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.
  • #51
FredGarvin said:
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.

The size of the bird that hits an engine is not neccesarily going to be the size that the engine was tested with.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
edward said:
The size of the bird that hits an engine is not neccesarily going to be the size that the engine was tested with.
That's true, but the size is usually pretty close as to what would be probable (the FAA put some work into that size requirement). There's nothing saying that an Emu wouldn't cross the runway on takeoff roll though.
 
  • #54
Security cam video of crash and rescue - doesn't capture the crash real well, but then zooms in for the rescue (start at about 2 min): http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-183256
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Watch the right wing tip, around 3:10.
 
  • #56
Sorry, I got a little spyware/malware attack and deleted the link temporarily until others could check it out. It wasn't the source...
 
  • #58
Andre said:
From http://imnotsayin.blogspot.com/2009/01/us-airways-fight-1594-crash-flight-path.html

This looks very weird, also if you'd plot the energy of the aircraft. Something is not right there, unless the error margin of the data is large. Hence it's highly premature to speculate what happened exactly and whether or not everybody took the correct decisions.


I vaguely remember my PPL engine out test, the instructor shuts the throttle, and the trainee has to pick a spot to land and demonstrate that he/she can find a spot and pull off a landing, from what i can remember it is not at all easy, the instructor has all ready selected a landing spot before he shuts the throttle, and he is on the opposite side of the aircraft, any way i passed the test, but with comments from the instructor like , why did you go for that
landing site rather than this much better one, i think i said, i saw a possible place and went for it.
When an aircraft is over populated areas it must be a nightmare to make a split second decision, and these guys do not have quantum computers to tell them what do in X amount of seconds.
 
  • #59
Could you be a little more specific? Besides the plane crash, I don't see anything that looks weird to me.
 
  • #60
The aircraft gained energy in minute 3:29 from about 8341*m to 8500*m, suggesting that it had enough power at that time to maintain level flight (wind depending).
 
  • #61
From the description vertical resolution is 100 ft, so both 1200 and 1300 can be in fact almost the same height.
 
  • #62
True but it is still a remarkable reduction of the bleeding of total energy within the error margin:

v h E (0,5*(v/2)^2+10*h/3,3)
151 1800 8305
174 2800 12269
194 3200 14401
202 2000 11161
215 1600 10627
194 1200 8341
191 1300 8500
189 400 5677
153 300 3835

Especially since the turn itself also costs energy
 
  • #63
Why (v/2)^2?
 
  • #64
Borek said:
Why (v/2)^2?

Old mental dead reckoning. From knots to M/sec is very close to 0.5
 
  • #65
Don't we love those conversion tricks :smile:
 
  • #66
Bravo to the ferry driver who got to the area first.
 
  • #67
Dunno - when the error in the altitude is known to be +-8% and you calculate a 2% increase in energy, that doesn't seem to me to be very strange at all. You're well inside the error margin of the calculation.
 
  • #68
the energy should have dropped way more in that time frame, the altitude should have been around 900 feet for a normal glide.
 
  • #69
thechicgeek said:
He even has a cool name "sully"... sounds like something from Miami Vice. LOL

Or from "Monsters, Inc." I can't get rid of the mental image of a big blue fuzzy monster sitting at the controls of an airplane. :eek:
 
  • #70
Another reason not to fly on an airbus. They have been having some pretty scary crashes due to computer related problems. Something about the computers thinking the plane is landing and not allowing the pilot to increase throttle input.
 
  • #71
I heard the comment that this was the first successful ditching; presumably meaning the first commercial airliner to ditch without tumbling or breaking apart? Is that right?
 
  • #72
Andre said:
From http://imnotsayin.blogspot.com/2009/01/us-airways-fight-1594-crash-flight-path.html

This looks very weird, also if you'd plot the energy of the aircraft. Something is not right there, unless the error margin of the data is large. Hence it's highly premature to speculate what happened exactly and whether or not everybody took the correct decisions.

They probably shouldn't have tried to open the rear evactuation doors. It's clear from the video that the rear doors were completely submerged, but there aren't any windows at the door itself (it might still be pretty obvious to anyone sitting next to the last window). Since the doors open outwards, water pressure held the doors shut, but the crew/passengers had already broken the seal on the door.

It got mighty uncomfortable for the folks in the rear of the plane before they reached the exit. They were wading through high water before they ever exited the plane.

By time the rescue is complete, the plane is getting very low in the water with the bottom of the side doors below the water. Not sure if that's entirely because of the rear doors leaking, since I think some of the rescue ships might have pushed the right wing down below the water.

I also liked the interview with the passengers. One of the interviewed passengers was seated in the exit row. He read the door instructions as the plane descended. I imagine quite a few students wish they could cram as well as he did.
 
