US Airways Flt 1549 Crashed in Hudson River

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    River
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the emergency landing of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River after a bird strike disabled both engines. Participants explore various aspects of the incident, including the mechanics of bird strikes, pilot skill, passenger safety, and the types of birds involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the incident likely involved multiple birds, as both engines were disabled, raising questions about the independence of engine design.
  • Others express amazement at the lack of serious injuries, attributing this to the pilot's skill and the aircraft's robustness.
  • There are comments about the effectiveness of life vests and the timing of their use during the emergency landing.
  • Participants discuss the types of birds that could have caused the incident, with mentions of Canada geese and seagulls being potential culprits.
  • Some express skepticism about the necessity of life rafts when the water was shallow, while others highlight the dangers of the cold water temperatures.
  • References to previous incidents and comparisons to other emergency landings are made, noting differences in outcomes.
  • There are humorous remarks about the idea of engineers testing engines with frozen chickens and the media's portrayal of the event.
  • Technical discussions arise regarding engine design and safety features related to bird strikes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement on the pilot's skill and the miraculous survival of all on board, while disagreements arise regarding the specifics of the bird strike and the implications for aircraft design and safety protocols.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions include assumptions about bird behavior and environmental conditions, as well as references to the design limitations of aircraft engines in relation to bird strikes.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in aviation safety, emergency response protocols, and the mechanics of bird strikes may find this discussion relevant.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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).
 

Similar threads

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