Kudos to Capt. Sullenberger & FO Skiles for good airmanship when faced with a double engine failure out of New York. Airline pilots go through a lot of training, but nobody trains for dead-sticking a jet into the Hudson. When I got home that night (from a ORD-EWR turn) all I could think about was what it must have been like for these guys when they came to the realization that they had to ditch in the river. Yikes, not a comfortable thought.
YouTube Video: Raw Footage of Hudson River Landing
4 comments:
Hi Jeff!
I was wondering about your thoughts about this. I find it amazing that pilots can make this type of quick decision within 3 minutes of taking off. It could have been a very tragic ending, but they made the right decision and luckily, there was help right there! However, I was wondering about your thoughts on how much hero worshipping this guy is getting. I definitely think he deserves it, but I also think some are going to extremes - this is part of the job, right? Training for things like this. And I have to wonder, it very easily could have gone a different way, even with the pilot making the best decision possible, and would he still have received this much praise if some passengers had parished? I don't think so - I think the press would have picked him apart analyzing what he could have done or should have done and what the outcome could have been.
I'm very happy he has been turned into a hero - but sometimes the press gets on my nerves.
Kadi -
Good thoughts. And yes, it seems like there has been an excess of hero worshiping. But I attribute it to the mainstream media that has a tendency to sensationalize every good story they get. I love this story because everything worked out, and it had a fairy tale ending. The captain made the right split-second decision, and he kept his wits about him and didn't cave under the pressure. The copilot went right into the checklist procedures and was able to concentrate enough to attempt restarts (although they were obviously unsuccessful), and he made the necessary radio calls. The flight attendants assisted in getting 150 people out of a sinking ship (and prevented the rear doors from being opened - which would have sunk it even quicker). And the citizens of New York came to the rescue of everyone on board within minutes. Everything came together perfectly, and just like you say... things could have easily gone the other way. This is a great story for America, great for the city of New York, and great for the airline industry that hasn't had a fatal accident in nearly 3 years.
Interesting. As one who used to fly, like most pilots, I've always been interested in the details of accidents. In general aviation I've of long felt that there are many deaths because pilots don't accept reality when faced with a loss of power, and try to "hold the plane up" with their stick, thereby stalling, instead of focusing on the making the best crash landing possible under the circumstances. I heard some pundit saying the Airbus had a 20:1 glide ratio, but wondered if that was empty, or with a full load of passengers and fuel. At a 20:1 ratio it would have seemed Sullenberger might have made it back to LGA from 3,000 feet, but I'm guessing his actual glide ratio wasn't going to be that good. It's clear he made the right decision, and the idea that "maybe" I can get back to LGA vs the thought that "I know" I can put this in the river with minimal damage, is where his experience came in. I'd like to think most airline pilots would have thought the same way, but his experience as a glider impact had to influence his thinking.
Regards - John K.
You are right, there have been many avoidable general aviation fatalities because pilots succumbed to the urge to “pull-back” in engine out situations, and then spun out of control when the airplane stalls. As a primary instructor pilot you have a HUGE responsibility to ingrain the fact that you gotta “push-over” when you got an engine out … especially on takeoff. However, you don't train for a loss of all power in large jet transport aircraft. Maybe we should, but the FAA doesn't require it, and most simulator instructors don't give it because the FAA has loaded us down with so many squares to fill that the instructors don't have the time for much else in our allotted simulator time. I've had one simulator event like that in my 19 year career.
And yes, you wonder about that 20:1 glide ratio. In a situation like this every second you spend “making the decision” is costing you precious altitude, so you are eliminating your options with every second you spend making the decision. In this situation, you simply gotta go with the sure thing. Most pilots would never try calculating the distance to Teterboro and performing the necessary mental math to determine if it's viable. First, you gotta get an accurate distance hack... which is compromised because you only have partial instrumentation in a loss of all power situation and it would take precious time to determine this number. Then the glide ratio is never going to be exactly what the book says. The airplane weight is certainly a variable. I’m not sure about the A320, bu the book says that the MD80 has a 20:1 glide ratio, but that's for a weight of 120,000 lbs, and the max take-off weight is 160,000 lbs. Other factors include wind direction and speed, possible structural damage to the nose, wings, slats, or tail structures (because they could have been struck by birds as well)... plus if the engines are windmilling (not completely stopped), then that would also decrease your performance. Just too many variables, without the luxury of time for contemplation. So you go for the sure thing... which means, you do what you think will result in the least amount of damage & loss of life.
Post a Comment