How about that big Seaplane on the Hudson?

[Muddy]

What a great pilot! His skill saved all those lives and he was the last to disembark. A real good news story so far. The Lawyers will now start to get rich as people realize that there is money to be had and the hero pilot may find he no longer has a career in aviation.

[DogOnPorch]

The pilots are indeed top notch material to pull off such a landing w/o casualties.

-------------------------------------------

1 + 1 = 3 (Political Math)

[jdobbin]

A real good news story so far.

The only problem is that Canada is being blamed.

Canada Geese, that is.

Edited January 16, 2009 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

What a great pilot! His skill saved all those lives and he was the last to disembark. A real good news story so far. The Lawyers will now start to get rich as people realize that there is money to be had and the hero pilot may find he no longer has a career in aviation.

What surpised me is despite all of the equipment added to planes for "water landings" the manufacturers of the planes expect the planes to break into pieces and sink if a water landing is actually attempted.

[August1991]

The only problem is that Canada is being blamed.

...

Canada Geese, that is.

No joke!

I was in New York today and everyone was talking about "Canada Geese" (at most, asking whether it was a "Canada Goose"). I simply answered that we Canadians call it a "Siberian Cold".

-----

Three points that I have heard.

One. The Airbus has a simple switch that allows a pilot to close all external fuselage openings.

Two. The cabin staff were trained to open only the front doors, not any others, so that the plane could float until it sank from the rear.

Three. Simulation is everything for pilots now. Compared to other potential catastrophes, pilots cannot simulate a crash landing on water because not enough data is available. This pilot did this by the seat of his pants.

----

BTW, it was a tourist attraction. I saw a wing sticking out of the water.

[Muddy]

I think the pilots experience as a fighter pilot and on gliders might have made some difference.

[Wilber]

It looks as though the whole crew did a fantastic job but we won't know for sure until their actions are confirmed by the cockpit voice and flight data recorders. There has been the rare instance where in the heat of the moment with little time, altitude and conflicting information from instruments that a crew has shut down the wrong engine. No reason to suspect it in this case other than the knowledge it has been done before.

The flight crew operating manual for all airliners has an emergency procedure for a water landing. Every crew will have done the procedure in a simulator at least once on every type of aircraft they have flown and it will also be covered periodically in briefing sessions. This procedure includes configuring the aircraft to keep water out of it as much as possible after landing although reports indicate they didn't have time to do so in this case. Not really surprising. What can't be simulated beyond the theoretical is the actual effect of the water on the aircraft structure because it is such a rare occurrence and there are so many variables. The water state can have a huge effect on the result. Ditching on a calm sea, lake or river presents a good chance of survival. Ditching in large waves or swells on the open ocean is a completely different matter and would need a fair amount of luck to pull off successfully no matter how talented the pilot or strong the aircraft.

Eight intentional passenger (cargo) airliner ditchings have been documented. These figures are for intentional water ditchings, usually as a result of in-flight fuel depletion, rather than an accidental overshoot of landing runway into a body of water. The following figures show survival rates for passengers and crew:

US Airways Flight 1549, Airbus A320, New York City to Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, 15 January 2009, made a controlled safe water ditch into the Hudson River after losing both engines due to running into a flock of birds at about 3000 feet altitude three minutes into the flight after a normal takeoff from LaGuardia Airport; 155 passengers and crew made an orderly evacuation as a NYC fireboat towed the floating aircraft with passengers standing on the wing, 100% survival rate

Tuninter Air, Flt. 1153, August 6, 2005, of the coast of Sicily, 39 occupants, 23 survivors, 59% survival rate

Aeroflot Tupolev 124, October, 1963, Neva river, 52 occupants, 52 survivors, 100% survival rate

ALM DC9, May 2, 1970, the Caribbean, 63 occupants, 40 survivors, 63% survival rate

Ethiopian Air Lines 767, November 23, 1996, off the Comoros Islands, 175 occupants, 45 survivors, 26% survival rate

Miami Air Lease Convair CV-340, December 4, 2004, Mall lake, Florida, 2 occupants, 2 survivors, 100% survival rate

Northwest Orient Airlines Flt. 2, Boeing Stratocruiser, April 2, 1956, ditched in the 430 feet Puget Sound, 38 passengers, all survived the ditching but 5 could not recover the freezing waters, 87% survival rate.

