US Airways Flt 1549 Crashed in Hudson River

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    River
AI Thread Summary
A US Airways Airbus A320 crashed into the Hudson River after striking a flock of birds shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport, disabling both engines. All 155 passengers and crew members were reported safe, with no serious injuries or fatalities. The plane was submerged up to its windows, and rescue operations were quickly initiated by nearby boats. The incident highlighted the pilot's skill in executing a water landing, as the aircraft remained largely intact. Investigators are looking into the bird strike, with Canada geese being a likely culprit.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
22,340
Reaction score
7,138
Plane crashes in NYC river after bird cuts engines
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_re_us/plane_in_river

NEW YORK – A US Airways plane crashed into the frigid Hudson River on Thursday afternoon after striking a bird that disabled two engines, sending 150 on board scrambling onto rescue boats, authorities say. No deaths or serious injuries were immediately reported.

Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown says the US Airways Flight 1549 had just taken off from LaGuardia Airport enroute to Charlotte, N.C., when the crash occurred in the river near 48th Street in midtown Manhattan.

Brown says the plane, an Airbus 320, appears to have hit one or more birds.

A law enforcement official said that authorities are not aware of any deaths and that the passengers do not appear to be seriously injured. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the rescue was still under way.

The plane was submerged in the icy waters up to the windows. Rescue crews had opened the door and were pulling passengers in yellow life vests from the plane. Several boats surrounded the plane, which appeared to be slowly sinking.

. . . .
Well, it had to be more than one bird. Each engine is mechanically independent. If one bird took out both engines, then Airbus needs to rethink the independence of the engines.

Earlier I saw of the plane was just the tip of the tail protruding from the water, but now it looks like they might be trying to raise the aircraft a bit.

It appears that the passengers and crew were rescued, but that's not official yet as it just happened in the last couple of hours.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It appears that the passengers and crew were rescued, but that's not official yet as it just happened in the last couple of hours.

NYT confirms.

US Airways Jet Ditches in Hudson; All Reported Safe

A US Airways plane is half-submerged in the Hudson River, after the pilot reported engine trouble. All 146 passengers and 5 crew members were reported to have survived.
 
hmm I thought the engineers throw frozen chickens into the engines.
 
Greg Bernhardt said:
hmm I thought the engineers throw frozen chickens into the engines.
Then someone should stop them - it nearly caused a tragedy!

If you hit a flock of birds it could take out both engines - just bad luck.

Might reprise my opinion of the pointlessness of lifevests. The strike happened as the plane was taking off and a only a few minutes before it 'landed', so they would have to have put on the life jackets as the plane hit the water. That means for a plane with under-wing engines it did a pretty good job of staying in one piece and upright. It seems that everybody got out this OK.

The 767 that crashed off Ethopia in 1996 broke up - although it was being hijacked and was out of fuel so not an easy emergency landing.
 
Last edited:
Incredible that nobody get hurt. To some extent that means that all these frozen chicken experiments pay off.
 
http://www.volkskrant.nl/multimedia/archive/00139/New_York_139260m.jpg

Amazing picture, those people must have been scared for their lives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Odd that nobody seems to be wearing a lifejacket - I certainly would have grabbed one on my way out.
Sensible to stay on the wing as well, the East River has incredible currents and it isn't going to be warm this time of year.
 
Apparently all passengers and crew are safe.

Kudos to the pilot who landed that plane, without engines!

The temperature of the water is about 32 F, near freezing, and the air is about 15F. They wouldn't last long in that water.
 
mgb_phys said:
Sensible to stay on the wing as well, the East River has incredible currents and it isn't going to be warm this time of year.
The plane crashed in the Hudson River, which is on the west side of Manhattan. The plane had just cleared Manhattan (NY City)! It went down near the Intrepid Aircraft Carrier Museum. The fact that it was the Hudson River means there are quite a few boats, particularly ferries, which could respond. In the East River, there are not so many boats nearby.
 
