U.S. Airways Jet Down in Hudson River

[ehbuddy]

NTSB confirmed that both engines lost power at exactly the same time.

[crazy_aviator]

Cat, just speculating but perhaps the shearing of the engine mount bolts are oriented for rotational mass imbalance as would happen with a multiple blade failure on one side of the engine ? Bolt and fitting tolerance , age and maintenance errors could result in different forces being required to break either engines mount bolts. I believe the engine bolts are designed to break off BEFORE the wing structure is jeopardized . In this accident, the inboard wing appears intact. On another Note , Those Canadian geese must have been well fed , seeing as how they are a national icon , up there with the beaver and the maple leaf !! ( 4 legged beaver)

[Cat Driver]

O.K. as long as everyone here understands that I am only posing a possibility based on what I have observed airplanes to do when landing on the water.

Here is one possibility that seems to me could have caused the left engine to separate and the right one to stay on.

When you look at the engine nacelles from the sides they have a smooth curve upward to the intake lip.

At water contact if the left wing was just a fraction lower that the right wing and the water entered the intake a fraction of a second before the right engine there would be an immediate yaw to the left with the result being a further lowering of that wing.

The right engine nacelle could then momentarily have " skied " just long enough for the deceleration forces to have reduced just enough to not meet the shear point of the bolts as the engine submersed .

There seems to have been a yaw to the left just as it slowed down which could be the result of the left wing having been lower in the water which was first started by the momentary skiing of the right engine nacelle...once the right engine entered the water it would have helped counter the dragging left wing with no engine attached.

There I probably should not have posted that but based on my experience flying sea planes that could be what happened.....

For sure he had the touch down attitude correct because the airplane did not self destruct.

[sky's the limit]

Am I really the only one who thinks it's rubbish for a few birds to be able to induce a double engine failure on a 320? Jets chew through birds on a daily basis and you never even hear of a single engine failure, I really thought these fans were held to a higher standard.

I thought the same thing until they said "flock of geese"... they're big birds.

Perhaps they were British, frozen geese?

Just a thought...


stl

[crazy_aviator]

A wise and thoughtful postulation Cat !

[Cat Driver]

A wise and thoughtful postulation Cat !

But only one of many possibilities.

I still have friends in Toulouse at Airbus so I will be really interested in the final report.

However next to the fact so many lives were saved will be the new training procedures that will be put in place for the ditching of such a complex airplane......and many more pilots will now look out their windows in these airliners and look for possible emergency landing spots....because two engines can fail.

[adhc2]

As a float plane driver I concur with the catman,s hypothesis. I submit that at the time of the event the water was flat, and that being the case the attitude at touch down would be even more critical. Of course with flat water conditions there is more drag effect when contacting the surface, and it is clear that the engines hang below the bottom of the fuse. It follows that some luck was also on there side even if the nacelles worked like sponsons.

Not having flown a flying boat my question to the catman is how significant is the yaw on a flying boat
if a sponson contacts the water at high speed?

[swordfish]

Rockie said:

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.

I agree completely, Rockie. After flying the jets for so long, it must be hard to act (fly) in non-instinctive ways, or out-of-character with years of training and rides....landing on water with a much lower visual picture of the 'runway', yet holding the optimal attitude.

Several years ago, a QF pilot rejected a 747 takeoff at Sydney and saved everyone's life by applying the brakes fully immediately. Apparently they never do this in a 747 in normal ops.

[Cat Driver]

Not having flown a flying boat my question to the catman is how significant is the yaw on a flying boat
if a sponson contacts the water at high speed?

It all depends on the attitude when the sponson contacts the water and how hard the contact is.

In the normal 3 to 5 degree nose up attitude the sponson will just ride on top of the water.

However if the sponson contacts the water in a flat or nose down attitude the yaw will be violent and generally results in a water loop. ( I have personally never had that thrill but have known of others who have. )

So it would be much like the description I posed of the engines on the Bus, as long as it is " skiing " the yaw produced is controllable with rudder but as soon as the water gets into the inlet lip it becomes catastrophic.

[Changes in Latitudes]

Looks like that rear crumple is where the fuselage first made contact with the water. The video seems to support that as well. Gives a good idea of the pitch attitude required to pull this one off.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f9d_1232215032

[gasper]

Interestingly, in the most recent issue of the Transport Canada Aviation Safety Letter, author Bruce MacKinnon (Wildlife Control Specialist for Transport Canada) says that (on page 7):

Q. - Are bird strikes more likely to occur to wing-mounted turbofan engines or fuselage-mounted turbofan engines?

Answer - Wing-mounted engines were five times more likely to have a bird strike compared to fuselage-mounted engines, based on an analysis of engine strikes per 100,000 movements for commercial air carriers in the USA from 1990 to 1999.

