Would You Say He Is One Hell Of A Pilot? Options

[albertchampion]

a successful landing on water. with everyone surviving. with the aircraft not breaking up.

i saw the craft in the water surrounded by rescue boats.

i listened to a passenger on npr.

and later saw a weather channel muppet reporting that the craft landed in the hudson just west of 48th street.

just west of my taichi sensai. i telephoned him. he told me that he was on the banks of the hudson when it happened. he was at the 44th street pier. he watched it happen. he said that the airbus descended until it was about 10-20ft above the water, then the nose lifted, and the plane settled onto the hudson.

he said that all kinds of watercraft appeared to have been prepositioned because the airbus was virtually immediately surrounded. by fdny waterboats to circleline ferry.

he said that he was watching it as it was framed by the uss intrepid.

i asked him if he got pix[he always carries his camera, except when he doesn't]. he said that because he was teaching a class, we was cameraless. and then in the background, his wife said, "what about your cellphone camera?".

he completely forgot that the phone was more than just a phone.

way too sad. he was in the right place at the right time.

i close this way. i am astonished by the skill and presence of mind of that pilot/copilot. if the story that they lost both engines on climb-out from LGA is accurate, they were damned good and professional to have landed the bird on water and saved everyone. in my book, that may be the commercial piloting nobel prizewinning feat.

[Omega892R09]

a successful landing on water. with everyone surviving. with the aircraft not breaking up.

i close this way. i am astonished by the skill and presence of mind of that pilot/copilot. if the story that they lost both engines on climb-out from LGA is accurate, they were damned good and professional to have landed the bird on water and saved everyone. in my book, that may be the commercial piloting nobel prizewinning feat.

I applauded him last evening when I saw it on the late news.

I was surprised to hear a media pundet say that he had tried to turn back to La Gardia.

My wife said, 'and I suppose you think he heard you.' Tch!

Now I must find out exactly which water he landed on and give it a go in Flight SIM with the Vixen FAW2 (I have one parked at La Guardia). I have practiced this with piston jobs and found that slight raising of the nose before contact helps - reduces sink and forward speed - flaps down and U/C up of course.

[JFK]

A 28 page thread may be found here - http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/358238-...-river-nyc.html - regarding the successful ditch.

[JFK]

Over 30 minutes of video clips here - http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/...0,4938243.story

[rob balsamo]

Here are some videos of the ditching as it happened from different cams.



Moved to Latest News...

Great job by all crew!

[tnemelckram]

What's amazing is how he managed to clear the top of the George Washington Bridge and still land it flat. I think this pilot had a very clear pre-flight plan for this contingency and executed it perfectly. Planning, awareness, reaction and execution are some of the triats that make pilots pilots.

Here's to this pilot and all the rest as well! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[forthetrees]

If a totally inexperienced, first time at the controls, non-pilot can manuver a 757 through a steep, tight, circling steep descent at 500mph or so, fly through five light poles, level off and stop all sink inches above the ground and hold it there for several hundred feet without ever touching any part of the plane to the ground at any point...or causing any damage at all to the footer and slab of the Pentagon...essentially a perfect belly landing at fully speed on the first try, what's so hard about settling a plane down on the water? By 9-11 pilot skill standards, pretty much anyone of the passengers could have done it, too. No? Give the pilot credit for recognizing the situation and making the correct emergency decisions, but the flying part, viurtually anybody could do it. 9-11 proved that.

[rob balsamo]

Good point Forthetrees.

But you may want to add to your post that you are being sarcastic... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

There are some out there (well, one or two idiots) who think Designated FAA Check Airmen arent as skilled as the "terarhists" because they couldnt squarley hit the WTC at such speeds the first few tries in the aircraft type they train others, which is more maneuverable than a 767. Of course these same people who think as such refuse to debate real pilots on the topic, or any other topic regarding 9/11.

[forthetrees]

Good point Forthetrees.

But you may want to add to your post that you are being sarcastic... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

There are some out there (well, one or two idiots) who think Designated FAA Check Airmen arent as skilled as the "terarhists" because they couldnt squarley hit the WTC at such speeds the first few tries in the aircraft type they train others, which is more maneuverable than a 767. Of course these same people who think as such refuse to debate real pilots on the topic, or any other topic regarding 9/11.

Yes, thank you Rob for recognizing that. Actually, I'm using the thread to practice getting a succint, to the point version of that down to use as needed. I certainly don't mean to take anything away from the captain and crew of the Hudson flight, but I do think the credit he is rightfully being given for his flying skills is in sharp contrast to the pass Hani is given for his total lack of "flying" skill or experience. I'm hoping to see examples of much better writers than me commenting on this contrast in the public's perception of the realities of flying skills.

[dMz]

There is a special on this on MSNBC right now (US West Coast). Hats off to Captain "Sully" from the US Air Force Academy (they said he is also a glider pilot- probably a very good thing). (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

EDIT: US Airways 1549.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/plane_in_river

... hit the water ~125 mph (after geese into both engines upon takeoff).

EDIT2: MSNBC also said that he/they was/were aiming for Newark or a private airstrip nearby (starts with a T iirc, but presumably didn't have the altitude or airspeed and decided "Hudson it is!").

EDIT3: More research points:

US Airways Airbus A320, bound for Charlotte, N.C., took off from LaGuardia Airport at 3:26 p.m.

controller told the pilot to divert to an airport in nearby Teterboro, N.J

"An official speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still ongoing identified the pilot as..."

