Roost Air Lounge => Aviation related topics => Topic started by: Jean Loup on January 16, 2009, 09:24:31 PM
Title: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Jean Loup on January 16, 2009, 09:24:31 PM
How do you call landing on watter, in English language? In Spanish: Aterrizar is to land (an airplane), acuatizar is to watter (an airplane) Comes from Tierra=land, Earth, ground; and Agua=watter, liquid, solvent. I am using ditching, but it was an excellent aqua-landing, not a real ditching. Plane did not go to the Hudson river bottom! (only the engines did, as it seems at this time. But the cranes on photos seem to have sided the Airbus, since one wing pointed to the sky after the rescue)
Now we can say: "Any ditching that you can swimm away from, is a good ditching..." I was looking on the news all other ditchings that really went bad. Pilots in México say this is the first one that's positive, only hipothermia & a stewardess broken leg (perhaps her foot sliped attending passengers on exit?).
I don't know that pilot background: seems to me like he was a bush pilot in Alaska, flying with pontoons and for a lot of time, when acumulating flight hours experience for the next pilot degree. Or something along those lines...maybe his hobby on spare time, or an ex-military/navy pilot who flew big rigs...
I am impressed also, by the Airbus strenght: other ditchings had the plane going to pieces! Maybe full wing fuel tanks had something to do. Puts the center of gravity lower, and gassoline is less dense than watter so helps it afloat; since the wings are full of liquid already, watter does not enter. The nose up attitude on watter means a well balanced aircraft...the map of the flight is impressive: the Airbus almost did a 180° left turn with no engines, and very low...pilot must have handled the controls like when porcupines make love: VERY CAREFULLY! ::bow:: 180°'s low and slow, is absolutly forbiden when approaching land in skydive! (below 500 feet)
??? PS- Perhaps Ditching is the term used when an aircraft meant to land on solid ground, lands (there must be another term...) on watter. Flying boats (I Love'm!) and pontoon planes, that are not amphibious (no wheels at all) can't "land" on watter. Landing or the land terms, mean solid gound to me. Of course, the land term in my ranch includes lagoons, rivers & shoreline...my home construction is included as well. Maybe a Lingüistical Aviator on this Forum, could orient me on this. ??? ::wave::
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Jean Loup on January 17, 2009, 02:09:22 AM
An update I am reading on the Web:
NEW YORK – Investigators trying to determine how birds could have brought down US Airways Flight 1549 were hampered by the swirling, bone-chilling waters of the Hudson River on Friday as they looked for the plane's two missing engines and tried to retrieve its black boxes.
The investigation ran into a series of obstacles one day after the pilot ditched the plane carrying 155 people into the river following an apparent collision with birds that caused both engines to fail. The jet went down just feet from the Manhattan skyline. All aboard survived.
Both engines broke off the plane sometime after the crash and sank to the bottom of the river, forcing investigators to use sonar to seach for them. The current was especially swift, making it impossible for crews to hoist the aircraft out of the water and remove its flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder.
Investigators also had yet to interview the pilot, Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger.(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20090116/capt.3eaba44c008247e88684f03b84f7af8a.correction_plane_in_river_ny148.jpg?x=255&y=345&q=85&sig=xd2dUhlM_D8qbcpw48.1FQ--)
The pilot's status as a national hero rose by the hour as he took a congratulatory call from the president, earned effusive praise from passengers on the plane and become the subject of a growing global fan club. The pilot was in good spirits and showing no outward signs of stress from the ordeal, a pilots union official said.
donyan: I would open the Champagne...and bring stripers!...Veuve Clicot, at least! ::drinking:: ::drinking:: ::drinking::
Investigators want to closely inspect the engine to figure out how exactly the birds caused the plane to fail so badly and so fast. They may also examine any feathers remaining in the engine to determine the type of bird species, helping prevent future mishaps.
The type of engine on the Airbus 320 is designed to withstand a 4-pound bird strike, said Jamie Jewell, a spokeswoman for CFM International of Cincinnati, which manufactures the engines. That's fairly typical for commercial airliners and their engines, althoughlarger Canada geese can exceed 12 pounds. Kitty Higgins, a spokeswoman for the National Transportation Safety Board, also suggested that part of the investigation will be to "celebrate what worked here," something of a rarity for an agency that focuses on figuring out what went wrong in a disaster.
"A lot of things went right yesterday, including the way that not only the crew functioned, but the way the plane functioned."
donYan: and don´t forget the barges & rescuers!!! Read the complete article Investigators search for plane's missing engines (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_on_re_us/plane_splashdown) |:)\ ::cowboy:: ::wave::
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Rooster Cruiser on January 17, 2009, 06:04:00 AM
It is being speculated in the press that they flew through a flock of Canada Geese. "Honkers" as they are known, are very large birds, with adult males reaching 7-14 pounds in weight and females 6-12 pounds. Just one of these birds would be large enough to take out an engine of the A320, and it is possible that they injested more than one into each.