  • #10
What a great job the pilot did. I was listening to a few passengers talk about being bounced around and hitting the ceiling of the cabin, other reports being injuries reminiscent of auto accidents.

We now have a great record of zero fatalities from commercial airlines, in the past 2 years.
 
  • #11
Astronuc said:
The plane crashed in the Hudson River,.
The BBC have corrected their caption.
Of course that explains standing on the wing - they were afraid of drifting to New Jersey.
 
  • #12
It would have to be a flock of birds, and big one's to take out both engines, the fact that the aircraft looks intact says some thing to the skill of the pilot and the robustness of the aircraft.
 
  • #13
Most passengers seem to be very thankful to the pilot, and God! I guess they give credit to the second guy for the rollercoster ride, or what?
 
  • #14
EL said:
and God! I guess they give credit to the second guy for the rollercoster ride, or what?
Odd that insurance companies blame God when something bad happens and everyone else thanks God when anyone survives.
 
  • #15
What sort of birds do you have that flock this time of year in that area?
 
  • #16
wolram said:
What sort of birds do you have that flock this time of year in that area?
Seagulls are always a risk, but geese are a lot more massive and more destructive.
 
  • #17
Greg Bernhardt said:
hmm I thought the engineers throw frozen chickens into the engines.

Obviously they didn't hit a flock of frozen chickens!


Amazing that no one was seriously hurt or killed.
 
  • #18
wolram said:
What sort of birds do you have that flock this time of year in that area?
Could be gulls or Canada geese. Just north of NY City are a series of reservoirs that supply NY City. They usually have flocks of geese on them. With the exceedingly cold weather (we're supposed to be below 0 F tonight), the remaining birds have flown further south.

Up near where I live, the Hudson River is mostly covered in ice several inches thick, which in some cases might be 6-8 inches (15-20 cm). The ice is broken from ships and barge traffic, so it's very jagged.
 
  • #19
wolram said:
What sort of birds do you have that flock this time of year in that area?

Looney!?
 
  • #20
Lacy33 said:
Looney!?


Some people think so :frown:
 
  • #21
I can see FOX News' headline - "French plane downed by Canadian birds"
 
  • #22
From wiki

Most large commercial jet engines include design features that ensure they can shut-down after "ingesting" a bird weighing up to 1.8 kg (4 lb). The engine does not have to survive the ingestion, just be safely shut down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike

I guess the engines safely shut down. Sometimes they disintegrate.
 
  • #23
On twitter somebody asked:
"why are people in life rafts if the others are only standing in 6 inches of water?"
(it's not clear from the picture that they are on the wing)

The reply: Those are real christians!
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Federal investigators are pursuing early indications that the US Airways jet that crash-landed in the Hudson River was struck by Canada geese shortly after taking off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/nyregion/16strike.html

240px-Canada-Goose-Szmurlo.jpg
 
  • #25
edward said:
From wiki



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike

I guess the engines safely shut down. Sometimes they disintegrate.

Yes i think the engine only has to be designed to contain a blade failure, there is a video of a Rolls Royce engine with an explosive charge on one blade, it is horrific, i only wonder how a fly by wire aircraft can be flown with no engines, do they still have a pop out windmill?
 
  • #26
wolram said:
Yes i think the engine only has to be designed to contain a blade failure, there is a video of a Rolls Royce engine with an explosive charge on one blade, it is horrific,
It's cool - here's a fun way to burn $25M in an afternoon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA



i only wonder how a fly by wire aircraft can be flown with no engines, do they still have a pop out windmill?
Yes they have a RAT - I don't know how much power they have stored in the hydraulic system after an engine out.
But if you are planning on landing without any engines, undercarriage or brakes and you already have full flaps for take-off I don't suppose you need much power!
 
