Talk:US Airways Flight 1549/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Airspeed

I added a reference that the plane was ditched at 125 mph. The plane was ditched shortly after takeoff because it couldn't reach sufficient airspeed - what I'm wondering is, do pilots ditching a plane at full speed have the option to slow down to this speed while ditching, or were the circumstances - ditching right after takeoff - something unique that allowed this to work? Wnt (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For what purpose do you mean it couldn't reach an airspeed that was sufficient? To be able to glide far enough to land at Teterboro Airport? By the way, I heard a figure of 140 mph at impact. --anon. 68.160.230.107 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft speeds are measured in knots, not mph! Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a knot is a mile per hour; it's just measured in nautical miles rather than statute miles. - auburnpilot talk 20:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The air speed at 300 feet was measured at 153 knots. That's probably pretty close to how fast the plane hit the water.

Actually, 1 knot is 1 nautical mile per hour. There is a difference! Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The conversion factor of going from knots to mph is 1 knot = 1.15078030303 mph I think we should wait until data from the flight Data recorder is available, I don't trust data from the flightaware website that is linked above. For data reference the landing speed of an A320 is about 150kts. since this is reported to be flown into the water vs stalled into the water the plane must have been going at least that fast.Rjhawkin (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Landing speed is not equal to stall speed. You can't assume that the recommended landing speed is the minimum speed that the aircraft can fly without stalling. Stalls depend more on angle of attack rather than airspeed... I see no reason not to trust the flightaware website. – jaksmata 14:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually landing speed varies and can be considerably above stall speed depending on runway length and surface conditions, wind speed and direction, other traffic, etc, especially if wind shear conditions exist when it would be considerably higher then stall speed. Approach and touchdown are made at speeds which permit the pilot can maintain full directional and attitudinal control, as well as to retain the option to execute a missed approach or "go around" even after touch down if necessary. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Some of you sound like you know your stuff, but I'm still left wondering: was this plane ditched at an unusually low speed compared to other planes that have been ditched in the past? And if so, was that the result of the pilots' superior skill, or special circumstances that made it easier (or necessary) for them to go more slowly? Wnt (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight Section

The two subs Crew, and Aircraft are very small, is there any more info to expand them or maybe combine the two? Knowledgekid87 10:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I feel there's now simply too much irrelevant detail in this section: at least some of it should be relegated to footnotes or omitted altogether. Eg:

• which is part of the Star Alliance and operated as a codeshare with United Airlines as United Airlines Flight 1919,

Replace with (also known as United Airlines Flight 1919).

• with direct onward service to Seattle-Tacoma in Washington

Omit.

• After leaving the Air Force, he began a career as a pilot for Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) and later US Airways after PSA was acquired by that airline

Replace with He had worked as a commercial pilot since 1980. (Full details on his career are available to interested readers in the linked article.)

• Jeffrey B. Skiles, 49.

Why is Skiles the only person whose age is mentioned?

• The aircraft, registered N106US,[26] was an Airbus A320-214 with the manufacturer's construction number 1044, powered by two CFM56-5B4/P engines.[27] First flown on June 15, 1999, it was delivered new to US Airways in August 1999,

Replace with The aircraft, an Airbus A320-214 powered by two CFM56-5B4/P engines,[27] was delivered new to US Airways in August 1999, --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing suggested above to be deleted appears to be either inaccurate or irrelevant to the article, and removing it would not materially change the overall length of the entry. Aviation is a highly technical field and much of the detail included is meaningful to an overall understanding of the incident and is also quite helpful in aiding readers in doing further research on their own. Instead of continuingly "dumbing down" the article, I say leave it all in. (Centpacrr (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

I think you may misunderstand the point of an encyclopedia. To make an article succinct & readable is not the same as "dumbing down". Thanks to the wonders of hyperlinking, those who want more detail on the captain's career can click on the link.

As to the other excessive details I mentioned—well, I suppose that may be a matter of taste. For example, is it really relevant to tell the reader that a couple of months elapsed between the aircraft's first (test??) flight & its delivery to US Airways? And if we need to know that the first flight was on June 15, why aren't we told the precise date in August on which it was delivered?

And what conceivable relevance is there in including the scheduled onward leg of the flight from Charlotte to Seattle? Well, that would be worth mentioning if this article were really about Flight 1549 as a scheduled flight—but of course it isn't: the flight is only notable because of the ditching. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading "direct onward service" says to me that the flight won't be delayed for refuelling at Charlotte: it already has a full fuel load for the transcontinental flight. That in turn means it will behave differently on ditching. It's relevant. Is there a direct reference on the point?LeadSongDog (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]OK, I take your point about the full fuel load. If it's relevant, the effect on the ditching procedure should be spelt out explicitly.

BTW If Skiles' age is given as a surrogate for his experience, wouldn't it be better to say how many hours' flying he had? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The full fuel load has importance because the plane was probably close to max weight when it went down. This would have affected how far the pilot would have been able to 'glide' the A320.Rjhawkin (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, is this true? Gliders (sailplanes) often add water ballast in the wings to fly faster cross-country, & this does not affect the "best glide" angle. My guess would be that the main effect of having a full fuel load would be to increase the speed at which the ditching occurred. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The text should explain that Runway 4 is so called because it points in the direction 040° (ie roughly northeast). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre ending lines removed

I removed this bizarre line which concluded the article but seemed dubious and lacked any source:

"With the successful water ditching of Flight 1549, the line of passenger and cargo planes attempting to make a controlled landing on a body of water and resulting in survivors remains unbroken. This is the fourth attempt which has resulted in a 100% survival rate." Nrbelex ^(talk) 17:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No training for ditching ?

It was said, that the pilot did not have any training for ditching. That is surprising. Or wrong. We passengers received training for that during decades. Under every seat is a life vest.I hope some more information will be delivered. --Hans W (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had (minimal) training for ditching as part of my private pilot's certificate, so it seems highly improbable that these pilots wouldn't have had any. -- N2f (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would mark that statement highly {{dubious}} were it in the article. First, I'm sure Sullenberger was trained to ditch when he was in the Air Force. I cannot imagine the Air Force would not train pilots in doing this ... there were many made in both theaters in WWII. Second, commercial airline pilots train in this constantly as well, according to one of the articles we have as a source. Because it is always a remote possibility that this would happen. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pilots are told the theory about how to do it, but for very obvious reasons you cannot train how to do it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

While they obviously wouldn't have trained to ditch an actual aircraft, they very likely ran through several scenarios during their training in a full motion flight simulator. You can see a video of an A320 sim here. - auburnpilot talk 22:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is said that the captain has trained on gliders. (Whether professionally or as a sport?) You have to bring the tail down first on water, and obviously he knew that. - Hordaland (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

But why simulator couldn't dealt with ditching landing? Would it easy to program software dealt with ocean wave texture and they just wrote program to dealt with speed and angle which flip and didn't flip aircraft?  !!! So why they didn't wrote software? Did programmer got too lazy?!!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Open doors

I saw a passenger (or crew?) in TV telling that all doors opened and water came in. He said the water level came inside the airplane where he was, raised to his breast.

How is that organized? --Hans W (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They did not open the doors in the rear. --anon. 68.161.194.201 (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Water could have been coming in from below. Based on the pictures the bottom had to take a large amount of abuse landing at that speed. I have not seen confirmation of this, but the fuel in the wings was more buoyant that the amount of water it displaced. That had to help keep the plane up a bit. There are reports that even when the plane was lifted out that there was still fuel in the wings based on the fuel leak that is mentioned.Rjhawkin (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rafts

Rafts deployed from the front doors but not from the doors over the wing. I'd like the article to mention why, if anybody knwos. Tempshill (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make sense? They're used as evacuation slides normally ... wouldn't work from the wing doors. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The A320 has escape slides for the overwing exits which are triggered by the opening of the overwing exit doors. Theses slides extend from the trailing edge of the wing parallel with the fuselage (detailed in this YouTube video. They did deploy on this occasion, but because of their orientation compared to the fwd slides they are not as prominent. The left hand overwing exit slide is visible in some of the pictures on a FT.com slide show. Feralicious (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dumbing down

