# Hudson River Ditching



## WhoozOn1st

With birdstrike initially suspected, it's only a matter of time before CNN's Lou Dobbs starts calling for a 30-thousand-foot fence along our northern border to prevent illegal alien Canadian geese from downing U.S. airliners.

I have a bit of experience with birdstrike. Working on jets for the Navy - in the 1970s - we had an A-4 Skyhawk bingo from a carrier off the coast after hitting a bird.

Serious damage to the wingroot. I think many people don't grasp the massive force in foot-pounds involved in hitting a bird at high speed. And sucked into engines? Forget it. Sheesh, did that A-4 ever STINK. Nobody wanted to go near it. Dried bird guts splattered all over, even after a trip to the washrack.

Finally several of us wrapped wet towels loaded with aftershave around our faces and made rudimentary repairs. Enough to send the plane back to the carrier, where THOSE guys could deal with it.

Very glad the Hudson River incident turned out as well as it did.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Hey, here's another plus for rail travel over air transport!


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

WhoozOn1st said:


> With birdstrike initially suspected, it's only a matter of time before CNN's Lou Dobbs starts calling for a 30-thousand-foot fence along our northern border to prevent illegal alien Canadian geese from downing U.S. airliners.
> I have a bit of experience with birdstrike. Working on jets for the Navy - in the 1970s - we had an A-4 Skyhawk bingo from a carrier off the coast after hitting a bird.
> 
> Serious damage to the wingroot. I think many people don't grasp the massive force in foot-pounds involved in hitting a bird at high speed. And sucked into engines? Forget it. Sheesh, did that A-4 ever STINK. Nobody wanted to go near it. Dried bird guts splattered all over, even after a trip to the washrack.
> 
> Finally several of us wrapped wet towels loaded with aftershave around our faces and made rudimentary repairs. Enough to send the plane back to the carrier, where THOSE guys could deal with it.
> 
> Very glad the Hudson River incident turned out as well as it did.


I was going to start a thread about this. Its truly amazing that everything turned out to be okay and all the passengers were able to get out and no one was seriously hurt.

Thanks for the interesting story about your bird strike experience :lol:

For those wanting to know more this is a good story on the events

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...lBrandChannel=0


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Here's what the ijits at the Department of Homeland Security had to say about it...

Air Crash Not Terror Related

Ya think? Al Qaeda has flocks of trained geese now?


----------



## Ryan

I hear that DHS has placed a lookout for the following suspects travelling south in a V shaped formation:







Enough joking about stupid hateful stereotypes, how about a round of applause for a flight crew that had their stuff together! That's one hell of a landing to stick!


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Yes, great flying. Watching interviews of the passengers, looks like the pilots decided the best thing to do was not try to stretch their luck making it back to the runway, but to set it up for the best possible water landing.

Good job!

BTW my son-in-law and grandson made a connection in NYC for a flight up to Bradley Int'l this afternoon, you can bet when I heard a plane had gone down in the Hudson on tv that they had 100% of my attention.


----------



## AlanB

HokieNav said:


> That's one hell of a landing to stick!


Amen to that! Especially when you've got a dead stick, as it's being reported that both engines were out. That means limited power to move the rudder and other control surfaces, all while trying to dodge the GW Bridge, river traffic, and still achieve a smooth landing that doesn't break the plane apart.

And thank god that it happened today and not 3 days from now when there will most likely be ice in the Hudson River thanks to the current freezing temps. We're expecting a low of 8 tonight in the city.


----------



## daveyb99

PetalumaLoco said:


> Hey, here's another plus for rail travel over air transport!


uh, not too quick there: Bourbonnais and Big Bayou Canot Bridge come to mind.....


----------



## WhoozOn1st

AlanB said:


> Especially when you've got a dead stick, as it's being reported that both engines were out. That means limited power


Does anybody know if the A-320 has a RAT - ram air turbine? Back in the day, the Navy planes I worked on had RATs. In the event of engine failure the pilot would "pop the RAT." It would emerge from the fuselage or wing (depending on the model) and provide at least a minimum of electricity as its blades whirled in the airstream to generate current.

Despite all the media yap about the engines being under the wing and liable to hit the water first, I think the pilot probably made a serious landing flare so the tail would hit first, thereby mitigating the impact. And I knew right off the bat that it was fuel keeping the plane from immediately going down in the river.

I think it might have been a very different story with a plane at the end of its flight.


----------



## wayman

When I saw this Reuters photo, the one-word caption sprang to mind and ... I just couldn't help myself!





Since all ended well, I don't feel so bad about injecting a little humor


----------



## PetalumaLoco

WhoozOn1st said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially when you've got a dead stick, as it's being reported that both engines were out. That means limited power
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody know if the A-320 has a RAT - ram air turbine? Back in the day, the Navy planes I worked on had RATs. In the event of engine failure the pilot would "pop the RAT." It would emerge from the fuselage or wing (depending on the model) and provide at least a minimum of electricity as its blades whirled in the airstream to generate current.
> 
> Despite all the media yap about the engines being under the wing and liable to hit the water first, I think the pilot probably made a serious landing flare so the tail would hit first, thereby mitigating the impact. And I knew right off the bat that it was fuel keeping the plane from immediately going down in the river.
> 
> I think it might have been a very different story with a plane at the end of its flight.
Click to expand...

See this simple schematic, shows a RAT on the 320

A320 hydraulic & fuel controls


----------



## transit54

PetalumaLoco said:


> See this simple schematic, shows a RAT on the 320A320 hydraulic & fuel controls


Yeah, and I'll second that, having worked around A320s everyday during my time at JetBlue. It's located below the left wing root.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

wayman said:


> When I saw this Reuters photo, the one-word caption sprang to mind and ... I just couldn't help myself!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since all ended well, I don't feel so bad about injecting a little humor



lol man thats a good one! Nice turn around time to :lol:


----------



## amtrakwolverine

looks like a submarine with wings


----------



## Neil_M

wayman said:


> When I saw this Reuters photo, the one-word caption sprang to mind and ... I just couldn't help myself!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since all ended well, I don't feel so bad about injecting a little humor


Even the Swiss don't have plane to boat transfers......


----------



## PRR 60

Funny, my wife and I were on a flight last month. After the obligatory safety demonstration and the "unlikely event of a water landing" portion, I mentioned to my wife that I cannot ever remember an incident in which the inflatable chutes were used as rafts. One month later.... Wow, is all I can say.

There are often moments of silence to remember those who died in a tragedy. Maybe there should be a moment of silence to be thankful for those 155 who survived due to the skill and bravery of the crew, rescuers, and the passengers themselves. And lets not forget Airbus, who designed and built a plane that took a lickin and kept on floating.

Was anyone watching or listening to CNN? Those dimwits were showing the plane sinking and thought the passengers were still on board. They were speculating with their "experts" how they could open the doors to let the passengers escape without immediately sinking the plane and drowning everyone who did not get out. I pictured Ernest Borgnine and Shelley Winters on board. Then they interviewed a survivor (who was on land, I might add), and that person mentioned, matter-of-factly, that everyone got out within minutes of the ditching. SURPRISE! Wolf Blitzer should stick to politics.

I think I want C. B. Sullenberger at the controls of my next flight. Maybe US Airways could charge a Sullenberger surcharge? I'd pay.


----------



## greatcats

God bless the pilot and crew. Plus the ferries and others in the vicinity who made this turn out so well.


----------



## MrFSS

Ons view shown on the news showed maybe 7-8 ferry type boats all around the aircraft. I didn't realize there were that many larger watercraft on the rivers around Manhattan. And they said they showed up so fast it was almost like they were waiting for the plane to hit the water. Right place - right time.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

MrFSS said:


> Right place - right time.


It goes beyond that. On the radio last night it was said that the he had the state of mind to try and put down where the water taxi's run. That way like you said there could be a very quick response. I don't know who this guy was, but he sure did one h3ll of a good job out there.


----------



## AlanB

MrFSS said:


> Ons view shown on the news showed maybe 7-8 ferry type boats all around the aircraft. I didn't realize there were that many larger watercraft on the rivers around Manhattan. And they said they showed up so fast it was almost like they were waiting for the plane to hit the water. Right place - right time.


Yes, high speed ferry service to Manhattan has become rather popular around here and the plane went down right in between to major terminals for the ferry service. So odds are that there were already one or two ferries in motion, and they quickly dispatched every ferry that they had a captain for and could get running quickly. Without a doubt that saved many lives as they were able to get the people out of the water and wind rather quickly.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

How close was this to the Amtrak tunnels into Penn? Is their any possibility of damage from the crash landing or recovery efforts?


----------



## MrFSS

*HERE* is a very good story on the flight crew, especially the captain.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

KISS_ALIVE said:


> looks like a submarine with wings


But a submarine typically would be black, lack windows, and have a sail on top of the center section.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

MrFSS said:


> *HERE* is a very good story on the flight crew, especially the captain.


I'm curious what experience the pilot may have had with intentional water landings in the past, if any. There are certainly differences between landing a single engine floatplane and an Airbus glider on the water, but at the same time, I'd imagine that if he was qualified to land float planes on the water, that would have helped his chances with this landing.


----------



## wayman

PRR 60 said:


> Funny, my wife and I were on a flight last month. After the obligatory safety demonstration and the "unlikely event of a water landing" portion, I mentioned to my wife that I cannot ever remember an incident in which the inflatable chutes were used as rafts. One month later.... Wow, is all I can say.


I had heard (or read on Wikipedia?) sometime in the last year that no plane had ever made a successful water landing resulting in deployment of the rafts. I don't know if that was true.

Last night I visited a friend, and asked him if he'd heard the news. He said yes, but it seemed uninteresting since everything went according to plan with the rescue. That's the whole point of why it's amazing, I said! A plane crash-landed and nobody died or was even seriously injured! It hadn't occurred to him how unusual that was.

I'm impressed not only at how quickly the boats were on the scene but at how none of them were in the way when the plane landed. It hit the water at about 140 mph, and presumably "taxied" for some distance before coming to rest.

Sullenberger had glider training, but flying a dead plane is not the same thing as flying a glider. The number of things to do that he had never done before, in such a short space of time... tell air traffic control we can't make it to la guardia and are ditching in the river... make sure we're going completely straight, because there's no rudder _and_ no brakes once we're in the water... all flaps up... all air intakes closed... announce "brace for impact" to the cabin in a calm voice... nose up, can't actually see the water out the window... wait for it, wait for it... splashdown! Wow.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> Amen to that! Especially when you've got a dead stick, as it's being reported that both engines were out. That means limited power to move the rudder and other control surfaces, all while trying to dodge the GW Bridge, river traffic, and still achieve a smooth landing that doesn't break the plane apart.


It's not all that uncomon for pilots to successfully get unpowered gliders to land on runways. It's not obvious to me how avoiding a single bridge would be any harder than getting a glider back to a runway when intentionally flying an unpowered glider.

That said, unpowered gliders that were designed with the idea that they'd be operated primarily as unpowered gliders generally can travel a lot farther horizontally given a particular altitude above ground than things that normally operate as powered airplanes that happen to be briefly without working engines.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

wayman said:


> tell air traffic control we can't make it to la guardia and are ditching in the river


I'm not sure that's terribly critical. Air traffic control probably can't do much at that point other than try to call the boats (and really, a marine band radio in the airplane would probably be more helpful at that point), and they might be able to make a good guess about where the plane reached 0' AGL from the radar track.


----------



## George Harris

PRR 60 said:


> Was anyone watching or listening to CNN? Those dimwits were showing the plane sinking and thought the passengers were still on board. They were speculating with their "experts" how they could open the doors to let the passengers escape without immediately sinking the plane and drowning everyone who did not get out. I pictured Ernest Borgnine and Shelley Winters on board. Then they interviewed a survivor (who was on land, I might add), and that person mentioned, matter-of-factly, that everyone got out within minutes of the ditching. SURPRISE! Wolf Blitzer should stick to politics.
> I think I want C. B. Sullenberger at the controls of my next flight. Maybe US Airways could charge a Sullenberger surcharge? I'd pay.


Far more intelligence in this thread than there was on CNN. The point made about the fuel keeping the plane afloat. Had not thought about it and none of the comentators apeared to have either, but Yes! jet fuel is ligher than water, so it will help the plane stay up, as even if it leaks, it would do it slower than air.

Speeking of dimwits: Listening to Bloomberg and the NY state gov, you would have had to add their IQ's to get something in the range of normal. Bloomberg sounded like he had never heard of the NTSB before and then talked about waiting for their though detailed report which would be out in a few weeks. Duhh, maybe a year. And the gov? He looked and sounded lilke he was on something.


----------



## Neil_M

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> How close was this to the Amtrak tunnels into Penn? Is their any possibility of damage from the crash landing or recovery efforts?


I doubt even if the plane had sunk straight away it would have damaged any under river tunnel. How deep is the river there? 30 ft, 50 ft, 100 ft? Plus the depth of the river bed over the tunnel. No chance.


----------



## wayman

Joel N. Weber II said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell air traffic control we can't make it to la guardia and are ditching in the river
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that's terribly critical. Air traffic control probably can't do much at that point other than try to call the boats (and really, a marine band radio in the airplane would probably be more helpful at that point), and they might be able to make a good guess about where the plane reached 0' AGL from the radar track.
Click to expand...

I meant more that it's more that it's one of those sentences you never think you might actually say, a sentence that no matter how many simulated crash landings you've run is quite different to say in reality, and a sentence which has a sort of finality to it. I mean, as you're saying it, there's probably a thought in the back of your head for just a moment "this might be the last thing I ever say to ATC, or the outside world...". Not a thought that there's any time to contemplate, but it's probably there. I'm sure Sullenberger said it in a clear, calm voice while doing a great many other things, and--even though that's exactly what was supposed to happen--that impresses me.


----------



## AAARGH!

wayman said:


> I'm impressed not only at how quickly the boats were on the scene but at how none of them were in the way when the plane landed. It hit the water at about 140 mph, and presumably "taxied" for some distance before coming to rest.
> Sullenberger had glider training, but flying a dead plane is not the same thing as flying a glider. The number of things to do that he had never done before, in such a short space of time... tell air traffic control we can't make it to la guardia and are ditching in the river... make sure we're going completely straight, because there's no rudder _and_ no brakes once we're in the water... all flaps up... all air intakes closed... announce "brace for impact" to the cabin in a calm voice... nose up, can't actually see the water out the window... wait for it, wait for it... splashdown! Wow.


I would think the 'taxi' length (travel after splash-down) would be very minimal. Perhaps only 200 - 400 feet or so. The engines would have dug in and slowed the thing down faster than if they landed in mud.

Also, the only thing that could have touched the bottom of the river and damaged any tunnels would be the engines, _if_ they fell off.

It was reported that the plane landed with flaps deployed, not up. That is why it was going so slow (relatively).

As for experience landing a float plane vs. a water ditching of a non-float plane, I would think this landing was more similar to a normal runway landing than a float plane one, even slow decent, flare, wings level. What was crucial in this case was the wings being level. Otherwise the plane would have twisted and possibly rolled - similar to the Ethiopian hijacking crash of a 767 caught on tape.

Actually I think probably that they are all (ditch, runway, float-plane) similar _prior to touchdown_. I'm not a pilot, but it would seem to reason.

No matter what, "Sully" did one heck-of-a good job.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

AAARGH said:


> The engines would have dug in and slowed the thing down faster than if they landed in mud.
> Also, the only thing that could have touched the bottom of the river and damaged any tunnels would be the engines, _if_ they fell off.


Just heard the left engine is off the wing.


----------



## rogers55

I just talked to a customer of mine in NYC.

Told him that I heard that the Fairies had rescued the passengers and wondered if they flapped their tiny wings and flew down.

He didn't get it, went into explaining in great detail how the ferry terminals are on both sides of the crash site and they boats were already nearby.


----------



## MrFSS

PetalumaLoco said:


> AAARGH said:
> 
> 
> 
> The engines would have dug in and slowed the thing down faster than if they landed in mud.
> Also, the only thing that could have touched the bottom of the river and damaged any tunnels would be the engines, _if_ they fell off.
> 
> 
> 
> Just heard the left engine is off the wing.
Click to expand...

Now they are saying both engines are missing. Story *HERE*.


----------



## Rumpled

As far as deadstick, would it truly be dead or is it just a phrase? I know the newest generations of aircraft are going to fly by wire, not direct force from the stick to the control surfaces. Planes also have APU (auxiliary power units) I do not know if they can/are used to provide power for flight operations.

I don't know the particulars of how this aircraft type operates and am wondering out loud (out keyboard?).

Thankfully, due to a large amount of skill and luck; the best possible outcome seems to have occurred.


----------



## AAARGH!

Rumpled said:


> As far as deadstick, would it truly be dead or is it just a phrase? I know the newest generations of aircraft are going to fly by wire, not direct force from the stick to the control surfaces. Planes also have APU (auxiliary power units) I do not know if they can/are used to provide power for flight operations.I don't know the particulars of how this aircraft type operates and am wondering out loud (out keyboard?).
> 
> Thankfully, due to a large amount of skill and luck; the best possible outcome seems to have occurred.


I don't know the answer, but I do know the A320 is a fly-by-wire aircraft.

If I were to hazard a guess, the system is powered by the APU (if not primarily, by backup).


----------



## PetalumaLoco

AAARGH said:


> Rumpled said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as deadstick, would it truly be dead or is it just a phrase? I know the newest generations of aircraft are going to fly by wire, not direct force from the stick to the control surfaces. Planes also have APU (auxiliary power units) I do not know if they can/are used to provide power for flight operations.I don't know the particulars of how this aircraft type operates and am wondering out loud (out keyboard?).
> 
> Thankfully, due to a large amount of skill and luck; the best possible outcome seems to have occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the answer, but I do know the A320 is a fly-by-wire aircraft.
> 
> If I were to hazard a guess, the system is powered by the APU (if not primarily, by backup).
Click to expand...

The plane had a APU, called a RAT (ram air turbine), as we discussed on page 1 of this thread.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

PetalumaLoco said:


> The plane had a APU, called a RAT (ram air turbine), as we discussed on page 1 of this thread.


I think APU and RAT are two very different things. An APU (auxiliary power unit) I think is generally a mini jet engine that provides power on the ground between flights. A RAT is an emergency device, deployed when other systems fail. That's my understanding, anyway.


----------



## Ryan

WhoozOn1st said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plane had a APU, called a RAT (ram air turbine), as we discussed on page 1 of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I think APU and RAT are two very different things. An APU (auxiliary power unit) I think is generally a mini jet engine that provides power on the ground between flights. A RAT is an emergency device, deployed when other systems fail. That's my understanding, anyway.
Click to expand...

Patrick nailed it.

APUs are generally only used when the engines aren't turning, so I would GUESS (just a guess) that the emergency procedures for a loss of both engines is to deploy the RAT, and not try to start the APU.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

WhoozOn1st said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plane had a APU, called a RAT (ram air turbine), as we discussed on page 1 of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I think APU and RAT are two very different things. An APU (auxiliary power unit) I think is generally a mini jet engine that provides power on the ground between flights. A RAT is an emergency device, deployed when other systems fail. That's my understanding, anyway.
Click to expand...

That's probably true for a modern jet, but not quite the case on a Superfortress, where the APU is a gasoline engine needed for the hydraulics, which are used only for the brakes.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AAARGH said:


> Rumpled said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as deadstick, would it truly be dead or is it just a phrase? I know the newest generations of aircraft are going to fly by wire, not direct force from the stick to the control surfaces. Planes also have APU (auxiliary power units) I do not know if they can/are used to provide power for flight operations.I don't know the particulars of how this aircraft type operates and am wondering out loud (out keyboard?).
> 
> Thankfully, due to a large amount of skill and luck; the best possible outcome seems to have occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the answer, but I do know the A320 is a fly-by-wire aircraft.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any jet airplane used in commercial passenger service that has the control surfaces connected to the pilot's controls by mechanical cables. While the typical four seat airplane does have mechanical cables that I believe have certain similarities to the brake and gear shift cables on a bicycle, the typical jet in the pre-fly-by-wire days used hydraulics for the control surfaces.

I think a Pilatus PC-12 may be about the biggest modern airplane with mechanical cables for the control surfaces, but I'm not even 100% sure that plane lacks hydraulics, and 30 seconds of googling isn't confirming or denying this.

On other thing to keep in mind is that any multiengine plane that has engines on the sides of the plane will have a huge imbalance of thrust from one side to the other if one engine quits. On piston engine twins, the pilot typically has to figure out which engine failed and manually feather it and manually apply rudder, and between that and the minimum safe manuevering speed with one engine out being somewhat above the stall speed, the complexity of the procedures is such that some pilots really are safer in a single engine plane. On a typical jet, there's an automatic mechanism to largely cover the need for the large rudder input after an engine failure.


----------



## AlanB

Neil_M said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How close was this to the Amtrak tunnels into Penn? Is their any possibility of damage from the crash landing or recovery efforts?
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt even if the plane had sunk straight away it would have damaged any under river tunnel. How deep is the river there? 30 ft, 50 ft, 100 ft? Plus the depth of the river bed over the tunnel. No chance.
Click to expand...

The initial impact point was well north of where the Amtrak tunnels are and they are under the river bed anyhow, not sitting on the bottom of the river. If anything the plane was probably closer to the Lincoln Tunnel by the time it stopped skipping on the surface of the river.

Off the top of my head I'm not sure just how deep the river is there, but it is deep enough to float a WWII aircraft carrier and IIRC, they can even get one of today's nuclear powered aircraft carriers that far north. And short of some of today's super tankers, I don't think that there is any ship that draws more water than a aircraft carrier.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Joel N. Weber II said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plane had a APU, called a RAT (ram air turbine), as we discussed on page 1 of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I think APU and RAT are two very different things. An APU (auxiliary power unit) I think is generally a mini jet engine that provides power on the ground between flights. A RAT is an emergency device, deployed when other systems fail. That's my understanding, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's probably true for a modern jet, but not quite the case on a Superfortress, where the APU is a gasoline engine needed for the hydraulics, which are used only for the brakes.
Click to expand...

Joel, you're probably right. However, and with all due respect, this may not be the place for talking about B-29s. There are plenty of places for that. This is not Boeing Unlimited.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amen to that! Especially when you've got a dead stick, as it's being reported that both engines were out. That means limited power to move the rudder and other control surfaces, all while trying to dodge the GW Bridge, river traffic, and still achieve a smooth landing that doesn't break the plane apart.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not all that uncomon for pilots to successfully get unpowered gliders to land on runways. It's not obvious to me how avoiding a single bridge would be any harder than getting a glider back to a runway when intentionally flying an unpowered glider.
> 
> That said, unpowered gliders that were designed with the idea that they'd be operated primarily as unpowered gliders generally can travel a lot farther horizontally given a particular altitude above ground than things that normally operate as powered airplanes that happen to be briefly without working engines.
Click to expand...

While I'm not a pilot, an unpowered glider pilot already knows that he's going down and has a plan for where he/she is going to land. In this case the pilots went from a powered plane to an unpowered plane and at the altitude that they were at had at best seconds to make a decision and hope that it was the right decision. Additionally, most airports aren't surrounded by tall buildings or bridges, not to mention that a tall building is a lot easier to see and avoid by comparison to a bridge full of thin wire cables that can trip you up and bring you down in a heartbeat.


----------



## AlanB

George Harris said:


> And the gov? He looked and sounded lilke he was on something.


Please try to remember that Governor Patterson is legally blind and therefore can't read from a script or notes in his hand. He has to stop and think and remember what he's been told by his staff and under the circumstances I'm sure that he had a bunch of info thrown at him and quite probably some of it conflicting.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> is legally blind and therefore can't read from a script or notes in his hand.


I'm not sure being legally blind always implies that degree of impairment. I certainly know someone who can read text on a computer screen if it's made large enough, but I'm pretty sure her vision is not good enough for her to be able to safely drive an automobile.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell air traffic control we can't make it to la guardia and are ditching in the river
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that's terribly critical. Air traffic control probably can't do much at that point other than try to call the boats (and really, a marine band radio in the airplane would probably be more helpful at that point), and they might be able to make a good guess about where the plane reached 0' AGL from the radar track.
Click to expand...

