Engine out at night; road or fields?

[Ken Stallings]

[QUOTE=tigisfat;390125]Yup. Not only because he probably could've kept the engines alive, but also because he coulda made it back to Newark just fine and mostly over water too.[/QUOTE]

What!

You are the first person I have heard claim that!

Both engines were flammed out and damaged by birds. I think he had more than enough experience and judgment to have made the best choice. If he had the glideback range to make Newark I am very confident he would have elected that option.

Ken

[Clarke123]

[QUOTE=tigisfat;390125]Yup. Not only because he probably could've kept the engines alive, but also because he coulda made it back to Newark just fine and mostly over water too.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.all-lies.com/legends/transportation/flight_1549.shtml[/URL]

[tigisfat]

[QUOTE=Clarke123;390377][URL]http://www.all-lies.com/legends/transportation/flight_1549.shtml[/URL][/QUOTE]


haha, that sounds just like the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[tigisfat]

[QUOTE=Ken Stallings;390336]What!

You are the first person I have heard claim that!

Both engines were flammed out and damaged by birds. I think he had more than enough experience and judgment to have made the best choice. If he had the glideback range to make Newark I am very confident he would have elected that option.

Ken[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying the dude is a clown, I'm just saying he could have made Newark easily and there's a possibility that the engines could've been saved. This is no conspiracy. What matters is that everyone lived and everything turned out alright.

my two points:

1. The engine manufacturer did their own investigation. In the event of a FOD induced flame-out, advancing the throttles to full will begin an alternate fuel/ignition scheduling that will most likely restart the engines. I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure they didn't try a manual relight either, but that would've faired less successful. The damage was light enough that the engines could've possibly ran for another minute or two, or for the rest of the flight to an emergency landing.

2. The roll-out heading back to Newark after a left turn lines you right up with a runway. The approach is mostly over water, sparing undue risk to those on the ground. The Runway at Newark is also closer than the Hudson crash site.


Again, this is just a 'what if' type of thing. Maybe if he tried to get back to Newark, he would've come in high and hot on their short runway and killed everyone. Who knows. It all turned out okay, so it's gravy, but there is a strong likelyhood that things could've turned out a LOT better than they did. Let's be honest, having everyone survive a water landing is luck, not skill.

[Clarke123]

That's the problem with hindsight, how long did it take you to think of those options and how long did it take from engine failure to river. He probably coulda done a thousand things but he followed what he beleived to be the only sensible course with the information at hand and a limited window of opportunity.

[tigisfat]

[QUOTE=Clarke123;390407]That's the problem with hindsight, how long did it take you to think of those options and how long did it take from engine failure to river. He probably coulda done a thousand things but he followed what he beleived to be the only sensible course with the information at hand and a limited window of opportunity.[/QUOTE]


exactly.......My guess is that he spent 15-30 seconds thinking about going to that airport in New Jersey which he also could've made it to, but it would've bene close and he ruled it out due to the consequences of not making it. I'll bet when he was done thinking about that because it was in front of him, Newark was out of his mind and the Hudson was right underneath.

[Clarke123]

[QUOTE=tigisfat;390410]exactly.......My guess is that he spent 15-30 seconds thinking about going to that airport in New Jersey [/QUOTE]
I wonder how many times he thought "Aw, crap" in those 15 - 30 seconds :icon_lol:

[cheezyflier]

for the purpose of clarity, i wasn't playing armchair pilot on sullenberger, i was making a statement about the faa. i think if things had gone any way other than the way they did, they would been all over him.

[Ken Stallings]

[QUOTE=tigisfat;390410]exactly.......My guess is that he spent 15-30 seconds thinking about going to that airport in New Jersey which he also could've made it to, but it would've bene close and he ruled it out due to the consequences of not making it. I'll bet when he was done thinking about that because it was in front of him, Newark was out of his mind and the Hudson was right underneath.[/QUOTE]

That sounds mighty conclusive for someone who frankly wasn't on the flight deck, likely has no experience in the type flown that day, and hasn't spoke with either the first officer or Sullenberger in order to back up the conclusion.

I learned a long time ago that unless you know something for a fact, you are best to conclude the man with the responsibility acted professionally, competently, and accurately. The bottom line is all his passengers survived with nothing but the most minor of injuries and most with none at all. It was reported as a double flameout at low level happening soon in the departure phase from multiple bird strikes. I have zero reason to doubt that.

Since I have no time in type, I will conclude that the captain (who had plenty) made a correct judgment about his chances for success by performing a reverse turn to glideback.

Other than that, I've said all I'm going to say in this thread. I leave it to you as you see fit.

