Hudson River Ditching

[Joel N. Weber II]

Amen to that! Especially when you've got a dead stick, as it's being reported that both engines were out. That means limited power to move the rudder and other control surfaces, all while trying to dodge the GW Bridge, river traffic, and still achieve a smooth landing that doesn't break the plane apart.

It's not all that uncomon for pilots to successfully get unpowered gliders to land on runways. It's not obvious to me how avoiding a single bridge would be any harder than getting a glider back to a runway when intentionally flying an unpowered glider.

That said, unpowered gliders that were designed with the idea that they'd be operated primarily as unpowered gliders generally can travel a lot farther horizontally given a particular altitude above ground than things that normally operate as powered airplanes that happen to be briefly without working engines.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

tell air traffic control we can't make it to la guardia and are ditching in the river

I'm not sure that's terribly critical. Air traffic control probably can't do much at that point other than try to call the boats (and really, a marine band radio in the airplane would probably be more helpful at that point), and they might be able to make a good guess about where the plane reached 0' AGL from the radar track.

 

[George Harris]

Was anyone watching or listening to CNN? Those dimwits were showing the plane sinking and thought the passengers were still on board. They were speculating with their "experts" how they could open the doors to let the passengers escape without immediately sinking the plane and drowning everyone who did not get out. I pictured Ernest Borgnine and Shelley Winters on board. Then they interviewed a survivor (who was on land, I might add), and that person mentioned, matter-of-factly, that everyone got out within minutes of the ditching. SURPRISE! Wolf Blitzer should stick to politics.
I think I want C. B. Sullenberger at the controls of my next flight. Maybe US Airways could charge a Sullenberger surcharge? I'd pay.

Far more intelligence in this thread than there was on CNN. The point made about the fuel keeping the plane afloat. Had not thought about it and none of the comentators apeared to have either, but Yes! jet fuel is ligher than water, so it will help the plane stay up, as even if it leaks, it would do it slower than air.

Speeking of dimwits: Listening to Bloomberg and the NY state gov, you would have had to add their IQ's to get something in the range of normal. Bloomberg sounded like he had never heard of the NTSB before and then talked about waiting for their though detailed report which would be out in a few weeks. Duhh, maybe a year. And the gov? He looked and sounded lilke he was on something.

 

[Neil_M]

How close was this to the Amtrak tunnels into Penn? Is their any possibility of damage from the crash landing or recovery efforts?

I doubt even if the plane had sunk straight away it would have damaged any under river tunnel. How deep is the river there? 30 ft, 50 ft, 100 ft? Plus the depth of the river bed over the tunnel. No chance.

 

[wayman]

tell air traffic control we can't make it to la guardia and are ditching in the river

I'm not sure that's terribly critical. Air traffic control probably can't do much at that point other than try to call the boats (and really, a marine band radio in the airplane would probably be more helpful at that point), and they might be able to make a good guess about where the plane reached 0' AGL from the radar track.

I meant more that it's more that it's one of those sentences you never think you might actually say, a sentence that no matter how many simulated crash landings you've run is quite different to say in reality, and a sentence which has a sort of finality to it. I mean, as you're saying it, there's probably a thought in the back of your head for just a moment "this might be the last thing I ever say to ATC, or the outside world...". Not a thought that there's any time to contemplate, but it's probably there. I'm sure Sullenberger said it in a clear, calm voice while doing a great many other things, and--even though that's exactly what was supposed to happen--that impresses me.

 

[AAARGH!]

I'm impressed not only at how quickly the boats were on the scene but at how none of them were in the way when the plane landed. It hit the water at about 140 mph, and presumably "taxied" for some distance before coming to rest.
Sullenberger had glider training, but flying a dead plane is not the same thing as flying a glider. The number of things to do that he had never done before, in such a short space of time... tell air traffic control we can't make it to la guardia and are ditching in the river... make sure we're going completely straight, because there's no rudder and no brakes once we're in the water... all flaps up... all air intakes closed... announce "brace for impact" to the cabin in a calm voice... nose up, can't actually see the water out the window... wait for it, wait for it... splashdown! Wow.

