US Airways A320 Down in NYC Hudson River

I don't know much about the A320 systems, but even if he did arrange it so the aircraft stayed just above stall speed, that has nothing to do with the plot's ability to make the decision to river-ditch, control his descent in a glide, be smart enough to pitch the nose up (I DON'T think that is a part of training, but actually a part of his GLIDING experience), and keep the horizon level so to not spin the plane. If what you quoted is true, Mario, it does not discredit the Captain one bit to me.

I also am DYING to hear the CVR.

Last night, I was watching Bill O'Reilly and he interviewed one of the passengers from the flight.

The passenger gave a play by play as he saw it. He is also a private pilot.

What was remarkable was how calm everything is reported to have gone on the plane.
So this thought just crossed my mind...

Here were 150 people who kept calm....Such a dire situation and they kept calm. So under pressure, humans know how to act. But give 'em a sale at Walmart and they'll kill each other... :roll:


Oh and another thought. On Anet, some guy was playing down that the pilot wasn't a hero ( I disagree) as he was just doing his job.

We had a lot of heros yesterday but hats off to the ferry guys. As far as I know, the ferry captain didn't act on any order. HE just saw what was going on and went to it.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/...4d628d9b9a.jpg
Greg Lam Pak Ng via Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirrodie

Quote:

---

Those computers kept it flying....probably in Alpha Floor protection mode all the way, resulting in a very controlled, absolute minimum speed touchdown, just above Vs. Pull the sidestick all the way back and let the computers keep her in the air. No chance of a Stall.
Textbook ditching IMHO.

---

Would anyone care to comment on what was said?

---

I'd be interested to find out if the computers still affect control and performance systems with dual engine failure.

I would think that if both of your engines fail, you would lose non-critical electrical system components (i.e. autopilot, system input cautions/checks, stall warnings etc...), along with your primary hydraulic system.

My guess is that with both engines out, the computer systems "controlling" flight are disengaged, and flying reverts back to more of a "manual" mode (i.e. no computer warnings/inputs, no autopilot, no primary hydraulic power etc...). If this is the case, then the pilot was controlling everything manually.

Even if this isn't the case, I don't think any autopilot could be set to land an aircraft on the water without having it break apart or suffer from a violent impact.

I can't imagine what it's like, no so much the landing, but to stand onteh wing with freezing water logged in your shoes, waiting for a boat to come get you.

Those ferry Captains also did a heck of a job. They just turned their boats and bounced, passengers and all.

[img]http://media.nbcnewyork.com/images/600*337/UGC-Plane-Landing.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

I'd be interested to find out if the computers still affect control and performance systems with dual engine failure.

I would think that if both of your engines fail, you would lose non-critical electrical system components (i.e. autopilot, system input cautions/checks, stall warnings etc...), along with your primary hydraulic system.

My guess is that with both engines out, the computer systems "controlling" flight are disengaged, and flying reverts back to more of a "manual" mode (i.e. no computer warnings/inputs, no autopilot, no primary hydraulic power etc...). If this is the case, then the pilot was controlling everything manually.

Even if this isn't the case, I don't think any autopilot could be set to land an aircraft on the water without having it break apart or suffer from a violent impact.

---

Good points.

If he lost both engines, he most certainly did lose most systems, including auto-pilot, so what that guy suggested is impossible. they did lose primary hydraulic functions, and they had limited control of their control surfaces (rudder, ailerons, elevator, flaps). The APU could have been turned on, but that takes 2-3 minutes and I'm sure they didn't have time for that.

I just realized something, As you all know I went LGA spotting on Tuesday and I noticed at the last second that I caught the same plane (N106US) from soundview...

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o...r/IMG_5942.jpg

Nice, Sergio. That's probably the last pic of her before the accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GothamSpotter

Nice, Sergio. That's probably the last pic of her before the accident.

---

I got it 2 days before it went down..

So did the engines windmill before it crashed?
Can you see from the cockpit if the engines windmill or are stuck when they not functioning normally, how many rpm would it be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

Most engines are designed to shear off of the aircraft in cases such as these. Whether they did or not in this case, I'm not sure, but the fact that he didn't catch one wing on the water and flip and violently break up is remarkable.

---

NTSB has NYPD divers looking for the left engine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emshighway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

Most engines are designed to shear off of the aircraft in cases such as these. Whether they did or not in this case, I'm not sure, but the fact that he didn't catch one wing on the water and flip and violently break up is remarkable.

---

NTSB has NYPD divers looking for the left engine.

---

Actually both of the aircraft's engines tore off on impact and are somewhere in the Hudson river. It looks like they will be the lifting the plane out of the water tommorow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/nyreg ... =permalink

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

I can only speak for the 757 and 767, which do in fact have a ditch switch.

---

Who operates 757s and 767s with a "Ditch Switch?"

Nice last shot there Gotham. Surprised a vid has not yet surfaced.