U.S. Airways Jet Down in Hudson River

[Cat Driver]

Thanks Sky's the Limit:

Contrite before you insult me again I would suggest you come visit me at my home as STL has done.

Trying to discuss these issues with someone who uses a vacuum from which to present their position is a waste of my time. ( Vacuum as in anonymity. )

I would like to dissect this paragraph you wrote then you and I are finished with this subject.

Human factors are, in fact, important; because one fundamental tenet of the process is that we default to the way we have always done it. If the answer is to count on “common sense” and “problem solving”, then studies and actual experience show time after time that this method is deeply flawed.

Like in the case of the pilot that saved all these lives, huh, he just defaulted to the way he always reacted when he had two engines fail over the greater New York area and problem solving was a result of all that human factors training he had received.....common sense intirgrated with experience had nothing to do with it.

When you’ve got 15 seconds or so to solve a problem, and it takes about 10 seconds to actually absorb the problem and move your limbs, there is not much time left for cogitation.

Maybe for you.

In this case, you have a fighter pilot who has been trained to deal with situations that change from one second to the next, long before civvie-street knew how to spell “human factors”.

Explain civvie-street, is that somewhere way down there below your lofty position in aviation where us peasants work?

By the way don't bother to respond because I am not interested.

[KnownIce]

When you’ve got 15 seconds or so to solve a problem, and it takes about 10 seconds to actually absorb the problem and move your limbs, there is not much time left for cogitation.

Maybe for you.

Best reply ever.

[sky's the limit]

Nothing was said about anyone’s skill or experience. What was said is that the remarks reminded me of something. Jumping down my throat for expressing this is perhaps to commit the same thing of which I am accused.

My concern with it is that the denigration of human factors, CRM and SOPs, coming as it is from experienced and skillful aviators, will leave the impression that it is acceptable to flaunt them.

Contrite,

A couple things.

I in no way "jumped down your throat." If you want to see what that looks like, reference some discussions in Misc. with Mcrit.... That's as "kid gloves" as I can get.

I looked back through this thread to read Cat Driver's posts that you refer to. When you say "nothing was said about skill or experience," I disagree. The things Cat Driver is saying come FROM skill and experience. As I mentioned above, Human Factors training has a valuable place at the table, but it is only one place, and in many applications (like bush work, or helicopter flying) that place is set with a Happy Meal instead of a Big Mac Combo if you follow me. Conversely, many areas of aviation place too much importance (imho) on these types of (human factors) training in lieu of hard and fast experiences built over time. Raw piloting skills have taken a back seat these days.

The "degeneration of human factors" is not the goal here. The goal is simply to point out that they perhaps have taken over too large a place at that "table" I refer to, and as this industry is still fairly young, perhaps it is an over-compensation in some way for the spate of accidents over the years in complex machinery. Do you need to be an ex-bush pilot to fly an airliner? Of course not, as is proven every day. That said, I have always subscribed to the notion that a broad base of skills and experience would serve me well in any application from airplanes to helicopters, IFR to VFR, straight and level to aerobatics and aerial construction work. It has so far.

I think part of the frustration with the weight placed on Human Factors training is that it does not, in many cases exist within that broad base of skills and experience. Alone, it is not enough. If people like Cat can influence younger pilots to take responsibility for their own development, then perhaps we can start to place a greater emphasis on traditional flying skills again, and thus ensure that broad based approach which can only serve us well. They are not mutually exclusive areas.

That is what is being advocated by Cat, and people like myself.

stl

[mcconnell14]

more video

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/17/usair. ... index.html

[Cat Driver]

That is what is being advocated by Cat, and people like myself.

We both are trying to point out that if the industry drifts to a default position where all you see talked about are reliance on human factors training with knee jerk jargon like PDM CRM SOP'S ad nauseam, in many cases taught by people who have never been very far from the class room you end up with trained monkeys. Trained monkeys will revert to the " tilt " mode when faced with something their class room experts never taught them.

[contrite]

Thank you, Cat and STL, for your thoughtful and measured responses. If the discussion on this and other topics were maintained at this level, then it would truly be a source of varied information from which others could form a reasoned opinion.

We as a species are always on the look out for the “next greatest thing”, something that in one stroke will solve all of our problems with minimal effort or cost. When we hit upon something, we do indeed tend to go overboard and too-heartily embrace it, often to the exclusion of what got us there. Human factors training, as a formal discipline, is one of those things. The fact, however, that we may have been initially overzealous in our application of it does not mean it should be marginalized below its value, now that we have gone beyond the novelty of it.

The other aspect of such new ideas is that most of us to some extent have practiced them prior to their “discovery”. By formalizing it, we can take the skills that people such as you have instinctively applied for years, and teach these to others that are new to the job.