Cheers,

Ken

[Roadburner440]

My first guess would be the PNF's first job when they lost engines due to FOD would have been to re-light them providing they had no reasonable expectation there would be fire, etc.. So I imagine that there probably was an attempt made to re-light the engines. I imagine that the PF did not feel that the aircraft could make any airport which is how it ended up in the Hudson. I think at that point a number of factors come into play, which I know next to nothing about Airbuses, but from my perspective my own concers would be: 1) If using a backup method to deploy the landing gear would they completely lock down, and how will that affect the glide path with the added drag to make the airport 2) If for some reason on the way to the other airport you realize oh (expletive) we can't make it then you are surrounded by nothing but buildings 3) If for some reason you had other pilots on the ground at the other airport not paying attention, or aircraft were already on the runway/commited to landing/taking off it would impossible to abort a take off once commited... I have never been to Newark so I mean it may have a runway right by the water. I have landed at La Guardia & JFK before and those are pretty near the water. I just think everyone would of done things differently, and this is the reason we have NTSB investigations and the little black boxes.. so hopefully the why and how things happened and why those decisions were made can hopefully be answered. I will agree with the point though that had any 1 person of died in that landing he probably would of been villified for it, and he would not enjoy the hero status that he does today.

On a side note I see what Ken is saying about the power lines. I wasn't talking about power lines going across the road though. Meant clipping the power poles/lines on the side of the road. I usually fly bigger aircraft so that type of stuff usually crosses my mind. I still think I would take my chances in a field though. In SC we have pretty big open fields. I would rather loose the aircraft than be held personally liable for killing someone else. I am curious to see how things turn out for the guy that hit the jogger with the airplane on the beach... Granted all the facts aren't out in that (that I know of), but I imagine people are going to point the fingers square in his direction and he will be penalized for it.

[Skittles]

[QUOTE=Roadburner440;390615]I am curious to see how things turn out for the guy that hit the jogger with the airplane on the beach... Granted all the facts aren't out in that (that I know of), but I imagine people are going to point the fingers square in his direction and he will be penalized for it.[/QUOTE]

Did you hear about that stupid woman (supposedly a retired NTSB official) who said that the pilot could have avoided the accident by "looking out through a small window on the side of a plane and yelling out to anyone below?" Shattered prop, oil all over the windscreen, passenger on board, maintaining best glide and landing on a beach, and she wants him to be sticking his head out of the window and yelling at 70 knots, all whilst maintaining a blind powerless approach. Sometimes you really do wonder.

As for Sullenberger and co, the decision he made was the right one without question. The ATSB ran simulations of the incident with 4 flight deck crew. If the pilots were allowed to take control immediately after the bird strike every single one made it back to the runway. If they were given a 30 second delay they all crashed.

This is bearing in mind that even after the 30 second delay each pilot knew exactly where they were going, the aircraft configuration required, and the optimum return path.

Impossible.

[Roadburner440]

I can't believe a NTSB investigator would say that dude should of yelled out the window.. it really makes me believe that the people the conduct these investigations are not people knowledgable in aviation, or they do not have common sense in general. I do not think that the guy would have heard him anywa over the ipod.. I am guilty as charged myself of going running with my ipod cranked up, and I wouldn't blame anyone who ran me over cause I am a idiot. We all make our choices tho, and I do my best to pay attention to my surroundings. By no means though am I blaming the guy. Cause when I run on the beach myself I certaintly have no expectation of getting hit by an airplane, but I sure do look around now cause we have 5 airports in the vicinity of this area so who knows where something might come from.

I figured they ran simulators over it.. I never really followed it to closely as I was just happy that experience (and a lot of luck) allowed everyone to live through it. You don't hear that to much with water landings. I am sure it will be analyzed from many different angles for many years to come. I do imagine like you say it is easier in the simulator knowing exactly where you have to go, the condition of the aircraft, etc. I am sure in the real incident there was more than a 30 second delay as they scanned the instruments, surroundings trying to make the best deicsion they could.

[tigisfat]

[QUOTE=Ken Stallings;390583]That sounds mighty conclusive for someone who frankly wasn't on the flight deck, likely has no experience in the type flown that day, and hasn't spoke with either the first officer or Sullenberger in order to back up the conclusion.

I learned a long time ago that unless you know something for a fact, you are best to conclude the man with the responsibility acted professionally, competently, and accurately. The bottom line is all his passengers survived with nothing but the most minor of injuries and most with none at all. It was reported as a double flameout at low level happening soon in the departure phase from multiple bird strikes. I have zero reason to doubt that.

Since I have no time in type, I will conclude that the captain (who had plenty) made a correct judgment about his chances for success by performing a reverse turn to glideback.

Other than that, I've said all I'm going to say in this thread. I leave it to you as you see fit.

Cheers,

Ken[/QUOTE]

It is fun to try it in the sim though. His airspeed, point of engine loss, heading and altitude are all readily available and you can attempt to decently replicate the whole flight to a level good enough for fun.

You can make it into teterboro in most weather situations, but it's pretty hair raising. At pretty much any gross weight in any weather you can make it back to Newark in the sim, but you'll have plenty of excess altitude and speed.

[wombat666]

Jump.
:173go1:

[viking3]

The first few minutes after the birdstrike would have been pretty exciting as the crew would have been cancelling cautions on the ECAM, trying to ascertain the nature of the malfunction, find the right checklist, call in the mayday, warn the cabin, and oh yah, fly the airplane. It is my understanding that they never got to the ditching checklist as they were still working on the engines out/low power checklist. I have many hours of playing with the Bus and it can be a bit like a pinball machine when failures start piling up. Lights, bells, and whistles, it takes real nuts to be cool when the bird**** hits the fan. :icon_lol:

Regards, Rob:ernae: