RE: US Airways A320 crash lands in the Hudson River

Just seen footage on BBC News 24 and Sky of the above. Aircraft is floating, with lots of rescue boats surrounding it. No casualties being reported. It was on a flight from LaGuardia to Charlotte, NC.

• Filed under: A320, US Airways, Hudson River

Flightglobal:

A US Airways Airbus A320 has crash-landed in the Hudson River west of New York City after a departure from LaGuardia Airport this afternoon. According......

Author: John Croft

Date: 15 January 2009

Read the full article

Presumed birdstrike it seems, i am just glad that everybody it seems got off safe. It was airborne for less than 3 minutes 

• Filed under: US Airways, crash, New York

 Close up of the aircraft from MSNBC:

• Filed under: US Airways, New York, Hudson River

A hugely impressive piece of flying. Multiple bird strikes at low level, loss of power in both engines, unable to maintain height and the realisation that an emergency return was not feasible left the crew only one course of action...a forced landing. The decision to ditch in the Hudson was the only realistic choice to the crew and was flown to perfection. Great job!

 Can someone answer a question for me, looking at the images coming out of this incident, why aren't the people when out on the wing wearing life jackets. You can probably see what i mean by this image (which by the way is my fav image of the incident and has been seen over 100,000 times):

 

Credit: http://twitpic.com/photos/jkrums

 

• Filed under: US Airways, crash, Hudson River, Incident

It would be a complete guess but I'd say it's likely that people were wearing them inside immediately following the ditching (As per safety briefings) and decided to get rid of them once it became obvious that the aircraft wasn't sinking quickly and they were going to be picked up by a boat.

Of course, if you actually look around at other passengers during a safety briefing there are always a large number paying no attention at all so the cynic in me says there were probably a few people on the aircraft who weren't even aware that the jackets were under their seat.

Have crunched the numbers from Flight Aware to plot the height/distance of the aircraft. It's a bit vague but gives an idea of when the problem occurred and how he brought it down.

My esteemed colleague David Learmount tells me that the climb shape is intially steep as the pilot looks to gain altitude asap, it then drops off slightly to reduce noise, and then slows again as he tries to get more forward velocity at the costs of climb. Somewhere between this point and the next the problem occurs and he begins to descend.

About halfway through the descent there's a slight climb again and David feels this is probably because the pilot has at that point decided where he wants to ditch but has too much speed so he climbs to lose velocity before descending again into the Hudson.

 

• Filed under: altitude, david learmount

 You have the same thoughts I had when I watched the news.

I did see some folks with theirs on - but they were already pulled - which I was wondering about as well

I know this much ... things are almost never as they seem

I'm just glad everyone was OK.

Will

Just thinking about it now;  there were probably a few people on the aircraft who didn't think they would need the jackets under their seat - and possibly a few more who might just pay more attention next time.

• Filed under: cabin attendants, Airbags

It will be interesting in the aftermath to see if the crew receive the full support of the company, like this guy.

What a wonderful outcome. No loss of life in those near-icy waters. My congratulations to the true 'aviator' of a captain who could really fly when it really mattered. Have heard that he is also a glider pilot; a huge bonus to those 150 people on board. I wonder, now, if those non-aviator techno-geeks, who are such enthusiastic proponents of airline aircraft with no pilots, will perhaps ponder whether they would like to be seated down the back under the circumstances we have just seen? They will most likely say that a computer will, one day, do a better job at the decision-making and 'handling' of the aircraft....I say balderdash!

From the information available so far it appears this is another case of absolute resource management. The crew involved made best use of what was available under the prevailing circumstances which led to a remarkable outcome. As for some passengers not having their life jackets on, every pre-flight safety demonstration is very specific about reminding not to inflate them until out of the aircraft. Guess it is a bit too early to comment on this as the investigation is on going.

Oh dear, the BBC seem to have got it a bit wrong haven't they:

At http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7833317.stm

in the little window Emergency landing on water, step 2 they say "raise flaps"!

Oops. You extend the flaps and raise the air brakes (those flappy looking things on top of the wings).

I don't think Capt S. would have wished to raise those "flaps"!

FF

Just remember: generally you leave the airplane preferable through the overwing exits in case of a water landing with non-inflated lifejackets (otherwise you will stick in the overwing exits). Furthermore this will only be possible if you can prepare this kind of landing, because you have to brief passengers for that behaviour. This preparation had not been possible for the cabin crew in this USAir-Airbus. Finally we have to find out what floating device is available to the USAir-passengers - it might be the seat cushion(?!) 

Yes, I would have expected the majority of passengers to be wearing non inflated life jackets. They would have had a safety briefing while taxying out to the runway, as is normal practice. Then when emerging from their braced for crash landing position and realizing they were on water AND not knowing whether or not they would be sinking, I would have thought they would have pulled their life jackets from under their respective seats. How could they have known that the aircraft was NOT going to sink. Once they were all out on the wings any panick could have resulted in many of them slipping or even being pushed into the water Also, any imbalance, more on one wing than the other, could have resulted in the aircraft tipping over onto one side. Anyway, this is all purely academic now, as all ended in the best possible way. John.

i was watching cnn live reporting of the event and am amazed at the skill the flight crew and how they managed to land safely in the hudson river with 150 people on board plus 5 fligh crew and what is so amazing is that the plane stayed afloat and luckely all on board the aircraft survived the water ditching even though airlines are not taught this aspect of an emergancy situation nor is it done in a flight simulator only the military air crews are taught this scenario.as regards to the cause bieng an engine failure two minutes after take -off likely due to a bird strike it is a very good possibility that that could be the cause of the engine fire and subsequent engine failure,it wouldn't be the first time this has happenned.

 Here is some video footage of the US Airways 1549 as it gets towed to Harrison N.J:

U.S. Airways Flight 1549 Being towed to Harrison N.J. from Anthony Quintano on Vimeo.

Have just read on another forum that the US Airways flight would not have been equipped with lifejackets because they do not operate over water!

It seems crew on the ferries and smaller boats had thrown lifejackets to the few passengers seen to be wearing them.

Towards the end of last year Air Canada Jazz removed all lifejackets from their aircraft as a weight saving measure. They get around it by telling passengers to use their seat cushions as flotation devices.

 I just saw the transcript and heard the recordings. I already knew that it was an amazing feat of flying but it seems even more so after listening to thre ATC recordings....

The crew recently made an appearance on the David Letterman show -