Of course, stick and rudder skills are vital, as are the many other facets of the numerous forms of flight operations being conducted every day by sincere and thoughtful people. I too lament the “spoon-feed me” approach that some take to training, doing just enough to check the box rather than truly learning their craft. But sometimes, no matter how comprehensive the training or great the skill, things we haven’t contemplated happen at the most inconvenient times; there is always room for the hand of God to occasionally place our Airbus gently into the Hudson.

[Doc]

contrite, your posts are quite eloquent. Your command of the language, very good. You do make very valid points. There is indeed a place (a very big place) for understanding "human factors", CRM, SOP's, CRM, PDM, Check lists and all that other stuff.
Allow me to back track slightly. The first thing a guy like our US Airways Captain thinks when an engine goes out is something like...."I hate it when that happens, check list please......" Now, when the second one quits immediately after the first (and you only have the two) at a very low altitude, his long and extensive experience immediately kicks in. He would take control of the rapidly deteriorating situation and, become a "pilot". At this point, there is no time to refer to check lists. There are SOP's in place for double engine failures, but not much time to go through or adhere to them to the letter. It's (at this point) time to "fly" the airplane. That is, toss the new shit out the window, and kick it "old school", because that's all he has time for.
Contrite.....this guy had the basic skill set to operate the aircraft in the "old fashioned" way. And that fact, and only that fact, allowed all those people to see another sunrise.

I posted this before I read your latest post....what's this "hand of god" crap??

[MichaelP]

As an aside, I remember Tim on the television news after he saved the day landing the two week old Airbus 340 at Heathrow with one leg jammed up.
They flew around a while to work out what to do, they had time, and it was decided to retract the centre main leg as well.
It could not have happened with a better pilot. Tim's other aircraft is a Sukhoi SU26!

The TV gave him hero status, Tim is a shy chap and answered that he as only saving his own neck as well! He was doing his job and thought nothing of it.

Then the reporters went to see his ex-wife who told them all the negative things, particularly about his 'always flying', thought more of aeroplanes than anything else, sentiments I've heard a million times in the past.

Doing ones job, and surviving to become a hero might be hazardous afterwards!

[Cat Driver]

there is always room for the hand of God to occasionally place our Airbus gently into the Hudson.

In fifty five years of flying in every conceivable environment I can not ever recall God helping me fly the thing, be it in thunderstorms over the South Atlantic, white outs in the high Arctic, dust storms in the Sahara or any of the thousands of difficult situations I lived through.

[Widow]

Don't laugh.....most of what they are saying is true. The A320 has a "ditching switch".

While it doesn't mean the airplane becomes a boat that they can paddle around in indefinatly, it does close all vents and openings to help the aircraft stay afloat a lot longer than if they were all open.

This is very interesting. I (with my personal "experience") couldn't help but wonder how such a huge aircraft managed to stay afloat for so long ...

[Doc]

there is always room for the hand of God to occasionally place our Airbus gently into the Hudson.

In fifty five years of flying in every conceivable environment I can not ever recall God helping me fly the thing, be it in thunderstorms over the South Atlantic, white outs in the high Arctic, dust storms in the Sahara or any of the thousands of difficult situations I lived through.

So then, you'd be removing the GOD IS MY CO PILOT stickers from the bumper of the Edsel then?

[Rockie]

In truth, I don't know how much stick and rudder was involved anyway. The Hudson's about 20 miles long in a pretty straight line where he was, and it even looks like a smooth runway. All he had to do stick and rudder wise is flare just off the water and wait for the airspeed to run out. I think where he really shone is in quickly realizing that a real runway was no longer possible, and immediately opting for the next best thing with no hesitation or squeamishness.

Decision making and prioritizing. And recognizing that the answer to their dilemma wouldn't be found on the ECAM or in the QRH.

[Cat Driver]

Decision making and prioritizing. And recognizing that the answer to their dilemma wouldn't be found on the ECAM or in the QRH.

Exactly,

Once the decision was made the actual gliding to the landing was not what saved everyone it was the decision to do it........but I must admit for his first water landing in a A320 he didn't do to bad.

Now that I think about it when the voice prompt said " retard " he didn't even have to do that.

[sportingrifle]

Widow....The answer to your question is that the A-320 fuselage was not corroded to paper thin dust and consequently remained structurally intact after impact. It probably helped that both the relatively heavy engines broke off leaving a semi-watertight hollow aluminum structure half occupied by lighter than water fuel.

As previously alluded to, the ditching switch closes all the adjustable openings in the fuselage - outflow valves, pressure relief valve, avionics cooling vents, etc. One catch to using the switch is that the doors can't be opened if the airplane is pressurized, even slightly. Whether the crew had time to use this feature, start the apu, (it takes about 55 seconds) etc will be interesting but at the end of the day, it's all icing on the cake. As Rockie pointed out, the real shining moment was abandoning any idea of getting to an airport and commiting themselves to ending up on the front page. Had they not done this, and tried for an airport at all costs, this could have been an entirely different outcome.

Cheers Sportingrifle.