[floatingbeaver]

CNN just reporting the same aircraft had compressor stall 2 days prior to Hudson river incident.
Just heard it on Cnn but have not found it on their website. They quote a passenger who was on the same aircraft two days prior confirming this was the same A320 that went into the drink. Tsb says they will be looking at all maintenance leading up to the day of incident. Shall be interesting to see how the rest unfolds. Congats to the crew on a job well done!

[Changes in Latitudes]

They quote a passenger who was on the same aircraft two days prior confirming this was the same A320 that went into the drink.

US Airways has about 75 A320 aircraft, for the average passenger to make such an astute observation is a bit strange.

[Widow]

Passengers report scare on earlier US Airways Flight 1549
Story Highlights
Three say US Airways Flight 1549 nearly made emergency landing earlier last week

Two days before last week's crash-landing, passengers report loud bang on flight

One passenger says he sent a text message to his wife: "I love you"

By Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost
CNN Special Investigations Unit
(CNN) -- Two days before US Airways Flight 1549 crashed into the Hudson River, passengers on the same route and same aircraft say they heard a series of loud bangs and the flight crew told them they could have to make an emergency landing, CNN has learned.

Steve Jeffrey of Charlotte, North Carolina, told CNN he was flying in first class Tuesday when, about 20 minutes into the flight, "it sounded like the wing was just snapping off."

"The red lights started going on. A little pandemonium was going on," Jeffrey recalled.

He said the incident occurred over Newark, New Jersey, soon after the plane -- also flying as Flight 1549 -- had taken off from LaGuardia Airport in New York.

"It seemed so loud, like luggage was hitting the side but times a thousand. It startled everyone on the plane," Jeffrey said. "We started looking at each other. The stewardesses started running around. They made an announcement that 'everyone heard the noise, we're going to turn around and head back to LaGuardia and check out what happened.'

"I fly about 50 to 60 times per year, and I've never heard a noise so loud," he said. "It wasn't turbulence, it wasn't luggage bouncing around. It was just completely like the engine was thrown against the side of the plane. It just -- it didn't shake the plane but it shook you out of the seat when you're drifting off, it really woke you up. And when it happened again, everyone just started looking at each other and there was a quiet murmuring around the plane, and you could feel the tension rising just in looking.

"I remember turning to my [business] partner and saying, 'I hope you got everything in order back home, life insurance and everything, because that didn't sound good.' "

Jeffrey said he sent a text message to his wife about a "scary, scary noise on the plane. Doesn't sound right. They're flying back to LaGuardia to check it out. I'll call you when we land. I love you."

He added, "About 10 minutes later when we never made the turn, we kept going, that's when the pilot came on and explained -- I wish I could remember the words -- I remember him using air, compression and lock -- I'm not sure the right order, but he made it sound like the air didn't get to the engine and it stalled the engine out, which he said doesn't happen all the time but it's not abnormal."

Expert Aviation Consulting, an Indianapolis, Indiana, private consulting firm that includes commercial airline pilots on its staff, said the plane that landed in the Hudson was the same one as Flight 1549 from LaGuardia two days earlier. See images from the rescue in last week's crash »

"EAC confirms that US Airways ship number N106US flew on January 13, 2009, and January 15, 2009, with the same flight number of AWE 1549 from New York's LaGuardia Airport to Charlotte Douglas [International] Airport in North Carolina," Expert Aviation said in a statement to CNN.

The company said it checked with contacts in the aviation industry to confirm that it was the same plane.

The National Transportation Safety Board released the tail number of the downed Airbus A-320, which is N106US.

NTSB spokesman Peter Knudsen said as part of its investigation into the Hudson River crash, it will be looking at all maintenance activities, but has no indications of any anomalies or any malfunctions in the aircraft, so far in the investigation.

The Federal Aviation Administration referred CNN to US Airways.

US Airways would not confirm that the Flight 1549 that took off January 13 was the same plane that splashed into the Hudson two days later.

Valerie Wunder, a US Airways spokeswoman, said: "US Air is working with the National Transportation Safety Board in this investigation." She would not comment on any other details, including Tuesday's flight, though she did confirm US Airways is looking into it.

Jeffrey told CNN that US Airways earlier Monday confirmed to him that the Tuesday incident occurred aboard the plane that crashed.

John Hodock, another passenger on the Tuesday flight, said in an e-mail to CNN: "About 20 minutes after take-off, the plane had a series of compressor stalls on the right engine. There were several very loud bangs and fire coming out of the engine. The pilot at first told us that we were going to make an emergency landing, but after about five minutes, continued the flight to Charlotte."

In an interview, Hodock said the pilot "got on the intercom and said they were going to have to make an emergency landing at the nearest airport. But then, only five to 10 minutes later, the pilot came back on and said it was a stalled compressor and they were going to continue to Charlotte."

A third passenger, who did not want her named used, also said she heard a "loud banging sound" on the right side of the plane. She said she heard the pilot say the "compressor for the engine was stalled" and they needed "to turn around and go back." However, she said, the problem was fixed and the flight continued without incident.