It is a testament to the skills of the flight crew that they manages to dead-stick a large, Transport Category airplane to a ditching. |:)\ |:)\ |:)\ I do not think that is something that is practiced in the simulators, but I could be wrong. What I am curious about is whether there was a backup hydraulic system operated by the tail mounted APU that would drive the hydraulic flight controls, slats, and flaps. I do know that the APU is normally on for takeoff so there would have been no loss of electrical power or fly-by-wire control.
Can anyone here provide us with a little more information into the A320 systems please?
RC
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Jean Loup on January 17, 2009, 06:59:58 AM
..the tail mounted APU...I do know that the APU is normally on for takeoff ... Can anyone here provide us with a little more information into the A320 systems please?
RC
I did not know APU mounted on that A 320's tail...(http://www.blogdelossimpson.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/apu.gif) So thats why the fuselage pointed upwards! Did he leave the Simpsons?
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Oddball on January 17, 2009, 07:52:15 AM
maybe wrong but i thought i heard some where the pilot was a ex USAF pilot ::thinking::
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Rooster Cruiser on January 17, 2009, 08:32:00 AM
maybe wrong but i thought i heard some where the pilot was a ex USAF pilot ::thinking::
The reports on Capt Sullenberger are that he was an USAF F-4 Phantom pilot, who joined some part of US Airways in 1980. Can't tell which part yet. US Airways is a collection of a bunch of mergers from the 1980's and more than a few bankruptcies.
I will reiterate... I seriously doubt anyone practices a dead-stick ditching at sea to the best of my knowledge! I have practiced dead-stick landings in the PC12 sim, but that is a single-engine airplane so it is to be expected. Dead stick landings were not part of my Citation type rating course. Everything was geared towards one-engine out situations.
When I consider how the Canada goose population has reached more than nuisance levels in a number of US cities, I am beginning to think that we may see more worst case scenarios like this. Between the tree huggers and PETA, large birds are already a serious hazard to safe flight in numerous places. I have struck a Canada goose and consider myself very fortunate to have survived that incident without a scratch. Unless there is a change in animal control policies in major US Cities, I am thinking that perhaps simulator schools should start including some "dead stick landing after takeoff" scenarios for multi-engine aircraft. It could happen again... ::thinking::
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Oddball on January 17, 2009, 03:23:23 PM
how rare is it for both engines to be knocked out by a bird strike?
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Ragwing on January 17, 2009, 03:42:49 PM
When I started working for The Boeing Company, APU's were an option. Today all Boeing aircraft have APU's. Some models of Boeing aircraft have RATS...... Yes mom, we put RATs on our aircraft before delivery. The public became aware of the RAT in 1983 when the GIMLI glider made headlines.
Training for ditching is standard practice for these aircraft. I do not know what the Airbus requirements are, but TBC designs our aircraft to ditch at sea and we even have wave height requirements. You have to have your wings level. If you drop a wing in the water, then you will cartwheel and break-up. This specific A320 could close up it's bottom inlets. I am trying to figure out what could reasonably be closed up outside of fuel tank vents.
The FAA requires aircraft flights over water (distance requirement) to carry life rafts. They are mounted in the ceiling above the aisle. If you look up, you will see about 6 feet of ceiling that is lower. Common practice is to not equip life rafts on aircraft that do not make these flights to keep the weight down.
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Ragwing on January 17, 2009, 03:44:08 PM
how rare is it for both engines to be knocked out by a bird strike?
Very rare. I am aware of a KC135 going down in Alaska a few years ago when Canadian Geese were ingested on takeoff taking out more than one engine.
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Mike on January 17, 2009, 05:50:05 PM
Did they retrieve the engines yet? Have you guys heard anything?
I am surprised the aircraft stayed together after touching the surface of the water. What Ragwing said makes sense about keeping your wings level. But how do you touch down with both engines hitting the water at exactly the same time so the thing doesn't start spinning. I guess a 727 or MD-80 with the engines on top must be easier to waterland also since you're not ripping off engines when you touch down....
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Ragwing on January 17, 2009, 07:28:00 PM
Re engines. Boeing underwing engines are installed with fuse pins. These are hollow bolts with a sharp edge inside. They are designed to break dropping the engine. Airlines complain and send in their fuse pins that failed without engine failure (remaining fuse pins hold the engine on). It is very hard to find the right balance of safety and strength.