While I'd agree that there is little that air traffic control can do to stop the plane from ditching, the pilot and/or co-pilot must still call in their distress for several reasons. One, simply because that is the rule. Two, at least ATC can call the police to let them know something is happening. Three, they need to clear the airspace. While it's doubtful that there would have been any other large planes in the way, there could have been some small planes as well as helicopters flying over the river. Last thing in the world he would have needed to do is start dodging helicopters.


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> is legally blind and therefore can't read from a script or notes in his hand.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure being legally blind always implies that degree of impairment. I certainly know someone who can read text on a computer screen if it's made large enough, but I'm pretty sure her vision is not good enough for her to be able to safely drive an automobile.
Click to expand...

It doesn't, and in fact we both know someone who can read with a magnifying glass, you met him during the OTOL Boston fest back in November.

But in the Gov's case, everything that I've ever seen has said that he can't read text very easily and certainly not under the circumstances at that press conference.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

George Harris said:


> The point made about the fuel keeping the plane afloat. Had not thought about it and none of the comentators apeared to have either, but Yes! jet fuel is ligher than water, so it will help the plane stay up, as even if it leaks, it would do it slower than air.


Maybe I'm not such a big idiot sometimes after all.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

AlanB said:


> While I'd agree that there is little that air traffic control can do to stop the plane from ditching, the pilot and/or co-pilot must still call in their distress for several reasons. One, simply because that is the rule. Two, at least ATC can call the police to let them know something is happening. Three, they need to clear the airspace. While it's doubtful that there would have been any other large planes in the way, there could have been some small planes as well as helicopters flying over the river. Last thing in the world he would have needed to do is start dodging helicopters.


Didn't they ban flights along the river after that baseball player hit a building?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

PetalumaLoco said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I'd agree that there is little that air traffic control can do to stop the plane from ditching, the pilot and/or co-pilot must still call in their distress for several reasons. One, simply because that is the rule. Two, at least ATC can call the police to let them know something is happening. Three, they need to clear the airspace. While it's doubtful that there would have been any other large planes in the way, there could have been some small planes as well as helicopters flying over the river. Last thing in the world he would have needed to do is start dodging helicopters.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't they ban flights along the river after that baseball player hit a building?
Click to expand...

Cory Lidle died flying over the East River, not the Hudson River. And the issue there is how much space there is for making a U-turn; I think a helicoper would be able to make a much tighter turn, and so there wouldn't be much reason to ban helicoper flying as a result of a Cirrus airplane crashing.


----------



## PRR 60

WhoozOn1st said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point made about the fuel keeping the plane afloat. Had not thought about it and none of the comentators apeared to have either, but Yes! jet fuel is ligher than water, so it will help the plane stay up, as even if it leaks, it would do it slower than air.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm not such a big idiot sometimes after all.
Click to expand...

But, if the tank is empty and full of air, that is lighter still. I would think an sealed, empty fuel tank is more buoyant than a tank full of jet fuel.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AlanB said:


> While I'd agree that there is little that air traffic control can do to stop the plane from ditching, the pilot and/or co-pilot must still call in their distress for several reasons. One, simply because that is the rule. Two, at least ATC can call the police to let them know something is happening. Three, they need to clear the airspace. While it's doubtful that there would have been any other large planes in the way, there could have been some small planes as well as helicopters flying over the river. Last thing in the world he would have needed to do is start dodging helicopters.


Do we know what class or classes of airspace the airplane flew through between the time the engines quit running and the time the plane hit the water?

There is certainly airspace over parts of the US where there is no legal requirement to be paying any attention to the radio. There are airplanes (mostly many, many decades old) that not only have no radio, but don't even have an electrical system. I have also talked to someone who has flown an airplane with no working radio into an airport in controlled airspace by calling the controllers on a telephone prior to taking off to make arrangements.

(That said, new battery powered handheld aircraft band radios don't cost more than the cost of a few hours of flying the smallest airplanes, and so any pilot who wants a radio can have one.)

There's also the possibility that a plane can have its radio fail in the middle of a flight. Unlike a train or an automobile, simply stopping for an indefinite period of time and then figuring out what to do isn't really an option in an airplane.

This article, written by a (now retired) controller seems to say that a pilot isn't actually required to contact the air traffic controllers, but ``should''.


----------



## gmcguire

Via a commenter at another blog (who I can't find now), you can watch a graphical replay of the takeoff and ditching here. You should use replay mode and set the clock for Jan 15 15:26. You'll see a small plane or helicopter flying up river that has to get out of the way.


----------



## PetalumaLoco

I just saw 2 surveillance camera videos of the water landing on the news.

Found a link

ditching

Looks good to me! (I'm only good at ditching motorcycles).


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

AAARGH said:


> As for experience landing a float plane vs. a water ditching of a non-float plane, I would think this landing was more similar to a normal runway landing than a float plane one, even slow decent, flare, wings level. What was crucial in this case was the wings being level. Otherwise the plane would have twisted and possibly rolled - similar to the Ethiopian hijacking crash of a 767 caught on tape.


This article argues that one of the reasons not to make a 180 degree turn if the engine quits on a single engine plane during takeoff at an altitude where you could make the runway, but only if you do everything absolutely perfectly, is that most pilots just aren't used to what they see out the window when making such turns at low altitude. If that's a real issue, then I would think that the what a pilot sees out the window for a water landing vs a runway landing would also be an issue.

I'm also wondering how much intelligence Airbus put into their fly-by-wire system. It's certainly possible for the programmer of such a system to decide that they're smarter than the pilot. And there's some experience with how the space shuttle landings are handled (I think at some point there was a software change that took control of braking away from the pilot) suggests that it really is possible for a careful programming team to do a better job than the average pilot. My understanding is that an Airbus typically knows its coordinates (via GPS or other navigation), and it strikes me as possible that the airplane may use that with a database to know that it's making a water landing.


----------



## MrFSS

I wonder if any of the passengers on that plane went out and bought lottery tickets later that day??


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Here's a good video from a Coast guard camera. The splash comes from the left after the 2 minute mark. Then the camera zooms in a few moments later and the passengers are already exiting to the wings. Then pans to the 1st rescue ferry. The ferry captain does a good job engaging with the plane, matching drift down the river instead of bashing into the plane. Great stuff.