I would think the 'taxi' length (travel after splash-down) would be very minimal. Perhaps only 200 - 400 feet or so. The engines would have dug in and slowed the thing down faster than if they landed in mud.

Also, the only thing that could have touched the bottom of the river and damaged any tunnels would be the engines, if they fell off.

It was reported that the plane landed with flaps deployed, not up. That is why it was going so slow (relatively).

As for experience landing a float plane vs. a water ditching of a non-float plane, I would think this landing was more similar to a normal runway landing than a float plane one, even slow decent, flare, wings level. What was crucial in this case was the wings being level. Otherwise the plane would have twisted and possibly rolled - similar to the Ethiopian hijacking crash of a 767 caught on tape.

Actually I think probably that they are all (ditch, runway, float-plane) similar prior to touchdown. I'm not a pilot, but it would seem to reason.

No matter what, "Sully" did one heck-of-a good job.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

The engines would have dug in and slowed the thing down faster than if they landed in mud.
Also, the only thing that could have touched the bottom of the river and damaged any tunnels would be the engines, if they fell off.

Just heard the left engine is off the wing.

 

[rogers55]

I just talked to a customer of mine in NYC.

Told him that I heard that the Fairies had rescued the passengers and wondered if they flapped their tiny wings and flew down.

He didn't get it, went into explaining in great detail how the ferry terminals are on both sides of the crash site and they boats were already nearby.

 

[MrFSS]

The engines would have dug in and slowed the thing down faster than if they landed in mud.
Also, the only thing that could have touched the bottom of the river and damaged any tunnels would be the engines, if they fell off.

Just heard the left engine is off the wing.

Now they are saying both engines are missing. Story HERE.

 

[Rumpled]

As far as deadstick, would it truly be dead or is it just a phrase? I know the newest generations of aircraft are going to fly by wire, not direct force from the stick to the control surfaces. Planes also have APU (auxiliary power units) I do not know if they can/are used to provide power for flight operations.

I don't know the particulars of how this aircraft type operates and am wondering out loud (out keyboard?).

Thankfully, due to a large amount of skill and luck; the best possible outcome seems to have occurred.

 

[AAARGH!]

As far as deadstick, would it truly be dead or is it just a phrase? I know the newest generations of aircraft are going to fly by wire, not direct force from the stick to the control surfaces. Planes also have APU (auxiliary power units) I do not know if they can/are used to provide power for flight operations.I don't know the particulars of how this aircraft type operates and am wondering out loud (out keyboard?).

Thankfully, due to a large amount of skill and luck; the best possible outcome seems to have occurred.

I don't know the answer, but I do know the A320 is a fly-by-wire aircraft.

If I were to hazard a guess, the system is powered by the APU (if not primarily, by backup).

 

[PetalumaLoco]

As far as deadstick, would it truly be dead or is it just a phrase? I know the newest generations of aircraft are going to fly by wire, not direct force from the stick to the control surfaces. Planes also have APU (auxiliary power units) I do not know if they can/are used to provide power for flight operations.I don't know the particulars of how this aircraft type operates and am wondering out loud (out keyboard?).

Thankfully, due to a large amount of skill and luck; the best possible outcome seems to have occurred.

I don't know the answer, but I do know the A320 is a fly-by-wire aircraft.

If I were to hazard a guess, the system is powered by the APU (if not primarily, by backup).

The plane had a APU, called a RAT (ram air turbine), as we discussed on page 1 of this thread.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

The plane had a APU, called a RAT (ram air turbine), as we discussed on page 1 of this thread.

I think APU and RAT are two very different things. An APU (auxiliary power unit) I think is generally a mini jet engine that provides power on the ground between flights. A RAT is an emergency device, deployed when other systems fail. That's my understanding, anyway.