If you land wheels up on a runway, the engine snaps off and flips up above the wing. If it did not do this, it would drag under the wing and rip open the fuel tanks. I would assume Airbus copied this design.
Several years ago, I was involved in a B727 that lost one of it's outboard engines and the pilots did not have to make any significant changes for landing. All three engines are near the centerline. The outboard engine seized up and the rotation snapped the fuse pins and it dropped free causing no damage to the aircraft. Because it was so close to the centerline, there was no significant asymmetrical thrust from the opposite engine.
One of the defects in the MD10 is MD put the engines too far out on the wing. Loss of one engine gives a lot of asymmetrical thrust and is really hard to fly straight for a landing.
As to ditching, I would expect the engine fuse pins to fail, drop the engine and prevent the spin.
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Jean Loup on January 17, 2009, 08:15:39 PM
Did they retrieve the engines yet? Have you guys heard anything?
I am surprised the aircraft stayed together after touching the surface of the water. What Ragwing said makes sense about keeping your wings level. But how do you touch down with both engines hitting the water at exactly the same time so the thing doesn't start spinning. I guess a 727 or MD-80 with the engines on top must be easier to waterland also since you're not ripping off engines when you touch down....
So far, bad weather is impending the engine retireval. Black boxes are still in the plane, submerged just under the surface. On videos one can see mases of watter moving, no waves but not still either.
I guess the pilot must have flown level just above the surface, until the plane stalled to the watter, as to have minimum forward speed...and maybe the engines were almost thorn off by vibration, after hiting the gueese flock. One passenger says fire was coming out from one wing.
Both engines are at the bottom of the Hudson, engulfed by lots of mud. Lady Luck helps the daring...and perhaps the Pilot (should say the Captain, actually) ditched before, when in military service.
The ditching term bothers me: it seems like a good/perfect acua-landing. Ditching spells like dissaster, to my untrained Latin ears.
Airbus seems to be designed very strong! Having full wing tanks must have aided: more inertia to queep staright and level (besides avoiding watter entrance, and having buoyancy to aid floating on the river.)
But then, the only planes I builded, were balsa wood CL with .35 cubic inches screeammer engines...tryed a scale autogyro once, but never made any pontoon or PBY Catalina replicas...
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Jean Loup on January 17, 2009, 10:32:55 PM
Did they retrieve the engines yet? Have you guys heard anything?
I am surprised the aircraft stayed together after touching the surface of the water. What Ragwing said makes sense about keeping your wings level. But how do you touch down with both engines hitting the water at exactly the same time so the thing doesn't start spinning. I guess a 727 or MD-80 with the engines on top must be easier to waterland also since you're not ripping off engines when you touch down....
Video capture: US Airways Landing on the Hudson (http://video.ap.org/?g=0117dv_ny_plane_latest) and other related news, like the bad weather hampers retrieval...the video shows a very short landing distance...the splash is like four times the length of the Airbus. The pin system explained by Ragwing seems to work perfectly. Smooth and steady pilot hands at the controls!
|:)\ I am amazed at how fast the rescue reacted: and feel ::sick:: ::sick:: ::sick:: at how the politicians are "hooking on" to this landing, TWO days later. Thank god the rescue was inmediate, not TWO days later... ::wave::
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Jean Loup on January 17, 2009, 10:56:26 PM
...The ditching term bothers me: it seems like a good/perfect acua-landing. Ditching spells like dissaster, to my untrained Latin ears...
::type:: Stated by the Sydney Morning Herald: "Ditching" is an intentional emergency landing in water. It appears to happen occasionally in the military and with smaller aircraft in general aviation but is understood to be extremely rare for commercial passenger jets. ::bow:: ::bow:: ::bow::
::banghead:: ...I better start training ::drinking:: ::drinking:: ::drinking:: my Latin ears... ::wave::
PS- from same Sydney Morning Herald: New York resident Mr Duckworth told the Herald: "The landing itself was very controlled. The pilot still had some control over the plane. "The nose, he kept it up, and (the plane) went into the water tail first and that spun it around about 45 degrees but it continued to float."
...An aviation website that provides live tracking of flights, FlightAware, showed the flight plummeting minutes before it crashed into the river.
The log shows the plane rising to 3200 feet at 3.27pm, before dropping 2000 feet to 1200 feet in just two minutes.
The last entry, at 3.31pm, shows the flight had fallen to 300 feet. (no glider!-donYan)
Flight paths also show the pilot tried to turn the aircraft back towards the airport but was forced to land it in the river as it fell...
|:)\ |:)\ |:)\ Beers & Stripers for Sully ::cowboy:: ::wave::
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Oddball on January 17, 2009, 11:10:08 PM
heard a small clip on the 10pm BBC radio 2 news i think they found the engines still attached to the pylons.
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Jean Loup on January 17, 2009, 11:17:38 PM
heard a small clip on the 10pm BBC radio 2 news i think they found the engines still attached to the pylons.
|:)\ thanks Oddball, long time no see here the Flight Aware: airliner down on the Hudson (http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?t=7537) link...now I am looking into BBC... ::wave::
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Baradium on January 17, 2009, 11:21:15 PM
It is being speculated in the press that they flew through a flock of Canada Geese. "Honkers" as they are known, are very large birds, with adult males reaching 7-14 pounds in weight and females 6-12 pounds. Just one of these birds would be large enough to take out an engine of the A320, and it is possible that they injested more than one into each.
It is a testament to the skills of the flight crew that they manages to dead-stick a large, Transport Category airplane to a ditching. |:)\ |:)\ |:)\ I do not think that is something that is practiced in the simulators, but I could be wrong. What I am curious about is whether there was a backup hydraulic system operated by the tail mounted APU that would drive the hydraulic flight controls, slats, and flaps. I do know that the APU is normally on for takeoff so there would have been no loss of electrical power or fly-by-wire control.
Can anyone here provide us with a little more information into the A320 systems please?
RC
I can't give you A320 systems right now, but I should be able to in a while, I know a few people who fly them.
I'll note that I would be surprised if the APU was left on for takeoff on such a large aircraft. On the CRJ, which has very similiar systems on a smaller scale, we only use the APU on takeoff in very specific circumstances. Two reasons are heat and cooling on the ground since the engines at low rpm don't produce much bleed air (not usually a problem with the large birds). The third is any time we takeoff with our ice protection on, because the heated wings take so much bleed air. But that is due to the limitations of our engines' power output. On larger aircraft, the engines have no problem providing the bleed air to run both the ice protection systems and the packs (pneumatic air conditioning kits) at the same time. I don't recall being on any large transport category aircraft where the APU was left on for takeoff. I don't fly the A320, but I sit in the cockpit on A320s, 737s, 757s and MD-88s almost as much as I fly myself (one month I spent more time in the jumpseat than at the controls). There are a couple reasons to leave an APU on otherwise, but they are due to deferal or other MX situations.
Since it was a clear day in the area, I they wouldn't have even needed ice protection so I'd put the chances of the APU operating at one in 100,000. However, depending on how much time they had from the first engine failure, they would have started the APU when they lost the first engine to provide backup to the remaining engine's generator and ensure adequate electrical power.
Even on the CRJ, we turn off our APU in almost all cases passing 3000' AGL for our climb checks. I believe the NWA A320s I've ridden on have had their climb checks completed at a lower altitude, so even if the APU was on for takeoff (once again, I doubt it), it would probobly have been shut down by the time this incident happened if the time frames I've seen were accurate.
Rather than need the APU for hydraulics, the RAT (Ram Air Turbine), sometimes known as an ADG (Air Driven Generator) automatically deploys upon loss of power from both engine driven generators. It gives minimal hydraulics and electrical systems. There is a spool up time, but it's in the seconds.
There should be electrical hydraulic pumps that the APU can run as well. We can only run one hydraulic pump (our system #3 pump) if only the APU is operating, but we can run it. That is the same pump that the ADG will run if it is deployed.
Also, it's perfectly normal for an APU to actually be deferred and inoperative for a regular flight. I almost did that last night actually. They didn't have ground heat at the destination and we were staying there 5 hours so we didn't because we wouldn't be able to heat the plane in the morning, but that's the only reason. The primary purpose of the APU is to start the engines, everything else is just a bonus becuase it's there.
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Ragwing on January 18, 2009, 06:53:32 PM
LaGuardia Airport is a busy airport. Monitor aircraft flights at this site http://www4.passur.com/lga.html (http://www4.passur.com/lga.html)
Video from a camera of the aircraft and ferries http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-183256 (http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-183256)
It is unfortunate that the cabin crew who helped the panicked passengers get safely out are unrecognized. The crew did a great job.
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Jean Loup on January 18, 2009, 10:10:41 PM
heard a small clip on the 10pm BBC radio 2 news i think they found the engines still attached to the pylons.
Good ears, Oddball, good ears. So the pins are either a Boeing design only ::thinking:: or they did not work on watter, because they are designed to strike hard ground. (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane.xlarge1.jpg)
So far, the plane structure is fairly intact! |:)\ ::wave::
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Jean Loup on January 19, 2009, 04:09:28 AM
...It is unfortunate that the cabin crew who helped the panicked passengers get safely out are unrecognized. The crew did a great job.
On this video, FINALLY they give credit to the crew. Seems like the stewardess tried to stop a passenger from opening the rear door ::thinking:: but was unable to stop that person. Then the rear of the plane started flooding, and she noticed both her legs were hurt...that person opening the door (very BAD move! ::knockedout:: ) must have paniqued! ::whistle::
(http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_6290_images/0118090040_M_011809_plane_450.jpg) US Airways jet lifted from Hudson River http://video.aol.com/video-detail/us-airways-jet-lifted-from-hudson-river/4100746535 (http://video.aol.com/video-detail/us-airways-jet-lifted-from-hudson-river/4100746535)
The black box and comunications recordings are retrieved, sent to Washington. ::wave::
PS- strange, the tail cone is missing... ??? ::wave::
Title: Re: Hudson river...mmm...ditching?
Post by: Baradium on January 20, 2009, 08:10:36 AM
heard a small clip on the 10pm BBC radio 2 news i think they found the engines still attached to the pylons.
Good ears, Oddball, good ears. So the pins are either a Boeing design only ::thinking:: or they did not work on watter, because they are designed to strike hard ground. (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane.xlarge1.jpg)
So far, the plane structure is fairly intact! |:)\ ::wave::
One engine is attached, the other is missing.
They have been searching for one engine this whole time and still are.
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Liberte on January 20, 2009, 08:35:17 AM
BBC has a small piece that the ditched aircraft had a compressor stall in one of the engines two days before this accident.
They'll interview that crew. No other info was in the article.
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Jean Loup on January 20, 2009, 02:32:55 PM
BBC has a small piece that the ditched aircraft had a compressor stall in one of the engines two days before this accident. They'll interview that crew. No other info was in the article.
Hello Liberte: ::type:: on this link from (http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/1414/thesidneymorningheraldcp6.jpg), Black box indicates flock of birds brought down Hudson River plane (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/jet-ditching-black-box-analysed/2009/01/19/1232213494174.html), they say,
"The voice recording shows that "about 90 seconds after take-off the captain remarks about birds," Kitty Higgins, from the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB), told a news conference. "One second later the cockpit voice recorder recorded the sound of thumps and rapid decrease of engine sounds. The captain acknowledges that both engines have lost power and he takes control of the aircraft," Higgins said. "The other black box, which records flight data, also indicates that both engines lost power simultaneously in Thursday's drama."
this article also states:
"The plane, which is mostly intact, but badly damaged along the underside, was to be taken by barge from New York to a site in New Jersey. A police team on Saturday said it believed it had found the location of an engine torn off in the crash and lost in the Hudson."
Then they praise the crew, ::bow:: the rescue, ::bow:: the salvage team... ::bow::
|:)\ Well done Sully, extremely well done: Lucky Sully should be your new nickname...lady Luck protects the daring! |:)\
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Ragwing on January 22, 2009, 05:04:44 AM
FLASH REPORT TSA released a report on what brought down Flight 1549 and asks Congress for more funding (http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq245/skyhawk4754/Goose.jpg) ::rofl:: ::rofl:: ::wave::
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Mike on January 22, 2009, 10:53:10 AM
this is really sad . . . :(
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Jean Loup on January 22, 2009, 02:55:19 PM
FLASH REPORT TSA released a report on what brought down Flight 1549 and asks Congress for more funding (http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq245/skyhawk4754/Goose.jpg) ::rofl:: ::rofl:: ::wave::
::thinking:: mmm...Goosama or Goosaba ???
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Oddball on January 22, 2009, 03:03:09 PM
This reminds me of a Farside cartoon....need to find it now ::thinking::
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Skygal on January 22, 2009, 03:17:47 PM
RE: pilot skills----we used to refer to incidents like this by saying "pilot had his S**T together" |:)\ |:)\
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Jean Loup on January 22, 2009, 04:20:13 PM
this is really sad . . . :( (http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4432/theytoldusnothingco6.th.jpg) (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theytoldusnothingco6.jpg)
In memory os Selma Lagerloff, Nils Olgerson and the missing geese, mourning relatives have sent to us some geese angels with wings: ::thinking:: maybe Mike can perform the transplant to our grounded chicken angel... ::angel:: ::wave::
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Frank N. O. on January 27, 2009, 05:54:46 AM
Wow, really great to hear a good outcome in such an event. Well done to all involved! Flight crew, rescuers and designers/mechanics |:)\
Frank
Title: Long before Hudson miracle, there was Capt. Richard Ogg
Post by: Ragwing on February 04, 2009, 03:58:20 AM
Video clip of Pan Am Flight 943 landing in the Pacific http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkR4F3_fEUQ&eurl=http://www2.sgvtribune.com/california/ci_11602402&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkR4F3_fEUQ&eurl=http://www2.sgvtribune.com/california/ci_11602402&feature=player_embedded)
APTOS -- As Aptos' Marilyn Ogg watched news coverage last month of pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger's successful ditching of a commercial airliner in the Hudson River, a passenger praised Sullenberger for being the first to ever pull off such a maneuver.