[flyincanuck]

some ATC stuff...not too interesting and i can`t hear anything from US Airways...mostly other planes looking for em. Fast forward to 1:25.

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php ... ttach=2260

or

http://www.liveatc.net/recordings.php

[raven54]

I believe they are saying only 1 engine split company with the wing.

[hawker driver]

Here is a link to a story of an aircraft going into the river in the Soviet Union 45 years ago and all survived.

http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/36011


I love the part about the FO going to the cabin to talk to the passengers and distract them while the captain ditched in the river.

[crazy_aviator]

I saw a video of the landing and it appeared that the plane was in a moderately nose high attitude and that the aft fusulage touchdown initiated a gentle roll forward action ,,,onto the wings , which further reduced speed and absorbed the shock, then the whole body of the A/C felt the lighter shock of landing on hard water. Due to inertia and the SLOW vertical descent at the last moment ,,,MAYBE this nose high position was the best way to do it ??
On another note, Time between engine ingestion and turn back to airport ??? Most pilots in large airliners dont do a Sukkoi roll and pull when 1 of 2 very reliable engines hiccups and neither would he UNLESS he knew he would have 2 engines ingesting birds ,which is highly unlikely even though he reported bird strike . Theoretically, IF he banked and cranked when the first engine got hit, could they have made it to the nearest airport ?

[hydro]

Co-pilot Jeff Skiles, who was flying the plane, saw the birds coming in perfect formation, and made note of it. Sullenberger looked up, and in an instant his windscreen was filled with big, dark-brown birds.

"His instinct was to duck," said NTSB board member Kitty Higgins, recounting their interview. Then there was a thump, the smell of burning birds, and silence as both aircraft engines cut out.

Question for you airline types ... If the (experienced) first officer was flying the plane originally, Is it standard procedure that the captain would take over control of flying plane in the event of an emergency? Or is it a case of 'it depends'?

hydro

[Siddley Hawker]

Question for you airline types ... If the (experienced) first officer was flying the plane originally, Is it standard procedure that the captain would take over control of flying plane in the event of an emergency? Or is it a case of 'it depends'?

This from PPRuNe, if it'll help ya. Sounds reasonable.

Higgins in 8 PM EST interview says:
Both pilots saw birds at at time of impact. They covered the windscreen.
FO was flying; Pilot said "My Plane"; FO said "Your Plane".
FO used checklist to try restart.
Pilot radioed LGA, "too far, too low, too many buildings".
TEB, 'not familiar, too far, congested area' "Its the Hudson"

[Rockie]

Co-pilot Jeff Skiles, who was flying the plane, saw the birds coming in perfect formation, and made note of it. Sullenberger looked up, and in an instant his windscreen was filled with big, dark-brown birds.

"His instinct was to duck," said NTSB board member Kitty Higgins, recounting their interview. Then there was a thump, the smell of burning birds, and silence as both aircraft engines cut out.

Question for you airline types ... If the (experienced) first officer was flying the plane originally, Is it standard procedure that the captain would take over control of flying plane in the event of an emergency? Or is it a case of 'it depends'?

hydro

Depends. However in the case of a dual engine flameout you also lose both AC generators which drives the airplane into emergency electrical configuration. With that only the Captain's flight instruments are powered even with the emergency generator running. So he takes over.

Abnormals are dealt with while keeping the original PF/PNF whoever that may be at the time of the failure, unless circumstances like those above force the Captain to take control of the aircraft. After the abnormal is secure then it is of course up to the Captain who will fly the aircraft. In most cases the FO would fly leaving the Captain free to think and juggle all the rest of the balls that need to be taken care of. Since he's the guy having to make the decisions it makes little sense for him to also be tasked with flying the aircraft when there is another guy there who can do that.

Having said that though, I can't imagine a Captain not taking over for a landing under difficult circumstances.

[FICU]

In any emergency that involves a landing such as a partial gear up, ditching, or flight control issue the Captain, if able, should fly the aircraft. Why? Because if he or she allowed the F/O to fly and something went very wrong the first person they would point the finger at is the Captain and ask why they weren't in control.

As the Captain you are responsible so if something goes bad it was in your hands and neither you nor anyone would have reason to second guess the decision.

[Cat Driver]

I am quite surprised to see the right engine is still on the wing, just saw a picture of it lifted high enough to see the engine is still there.

[Intentional Left Bank]

Now that I think about it when the voice prompt said " retard " he didn't even have to do that.

Funny.

In seriousness though, would the "retard" prompt occur in an off-strip landing, or would the GPWS recognize the situation as a CFIT and yell multiple profanities in objection to the manoevre? Apparently that was an annoyance going into Prince George after the runway was lengthened and before the GPWS database was updated.

[metal]

I am quite surprised to see the right engine is still on the wing, just saw a picture of it lifted high enough to see the engine is still there.

Got a link to the pics of it getting hoisted out?