 

[Ryan]

The plane had a APU, called a RAT (ram air turbine), as we discussed on page 1 of this thread.

I think APU and RAT are two very different things. An APU (auxiliary power unit) I think is generally a mini jet engine that provides power on the ground between flights. A RAT is an emergency device, deployed when other systems fail. That's my understanding, anyway.

Patrick nailed it.

APUs are generally only used when the engines aren't turning, so I would GUESS (just a guess) that the emergency procedures for a loss of both engines is to deploy the RAT, and not try to start the APU.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The plane had a APU, called a RAT (ram air turbine), as we discussed on page 1 of this thread.

I think APU and RAT are two very different things. An APU (auxiliary power unit) I think is generally a mini jet engine that provides power on the ground between flights. A RAT is an emergency device, deployed when other systems fail. That's my understanding, anyway.

That's probably true for a modern jet, but not quite the case on a Superfortress, where the APU is a gasoline engine needed for the hydraulics, which are used only for the brakes.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

As far as deadstick, would it truly be dead or is it just a phrase? I know the newest generations of aircraft are going to fly by wire, not direct force from the stick to the control surfaces. Planes also have APU (auxiliary power units) I do not know if they can/are used to provide power for flight operations.I don't know the particulars of how this aircraft type operates and am wondering out loud (out keyboard?).

Thankfully, due to a large amount of skill and luck; the best possible outcome seems to have occurred.

I don't know the answer, but I do know the A320 is a fly-by-wire aircraft.

I'm not aware of any jet airplane used in commercial passenger service that has the control surfaces connected to the pilot's controls by mechanical cables. While the typical four seat airplane does have mechanical cables that I believe have certain similarities to the brake and gear shift cables on a bicycle, the typical jet in the pre-fly-by-wire days used hydraulics for the control surfaces.

I think a Pilatus PC-12 may be about the biggest modern airplane with mechanical cables for the control surfaces, but I'm not even 100% sure that plane lacks hydraulics, and 30 seconds of googling isn't confirming or denying this.

On other thing to keep in mind is that any multiengine plane that has engines on the sides of the plane will have a huge imbalance of thrust from one side to the other if one engine quits. On piston engine twins, the pilot typically has to figure out which engine failed and manually feather it and manually apply rudder, and between that and the minimum safe manuevering speed with one engine out being somewhat above the stall speed, the complexity of the procedures is such that some pilots really are safer in a single engine plane. On a typical jet, there's an automatic mechanism to largely cover the need for the large rudder input after an engine failure.

 

[AlanB]

How close was this to the Amtrak tunnels into Penn? Is their any possibility of damage from the crash landing or recovery efforts?

I doubt even if the plane had sunk straight away it would have damaged any under river tunnel. How deep is the river there? 30 ft, 50 ft, 100 ft? Plus the depth of the river bed over the tunnel. No chance.

The initial impact point was well north of where the Amtrak tunnels are and they are under the river bed anyhow, not sitting on the bottom of the river. If anything the plane was probably closer to the Lincoln Tunnel by the time it stopped skipping on the surface of the river.

Off the top of my head I'm not sure just how deep the river is there, but it is deep enough to float a WWII aircraft carrier and IIRC, they can even get one of today's nuclear powered aircraft carriers that far north. And short of some of today's super tankers, I don't think that there is any ship that draws more water than a aircraft carrier.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

The plane had a APU, called a RAT (ram air turbine), as we discussed on page 1 of this thread.

I think APU and RAT are two very different things. An APU (auxiliary power unit) I think is generally a mini jet engine that provides power on the ground between flights. A RAT is an emergency device, deployed when other systems fail. That's my understanding, anyway.

That's probably true for a modern jet, but not quite the case on a Superfortress, where the APU is a gasoline engine needed for the hydraulics, which are used only for the brakes.