Last edited:
  • #27
This just in: MSNBC, THE BEST MOST TRUSTED NO BULL NO BS NEWS ON THE PLANET EARTH, HOME TO 6 BILLION VIEWERS is the FIRST to BREAK this EARTH SHATTERING STORY. FIND OUT...after this commercial brake.

All these "journalists" are a joke.

"So did your life flash before your eyes?"

"Were people panicking?"

"Was there a lot of pandemonium?"

"Can you make a little scream on camera like you were there and reenact it for us?"

Well, as you can see Candice, here on our MSNBC EXCLUSIVE simulation program, we can replay the whole flight for you. As you can see, passenger 145 was squatting a turd in the bathroom when he said he 'felt a bump' that launched him into the cabin roof.

See, I was squatting like this taking a dump...when the plane rocked violently. Boy, was I glad I was in the right chair when that happened.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Cyrus said:
This just in: MSNBC, THE BEST MOST TRUSTED NO BULL NO BS NEWS ON THE PLANET EARTH, HOME TO 6 BILLION VIEWERS is the FIRST to BREAK this EARTH SHATTERING STORY. FIND OUT...after this commercial brake.

All these "journalists" are a joke.

"So did your life flash before your eyes?"

"Were people panicing?"

"Was there a lot of pandamonium?"

"Can you make a little scream on camera like you were there and reinact it for us?"

Well, as you can see Candice, here on our MSNBC EXCLUSIVE simulation program, we can replay the whole flight for you. As you can see, passenger 145 was squatting a turd in the



bathroom when he said he 'felt a bump' that launched him into the cabin ro





See, I was squatting like this taking a dump...when the plane rocked violently. Boy, was I glad I was in the right chair when that happened.


Sick
 
  • #29
wolram said:
Sick

I fully agree with your assessment of the newsmedia.
 
  • #30
I read on NPR that the pilot had 40 years of experience so he definitely wasn't a n00b!
He also made sure to walk the length of the plane twice to make sure that no one was still on it before he exited. He even has a cool name "sully"... sounds like something from Miami Vice. LOL
 
  • #31
The plane was headed to Charlotte, so this has been the main or only story on Charlotte TV stations' news programs tonight. No passenger list had been released as of early evening, but maybe the late-evening news will have a wave of local-connection stories.
 
  • #32
wolram said:
What sort of birds do you have that flock this time of year in that area?

I don't know about this time of year, but there are flocks of Canadian geese there. They're fairly big as far as wild birds go, and they look like they could feed about 6-10 people. There are also numerous small aircraft that fly up and down the Hudson, though I haven't heard any descriptions consistent with a passenger-jet-helicopter collision.
 
  • #33
Dear News Media,
No casualties? What lousy reporting!
Yours
Donald Duck
 
  • #34
It looks like it wasn't all thanks to God as the media claim.
The A320 is designed to make water landing a little more survivable. According to the aviation safety network there is a DITCH button in the cockpit which seals all the inlets making the plane float much higher in the water for longer. In addition the wheel bays seal water tight (unlike the exposed wheels of a 737) and the engines are designed to shear off in a no-wheels landing - which they did.
 
  • #35
Cisco was airing http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/01/cisco-ad-and-us.html" , like the time spent reviewing emergency procedures, during coverage of the story.

Cisco's Travel Less, Save More commercial begins with a man talking to the screen, welcoming people to flight 1120. Various people recite familiar flight attendant lines throughout the ad, talking about how to buckle a seat belt, how oxygen masks will drop from the ceiling and what will happen in the "unlikely" event of a water landing. They wear floating devices. They play with oxygen masks. Then the ad ends with a voice-over about the "endless hours" lost to airport delays.

Some people watching real-life coverage of US Airways flight 1549 yesterday on CNN saw the ad during a commercial break. They were treated to the jarring feeling of watching real-life coverage of ... the crash followed by a commercial that mocks flying and safety instructions.

Ouch! A marketing man's nightmare!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
My only objection is the notion that we need an explanation for how a seatbelt works.
 
