Nov 11, 2009, 10:34am
Nov 10, 2009, 8:45am
Apparently, U.S. Air is sending $5,000 to each passenger who landed in the Hudson River. Sounds small until you consider: when was the last time you got paid for a 15 minute trip from LaGuardia to the West Side Highway? When it's Ken Lewis heading into the city, the flow of payments goes exactly the other way, after all.
U.S. Airways sends $5,000 to passengers in crash-landing [CNN]
Sep 15, 2009, 2:22pm
I sense some judgment from the Bloomberg reporter here re:...
More »
Sep 15, 2009, 2:00pm
Tudor BVI Global: August 2009: 0.5% YTD: 12.5% ...as for...
More »
Sep 09, 2009, 11:27am
Goldman Sachs partner managing director Richard Kimball Jr. apparently got...
More »
Sep 09, 2009, 10:15am
Ladies, if you've been looking to work under one of...
More »
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:29PM
haha - any one of those people that casshes the check will be forfeiting their right to sue the airlines. This is a cynical attempt to stave off lawsuits.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:29PM
Taxable income.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:29PM
Lawsuit avoidance. If it comes out that birds were not the cause and it was US Air having shitty fucking maintenance....
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:30PM
What I don't get is, at 3200 feet they didn't just appear (quackers that is), so who missed them on radar?
The guy in the right seat said he saw them in the distance - but what, flew into them anyway?
Posted by Anal_yst , Jan 20, 2009 1:32PM
I hate to play this card, but I can't help but ponder the possibility that "human error," namely by the pilot and/or co-pilot had something to do with the necessity to pull off a stunning emergency landing in the first place.
What say you, EP, being our resident aeronautical expert?
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:38PM
did the 5gs have a waiver of liability attached?
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:39PM
wow $5k!! thats terrible.....
i usually carry over $5k of stuff when i travel...off the top of my head
company thinkpad (~1000)
my thinkpad x300 (~2500)
canon dslr (~900)
ipod(~150)
suits(~2000)
......and a ton of other crap
they should give you those golden tickets, like on Lost.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:41PM
@4: Birds aren't exactly known for listening to air traffic control saying "Please maintain 3,000 feet, and travel ESE at 15 mph".
The plane was flying 300-400 mph at that point. "In the distance" but within eye range means that - maybe - that passenger could see birds a half-mile away (unlikely, they'd be tiny dots at that distance, unidentifiable as birds, but for your argument). No way a plane travelling 300 mph could avoid something a half mile (or a mile) away.
it's your old algebra problem:
If a bird flock A leaves the Bronx Zoo and is travelling at 20 mph flying East, and US Air 1540 is travelling at 300 mph flying West, how long until they crash into each other?
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:51PM
This would never have happened if they would just legalize bird hunting within the 5 boroughs.
Get Ducks Unlimited on the line, pronto!
And find my waders!
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:56PM
$5k for luggage dumped into the Hudson? I thought they only reimburse $200 for losing your luggage etc.
So let me understand, they lose your luggage in Phoenix and it never comes back, $200. They crash the plane in the Hudson, you never get it back, or it comes back wet a month from now, $5k.
WTF?
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:56PM
CARLEE GRIFFITH WOULD FUCKING GET IT!!!
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:57PM
what are the plane crash first year numbers?
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:58PM
@12: first class, or coach division?
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 1:59PM
The only plane that matters is ex-AF1 rolling on the tarmac getting the hell out of town.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:04PM
@8 Assuming LGA is 5 miles from the Bronz Zoo, as the crow flies (probably less). That's 56 seconds.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:05PM
Anyone see this go down today? All I've seen was the transcript on a Reuters release...
"....Just then Dick Cheney, who had been confined to a wheel chair for twelve hours since throwing his back out moving boxes, came up behind him and touched the edge of his coat. He said to himself, “If only I touch his coat, I will be healed.” Then Obama asked, "Who touched me?" When all denied it, Biden said, "Master the crowd surround you and press in on you." But Obama said, "Someone touched me; for I noticed that power had gone out from me…" When Cheney saw that he could not remain hidden, he came trembling; and falling down before him, he declared in the presence of all the people why he had touched him and how he had been immediately healed. “Take heart, son,” Obama said, “your faith has healed you.” And Cheney was healed from that moment."
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:09PM
Not a lot of radar reflective material in ducks, BTW. Unless they swallowed a tin foil sandwhich wrapper by mistake. No chance this is human error.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:11PM
Cheney in a wheelchair? Dr. Strangelove?
Certainly we will not meet again now that he's gone.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:18PM
@15: They were on the roll, then climbing. They did not have 56 seconds. This isn't a stunt plane. I am sure Schrenker would have been able to avoid the birds, but a A320 pilot? Never.
EP - defend Sully!
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:18PM
i say arm the jets with 50 calibre machine guns and shoot those bitches out of the sky.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:30PM
don't they have some kind of metal grill in front of the engines intake, preventing whole live animals from entering the moving parts? I understand this may affect effeciency, but it seems like a solvable problem.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:32PM
16 - Go back to your cute liberal arts school.
Cheney is a god. Remember the President is keeping the war machine rolling by keeping Dr. Gates on.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:33PM
@16: BRILLIANT!
@18. You're off by about two thousand years.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:34PM
Sure...keep everyone from getting their carryons for eight weeks, after following standard instructions to leave them behind? Now the next time someone lands a plane in a river ANYWHERE, everyone will grab for their luggage and just make the wings that much more crowded.
Posted by Equity Private , Jan 20, 2009 2:36PM
"What say you, EP, being our resident aeronautical expert?"
No. I remain impressed.
The bird encounter with the First Officer handling the airplane was at 3000 feet or so. Both engines, we now learn, lost power at the same time.
As he was JUST BARELY above his "return to airport" altitude, so he started the 180 back to the field.
"Aaah, this is Cactus 1549. We've hit birds, we lost thrust in both engines. We're turning back towards LaGuardia."
It became obvious that this was not going to work, he vocalized this:
"No, too low, too slow, too many buildings, too populated an area."
At this point the co-pilot is desperately trying to restart the engines (if he has enough windmilling, since an APU start is going to suck battery badly- opinions vary on when and when not to do an APU. Either way, it eats up over a minute) while Sully is flying the plane and talking to controllers.
So he was given KTEB as an option. His reply:
"We can't do it. We're gonna be in the Hudson."
Made a decision.
Also, consider this: While the "Best glide" for the A320 is around 270 KIAS or so in this situation (Actual "best glide" is likely the "green dot" speed which is calculated by the airplane constantly versus altitude and weight when you have speed management on) he wasn't likely to be going faster than 250 KIAS at the time.
This brings up a safety issue: At LaGuardia, there is a noise abatement requirement. Reduce thrust at 1,000-1,500'. 250 KIAS is tough to maintain in this case and might have reduced the pilot's options here. Politics v. safety. Ugh.
Since under 10,000 feet the aircraft should be trimmed for 250 KIAS (regulatory reasons primarily as "best climb" is higher for the 320) that's likely as fast as he was going (but see noise abatement discussion for why it was likely less). Once he lost power, that came down pretty quick. Getting the "green dot" speed back gives you "best glide." Note though, that this speed varies if you have "engine damage." (I suppose if the fan blades are not turning you get more drag). That checklist is different (engine damage v. engine flameout), but in the end what it means is that getting the A320's best glide ratio of about 17:1 was unlikely. At best. Pure physics. I'm not sure what best-glide descent speed looks like but I would be amazed if it were less than 1000 ft/min for the 320- in the BEST of circumstances. That gives the pilot and crew under 3 minutes to get things managed. Max.
You there, at home- start a stopwatch, give yourself three minutes and run this workflow from the A320 training course:
Following a dual engine failure the flight deck indications change drastically as generators drop off line, the RAT is deployed and ECAM prioritizes checklists. Control of the aircraft must be taken immediately by CM1, and a safe flight path established.
It is important at this stage to correctly identify the failure as it can be easily confused with all engine generators fault. ECAM will prioritize checklists so to avoid confusion read ECAM carefully to correctly identify the failure. It is vital to establish good crew communications and to apply efficient task-sharing.
Establish communications with ATC, stating nature of emergency and intentions. Consider use of transponder emergency code.
The ECAM actions can be commenced, with attention to optimum relight speed . If there is no relight within 30 sec ECAM will order the engine master switches to be placed off for 30 sec and then on again. This is to permit ventilation of the combustion chamber. Start the APU.
Maximum gliding range is achieved at green dot speed. Think ahead and plan the approach. Depending on the airplane’s position, a forced landing or a ditching may be required if the relight is unsuccessful. Find the relevant QRH page and review the procedure.
The list of affected systems is long and flight controls will be much degraded. If the relight attempts are successful, consider the options of immediate landing versus continuing the flight. If the engines failed simultaneously, was there a common cause ?
At all times, maintain correct speed and situational awareness.
06 - COMPLETION STANDARDS
• Establishes immediately a safe flight path.
• Makes correct analysis and carries out procedure.
• Ensures strict application of task-sharing and good crew communications.
• Makes appropriate decision according to outcome of relight attempt.
07 - COMMON ERRORS
• Incorrect speed choice and lack of monitoring.
• Confusion with ELEC EMER CONFIG.
• Lack of situational awareness.
• APU started too late.
• Engine relight not monitored (stopwatch/parameters).
• Lack of communication.
(Done? Now read Sully's communication with ATC. Sully is a hero. Period. Too bad he's married).
Posted by Tapecracker , Jan 20, 2009 2:39PM
Yeah, what he said ^
Sully's wife is pretty hot.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 2:52PM
@5 - for answers/insight, you should be looking for a legal expert, not an aeronautical expert. (sorry EP)
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 3:37PM
@EP. I'll buy that for a dollar.
You're the jump off. You're the jump off. You're the motherf'in jump off.
Posted by Anal_yst , Jan 20, 2009 4:29PM
@ EP
While my greek is a little rusty, I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong), you're saying the pilot is the motha f*cking man, no?
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 4:42PM
Why didn't Obama think of that angle? Invite the passengers to his inauguration, and frown at the pilot.
Posted by guest , Jan 20, 2009 4:45PM
EP, you are correct. Sully is a stud, but you're way off on best glide speed. I've enjoyed all the aviation commentary nonetheless.
the indispensible flight aware has the log. all 6 minutes of it.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE1549/history/20090115/2026Z/KLGA/KLGA/tracklog
SR-22 guy
Posted by Novice , Jan 21, 2009 12:07AM
@23 You missed the reference to the world's other great dark comedy
Posted by guest , Feb 09, 2009 11:44PM
There’s no doubt that Sully made a great splashdown! But what made that splashdown inevitable?
The only way to improve safety is to recognize and address multiple system failures rather than evaluate individual performances.
Statistically, an airliner crashing due to a simultaneous double bird strike is about as likely as being shot down by Martians with ray guns.
While it’s possible that one engine struck bird[s] and failed, any experienced flight instructor or professional pilot [and I am both] will tell you the major cause of losing both [of 2] engines on takeoff / climbout is pilot error – usually failing to properly identify which engine has in fact failed and which is still running – and then shutting down the “good” engine instead of securing the “bad.” In addition, there are other crew actions which could induce a compressor stall on the remaining “good” engine, resulting in the situation Capt. Sullenburger found himself confronting.
Moreover, it’s a matter of record that the #2 [right] engine had had a compressor stall two days before. No matter what the NTSB says, that engine may not have been appropriately inspected or repaired. As you can read in the recently issued Canadian air safety advisory, the only inspection method appropriate after a significant compressor stall like the one 2 days before involves engine removal and disassembly, which was not done.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp185/1-06/Maintenance.htm
And taking off with one marginal engine would dramatically increase the odds that even a single bird strike would have major consequences for both.
Unfortunately, explaining this crash solely or primarily due to bird ingestion shortchanges not only its passenger-victims but air travel safety as well.
If you’d like to see a much more dangerous bird strike [at takeoff, not at altitude] well handled, watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE
And here are a few more points to consider:
If US Airways 1549 really went down solely due to a double, simultaneous bird strike -- the accident will be considered an "Act of God", with only the birds [and maybe poor God ;-} ] to blame. Since there were no fatalities and only one serious injury [per what I’ve read so far] -- thank God! -- the passengers / victims will not be compensated in any equitable way for the trauma they suffered and the belongings they lost.
However, if there were system deficiencies which made the accident inevitable -- or transformed a fairly common and manageable occurrence [bird strike] into a potential tragedy [again --.watch the above video], then victims can collect punitive damages if they have to.
More importantly -- if the only parties responsible are found to be God and the birds, the true causes of this accident will not be addressed or corrected. And sooner or later they will result in a major tragedy instead of a near one!
If you’d like to know more, visit:
http://us-airways-1549-crash-analysis.blogspot.com/
-- Captain DT [Deep Throat]