"I thought, That's not correct,'" Ogg said. "I almost e-mailed."
She would know. More than 50 years ago, her father saved all 31 passengers aboard Pan Am Flight 943 when he ditched a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser in the Pacific Ocean.
Capt. Richard Ogg was midway through a flight from Honolulu to San Francisco on Oct. 16, 1956, when, in the wee hours of the morning, the No. 1 engine began to sputter. Shortly after, the No. 4 engine failed, leaving the plane with just two.
The Stratocruiser was losing altitude. It wouldn't make it to San Francisco or back to Honolulu. Ogg had to ditch.
About 3:30 a.m. Pacific time Oct. 16, as the plane passed over the empty heart of the Pacific Ocean, Capt. Ogg, 42, a pilot for 15 years at Pan Am, turned on the plane's PA system.
"Sorry to wake you up," he told his passengers.
"We have developed engine trouble and may have to ditch."
Like Sullenberger, who saved all 155 people aboard his US Airways jetliner, Ogg and his crew stayed calm. Fortune would have it that a Coast Guard cutter, the Pontchartrain, was nearby. Ogg circled the ship for four hours as he burned heavy fuel and waited for daylight.
"We will try to stay aloft until daylight," he said over the radio.
Capt. Ogg's passengers waited patiently. Some slept, some smoked cigarettes until it was time to brace for impact.
"Your ship is sure a beautiful sight," Ogg told the Coast Guard, which replied, "Thank you, we think so. Glad it's a comfort to you. We got your bacon and eggs on the fire."
Maureen Gordon, 54, a passenger on the October 1956 flight, watched the US Airways plane footage. She told the San Francisco Chronicle, "I was saying, Wow, this is so similar to what we went through,' " she said. "Except ours was more fantastic in a way."
Gordon, and a handful of other people on Ogg's plane -- including several who live in the San Francisco Bay Area -- have been experiencing a unique case of deja vu.
"Our captain was a pillar of strength," said Jane Gordon, 86, Maureen's mother, speaking by phone from her home in Maryland. "He was just wonderful. I'm sure he was scared to death, but you'd never know it."
Flight 943 took off for San Francisco from Hawaii on Oct. 15, 1956, at 8:30 p.m. The Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, dubbed the Clipper Sovereign of the Skies, was a pinnacle of 1950s luxury designed to appeal to movie stars and the well-heeled.
Aboard the Clipper were 25 passengers; the cargo hold was packed with luggage and 44 cases of live canaries.
Trouble over the Pacific Jane Gordon was already awake in the berths in the plane's tail, trying to quiet her 18-month-old twins, Maureen and Elizabeth. Gordon had been suffering a premonition of death since leaving the Philippines, where her husband, Richard, had a State Department posting.
"I was praying when ... we heard this terrible rumble of one engine, and then right after that the other one," she said.
Two engines had lost power. The two remaining engines kept the plane aloft, but their straining consumed more fuel -- and provided less speed.
Ogg had a choice of two bad options: keep going or turn back.
"If we had to ditch near the Farallones, that's bad news, because it's always choppy and rough out there," recalled Pat Pimsner of San Carlos, the plane's purser. "And we had headwinds going back if we turned around."
Ogg came up with a third option: a risky water landing in the middle of the Pacific.
Help from the Coast Guard The plane had recently been in contact with the Pontchartrain in the Pacific below, where it served as a communications relay for airplanes crossing the sea.
"We were the midpoint. We were the point of no return," said Doak Walker of Juneau, Alaska, a radioman on the Pontchartrain that day. "They knew they couldn't make it all the way. ... They'd rather go down next to us."
For hours, Flight 943 circled over the cutter, burning off fuel. Pimsner and the flight crew cleared the cabin of loose objects and reminded the passengers how to inflate their life jackets.
Pimsner recalled that a Boeing 377 that had crashed in the ocean the previous year had shattered its tail on impact, so she cleared the rear berth area and parked the Gordons in their seats.
"At that time they didn't have infant seat belts," Pimsner said. "So I put each child in one of the parents' laps, and then I threw pillows all over the floor in front of them."
Several times before dawn, the Coast Guardsmen on the ship below told Ogg they were ready for his attempted landing. The pilot made a dry run as the sun rose, then pulled up and continued to circle.