Joel, you're probably right. However, and with all due respect, this may not be the place for talking about B-29s. There are plenty of places for that. This is not Boeing Unlimited.

 

[AlanB]

Amen to that! Especially when you've got a dead stick, as it's being reported that both engines were out. That means limited power to move the rudder and other control surfaces, all while trying to dodge the GW Bridge, river traffic, and still achieve a smooth landing that doesn't break the plane apart.

It's not all that uncomon for pilots to successfully get unpowered gliders to land on runways. It's not obvious to me how avoiding a single bridge would be any harder than getting a glider back to a runway when intentionally flying an unpowered glider.

That said, unpowered gliders that were designed with the idea that they'd be operated primarily as unpowered gliders generally can travel a lot farther horizontally given a particular altitude above ground than things that normally operate as powered airplanes that happen to be briefly without working engines.

While I'm not a pilot, an unpowered glider pilot already knows that he's going down and has a plan for where he/she is going to land. In this case the pilots went from a powered plane to an unpowered plane and at the altitude that they were at had at best seconds to make a decision and hope that it was the right decision. Additionally, most airports aren't surrounded by tall buildings or bridges, not to mention that a tall building is a lot easier to see and avoid by comparison to a bridge full of thin wire cables that can trip you up and bring you down in a heartbeat.

 

[AlanB]

And the gov? He looked and sounded lilke he was on something.

Please try to remember that Governor Patterson is legally blind and therefore can't read from a script or notes in his hand. He has to stop and think and remember what he's been told by his staff and under the circumstances I'm sure that he had a bunch of info thrown at him and quite probably some of it conflicting.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

is legally blind and therefore can't read from a script or notes in his hand.

I'm not sure being legally blind always implies that degree of impairment. I certainly know someone who can read text on a computer screen if it's made large enough, but I'm pretty sure her vision is not good enough for her to be able to safely drive an automobile.

 

[AlanB]

tell air traffic control we can't make it to la guardia and are ditching in the river

I'm not sure that's terribly critical. Air traffic control probably can't do much at that point other than try to call the boats (and really, a marine band radio in the airplane would probably be more helpful at that point), and they might be able to make a good guess about where the plane reached 0' AGL from the radar track.

While I'd agree that there is little that air traffic control can do to stop the plane from ditching, the pilot and/or co-pilot must still call in their distress for several reasons. One, simply because that is the rule. Two, at least ATC can call the police to let them know something is happening. Three, they need to clear the airspace. While it's doubtful that there would have been any other large planes in the way, there could have been some small planes as well as helicopters flying over the river. Last thing in the world he would have needed to do is start dodging helicopters.

 

[AlanB]

is legally blind and therefore can't read from a script or notes in his hand.

I'm not sure being legally blind always implies that degree of impairment. I certainly know someone who can read text on a computer screen if it's made large enough, but I'm pretty sure her vision is not good enough for her to be able to safely drive an automobile.

It doesn't, and in fact we both know someone who can read with a magnifying glass, you met him during the OTOL Boston fest back in November.

But in the Gov's case, everything that I've ever seen has said that he can't read text very easily and certainly not under the circumstances at that press conference.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

The point made about the fuel keeping the plane afloat. Had not thought about it and none of the comentators apeared to have either, but Yes! jet fuel is ligher than water, so it will help the plane stay up, as even if it leaks, it would do it slower than air.

Maybe I'm not such a big idiot sometimes after all.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

While I'd agree that there is little that air traffic control can do to stop the plane from ditching, the pilot and/or co-pilot must still call in their distress for several reasons. One, simply because that is the rule. Two, at least ATC can call the police to let them know something is happening. Three, they need to clear the airspace. While it's doubtful that there would have been any other large planes in the way, there could have been some small planes as well as helicopters flying over the river. Last thing in the world he would have needed to do is start dodging helicopters.

Didn't they ban flights along the river after that baseball player hit a building?