Pan Am Flt. 943 Boeing Stratocruiser "Sovereign of the Skies", October 16, 1956, in the Pacific between Honolulu and San Francisco, 30 passengers and crew, 30 survivors, 100% survival rate

Though not a passenger plane, still relevant - Columbian AF C 130 Hercules, October 1982, en route between the Azores and Bermuda stayed afloat for 2 days!

[August1991]

Interesting.

This procedure includes configuring the aircraft to keep water out of it as much as possible after landing although reports indicate they didn't have time to do so in this case.

That's what I heard too although the Airbus apparently has a simple switch that seals the fuselage.

I suppose that an aircraft must be fairly tight. I heard a report that a flight attendant prevented a passenger from opening a rear door (which would have inundated the aircraft faster).

It's interesting to consider that a moving plane floating on air is very much like a still plane floating on water. Planes are "rear-heavy" and if you look at rear-engined planes, the jets are tilted noticeably upwards since they must lift up the front of the plane.

What can't be simulated beyond the theoretical is the actual effect of the water on the aircraft structure because it is such a rare occurrence and there are so many variables. The water state can have a huge effect on the result. Ditching on a calm sea, lake or river presents a good chance of survival. Ditching in large waves or swells on the open ocean is a completely different matter and would need a fair amount of luck to pull off successfully no matter how talented the pilot or strong the aircraft.

This is what I heard too. I would expect that because of this event, there will be attempts to obtain data and simulate water landings.

I recall that the pilot in this incident credited simulators for being able to save the plane:

At 13,500 ft, the flight crew attempted one last engine restart procedure before turning for the ocean and the risky prospect of a ditching. Although there were guidelines, no one had ever tried it in a 747 – nor have they since.

----

The future: People will own personal flight simulators.

Edited January 20, 2009 by August1991

[Wilber]

That's what I heard too although the Airbus apparently has a simple switch that seals the fuselage.

True but I'm not exactly sure what it does. The only real holes that are open during flight are the outflow valve which controls pressurization and equipment cooling valves. Although you would want these valves closed, the aircraft must be depressurized before you can open the doors to get out.

It's interesting to consider that a moving plane floating on air is very much like a still plane floating on water. Planes are "rear-heavy" and if you look at rear-engined planes, the jets are tilted noticeably upwards since they must lift up the front of the plane.

An illusion. If the front must be lifted, it must be heavier no? The farther back you move the center of gravity the less stable an aircraft is. The latest aircraft have computer aided flight controls that allow for more aft centers of gravity but previous generations are loaded so they are slightly nose heavy for stability. Ideally you want a center of gravity which will allow the controls to remain in a neutral position reducing drag. Remember it is the wing that is flying not the fuselage. The wings angle will change with the aircraft's speed. The lower the speed, the higher angle of attack is needed by the wing to provide enough lift resulting in a more nose up attitude. Flap position also changes a wings shape and angle relative to airflow. That is why you see aircraft in a nose up attitude even though they are descending to land.

This is what I heard too. I would expect that because of this event, there will be attempts to obtain data and simulate water landings.

Maybe from an engineering point of view but when it comes to flight simulators, I doubt it. It will take one hell of a computer program and visual system to simulate ditching in different sea states. That would be really interesting.

I recall that the pilot in this incident credited simulators for being able to save the plane:

Sure, loss of all engine power and restarts are practiced in simulators. Since that and the KLM incident, volcanic ash has also become a real concern.