"The ocean was flat, but they wanted more daylight. By the time we got daylight and they could see, the ocean was picking up again," recalled Dick Olson, the Pontchartrain's boatswain's mate of the watch that day.
Looking good and then ... Shortly before 8 a.m., Pimsner and the rest of the cabin crew told passengers to assume crash positions, strap themselves in and extinguish cigarettes. Jane and Richard Gordon clung to the twins, and the plane headed for the sea at 90 nautical mph.
Olson, now a 73-year-old Danville resident, recalled watching from the Pontchartrain as the plane approached the sea. Ogg's landing seemed to be going well, he said.
But "before he settled down, the wings caught a swell," Olson said.
The plane whipped around, its nose shattering and the tail -- as Pimsner had feared -- snapping away. The crew of the Pontchartrain watched in horror.
"When we saw that hit and explode, we just knew nobody could survive that," said Walker, the radioman. "It crashed a mile away, but we could feel it. We just knew nobody could survive that."
But moments later, as the spray cleared, the Pontchartrain's crew could see tiny figures walking on the wings of the floating, shattered plane.
"We steamed full steam to get there," Olson said.
As his passengers were rescued, Ogg -- as Sullenberger would do years later -- went twice through the plane searching for anybody left behind. Pimsner accompanied him until they stepped out of the sinking plane.
"He let me go first," she said. "Always a gentleman."
Then Ogg stepped off the plane's wing. About 21 minutes after he had landed it, the Clipper Sovereign of the Skies disappeared underwater.
All passengers were safe. The sole injury was Maureen Gordon, one of the twins, who was torn from her mother's arms, bumped her head and was knocked out. She quickly recovered.
All part of the job It took days for the Pontchartrain to steam to San Francisco, its officers' quarters packed with plane passengers.
The press swarmed the survivors. "We had a certain job to do," Ogg told reporters. "We had to do it right or else."
His widow, Peggy, recalled those words as she watched coverage of Sullenberger in New York.
"I think they are very similar people. Very calm. Always doing their very best -- learning everything they can," she said. "They were preparing for this, and it didn't catch them off-guard."
Ogg continued to fly until his death in 1991, but the ditching stayed in his mind. His widow recalled asking him, as she sat by his deathbed, about a faraway look on his face.
"I was thinking of those poor canaries that drowned in the hold when I had to ditch the plane," he said.
Marilyn Ogg remembers her father getting teary-eyed years later about those canaries, too, and two dogs that were lost in the cargo hold.
"They were cut from the same mold," she said of her father and Sullenberger. "They were both humble men who were cool, calm and collected and they did exactly what they needed to do."
Ogg, who lived in Aptos for more than 30 years and died in 1991 at the age of 77, later became the subject of a book, a movie and television features. His experience was used in training films for several airlines.
Retired Pan Am pilot Joe D'Esposito of Prunedale said Capt. Ogg was a legend. "He was respected," D'Esposito said. "I was in Miami at the time, but everybody knew about it."
The San Francisco Chronicle contributed to this report.
Pan Am Flight 943
in short: More than 50 years before Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger saved 155 people by ditching a US Airways jetliner in the Hudson River, there was Aptos' Richard Ogg. The Pan Am pilot successfully ditched a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser in the Pacific Ocean in 1956, saving all 31 people aboard. The heroics became the subject of a book, a movie, television features and training videos used by several airlines. He died in 1991 at the age of 77.
The ordeal of Pan Am 943
After losing power on its way from Honolulu to San Francisco in October 1956, Pan Am Flight 943 maintained radio communication with the Coast Guard cutter Pontchartrain in the sea below as it considered a risky ocean landing. Other airplanes and ships relayed some of these messages to the mainland. 3:20 a.m. From PAA 943 to Honolulu: We have a runaway prop. Will call you later. 3:27 a.m. From PAA 943: No. 4 engine also dead and No. 1 still overspeeding. Our No. 4 engine is out cold. Dead at the moment. 3:35 a.m. Relayed by PAA 739 to San Francisco: We will give you the latest dope but it looks bad right now. 4:19 a.m. From Pontchartrain: PAA 943 dumping fuel. Will definitely ditch. 4:47 a.m. Relayed by PAA 25V: PAA 943 is debating decision whether to ditch now or wait until sunrise. Guard ship advises that conditions are excellent now. 5:01 a.m. Relayed by PAA 25V: PAA 943 advising Coast Guard they will definitely have to ditch. Will be unable to make Sfran or Hono with amount of fuel remaining. Still airborne. 5:10 a.m. From Pontchartrain: Clipper 943 now orbiting in area. Considering trying to stay aloft until daylight. 7:57 a.m. From Pontchartrain: He will ditch in approximately 25 minutes. 8:09 a.m. From Pontchartrain: Ditching in five minutes. 8:15 a.m. From Pontchartrain: The plane has ditched. It broke in half on contact. 8:21 a.m. From Pontchartrain: The plane has ditched. Have four rafts in water. Many survivors apparent. Have two rescue boats in water. All possible rescue gear. The plane broke off at the tail. 8:43 a.m. From Pontchartrain: The bow stove in on ditching. Tail sank almost immediately. The plane sank in about 21 minutes. We rescued all survivors aboard. There are 31 survivors. 8:43 a.m. From Pontchartrain: All I can say is 'Thank God' and out. Note: All are West Coast times.
