Hudson river ditching

[Jean Loup]

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! 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. 

[Jean Loup]

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.

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! 

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, although larger 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 

[Rooster Cruiser]

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

[Jean Loup]

..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...
So thats why the fuselage pointed upwards! Did he leave the Simpsons?

[Oddball]

maybe wrong but i thought i heard some where the pilot was a ex USAF pilot 

[Rooster Cruiser]

maybe wrong but i thought i heard some where the pilot was a ex USAF pilot 

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...   

[Oddball]

how rare is it for both engines to be knocked out by a bird strike?

[Ragwing]

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.

[Ragwing]

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.

[Mike]

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....

[Ragwing]

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.

[Jean Loup]

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...

[Jean Loup]

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 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   at how the politicians are "hooking on" to this landing, TWO days later. Thank god the rescue was inmediate, not TWO days later...

[Jean Loup]

...The ditching term bothers me: it seems like a good/perfect acua-landing. Ditching spells like dissaster, to my untrained Latin ears...

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.

  ...I better start training  my Latin ears...

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  

[Oddball]

heard a small clip on the 10pm BBC radio 2 news i think they found the engines still attached to the pylons.