Hats off to the crew of USAirways 1549

[w1curtis]

Originally Posted by ajay

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.

As I said in my previous post, it is a good thing the pilot did not have an irrational fear of water or the outcome would have been much worst. Even after the fact and knowing the surrounding area, the best decision for the safety of those on the plane and on the ground was the Hudson ditching.

-Winds were from the North East so the 8 miles gliding is downwind.
-Trying to get back to LGA even though only 5 miles, is INTO the wind and over the city-not good.
-The GW bridge is 624 ft MSL, the elevation at TEB is only 9 ft MSL but there are many 600 ft obstacles on the way to it.
-Trying to get to TEB would involve passing over congested area, obstacles, then a turn to line up with runway.

Trying to make it back to an airport when the best place to land is straight ahead is the kind of piloting that usually ends up killing those in the aircraft and frequently many on the ground. I'm certain that would have been the case if the pilot had tried to make it either back to LGA or to TEB.

[ajay]

Originally Posted by w1curtis

-Winds were from the North East so the 8 miles gliding is downwind.

From 1549's highest point TEB would have been to the South West and just as many turns as the Hudson option. Runway 19 parallel's the Hudson.

[w1curtis]

Originally Posted by ajay

From 1549's highest point TEB would have been to the South West and just as many turns as the Hudson option. Runway 19 parallel's the Hudson.

I don't see how you see "just as many turns." The aircraft was already turning south bound when the failure occurred. Look at the Flightaware flightpath, the Hudson option was basically a straight ahead glide. TEB would have been a right turn to the airport, followed by a left turn to line up with the runway, with (how much?) feet loss per turn. Turning a low speed, low altitude, no power aircraft loaded with fuel over a congested area with many tall obstructions is a recipe for disaster.

[jartlip]

Originally Posted by PCHunt

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?

There is a ditching push-button located on the overhead panel on the First Officer's side. Basically it closes all valves below the waterline, ie the outflow valve, ram air inlet, avionics ventilation inlet, and pack flow valves. It does not lock any doors when pushed. Under normal circumstances the only time you would push it is on the ground during deicing/anti-icing and heavy rain situations to keep the fluid out.

The Ram Air Turbine would supply hydraulic power to one of the 3 hydraulic systems. This would supply pressure to most of the flight controls, but not all. It would also power the emergency electrical system giving the Captain's side basic instrumentation.

[David-aviator]

Originally Posted by ajay

From 1549's highest point TEB would have been to the South West and just as many turns as the Hudson option. Runway 19 parallel's the Hudson.

Ajay, you're beating a bad drum and it sounds awful.

Jet transports have a good glide ratio but it is with a clean wing and speed is relatively high, like maybe 200-250 knots depending on weight. When it is time to land much energy has to be dissipated at just the right spot relative to the touch down point. This is done by extending gear and flaps - if there is hydraulic power to do it - and as speed bleeds off, drag goes up quick and without engine power, the only way to control sink is to keep increasing the angle of attack until the touch down. There is no such thing as an on speed stable approach at normal landing speeds (120-140) without engine power.

What Capt. Sullenberger decided was the best and safest thing to do under the circumstances.

He set up a glide down the river and when at a flare height, leveled off to dissipate speed and landed in the water as slow as possible. It was a classic water landing, perfectly executed, and not a soul was lost.

It is not the same as losing an engine in your RV, Ajay.

[Bob Axsom]

In my life time I have never seen anything like this. There were no weak links in the chain of responsibility and execution anywhere that I can see. I mean every single one including the airplane crew, the passengers, ferry boat captains and crews, emergency teams, divers, everyone. Only in America. Well done!

Bob Axsom

[n5lp]

I think it is clear that something bad happened to this airliner and that the outcome was remarkably good.

I am seeing posts that the pilot made all sorts of mistakes and other posts about the good job he did. My view is that very little is known about the incident. We don't know how much power was available or the exact cause for the loss of power in one or both engines. We don't know if it was theoretically possible for the airplane to reach a long runway whether or not it would have been wise. We just don't know much at all.

I am just as uncomfortable with deifying the pilot as I am with condemning him at this point. The crew very well may have done a job comparable with the job done by the crew of the Gimli Glider or the Sioux City flight 232 accident. These were very well handled incidents that did not involve any miracles.

We will find out in time what happened! I learned the lesson long ago that what may seem to be obvious in an aircraft accident is often not what is found to be true.

I think this thread is serving little purpose at this point and won't be disappointed if someone decides it should be closed.

[ajay]

Originally Posted by David-aviator

Ajay, you're beating a bad drum and it sounds awful.

Jet transports have a good glide ratio but it is with a clean wing and speed is relatively high, like maybe 200-250 knots depending on weight. When it is time to land much energy has to be dissipated at just the right spot relative to the touch down point. This is done by extending gear and flaps - if there is hydraulic power to do it - and as speed bleeds off, drag goes up quick and without engine power, the only way to control sink is to keep increasing the angle of attack until the touch down. There is no such thing as an on speed stable approach at normal landing speeds (120-140) without engine power.

What Capt. Sullenberger decided was the best and safest thing to do under the circumstances.

He set up a glide down the river and when at a flare height, leveled off to dissipate speed and landed in the water as slow as possible. It was a classic water landing, perfectly executed, and not a soul was lost.

It is not the same as losing an engine in your RV, Ajay.

David,

You found me out, I'm just an arm chair observer, and I'm only looking and interpreting the evidence in my limited fashion. Nevertheless, it tells me a story that he could've made TEB. I haven't seen anything to discount it yet.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A.../KLGA/tracklog
plot out the coordinates.
On his descent he was pointed straight at TEB. The winds were favorable. Look at the altitudes, look at the ground speeds. I think an issue might have been whether he could've burned ENOUGH altitude to land at TEB, not whether he could've made it. Maybe he needed the extra range because he didn't have auxiliary power and flaps to bring it down at a faster slower rate?

ajay

[John Clark]

Ajay, Please give the drum a rest. All the details will come out in the NTSB report. You weren't there, you have no idea what systems were operational in the airplane, and you have no idea what the view was out the windshield. Playing coulda, woulda, shoulda at this point doesn't prove anything.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

[tylerhan]

Originally Posted by ajay

David,

You found me out, I'm just an arm chair observer, and I'm only looking and interpreting the evidence in my limited fashion. Nevertheless, it tells me a story that he could've made TEB. I haven't seen anything to discount it yet.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A.../KLGA/tracklog
plot out the coordinates.
On his descent he was pointed straight at TEB. The winds were favorable. Look at the altitudes, look at the ground speeds. I think an issue might have been whether he could've burned ENOUGH altitude to land at TEB, not whether he could've made it. Maybe he needed the extra range because he didn't have auxiliary power and flaps to bring it down at a faster slower rate?

ajay

Even if you figure he could have made it to the airport doesn't mean that would have been the safest choice. You have to remember that this aircraft was full of fuel and would have been to heavy to land on a runway. The outcome could have been worse if the pilot had tried to land at the airport. Very good pilot decision making in this case.