CG video


----------



## PRR 60

PetalumaLoco said:


> Here's a good video from a Coast guard camera. The splash comes from the left after the 2 minute mark. Then the camera zooms in a few moments later and the passengers are already exiting to the wings. Then pans to the 1st rescue ferry. The ferry captain does a good job engaging with the plane, matching drift down the river instead of bashing into the plane. Great stuff.
> 
> CG video


Sensational video! If you have to ditch, the Hudson River is the place to do it.


----------



## jackal

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I'm also wondering how much intelligence Airbus put into their fly-by-wire system. It's certainly possible for the programmer of such a system to decide that they're smarter than the pilot. And there's some experience with how the space shuttle landings are handled (I think at some point there was a software change that took control of braking away from the pilot) suggests that it really is possible for a careful programming team to do a better job than the average pilot. My understanding is that an Airbus typically knows its coordinates (via GPS or other navigation), and it strikes me as possible that the airplane may use that with a database to know that it's making a water landing.


I think you're way overestimating Airbus's fly-by-wire systems. They don't know whether the plane is coming in for a landing, at cruise, ditching in the ocean, or sitting still, and they're certainly not tied to the GPS system. They respond solely to the pilot's input (except in the case of the autopilot, which controls the flight controls in the exact same way that a Boeing aircraft using hydraulics does).

The only difference is that the Airbus controls are limited by what are referred to as "flight laws," which are limits to what a given control input will affect the actual flight controls. Some pilots prefer the knowledge that they can push the envelope a bit to get themselves out of a sticky situation even though it might damage the aircraft or result in a stall, while others like knowing that they can just yank the stick as far back as they can and not worry about stalling out. For more on this, see this post (as well as aluminumdriver's post two below that and the four below his) on Flyertalk. Also see this post for the same pilot's views on the original fly-by-cable aircraft versus the newer ones...


----------



## PetalumaLoco

Whoops, they said both engines were lost. They pulled the plane out of the river, and you can plainly see the starboard engine.

Select the first video ( Plane lifted from Hudson River )


----------



## Ryan

Wow, after seeing the ice on the water in that second video, gotta give lots of respect to the divers that went in and hooked up the sling. That's some cold water!!!


----------



## saxman

Joel N. Weber II said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> 
> *HERE* is a very good story on the flight crew, especially the captain.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious what experience the pilot may have had with intentional water landings in the past, if any. There are certainly differences between landing a single engine floatplane and an Airbus glider on the water, but at the same time, I'd imagine that if he was qualified to land float planes on the water, that would have helped his chances with this landing.
Click to expand...

None, unless he's flown a sea plane. The media has been saying how pilots practice ditching in the water in simulators. Haha, that never happens. I've never practiced ditching into the water.



> I'm not aware of any jet airplane used in commercial passenger service that has the control surfaces connected to the pilot's controls by mechanical cables. While the typical four seat airplane does have mechanical cables that I believe have certain similarities to the brake and gear shift cables on a bicycle, the typical jet in the pre-fly-by-wire days used hydraulics for the control surfaces.


And you're right about that. But this is where there is a big difference between Boeing and Airbus. Boeing aircraft do have mechanical wires hooked up to the control yoke and then goes back to the hydraulic actuators to move the surface. Coining the term mechanically controlled, hydraulically actuated. Airbus is totally fly by wire. I guess it depends on your preference. The CRJ also has wires connected to the actuators. I like this because it gives the pilot a "feel" of the controls.

To questions earlier about the APU and the RAT. Yes the APU is that annoying loud engine type sound you here on the ground. It has a generator and provide cabin air while parked on the ground. Usually it is shut off after take off. Not sure if they did shut it down, but it would have provided sufficient electrical power and the RAT would not deploy. If it was already turned off, then the RAT deployed. Although there is a lever to pull to deploy the RAT, it is suppose to deploy automatically when you have a total loss of electrical power. It will power the battery and some of the hydraulics to have control.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

saxman66 said:


> To questions earlier about the APU and the RAT. Yes the APU is that annoying loud engine type sound you here on the ground. It has a generator and provide cabin air while parked on the ground. Usually it is shut off after take off. Not sure if they did shut it down, but it would have provided sufficient electrical power and the RAT would not deploy. If it was already turned off, then the RAT deployed. Although there is a lever to pull to deploy the RAT, it is suppose to deploy automatically when you have a total loss of electrical power. It will power the battery and some of the hydraulics to have control.


Hey saxman, thanks for that info. I'd always kind of assumed that the APU was shut down once the main engines were cranked up, as opposed to waiting until after takeoff.

So I have a question: Why is the APU kept running until after takeoff? A safety thing?

Pardon my ignorance. My direct experience is limited to A-4, A-6, and A-7 attack jets from the 1970s (no APUs), and I know next to nothing about airliners.


----------



## saxman

WhoozOn1st said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To questions earlier about the APU and the RAT. Yes the APU is that annoying loud engine type sound you here on the ground. It has a generator and provide cabin air while parked on the ground. Usually it is shut off after take off. Not sure if they did shut it down, but it would have provided sufficient electrical power and the RAT would not deploy. If it was already turned off, then the RAT deployed. Although there is a lever to pull to deploy the RAT, it is suppose to deploy automatically when you have a total loss of electrical power. It will power the battery and some of the hydraulics to have control.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey saxman, thanks for that info. I'd always kind of assumed that the APU was shut down once the main engines were cranked up, as opposed to waiting until after takeoff.
> 
> So I have a question: Why is the APU kept running until after takeoff? A safety thing?
> 
> Pardon my ignorance. My direct experience is limited to A-4, A-6, and A-7 attack jets from the 1970s (no APUs), and I know next to nothing about airliners.
Click to expand...

Well you certainly don't have to takeoff with the APU on. Sometimes it doesn't even work. But when you leave it on you can get more performance from the engines. Normally the engines provide bleed air for pressurization, heating and cooling, and wing anti-ice. There is a small power penalty when you have these systems running. Since the APU also provides air for heating and cooling of the cabin, it is just left on so we can have more power for takeoff. After that, the bleeds are just switched to the engine and the APU shut down. Now when I say less power, I'm only talking about a small maybe not even half percent of a thrust setting. You'll be glad to know that even before a airplane is even certified to fly, it can lose an engine at takeoff (the worst possible moment) and still climb out on one engine and miss all obstacles and reach a height of at least 1500' above the airport. You may have tried to get on flights that are "overweight" and can't take a full plane of passengers. This may be because there is bad weather and you have to have the anti-ice on which takes a thrust penalty, which in turn makes a weight penalty. Its not that two engines can't do the job. It's if you lose an engine you'll still be able to climb out safely, even in bad weather. This is very common on the MD-80 or my own CRJ taking off out of LGA on a snowy day.