Can we please stop trying to dumb down this article? It's not just one editor, but as time goes by, people seem to have a desire to eliminate correct descriptions and terms, simply because they are not every day descriptions and terms. Aviation is a technical field. It has specific terms, descriptions, jargon, and events. Link the uncommon words, provide a brief explanation, but please stop changing every uncommon term to one that would better fit on the Simple Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 23:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

You need to cite examples. Tempshill (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On the theme of using approriate terms, in the 'Aftermath' section, a passage reads "the right engine was initially thought to have detached, but was later found to be still attached to the aircraft, though most of the housing was torn off". Should the word 'housing' be substituted by 'cowling'? 82.15.54.92 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And shouldn't the "left" & "right" engines be port & starboard? The right engine does sound a bit Simple Wikipedia to me. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In the industry, they are referred to as "engine 1" and "engine 2" (I can't remember which is which). "Left" and "right" are for those of us who aren't familiar with the technicalities. – jaksmata 20:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon! Port & starboard are probably more widely known than many of the aeronautical terms used in this article. Link them if necessary. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Port & Starboard are indeed used commonly within aviation, engines however tend to be referred to by number (position). One reason for this is aircraft with more than 1 engine on each wing, saying the 'port' wing can mean 1 of 2 engines, whereas if it is referred to as the number 1 or the number 2 it is clear which one is being referenced. For example saying the left (or port) engine on a B747 will not mean a lot unless the outboard or inboard engine is stated; it is just a lot easier to say number 1 or number 2 rather than 'port outboard' or 'port inboard'.Feralicious (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point; but in this case the aircraft had only 2 engines. Now, you probably know which engine is 1 & which is 2, but most reader's won't. OTOH Port & Starboard ought to be in the vocabulary of most English-speakers, for sailing as well as flying. (As an easy mnemonic, remember that both Left and Port have 4 letters.)

It seems to me that any readers who need to know which specific engine is being referred to will also know their port from their starboard; and I've changed the text accordingly (with the first mentions of port & starboard linked). The fact that one of the newspaper reports refers to the right engine is neither here nor there! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the articles for port (nautical) and starboard? They are nautical terms, not aviation terms. One of them is even called "Port (nautical)", not "Port (aviation)". The correct and specific terms are "engine 1" and "engine 2" - if you want to avoid dumbing down the article, use those terms. Besides, if you want readers to "know which specific engine is being referred to" which term is more common, "Right" or "Starboard?" If you want to ignore the terms used in news reports, use the correct terms "engine 1" and "engine 2" - I'm going to revert for these reasons. – jaksmata 14:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Yes, I have read the articles on port & starboard. Both articles are wrong to imply that the terms are used only in nautical contexts, & should probably be corrected to include aviation. I wonder how many other editors reading this feel, as you do, that port and starboard are unusual terms. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they're unusual in all contexts, just this one - although I recognize that they are sometimes used for aircraft. I just think they're less well known than "left / right" and less correct than "engine 1 / engine 2." In it's most resent press release on Flight 1549, the NTSB uses the terms "left engine" and "right engine" [1]. Searching the NTSB database, I've found that they use "left and right" when describing Flight 1549, and they also use "engine 1 and engine 2" sometimes for 2-engine airplanes example. On 4-engine aircraft such as the 747 they seem to use "engine 1/2/3/4" exclusively example. I can't find any examples of where they use the terms "port / starboard". – jaksmata 19:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A check gives B747 "no. 1 engine" a massive edge over B747 "outboard port engine" but we don't realy care about what google says, do we?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'd better retire gracefully from the fray while I'm still in one piece ... I think part of the disagreement could be due to Britsh vs US usage. If you check what McCain calls "the Google", searching on aaib "port engine" (or aaib "starboard engine": the UK AAIB), you'll find a few hundred hits each (though admittedly fewer than for "no. 1/2 engine").

