US Airways Jet crashes in Hudson River

[Bj]

Do you think she'll be salvaged and fly again?

I really really doubt it. That's almost like asking NASA to use Columbia parts to re-build a shuttle.


Since everyone is all right, I wonder how big the bonus is going to be for the pilot?

 

[Hielor]

That accident reminds me on a similar that I have in my YouTube favorites:

Poor birds...

Difference there was that had nothing to do with birds, and that was pilot error iirc (landing with the wind instead of into the wind)

 

[Eagle]

That accident reminds me on a similar that I have in my YouTube favorites:
YouTube - Citation in the Drink!


Poor birds...

Wow, did NOT expect the plane to do that! Beached the plane under its own power.

Even if the airframe is too stressed, I would still expect parts of the engines and hydraulics to be reused. Maybe the rest sold to a movie prop company.

 

[Hielor]

Wow, did NOT expect the plane to do that! Beached the plane under its own power.

...Um, what?

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, bad bad bad landing, but he gets some bonus points for the most innovative idea to make the situation worse afterwards.

 

[Pilot7893]

Hadn't those pilots heard the word?

 

[Zatnikitelman]

From what I was able to tell from CNN and from my limited knowledge of flight and such. I don't think he would have been able to make it back to an airport. Frankly, I'm glad he was able to avoid Manhattan island AND splash-land where EVERYONE (haven't heard differently yet) managed to literally walk out. Dude deserves a medal. In those big commercial planes, once your engines are gone, that's it, gliders they ain't.
If anyone's read Apollo 13 ("Lost Moon") the part early on talking about Jim Lovell investigating Ted Freeman's crash it heavily implies that even a fighter-like T-38 will start decelerating rapidly once its engines are gone.

 

[Moonwalker]

Difference there was that had nothing to do with birds, and that was pilot error iirc (landing with the wind instead of into the wind)

Landing with tailwind isn't necessarily a problem as long as it is within the margin, which is mostly about 10 knots for take off and landing (even for heavy passenger aircraft), and if you have enough runway length available.

In case of the Cessna Citation accident, the availabe runway length was too short slightly + tailwind + the pilot touched down 1000 feet beyond the approach end.


-----Post Added-----

In those big commercial planes, once your engines are gone, that's it, gliders they ain't.
If anyone's read Apollo 13 ("Lost Moon") the part early on talking about Jim Lovell investigating Ted Freeman's crash it heavily implies that even a fighter-like T-38 will start decelerating rapidly once its engines are gone.

Aerodynamics of small fighter-like jets are not comparable with aerodynamics of big commercial airplanes (but the Airbus A320 is not big, it's medium, and compared to a 747 or A380 even small). Commercial airplanes don't crash in any case just because engine power is lost. The Airbus A320 actually has a good gliding capability (just like almost any Boeing and Airbus aircraft), as long as enough altitude is available, which is not the case during very early climb of course. The higher you fly, the better the chances for a relatively safe landing (if you have a suitable spot) even without any engine power. But take off and landing are the most critical phases anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

 

[Urwumpe]

How was the joke...

A B-52 and a F-111 fly over Vietnam, with the F-111 pilot flying loops and circles around the older bomber, taunting it over radio "nanana, everything you can, I can do better."
"Really everything?"
"Sure as hell!"
Short pause
"Try this!"
Longer pause. Nothing happens.
"What did you do? Fly straight and level?"
"We just shutdown two engines. It's your turn."

 

[cjp]

Yes, kudos to the pilots. I have no idea how they managed to do a safe water landing. It could also have been something like this:
[ame="http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=3zuLP-QYiy0"]YouTube - plane lands on water[/ame]

Also kudos to the ferry operators, to immediately offer assistance.

 

[tl8]

While on F-111s and bird strikes, this was a good one last year:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/gallery/0,23816,5031080-952-4,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23564406-5001021,00.html

 

[Bj]

Which flight was that?

just found this;

Birtd+Airplane = Danger

That bird is cooked

 

[Moonwalker]

Yes, kudos to the pilots. I have no idea how they managed to do a safe water landing. It could also have been something like this:
YouTube - plane lands on water

Also kudos to the ferry operators, to immediately offer assistance.

Well, if the sea is rough and if you hit the surface with the left wing first, there is almost no chance not to crash.

I think that the A320 hit the surface of the Hudson River almost wings level with relatively low speed.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19961123-0

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

It could also have been something like this:

Or like this?

But seriously, indeed good to see all survived this accident today, I also wonder what technique was used to land safely on water..

 

[Moonwalker]

Which flight was that?

It's a Thomsonfly Boeing 757, but I don't know the flight number. The crew performed well, just like during routine-training in the simulator.

Here is a full video inlcuding landing:

 

[Eagle]

post removed

 

[Moonwalker]

Another few bird strikes:

This was filmed from inside the aircraft. During landing and taxi in you can hear the PTU (Power Transfer Unit) of the hydraulic system, caused by loss of hydraulic system pressure due to engine shut down:

 

[Zatnikitelman]

No doubt commercial airliners can glide better than say the Orbiter, or Apollo CM, but at the low altitude and where it crashed, I highly doubt that anything except a purpose-built glider could have turned back to KLGL and that's without aligning with the runway or anything. The Gligi (sp) glider is a shining exmaple of what commercial airliners are capable of but it was at cruising altitude and speed and could maintain a descent on one engine till about 28,000 ft where it finally quit.

 

[Moonwalker]

No doubt commercial airliners can glide better than say the Orbiter, or Apollo CM, but at the low altitude and where it crashed, I highly doubt that anything except a purpose-built glider could have turned back to KLGL and that's without aligning with the runway or anything. The Gligi (sp) glider is a shining exmaple of what commercial airliners are capable of but it was at cruising altitude and speed and could maintain a descent on one engine till about 28,000 ft where it finally quit.

and continued a stable descent and landing with no engine power. That's why I wrote that enough altitude has to be available. And the Gimli glider was not the only airliner which did a landing without any power. Hapag Lloyd 3378 even lost complete engine power 12NM distance to its destination.

BTW, the Apollo CM has nothing do to with the Space Shuttle (beside going into space) and less than ever anything with airplanes on the whole.

 

[BHawthorne]

Considering all that occured here, I donno if the OP title should call it a "crash". IMHO, it's a damned perfect water landing, not a crash.