Hope you understood that. I may have confused you more than I helped.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

saxman66 said:


> You may have tried to get on flights that are "overweight" and can't take a full plane of passengers.
> Hope you understood that. I may have confused you more than I helped.


Dude, not confusing at all, and thanks "Chris 3!" 

Never had to deal with an overweight plane, but once at Tampa a flight attendant asked for volunteers to move to seats in the back for weight distribution. An AirTran 737. Never heard of THAT before, and it wasn't anywhere near a full flight - though everybody was concentrated up front. Me and the girlfriend raised our hands and moved immediately - better seats anyway - and set the example for others. Thought it kinda weird that passenger weight - with so few aboard - was deemed so critical that people were asked to move.


----------



## MrFSS

WhoozOn1st said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may have tried to get on flights that are "overweight" and can't take a full plane of passengers.
> Hope you understood that. I may have confused you more than I helped.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, not confusing at all, and thanks "Chris 3!"
> 
> Never had to deal with an overweight plane, but once at Tampa a flight attendant asked for volunteers to move to seats in the back for weight distribution. An AirTran 737. Never heard of THAT before, and it wasn't anywhere near a full flight - though everybody was concentrated up front. Me and the girlfriend raised our hands and moved immediately - better seats anyway - and set the example for others. Thought it kinda weird that passenger weight - with so few aboard - was deemed so critical that people were asked to move.
Click to expand...

Many years ago I was on a puddle jumper from LAX to Visalia. Three of us on the flight and they asked each one of us our weight and told us where to sit accordingly. And, they put a couple of 75lb sandbags in a couple of the other seats.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

saxman66 said:


> And you're right about that. But this is where there is a big difference between Boeing and Airbus. Boeing aircraft do have mechanical wires hooked up to the control yoke and then goes back to the hydraulic actuators to move the surface. Coining the term mechanically controlled, hydraulically actuated. Airbus is totally fly by wire. I guess it depends on your preference. The CRJ also has wires connected to the actuators. I like this because it gives the pilot a "feel" of the controls.


But I thought the 777 and perhaps a few of the other newer Boeings were fly-by-wire, too.


----------



## jackal

WhoozOn1st said:


> Never had to deal with an overweight plane, but once at Tampa a flight attendant asked for volunteers to move to seats in the back for weight distribution. An AirTran 737. Never heard of THAT before, and it wasn't anywhere near a full flight - though everybody was concentrated up front. Me and the girlfriend raised our hands and moved immediately - better seats anyway - and set the example for others. Thought it kinda weird that passenger weight - with so few aboard - was deemed so critical that people were asked to move.





MrFSS said:


> Many years ago I was on a puddle jumper from LAX to Visalia. Three of us on the flight and they asked each one of us our weight and told us where to sit accordingly. And, they put a couple of 75lb sandbags in a couple of the other seats.


Actually, it's pretty common on smaller aircraft (RJs, turboprops, etc.), since the passengers' weight and balance is a relatively larger component of the total aircraft's weight and balance. It's much rarer on larger aircraft (like Whooz's 737 experience).


----------



## saxman

Joel N. Weber II said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're right about that. But this is where there is a big difference between Boeing and Airbus. Boeing aircraft do have mechanical wires hooked up to the control yoke and then goes back to the hydraulic actuators to move the surface. Coining the term mechanically controlled, hydraulically actuated. Airbus is totally fly by wire. I guess it depends on your preference. The CRJ also has wires connected to the actuators. I like this because it gives the pilot a "feel" of the controls.
> 
> 
> 
> But I thought the 777 and perhaps a few of the other newer Boeings were fly-by-wire, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're right. I don't know every airplane. But the 777 still does have a control yoke hooked up to wires which go to the computer system. This is vs the side stick the "Airbii" have


----------



## Rumpled

On a helicopter tour in Hawaii that I went on, they had each passenger move up to a mat on the floor to check in.

I noticed, but I don't think everyone did, that we were being weighed on a floor scale.

On little aircraft weight really matters, but I'm surprised that it could be such a difference on a 737.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

I understand the port engine has been found and retrieved.


----------



## AlanB

WhoozOn1st said:


> I understand the port engine has been found and retrieved.


Yes, and they found it at the bottom of the port. :lol: :lol:


----------



## PetalumaLoco

AlanB said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the port engine has been found and retrieved.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and they found it at the bottom of the port. :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Reminds me, you know what they call a current running thru a crevice in the river bottom? An Eddy Fisher.


----------



## sky12065

PetalumaLoco said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the port engine has been found and retrieved.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and they found it at the bottom of the port. :lol: :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reminds me, you know what they call a current running thru a crevice in the river bottom? An Eddy Fisher.
Click to expand...

Didn't you mean... Ebb E. Fissure?


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Pilot receives a hero's welcome

"Hometown crowd cheers US Airways captain who landed jet in Hudson River."


----------



## WhoozOn1st

David Letterman says that Airbus has a new slogan for its products: "They float better than they fly!"


----------



## AlanB

Reminds me of an old joke:

And then there was the man who was always missing success by just that much. Like the time he invented the slogan "good to the last drop." Great slogan? Sure.

But for Otis elevator company?


----------



## WhoozOn1st

AlanB said:


> Reminds me of an old joke:
> And then there was the man who was always missing success by just that much. Like the time he invented the slogan "good to the last drop." Great slogan? Sure.
> 
> But for Otis elevator company?


HAHA!!

There's a W.C. Fields variant on that: On his way down after falling out of a plane he wishes he had a Maxwell parachute; good to the last drop.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

According to a brief item in the 2-5-09 L.A. Times, the NTSB did indeed find bird remains in both engines of the ditched A320. Remains from both engines have been turned over to the Smithsonian at D.C. for species identification.

