Nevermind, someone already mentioned it.
I don’t know how old you are, but you must be pretty young to make a statement like that. In my experience, it’s extremely rare that “everything happened the way it should have” when there are so many potentially catastrophic variables. Life doesn’t always turn out as it should, and when it does there’s reason for celebration.
You don’t get to be an airline pilot without demonstrating competence in a whole range of simulated crises. Because of this - and extensive continuing training and evaluation in the correct handling of emergencies - such folks tend to be quite a bit better than average at this sort of thing.
Well, you have to add “without engine power.” Maintaining airspeed *is *very basic – except when you have no engines.
A full fuel tank is not more buoyant than an empty one. And without the weight of a nearly full load of fuel, the plane’s touchdown speed (and thus energy) would have been noticeably lower.
No, airspeed is very largely controlled by angle of attack - engine power doesn’t have much to do with it. Speed in an unpowered glide is controlled in the same way as when power is available - basically, with the [misnamed] elevator.
It’s not about heros, really, it’s about idolatry.
Truthfully, I’m not sure that I thought that the Inauguration was an occassion where there was any reason to have VIP spots for people who aren’t Very Important Politicians (and possibly wives/husbands or children of politicians). And I’m not sure how prominent the location for the Pilot and Crew were.
And I can’t remember the last time I watched the kick-off events at the Super Bowl, so I don’t know if they’ve honored folk in that manner before. But the Super Bowl is 90% entertainment and 10% football, so it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if they kept their “heros” to entertainment or football “heros”.
You forgot to mention the sudden death hanging over every single fucking pin
Airline pilots are great pilots, well trained and practice landing their aircraft … a lot… Now go ask them how many times they do it perfect even in perfect conditions with no pressure. Doesn’t make much difference what you and the media and the President thinks, it is what the other pilots think and it seems a large majority think he done real good, don’t what to have to prove they can do it too and do not begrudge him a little time in the sun. Is he a hero? Not to you … Fine with me… But… If he is to others, where do you get off telling them they should not think so…???
I have been a pilot for a long time, many landings, not airline but this guy would come as close to being a ‘hero’ IMO as most anybody you could think of that is still living. And he is acting, IMO, as a true hero would …
I truly hope those that think it was no big deal don’t choke when it is their turn …
Most professional pilots like to think that they could do as well as he did but are secretly hoping that they never have to prove it…
I don’t think several weeks of adoration is needed exactly. He did what any pilot put into that position should have done. Nice job, pat on the back, get over it.
Who are you telling to get over it? I don’t mean this snarkily but I wouldn’t exactly call the crew famewhores. If you mean the media, well they don’t get over anything easily. In fact, if there is a continued media attention to the crew, it may then turn into “the secret dark side” of the hero pilot.
A good bowler can take his/her time, concentrate and make a strike. By itself it’s not a huge event. Bowling a perfect game is very difficult. His decisions were perfect. I’ve had check rides by high time airline pilots who misjudged the distance to the airport in an engine failure test. We would not have made the airport had I not still had engine power available.
When he committed to the river he would not have been able to see all the traffic on it at altitude. If he had to alter his approach by banking left/right it would have changed the overall trim of the plane. A good approach lines you up on the correct glide slope and you have the advantage of making minor corrections using the VASI lights. He had no visual references and it was not a standard approach. His glide slope was made much steeper by the loss of power. Even more so with the additional fuel on board.
While the size of the river would suggest a bigger runway he was landing where he was landing. He didn’t have a huge choice. He was flying with the wheels up and no power and that completely changes the flying characteristics of the plane. He only had one shot at it. There isn’t an airline pilot on the planet that consistently makes smooth landings. This wasn’t the case of an “acceptable” landing, he had to grease it in. If the air speed bleeds off too fast he has to increase the descent rate.
No, that’s just not true. Pilots make small corrections all the way down to the runway. Any little gust of wind changes the level of the wings. Years ago I worked for an airline that upgraded their DC8’s with the turbofans (like the A320) that hung lower on the wing. We lost a number of engine cowls to “normal” landings. This landing had to be dead level.
All it would have taken was a cockpit discussion of where to land, an initial turn to Teterboro, or a bad trim setting. If you read the transcripts of tragic accidents you’ll often see critical time used up in the cockpit while the crew tries to get control of the situation. I’ve been in a bad situation made worse by mis-communication with the tower where the end result was a rattled pilot and an incredibly bad landing.
Flight crews are people and I guarantee you this was the most stressful event of their lives by many factors. I’ve seen airline pilots with many times my logged hours make mistakes WITHOUT being stressed out.
What’s amazing is that he made a non-standard approach perfectly with a heavy plane (still had take-off fuel) into water where he attempted to bleed all forward speed off while maintaining a perfectly level plane.
A/C are fueled for the length of flight so that the plane doesn’t land heavy. This landing involved the takeoff weight and would have made the angle of approach steeper to maintain air speed. His intent was flare so the tail hit first but not so hard that it was destructive. This was done without power and the wheels up which changes the flight characteristics greatly. The landing was a guess on his part both in the level of impact and the control input. He had one chance to do this and any corrections in the final flare were done in milliseconds. It would be like a bowler knowingly slipping in water while releasing the ball.
Yes, airspeed is controlled by angle of attack. Without power that makes the angle of attack steeper and the approach a one shot, winner-take-all obstacle course of bridges, boats, prevailing winds, and non-standard control settings. Al this for a landing based on a guess of how hard he could strike the water in an attempt to slow the plane further before the engines grabbed.
Yah, I thought of it after the edit window closed. I’ve personally been in a twin engine aircraft at 1500 ft AGL at night when both engnes quit. Luckily the pilot got one engine restarted but in those few seconds of silence I sucked my wallet up into a place it wasn’t meant to go.
Yes, I mean the media and everyone who keeps inviting him to every event like the SuperBowl and whatnot. They’re milking this guy’s accomplishment for everything it’s worth.
You are missing that aircraft are not designed to land in the water and when they do, it often looks like this.
Considering all the things that could have gone wrong, it’s probably a bigger deal than anything you or I or anyone in this board has done or will ever do in their lifetime.
This thread puts me in the position of sounding like a detractor, whereas I actually believe the flight crew deserves enormous praise. (Though I do think a full month of it is a bit over the top.)
They were excellent, but not perfect (there’s that reported failure to close the ditching valve).
Would have been little problem had your runway been the size of the Hudson River.
Had there been lots of river traffic, the outcome might have been different. Fortunately, the necessary area was clear.
Right, but then there also wasn’t the need for any precision in the place where he touched down.
And through a combination of skill and luck (e.g. no last-second problem gust) it was.
I see a distinction between mistakes and outright panic.
I’m sure you’re right, and I suspect even the pilot would say that he wasn’t confident it would work until the spray subsided with the plane intact.
Classical theory says that AOA (angle at which the relative wind meets the wing) is a function of airspeed and wingloading, but not power.
I think it’s been established that neither bridges nor boats were a problem. I’ve heard no reports that the wind was a significant issue.
Your first link was specifically what the Captain said he was trying to avoid. The second video :eek:. How the F!@k do you get to fly a jet like that and be that stupid?
That looks just like work of the blow-up autopilot on Airplane!.
Maybe the OP would have been impressed if Sully had crawled out on the wing to fix the engine in flight and then landed on the GW Bridge?
I like how the guy in my second link didn’t bother to turn the engines off.
But it is a big deal. It’s THE MIRACLE ON THE HUDSON. Sez the media.