  • #73
Andre said:
the energy should have dropped way more in that time frame, the altitude should have been around 900 feet for a normal glide.
That wasn't a normal glide, though, as I heard it on the news. The pilot was bringing in the plane nose-high, to scrub energy, and to try to make first contact with the tail to slow the plane more, before it bellied into the river. Kinda hard to make accurate calculations when the pilot is forced to do stuff that the plane was not designed to do.
 
  • #74
Andre said:
the energy should have dropped way more in that time frame, the altitude should have been around 900 feet for a normal glide.
We don't really know what the timeframe was, just that it was considerably less than a minute, but I don't know - a heavy and effiicient glider in an efficient configuration...

We are, of course, forgetting one important thing here: wind.
 
  • #75
russ_watters said:
We don't really know what the timeframe was, just that it was considerably less than a minute, but I don't know - a heavy and effiicient glider in an efficient configuration...

We are, of course, forgetting one important thing here: wind.

Not really:

Andre said:
The aircraft gained energy in minute 3:29 from about 8341*m to 8500*m, suggesting that it had enough power at that time to maintain level flight (wind depending).

But the heading change was only about 10-20 degrees and it's not the time of the year for big windshears
 
  • #76
Andre said:
But the heading change was only about 10-20 degrees and it's not the time of the year for big windshears
Nor did it seem too windy when the passengers were outside standing on the wing. Those buildings on either side of the Hudson can channel wind up or down that river making it pretty choppy, but the wind at ground-level seemed light that day.
 
  • #77
Andre said:
Not really:
Sorry, missed that. In any case, it doesn't take much of a change in wind to account for this anomaly. There was a 10mph wind that day (from the national weather service website), and losing it temporarily (or gaining it temporarily) would account for an instant 10% change in calculated kinetic energy.
 
  • #78
russ_watters said:
We are, of course, forgetting one important thing here: wind.

Yes! And I think it's why we should start funding DDWFTTW technology. This is obviously the final proof that this is an actual viable source of renewable, greater than unity source of power.

mgb_phys said:
Odd that insurance companies blame God when something bad happens and everyone else thanks God when anyone survives.

I was sitting in a bar when this was unfolding and saw the following image:
pf_pfojss.jpg


I asked what had happened, and someone said a plane had crashed into the Hudson.
"A plane load of Jesus's? Everyone's walking on water!" I remarked.

My acquaintance said; "No you idiot, they're standing on the wing".

How dare he spoil my little miracle moment with reality...
 
  • #79
Ivan Seeking said:
I heard the comment that this was the first successful ditching; presumably meaning the first commercial airliner to ditch without tumbling or breaking apart? Is that right?

i think it may have been the first where no one was killed (if you don't count simply running off the end of the runway into water)
The 767 that crashed off Ethiopia in 1999 about 50% survived although allegedly the hijackers were fighting with the flight crew as it crashed so not easy to do a perfect ditching.
Although it did break up - the ones that died had mostly inflated their lifejackets inside the plane and were trapped.

The 737 that crashed into the potomac in 82 really showed how lucky this one was with the weather and the rescue response. The rescue effort in 82 was a farce of unequipped and untrained rescuers and a lot of brave bystanders.
 
  • #80
NTSB: Pilot landed in Hudson to avoid catastrophe
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090118/ap_on_re_us/plane_splashdown
NEW YORK – The pilot of a crippled US Airways jetliner made a split-second decision to put down in the Hudson River because trying to return to the airport after birds knocked out both engines could have led to a "catastrophic" crash in a populated neighborhood, he told investigators Saturday.

Capt. Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger said that in the few minutes he had to decide where to set down the powerless plane Thursday afternoon, he felt it was "too low, too slow" and near too many buildings to go anywhere else, according to the National Transportation Safety Board account of his testimony.

The pilot and his first officer provided their first account to NTSB investigators Saturday of what unfolded inside US Airways Flight 1549 in the moments after it slammed into a flock of birds and lost both engines.

Co-pilot Jeff Skiles, who was flying the plane at takeoff, saw the birds coming in perfect formation, and made note of it. Sullenberger looked up, and in an instant his windscreen was filled with big, dark-brown birds.

"His instinct was to duck," said NTSB board member Kitty Higgins, recounting their interview. Then there was a thump, the smell of burning birds, and silence as both aircraft engines cut out.

The account illustrated how quickly things deteriorated after the bump at 3,000 feet, and the pilots' swift realization that returning to LaGuardia or getting to another airport was impossible.

With both engines out, Higgins said, flight attendants described complete silence in the cabin, "like being in a library." A smoky haze and the odor of burning metal or electronics filled the plane.
. . . .
Returning to LaGuardia, he quickly realized, was out. So was nearby Teterboro Airport, where he had never flown before, and which would require him to take the jet over densely populated northern New Jersey.

"We can't do it," he told air traffic controllers. "We're going to be in the Hudson."