Also, CNN has been playing tapes of aircraft-ATC communication as the situation developed.

EDIT: Listen: Air traffic tapes of Hudson plane crash released


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Looking around further, I found that the FAA website has quite a collection of ditching tapes (MP3) and transcripts (pdf) posted.

USAirways 1549 (AWE1549), January 15, 2009

The MP3s are pretty big files.

EDIT: I've only heard a couple of the tapes so far. Long silences. Doesn't mean things aren't working, just long silences sometimes between transmissions.


----------



## PRR 60

Another version, almost, but not quite real-time, from before takeoff to after the ditching, is here:

AVWeb US 1549 ATC


----------



## MrFSS

Someone sent these to me - thought the forum might like to see them.









They are transporting the US Airways plane in New Jersey after it was taken out of the river.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

MrFSS said:


> Someone sent these to me - thought the forum might like to see them.
> They are transporting the US Airways plane in New Jersey after it was taken out of the river.


Thanks for sharing  that would something to see if you weren't expecting it. Watching a plane be "taxied" through downtown.


----------



## gswager

I noticed several pink painted circles on the cockpit area. That's where the mid-air collision occurred with the geese.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Here in California, Proposition 2 was a big winner in the November elections. As a piece of animal rights legislation it mandates big changes in the treatment of farm animals. The 3-7-09 L.A. Times ran a story about follow-on bills proposed by state legislators. Why note that here? Because one particular proposal (not exactly pro animal) is related to the Hudson ditching.

In the wake of the US Airways near-calamity, state Senator Dave Cox has introduced a bill that would give airports a green light to kill birds that pose a hazard. Naturally, animal rights groups are not exactly pleased. Audubon California is calling for changes that would exempt endangered species and explicitly make killing a last resort.

Other activists (big surprise) are opposed to any killing at all. Pamelyn Ferdin, co-president of the Animal Defense League, said "More people die per year from being struck by lightning than by birds interfering with planes. Why don't we outlaw airplanes that kill geese? Weren't the geese here first?"

It might be interesting to learn the views of Flight 1549's passengers and crew on this subject.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Maybe you should pass a law saying that if there are endangered birds near the airport that pose a hazard to airplanes, people have to catch high speed trains to some other airport. (Oh wait, this is the non-rail transportation forum. Maybe you could put them on buses. Maybe even trolleybuses. 60 MPH trolleybuses like we can't figure out how to make work in Boston.)

It also hardly strikes (no pun intended, really, I didn't even notice this until I was proofreading) me that one non-fatal accident should be the basis of a major policy change. Are there examples of bird strikes with more fatalities that have occured in California in the last decade?


----------



## tp49

WhoozOn1st said:


> Here in California, Proposition 2 was a big winner in the November elections. As a piece of animal rights legislation it mandates big changes in the treatment of farm animals. The 3-7-09 L.A. Times ran a story about follow-on bills proposed by state legislators. Why note that here? Because one particular proposal (not exactly pro animal) is related to the Hudson ditching.
> In the wake of the US Airways near-calamity, state Senator Dave Cox has introduced a bill that would give airports a green light to kill birds that pose a hazard. Naturally, animal rights groups are not exactly pleased. Audubon California is calling for changes that would exempt endangered species and explicitly make killing a last resort.
> 
> Other activists (big surprise) are opposed to any killing at all. Pamelyn Ferdin, co-president of the Animal Defense League, said "More people die per year from being struck by lightning than by birds interfering with planes. Why don't we outlaw airplanes that kill geese? Weren't the geese here first?"
> 
> It might be interesting to learn the views of Flight 1549's passengers and crew on this subject.


I'd rather the idiots across the street (in the State Capitol Building) do something constructive like fixing the structural problems with the state budget and to mandate that any new referendum and initiative has to come with its own source of funding so it does not come out of the general fund.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

WhoozOn1st said:


> It might be interesting to learn the views of Flight 1549's passengers and crew on this subject.


Or the the thougts of US Airways who lost a very expensive A320 due to the birdies.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

From Aviation Week:

Hudson Ditching Hearing To Be Webcast

"The hearing, originally scheduled for two days, was extended to a third because of the scope of the investigative factual findings and its implications for every sector of aviation - not to mention the huge public interest.

"There should be lots of operational information, and quite likely some bird-threat data that has never before been heard in one place."

Guess I'll be glued to the NTSB's website again. For the Metrolink wreck hearing I mostly just listened while doing other things, both online and off, then went visual when PowerPoint stuff (always announced for the record) came up. For some reason I couldn't get that hearing in IE, but it worked okay via AOL.


----------



## George Harris

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Maybe you should pass a law saying that if there are endangered birds near the airport that pose a hazard to airplanes, people have to catch high speed trains to some other airport


Do you really think we can ever get a high speed railroad built in Californial or anywhere else until somebody develops enough common sense to shut these people down? No matter how hard you try, you are bound to go through the last know habitat of some critter that no one ever heard of before, or have to add a speed restricting curve to miss some historical plant or building, or rock formation or something that no one noticed until those opposed to the railroad found it and made it into an "environmental" issue.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

George Harris said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should pass a law saying that if there are endangered birds near the airport that pose a hazard to airplanes, people have to catch high speed trains to some other airport
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think we can ever get a high speed railroad built in Californial or anywhere else until somebody develops enough common sense to shut these people down? No matter how hard you try, you are bound to go through the last know habitat of some critter that no one ever heard of before, or have to add a speed restricting curve to miss some historical plant or building, or rock formation or something that no one noticed until those opposed to the railroad found it and made it into an "environmental" issue.
Click to expand...

Thats why you use those people as the railway ties :huh: :huh:


----------



## DET63

> Pamelyn Ferdin, co-president of the Animal Defense League, said "More people die per year from being struck by lightning than by birds interfering with planes. Why don't we outlaw airplanes that kill geese? Weren't the geese here first?"


According to the Vanity Fair article (linked in this thread) discussing the Hudson River incident, the geese had originally been migratory. Then, a pair of birds had their wings clipped so that they would stay in the New York City area. Their offspring then got ingrained the instinct that the area was their home, and their migratory instincts were permanently changed. So, arguably, the geese weren't there first.


----------

