Hats off to the crew of USAirways 1549

[PCHunt]

Originally Posted by wrongway john

I wanted to correct this part. After watching a segment on Dateline, I found out the airline stewardess was in fact, trying to get the back door open after all. Lucky for all, they couldn't get it to open, and only then did she direct them to the front.

wj

I heard a report that the rear doors are purposefully locked closed by the "ditching switch" to prevent water from entering the cabin. I haven't flown Airbus, anyone here who can confirm or deny?

[SMO]

Originally Posted by ajay

Not to negate the pilot and crews fortune and professionalism, but 1549 reached a peak altitude of 3200 ft and it would have been closer to either return to La Guardia or take the 7000' 19 runway at Teterboro than ditch it where they did. I know everything is 20-20 in hindsight, but it will be interesting to see why these options weren't taken.

ajay

The same article states:
The controller sent the aircraft back toward LaGuardia, but the jet's pilots saw an airfield below ? Teterboro Airport in New Jersey ? and asked to land there, Church says. They got the OK but realized they could not reach Teterboro and told the controller that they would have to ditch in the Hudson.

[buck]

I remember JAL landed a DC-8 in San Fran Bay in late 1967. The people jumped into life rafts and paddled to shore. Most didn't even get their feet wet.
They put it on a barge and towed it over to the Coast Guard Station and hauled
it to the UAL maint. base. After overhauling the entire plane it was placed back in service for the duration.

[buck]

Understand he cleared the GW bridge by 250ft and that would not give him enough alt. to make TEB which is a bit far that low.

[JumpNurse]

Hey everyone, I've been lurking for several years and finally registered. Gotta say I love all the info on here. Thought everyone might find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC7gBV_jUR0

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by JumpNurse

Hey everyone, I've been lurking for several years and finally registered.

Shane, welcome aboard

Glad you decided to join the force.

Are you planning on building after school??

Thanks for the link.

[jmbrwn]

Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002

In this particular case (I don't know about others) the crew did not get disconnected. The flight control computer was designed to prevent the crew from stalling the airplane. They were doing a slow flight (relative) fly by at an airshow...got it behind the power curve, and waited too long to push the power levers up. Because of spool up lag time, etc., the speed continued to decay and regardless of how hard both pilots pulled on the pilot control input devices (I don't know if they can really be called sticks) the computer would not let the AOA increase beyond a programed value.
I believe their was some major software rewrites after that accident.

The famous video of the incident where the crew flew a perfectly good airplane into the trees at airshow in France. It was actually the Airbus testpilot trying to demonstrate a capability that the fly-by-wire A320 has. If the aircraft senses that you are too slow and reaching a critical angle of attack , it will automatically increase power to full thrust. This protection is provided in all phases of flight except when below either 100' or 50'...I can't remember. You wouldn't want it then because you wouldn't be able to land. It will increase to full thrust even with the throttles pulled to flight idle.
Again, the aircraft did exactly as it was told to do. Pilot error.

[ajay]

Originally Posted by buck

Understand he cleared the GW bridge by 250ft and that would not give him enough alt. to make TEB which is a bit far that low.

The data points from flightaware indicate they just began their descent at GW bridge, more like 2000-2500 feet. Moreover, looks like they glided about 8 miles from there. It would have been 4 or 5 to either TEB or LGA.

Based on these facts I would say he underestimated his glide to TEB and didn't make the best decision, but unless there was something on his EFIS telling him his dead stick glide area, I doubt anyone could have.

[David-aviator]

Originally Posted by jmbrwn

The famous video of the incident where the crew flew a perfectly good airplane into the trees at airshow in France. It was actually the Airbus testpilot trying to demonstrate a capability that the fly-by-wire A320 has. If the aircraft senses that you are too slow and reaching a critical angle of attack , it will automatically increase power to full thrust. This protection is provided in all phases of flight except when below either 100' or 50'...I can't remember. You wouldn't want it then because you wouldn't be able to land. It will increase to full thrust even with the throttles pulled to flight idle.
Again, the aircraft did exactly as it was told to do. Pilot error.

Jim, is it true with just the RAT out and no APU, the side stick controller is inop and the airplane has to be flown with a trim wheel? A friend called this evening (another retired guy) and said he heard that's what the situation was.

[Kevin Horton]

Originally Posted by jmbrwn

The famous video of the incident where the crew flew a perfectly good airplane into the trees at airshow in France. It was actually the Airbus testpilot trying to demonstrate a capability that the fly-by-wire A320 has. If the aircraft senses that you are too slow and reaching a critical angle of attack , it will automatically increase power to full thrust. This protection is provided in all phases of flight except when below either 100' or 50'...I can't remember. You wouldn't want it then because you wouldn't be able to land. It will increase to full thrust even with the throttles pulled to flight idle.
Again, the aircraft did exactly as it was told to do. Pilot error.

Actually, the pilot was an airline pilot, not an Airbus test pilot. But, you are correct that the aircraft did exactly what it was designed to do. The pilot simply did not understand the potential consequences of doing a full aft stick pass at very low altitude. If he had attempted such a manoeuvre with a "conventional" aircraft, the aircraft would have stalled and dropped a wing, ending in a major catastrophe. Mind you, no idiot would have attempted such a manoeuvre in a conventional aircraft.