Incidentally, User:LeadSongDog has confused the issue in the same way as User:Feralicious by limiting the discussion to a 4-engine aircraft. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hydraulics/Flight control

Has anyone seen information about how the flight control surfaces remained operable after the bird strike? In other words, did the engines maintain enough power to turn their hydraulic pumps, or was there some other source of hydraulic power employed (such as the APU)? Probably too early in the investigation to say, but it's something I hope will be clarified. Fletcher (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

From 1549 to Tower: ‘We’re Gonna End Up in the Hudson’ (NYTimes) "...the Airbus A320 has a “ram air turbine,” essentially a little propeller that drops down into the wind automatically in certain conditions and produces electricity; it may have provided the energy to allow the crew to lower the flaps." - auburnpilot talk 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that this morning and was quite disappointed to see the word "may"... since I could have told you it "may" have been used! Just the way it goes I guess. Fletcher (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything that resembled a "ram air turbine" when watching the video of the aircraft be hoisted out. I'm not too knowledgeable when it comes to Airbus (I'll take a Boeing before an Airbus any day), so I'm not sure if I was even looking in the right place. I suppose we'll have to wait for those NTSB guys to do their job... - auburnpilot talk 01:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

They generally deploy out of the lower fuselage or bottom of a wing and are not very large relative to the size of an A320 so it is possible that was visually obstructed or damaged on impact with the water. 209.30.228.224 (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I raised this three days ago, but it was archived while in mid-discussion. See Backup power for the flight controls systems in Archive 3. MickMacNee (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a good question, wasn't it?  :-) To answer your question in that thread, the main engines are the normal source for hydraulic power. The APU is not always running in flight (and I don't know if it was on or not during this incident). Each main engine has a gearbox on the outside of the engine (still inside the nacelle) with a shaft and bevel gear connecting down to one of the shafts that turns the compressor/turbine section. That gearbox is connected to a generator, hydraulic pump, fuel pump, and the air starter motor, IIRC. Fletcher (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Did the passengers leave behind their carryons?

I'm curious what percentage of the passengers obeyed the standing orders and left behind their carry-on baggage. Tempshill (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this article in the Times, some did. Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There was the woman in the fur coat who asked a stranger to go back inside the slowly sinking plane to fetch her purse. The man who carried his garment bag onto the wing with him.

If any of this makes it into the article, please be very careful with interpretation. All sorts of ordinary objects could help a person survive a plunge into lethally cold water for a longer period of time. These passengers don't deserve any uninformed judgmentalism. Wnt (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Engine(s) shut down

A bird strike shutting down both engines simultaneously is very unusual. Room should be left for a finding that only one engine flamed out, and the other engine, the good one, was shut down by mistake. This was the cause of the Kegworth air disaster. The loss of one engine causes assymetrical thrust, which has to be quickly corrected for, and can lead to a wrong decision. Not to take away from the Captain's skilled landing in the Hudson. JohnClarknew (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not until the investigation uncovers something like that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is now a closed question. Both engines were shut down by the birds, preliminary analysis of the black box shows. That's a relief. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's trim that first video clip

File:Flight1549CrashAndRescue.ogg, the topmost video clip in the article, has about 8 seconds of dead time at the beginning of the video. Can someone trim it down to 1 second? Tempshill (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced text

I removed the following, as it was completely unreferenced and not particularly dire that it be included:

In New Jersey, the EMS response was the largest since the 2007 Wildfires in Ocean County. Over 10 Ambulance Strike Teams (50 ambulances) from northern and central New Jersey counties organized and responded to support the rescue operation. 58 passengers from the aircraft were rescued by ferries and brought to the Port Imperial Ferry Terminal in Weehawken, NJ. The NJ Department of Health's EMS Task Force was also activated and deployed - providing an incident management team and specialized EMS resources.

If it can be referenced, feel free to do so and reinclude it within the Rescue efforts section. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)