Log In | Register
Divers face tough hunt for Hudson jet's engines
Article Source: msnbc.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (12)
Worldwide jet engines ingest foreign objects, including birds, on a daily basis. Engines are designed to sustain limited Foreign Object Damage (FOD) and keep producing power. One of the many FOD tests during testing involves actual bird strikes on the engine test stand. Even in the unlikely event the right engine ingested birds there is a significant probability the engine was undamaged and still producing power. Additionally, there are many, many airports in the NYC area. Given the pilots max altitude of 3000+ feet he probably could have made it to a runway if he were truly the "hero" claimed. He made a roughly ninety degree turn to the south after losing or accidentally shutting down both engines. Any turn causes a significant lose in altitude. If he had maintained a visual picture of the runways in front of him he could have made no or only a very slight turn thus retaining some of his altitude and using that to reach terra firma.
Additionally, making a smooth water landing on a glassy smooth river surface is not as difficult as a smooth water landing on a choppy lake or ocean surface.
"While bird strikes are becoming more common, a flock of birds knocking out both aircraft engines, as initial reports indicated in the US Airways incident, is unheard of, industry experts say.
GE Aviation said it has no record of a double-engine strike in the past 20 years.
Bird-strike testing is one of a number of rigorous FAA tests that a jet engine must pass to be certified and enter service, GE says.
The bird-strike testing is conducted in accordance with detailed FAA specifications to confirm that the engine can safely tolerate a bird strike, and the birds used have to be representative of the types of birds that pose a potential threat to aircraft engines in flight, GE says."
#1 - Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:59 AM ESTIt might not have been a bird. But maybe a malfunction of some sort. Who really cares?
I wonder what is a difference between responses and effects of this incident and 9/11?
9/11 was a tragedy. Did Hudson River incident improved a feeling about planes flying over NYC?
You know, plane, NYC and everyone is safe and we have a couple of heroes.
President Bush, Congrats!
Plane-crush in NYC and everyone is safe on your watch.
I mean it!
Happy 8th Birthday! :)
ETOPS-180 and single engine performance. Rate of climb is reduced but the A320 in question was already above any obstacles present for miles in any direction. If the right engine were still capable of making power then continuing to Newark, Teterboro, or even returning to La Guardia would have been the best options.
The A320 has a 180-minute ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards) rating. In simplest terms this means that the A320 is designed to continue flying for a minimum of 180 minutes on one engine. If he still had a good engine you would think he could find a suitable airport within the three hour limit.
The pilot's story may be legit but I want to see the NTSB report first.
#2 - Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:17 AM ESTTrying to find fault with the pilot? He had much less time to make these life saving decisions than it took to write this detailed report on what he should have done.
- 1 vote
#3 - Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:07 AM ESTPlease tell me why the First Officer has not equally been commended for his heroic save as well? Neither he nor the Flight Attendants have been acknowledged for their efforts and I'm sure the crew didn't only consist of a Captain.
#4 - Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:08 AM ESTFirst congratulations to the crew (Captain, First Officer, and Flight Attendants) for a phenomenal job! As for Airbus Industries for the well-constructed hull, as well as all involved in the rescue and brave passengers. As a major airline pilot who is type rated on the Airbus 320 its moments like these that make me proud. Let's give Capt. Sully credit where credit is obviously due, but how come we barely here the mentioning of the First Officer's name? When we finally get to hear Capt's Sully speech I guarantee he's going to say he wouldn't have been able to do it without his crew. Everyone is saying pilot it's actually PILOTS (plural) there's a misconception that only Captain's fly the aircraft, that's not true we take turns flying and by the way every Captain was first a First Officer. While Captain Sully was busy flying the aircraft, I'm certain the First Officer was much more busier doing everything else: Air Traffic communications (ATC), the ditching checklist which prepares the aircraft for a water landing (quite lengthy) oh and by the way, the cool and collective "Brace for impact" call that everyone is talking about was probably done by the First Officer. I doubt Captain Sully was going to break concentration to make that call, the "pilot monitoring" in this case, the FO does that after the Captain commands it. One of the reasons I guarantee you that the airplane stayed afloat as long as it did, was for the checklist items executed by the First Officer. After ditching the FO is the first to leave the flight deck to assist with the evacuation and the Captain is always last to leave the aircraft after a sweep of the cabin-- that's always been protocol. Congratulations again to all involved for a job well done during this historic event in aviation!
By the way for news reporters/ commentators the term "co-pilot" is antiquated. If you want to be politcally correct it's First Officer. In addition if you want to break it down further the Captain or First Officer may be either the "PF" or Pilot Flying (is in charge of flying the aircraft) or "PM" Pilot Monitoring (who basically does everything else i.e. communications, navigation, FMS computer entries, checklists, PA's, etc.). Both the Captain and the First Officer are equally qualified to fly the aircraft and the only reason a Captain has that title, is unfortunately not always because he's more experienced, but simply seniority (date of hire) and a satisfactory checkride. If Captain Sully for example were to leave US Airways and go to Delta, wouldn't matter how much experience he has, he would be at the bottom of the seniority list as guess what, a First Officer. As for the press lets give more recognition to Captain's Sully's First Officer by mentioning his name publicly. Everytime I watch the news or read them it makes it sound like the First Officer was sitting there with his arms crossed along for the ride. The minimum number of flight crew (pilots) as per A320 limitations is two (just like 99.9% of all modern airliners). Let us not forget that and start giving credit to the pilots not just pilot.
PS the First Officer's name is Jeff Skiles
- 1 vote
#5 - Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:15 AM ESTBirds are common. I cant believe that it does not happen often. I wrote on how they need to improve safety and reduce the number of flight delays and reform our airline system. Airline delays are a growing problem in the United States, and it's largely because our current air traffic control system uses radar technology from the 1950's! -.
#8 - Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:51 PM ESTStrange how GE engins dont want to give the Pilot credit but without his airforce and 40 years experience all the passengers might not have lived even if they had landed at an airport. I wrote on my blog elitepro-travel, how they need to improve safety and reform our airline system. Airline delays are a growing problem in the United States, and it's largely because our current air traffic control system uses radar technology from the 1950's! -
#9 - Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:00 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