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: cotejy on February 04, 2009, 03:04:19 PM
Wow, what a wonderful story. And the video! That guy took the time to compliment the boat beauty before ditching. ::bow:: ::bow::
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: spacer on February 04, 2009, 05:25:26 PM
Seems to me that, in this case, his sailplane experience factored in pretty heavily. Those guys have to make land-out decisions frequently.
Also, he's now an honorary lifetime member of the Seaplane Pilots Association:
Quote
SPA and Jack Brown’s Seaplane Base Honor Heroic Water Landing Written by James McManus Jan 20, 2009 at 09:32 PM
January 19, 2009: USAirways Captain Chelsey Sullenberger was awarded a lifetime membership in the Seaplane Pilots Association in recognition for his extraordinary airmanship, seamanship, and decision-making, saving hundreds of lives in his emergency landing of Flight 1549 in the Hudson River on January 15. Jack Brown's Seaplane Base, in Winter Haven, FL, joined SPA in honoring Sulley with a complimentary seaplane rating course. Jon Brown promised Capt. Sullenberger that he would enjoy his future water landings much more than his first. We all salute you, Captain Sullenberger.
...and ICE, do´'t forget the Ice!!! Tastes great...ditching in my tub now... ::rofl:: ::rofl:: ::rofl::
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Ragwing on June 09, 2009, 04:10:57 AM
The immigrant birds were from Canada, not France.
Smithsonian Institution scientists say it was migratory Canada geese -- and not resident Canada geese -- that caused US Airways Flight 1549 to ditch in New York's Hudson River on January 15.
At least two female and one male geese were flying at approximately 2,900 feet were from Labrador, Canada.
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Rooster Cruiser on June 09, 2009, 05:16:36 AM
Hmmmmmmmmmm... There are a few holes in these researchers' statements:
Quote
At the time of the US Airways bird strike, the flock was in the upper limits of their flying abilities, the Smithsonian said. About "3,000 feet is pretty much their limit," Dove said.
This is inaccurate. I have personally had close encounters with flocks of Canada geese at altitudes as high as 8,000 feet over North Dakota during migration season. USAF statistics have suggested that most birdstrike incidents occur within 3,000 feet of the surface, but this is not conclusive by any means.
RC
Title: Re: Hudson river ditching
Post by: Jean Loup on June 10, 2009, 09:39:01 PM
¿Where are thou, Nils Holgersson? (http://images.travbuddy.com/1362404_12060528593084.jpg) Last seen: near Selma Lagerlöf's house.
We need thou, for guiding geese migrants away from airline invaders...
(from Wikipedia): (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Nils_Holgerssons_underbara_resa_genom_Sverige.jpg) Literature Nobel Prize 1909 The Wonderful Adventures of Nils (Orig. Nils Holgerssons underbara resa genom Sverige) is a famous work of fiction by the Swedish author Selma Lagerlöf, published in two parts in 1906 and 1907. The background for publication was a commission from the National Teachers Association in 1902 to write a geography reader for the public schools.
"She devoted three years to Nature study and to familiarizing herself with animal and bird life. She has sought out hitherto unpublished folklore and legends of the different provinces. These she has ingeniously woven into her story." (From translator Velma Swanston Howard's introduction.)
Selma Lagerlöf, like many leading Swedish intellectuals of her time, was a friend of Swedish spelling reform. When published in 1906, this book was one of the first to adopt the new spelling mandated by a government resolution on April 7, 1906 (see Svenska Akademiens Ordlista under History).
DonYan: I am very fond of this book: I read it when I was 7 years old. It depicts scenery from the air so well...then Doctors in Pamplona burned my digestive track, (wrong medicine) and had to be flown in emergency to Madrid for medical asistance...in a Tante JÜ! a Ju 52/3m from Iberia...noisy, ice cold, drafty, shaky...was forever in love with flight after both experiences! (the book & the plane...NOT the burning!)
