taken it. But the next time this happens you shoudl take the gig!![/quote]


I know how unnerving it can be to talk to cameras and I don't blame you for backing out. But, I kind of wish you could provide YOUR perspective on the event. Gliding needs all the PR it can get and you have an intelligent and sensible perspective. Maybe a podcast or print article will provide an opportunity.

For sure one can say that Capt Sullys glider rating didn't hurt him!
 
Bill - glad to hear it! Im sure Sarah up in Chilhowee will be glad to have you.

I'm going to wait for the winter weather to break a little bit. I'm actually thinking of going for a double this year, both glider and comm.
 
New aviation goal for 2009, glider add-on.

Not to dismiss the Glider rating or offend our gliding freinds here, bet.

If you have not completed the commercial rating you may find that beneficial in these cases as well.

My last two flights with a CFI have been power off spot landings. We complicated the issue by comparing the "book method" Gleim, his method, last flight schools method and seeing what happens with different configurations in the 172RG.

We now know at 70 knots with the flaps up, gear up and prop course it likes to glide. With full flaps, gear down and 60 knots it will come down with mnimal distance covered.
 
ha! the local ABC news station just called out to the airport wanting to do an interview for the 10 PM news. i spent the time on the phone trying to explain how my experience level doesnt really compare.

:rofl: Tony! Are you kidding? That doesn't stop such as resident expert John Nance from taking up 3 minutes while completely missing the point. You're going to make more inelligent points than most.

I laughed when I watched and heard him just repeat every point the news anchors had just made.
 
Back
Top