Pilots and aviation officials said that a compressor stall results from insufficient air getting into the engine and that multiple stalls could result in engine damage. However, the officials said, a momentary compressor stall may be less serious and could be corrected in flight by simply restarting the engine.

A bird strike could lead to a compressor stall, the officials said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hudson ... cnnSTCText

[boeingboy]

God I hate the media....always trying to drum something up. Making mountains out of molehills.

Yea - so what? They had a compessor stall - they DO happen. It had absolutly no bearing on this accident. This was caused by mulitiple large birds and the engines were functioning normally prior to hitting the birds.

[rightseatwonder]

can't you see where they are going with this?

As if the heroics of the crew weren't enough.. now they have to drum up more frenzy by getting the 'ol rumour mill going.

I'll start..

it wasn't actually birds we will soon find out... as mentioned, this airplane had a RASH of maintenance problems including compressor stalls, and the crew in fact... had one quit over the hudson, and mistakenly shut down the wrong engine... leading to the deadstick water landing.

oooooooooo! now THATS how you sell newspapers!

[FamilyGuy]

And so it begins.....

A couple posts made mention of the uncanny inability to withstand a birdstrike - which is fairly common - granted geese are big and damaging - even when thawed .

A couple posts were somewhat incredulous to loose both engines at the exact same time or in close order.

The Capt is very quiet in the media - shunning all limelight.....

The airplane has a "history"......

I know you're all thinking it quietly in the back of your minds.

What interests me is the immediate "hero" reaction vis a vis our little long runway episode. Why the difference? What is it about us Canucks that we go from hero to zero so quickly for our own on limited info yet go from zero to hero for others with not a scintila more evidence??? Hell we even balk at the mere idea there could be....gulp...an error? (oh no I said the E word).

Why is that? Media coveage that is biased?

[Topspin]

And so it begins.....

A couple posts made mention of the uncanny inability to withstand a birdstrike - which is fairly common - granted geese are big and damaging - even when thawed .

A couple posts were somewhat incredulous to loose both engines at the exact same time or in close order.

The Capt is very quiet in the media - shunning all limelight.....

The airplane has a "history"......

I know you're all thinking it quietly in the back of your minds.

What interests me is the immediate "hero" reaction vis a vis our little long runway episode. Why the difference? What is it about us Canucks that we go from hero to zero so quickly for our own on limited info yet go from zero to hero for others with not a scintila more evidence??? Hell we even balk at the mere idea there could be....gulp...an error? (oh no I said the E word).

Why is that? Media coveage that is biased?

Obviously The Tom & Jerry Show contains more fact than CNN, but is it realistic to suffer a dual engine failure due to birdstrikes? I've seen a 37 that flew through over 100 starlings and it landed fine with power. Geese are just a wee bit heavier than starlings, but, doesn't it seem excessive? Don't want to armchair quarterback here but it is interesting.

[Rockie]

Geese are BIG, and it's entirely possible each engine swallowed a couple of them. But even if it was one each don't forget that the engines were at a high power setting, so if even one fan blade departed the fix the resultant follow through damage could easily be catastrophic.

[FL410]

A starling apparenly weighs 60-90g vs 3-9kg for a Canada goose. Quite a difference.

[mattedfred]

i've seen the damage that a single goose can do to the nose cone of a metro. it almost ripped the whole damn thing off.

[Cat Driver]

What interests me is the immediate "hero" reaction vis a vis our little long runway episode. Why the difference? What is it about us Canucks

Usually I find it relatively easy to figure out most questions, but this one has me stumped.

Try as I might I can't even hazzard a guess on the above.

How can one compare what that American crew did to " our little long runway episode "?

I assume you are referring to the Jazz episode?

Where should we look to find anything heroic about running a perfectly airworthy airplane off a runway?

Or has it been determined they lost both engines?

[mattedfred]

AT's accident in the Azores was an amazing landing regardless of the reason it was required. the USAir landing is as well. the JZA accident in CYYB doesn't look like an amazing landing. i would reserve additional comments until each accident investigation is concluded.

[Cat Driver]

Maybe there is a different culture in the way information is disseminated to the public when high visibility aviation incident / accident occur.

It only took a couple of days for the American officials to confirm the FDR's recorded both engines lost power at the same time.

So far all us peons know about the Jazz incident is it is verboten to discuss it here, in due time the report will be released.

That is the Canadian way.

[crazy_aviator]

IF reports indicate a SIMULTANEOUS engine failure, then i would think it quite unlikely that the pilot noticed engine surge/stall, then shut down the other engine at the same time.There likely would be a slight delay between the first engine acting up and the pilot selecting the second engine cutoff? The FDR should record the parameters of the engine " shutdowns" and the investigators
determine the difference between a normal shut down and a catastophic failure causing a much faster decrease inN1/N2 speeds me thinks
Also, the pilot AND co-pilot would have to be complicid in the deception BOTH on the CVR and on the ground Unlikley !!!