[rob balsamo]

I havent been able to thoroughly research this event yet (i briefly had time to skim the pprune thread linked by JFK last night). But does anyone know for fact that the "Pilot-Flying" (PF) was the Capt? It could have been the FO as PF who actually made the landing.

Im a bit perturbed by the media (i know, big surprise), that all they credit is the Capt. That whole incident and professional outcome was a crew effort, including excellent cabin crew and rescue efforts of NYers.

Someone please post the final report when it is issued by the NTSB if i dont get to it first.

[dMz]

The plane is apparently "back home" now at a pier on lower Manhattan, thanks to FDNY, NYPD, and other rescue/salvage divers. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[tnemelckram]

Hi Rob!

That whole incident and professional outcome was a crew effort, including excellent cabin crew

Doing your job properly (actually beyond the call of duty) when you know there is a damn good chance that you are going to die has to be the hardest thing in the world to do.

[albertchampion]

i hate going to certain places. but, when you look at those photos of the plane in the hudson, do you see a fuel slick?

i don't know what happens when two engines tear off, but wouldn't jetA continue to be pumped out of the aircraft?

i don't care to be a killjoy, but i do know usair to be one of the most mismanaged airlines still flying. with lots of financial constraints.

is there a possibility that they launched unfueled?

think about that for a minute.

well, i suppose i have a very negative pov concerning concerning commercial airline ops. based on my "fueling" adventures with frank lorenzo's continental airlines. and united airlines' adventures in the pacific after acquiring panam routes without acquiring panam aircraft. and american airlines adventures in south america after acquiring panam routes.

i sure hope that they can recover the engines. and that the ntsb will do a more honest, comprehensive investigation than was conducted concerning some other aviation accidents. i am not holding my breath.

so it goes.

[rob balsamo]

Hi Rob!



Doing your job properly (actually beyond the call of duty) when you know there is a damn good chance that you are going to die has to be the hardest thing in the world to do.

Its actually not "beyond the call of duty". Its what crews train for.... and if i must say so myself... emergency procedures are the only thing that is "fun" when going to recurrent every 6 months.

albert, lets forgo the "Monday Morning Quaterback" please... there will be plenty of time for that when the final report is released.

But if you insist.. feel free to speak your mind. I however, disagree at this point in time.

With that said, i really would like to know the "cause" of the dual engine failure as there isnt much blood on the leading edges or fuse nose for a "flock of birds".

[Ricochet]

23 Bank of America Execs on board. NYT. The birds must have been trained Al qaida out to sabotage the US financial system.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/...udson-river/?hp

This post has been edited by Ricochet: Jan 18 2009, 03:56 AM

[tnemelckram]

Hi Rob!

Its actually not "beyond the call of duty". Its what crews train for....

I used those words too ambiguously. What I was thinking was that most air accidents are fatal even if the crew executes properly. The nature of flight stacks the deck against them. What I meant was there's something special about their performance when a plane drops 3000 feet out of the sky and everybody survives (in this case 155 people!). That means the crew had everybody properly prepared for exactly what happened. I know of military planes and other planes that landed on water where the entire small crew survived, but this survival rate from that high is off the charts (maybe even unprecedented). They didn't just do it right, somehow they did it really right.

[dMz]

... in the hudson, do you see a fuel slick?

The M$Mnbc 1-hour show showed an interview with a passenger who was on row 20-22-ish. He [loosely paraphrasing from a few hours ago] "saw and heard it all. Then a strong smell of gas." [Ed- Jet A or more likely Jet A-1 in January smells quite different from gasoline/petrol, and very different from avgas, but the average person may not make these distinctions.]

His uncle had the very emotional story in the show IIRC.

The show mentioned something about the pilot radioing about losing power from the damaged engines, and the pilot saw the "private" Teterboro airport and was headed there before?? the Washington Bridge "climb" and subsequent and unavoidable airspeed "consequence" in/across the Hudson.

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

Then there were a few passengers talking about Newark (EWR), [but there was considerable family conversation on my end at that time], so I may have missed most of that part.

Consider the source (M$NBC) here, but that's what I saw. I also concur with Rob that we should reserve "judgment" just yet, but I think we should keep this thread active as updates occur. (You never can tell which nuggets slip through the info kommi-sar "webs"). This certainly seems like a great thread to "retire" to the Aircraft section at a later point in time IMHO.

See also the George Washington bridge:

http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/george-washington/

http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/george-w...ngton/img19.gif
(IMG:http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/george-washington/img19.gif)
"This 1997 photo shows the George Washington Bridge looking south along the Hudson River. Note the "little red lighthouse" on the left, at the base of the Manhattan tower. (Photo by Paul Ward.)"

[amazed!]

Great job by "Sully". I was rather hoping he was a member of PFT. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Apparently the aircraft reached 3000 before the double failure. Considered TEB and LGA but could not safely make either. Thank God it was good VFR.

And all those lives saved without the assistance of DHS.

This morning's paper says 1 engine is still attached.

The fueling remarks were a cheap shot Albert. Some are wondering if the fuel onboard, being lighter than water, assisted in keeping the aircraft afloat. The reasons the boats were so quick to get there are many, but part of it is that Sully advised ATC that they would be landing in the Hudson, get ready, here we come.

[jo56]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)


Also, lets not forget the 1st Officer - Jeffrey Skiles.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/37719984.html


(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

This post has been edited by jo56: Jan 18 2009, 01:46 PM