The co-pilot kept trying to restart the engines, while checking off emergency landing procedures on a three-page list that the crew normally begins at 35,000 feet.

Sullenberger guided the gliding jet over the George Washington Bridge and looked for a place to land.

Pilots are trained to set down near a ship if they have to ditch, so they can be rescued before sinking, and Sullenberger picked a stretch of water near Manhattan's commuter ferry terminals. Rescuers were able to arrive within minutes.

It all happened so fast, the crew never threw the aircraft's "ditch switch," which seals off vents and holes in the fuselage to make it more seaworthy.
. . . .
He could have made Teterboro Airport, but he wasn't familiar with, and he only had one shot, and it was not clear he would have been properly aligned. "Sullenberger picked a stretch of water near Manhattan's commuter ferry terminals" - and that was the best choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
This guy deserves a monument for flying in a cold blood.

Unfortunately the most obvious ideas - flying fish, flying frog, flying dragon - may be considered offensive.
 
  • #82
Yeah, it should be all three because one alone is so isolated.
 
  • #83
Police sketch of likely culprit:

http://www.chew.hu/entry_images/terror-goose.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #84
Genetically engineerd giant mutant geese are now Canada's main air superiority fighter .
This stuffed example is shown at the gates of their home base.

1282669544_9a0fcd2552.jpg
 
  • #85
US Border Defense response to Canadian Fighters entering US airspace.

http://www.underthesamesun.org/images/goose.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
Attempts by US secret agents to infiltrate the Canadian goose squadron were not so effective.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:BjtAJaCakQt2jM:http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/BAMikeyD/CanadaGoose.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
mgb_phys said:
Attempts by US secret agents to infiltrate the Canadian goose squadron were not so effective.

CanadaGoose.jpg

What was the tip-off?

The Moosehead wasn't drained?
 
  • #89
Here's everything that was released, uncut: http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/1549/

It really is spooky to listen to.
[edit]
In the first clip, about 13:00 in, a few minutes after the crash, the controller starts getting rattled and gets himself relieved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
I hope DOT/FAA/NTSB review what happened at the airports. Someone at LaGuardia asked someone else to call for a helicopter once they lost the 1549 from radar. They didn't realize that more than one helicopter on the west side of Manhattan had been watching 1549 just after it turned over Manhattan toward GW bridge, and they followed it down. The helicopters were on a different frequency than ATC. There needs to be a way that emergency craft can be dispatched immediately one a plane is going down.

The pilot was fortunate to land where he did, where the ferries and other boats could get on scene within minutes.

What if he had gone down in the marshes just west of the river, which could have happened if he tried to make Teterboro.
 
  • #91
The air traffic controller should be commended. Within seconds he had two possible alternative runaways cleared.
 
  • #92
Unfortunate news story order.
Item 2 - the US air pilot being celebrated in New York after his plane hit a flock of birds.

Following item 1 - an oil company is to face $1M fines an upto 6months in prison when a flock of birds died after landing on a tailings pond.
 
  • #93
Astronuc said:
There needs to be a way that emergency craft can be dispatched immediately one a plane is going down.

This is usually done by the Civil Air Patrol or state police/rescue helicopters and other aircraft in the area.
 
  • #94
In the news here today - they confirmed these were Canadian geese from Labrador.
 
  • #95
Borek said:
In the news here today - they confirmed these were Canadian geese from Labrador.

I suppose that means the TSA will stop you taking geese as carry-on ?
 
  • #96
mgb_phys said:
I suppose that means the TSA will stop you taking geese as carry-on ?

Only geese from Labrador.
 
  • #97
mgb_phys said:
I suppose that means the TSA will stop you taking geese as carry-on ?

Ivan Seeking said:
Only geese from Labrador.

My bet is they won't let you take all geese and ducks, just in case.
 
  • #98
Borek said:
My bet is they won't let you take all geese and ducks, just in case.
And if you are wearing a T-shirt with a picture of duck on it (even Donald), they will require you to remove it or cover it up with another shirt before you are allowed to board.
 
  • #99
Borek said:
In the news here today - they confirmed these were Canadian geese from Labrador.

It's a sad day when Labrador becomes a sponsor of terrorism. Now we have to rename the Labrador Retreiver and I have to stop drinking Laughing Lab.

The number of attacks on US airliners has more than doubled since 2000. Worst is a United Airlines 737 that suffered 29 birdstrikes and one strike by a small deer. That single plane has been attacked in San Francisco; Salt Lake City; San Jose, Calif.; Houston; Denver; Toronto; New Orleans; Chicago and Spokane, Wash.

This deer was apparently rendered harmless to airliners before it had a chance to attack - or else it's a post-attack photo - I'm not sure:
http://www.presidentialufo.com/P1010084.JPG
http://www.presidentialufo.com/P1010083.JPG
http://www.presidentialufo.com/P1010085.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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