  • #37
chemisttree said:
Ouch! A marketing man's nightmare!
Am I allowed to post it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqjzJMAp8N4
 
  • #38
mgb_phys said:
It looks like it wasn't all thanks to God as the media claim.
The A320 is designed to make water landing a little more survivable. According to the aviation safety network there is a DITCH button in the cockpit which seals all the inlets making the plane float much higher in the water for longer. In addition the wheel bays seal water tight (unlike the exposed wheels of a 737) and the engines are designed to shear off in a no-wheels landing - which they did.

What you didn't know is that God designed the plane.

Good thing there was no ice in the river; no cross winds; a calm river on which to land... But I think the credit is given where due. I had heard about the design in a number of stories. Also, the pilot, copilot, and crew, have all been praised time and time again. The pilot even has a fan club now.

US Airways pilot Chesley Sullenberger gets FaceBook fan club!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009/01/us-airways-pilo.html

Something else that I think is worthy of mention is that the passengers remained calm and acted quickly. The entire story is a textbook example of everything going right; less the fact that God threw birds at the plane.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Ivan Seeking said:
less the fact that God threw birds at the plane.
Maybe God hates birds ?
 
  • #40
mgb_phys said:
Maybe God hates birds ?

According to my buddies at Boeing, God hates Airbus. He works for Boeing now.
 
  • #41
Ivan Seeking said:
What you didn't know is that God designed the plane.

Good thing there was no ice in the river; no cross winds; a calm river on which to land...

Good thing they landed close to the part of the river where ferries crossed back and forth and could respond quickly. Good thing they didn't hit one of the ferries.
 
  • #42
I estimated the first A380 would go down around this time. Anyone want to wager the next one? I say 8 months.
 
  • #43
Denton said:
I estimated the first A380 would go down around this time. Anyone want to wager the next one? I say 8 months.

Well, it didn't go down due to technical problems (in the sense of design error). It's also not an A380 (or even an airbus).

I'm curious as to why you would think one would have a problem so soon? Do you question the ability of engineers?
 
Last edited:
  • #44
You would need a very large flock of birds to takeout all 4 engines on an A380 - they are quite a long way apart.
 
  • #45
Cyrus said:
(or even an airbus).

Eh?
 
  • #46
That's an Embrayer or Bombarier.

Edit: Looking at the cockpit window layout, you're right.

The two companies basically make the exact same plane.
 
  • #47
Boy is my face red. Glared over the words and saw 'airplane' and A3-something.

I'm curious as to why you would think one would have a problem so soon? Do you question the ability of engineers?

Big plane. They were pushed over their budgets and time limits. Also I'm a bit of a pessimist.

You would need a very large flock of birds to takeout all 4 engines on an A380 - they are quite a long way apart.

Terrorists train homing pigeons to fly into the engines. We don't stand a chance!
 
  • #48
Denton said:
They were pushed over their budgets and time limits.
Ever known an engineering project that wasn't?
The A380 was a lot less rushed than the 747.

I don't know if it's just small number stats, the fact that they are sold to big name airlines or real engineering advances but the newest aircraft models have had a pretty lucky run.
The only 777 oops was the fuel problem on the one at Heathrow, there haven't been any splats of the new 600-900 version 737s
 
  • #50
edward said:
From wiki



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike

I guess the engines safely shut down. Sometimes they disintegrate.
According FAR's, the test is that we have to be at at least 100% T.O. power. Once the ingestion takes place, there can be no modification to the throttle for at least 15 seconds. After that there are three basic things that have to be demonstrated: The engine can be safely shut down, there are no debris thrown from the engine and no fire is produced.

The size of the birds to test with is a function of the fan diameter.

If an engine disintegrates during a test, there is no certification.
 

Similar threads

Why can’t decay heat be harnessed to safely shutdown a nuclear reactor?
Replies
14
Views
10K
Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
Replies
1
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top