Way OT: Flight 1549

Double True

I couldn't agree more. If you had a chance to hear the cockpit voice recorder tapes, you would be absolutely amazed how calm and cool Cpt. Sully was when that plane was going down in the Hudson. A HERO! I Agree 100%.

That's how he's cool. We forget that's his job and something he's been doing for years. Did you realize that a pilot flies a plane for maybe 10 mins max for a flight? He takes off and lands the plane. The remainder is all done by computer. That's it.

extremely OT

Thank God Tate was on that plane to land it, what is this kid gonna do next?!

The general consensus among the aviation community that I've gathered is that Captain Sullenberger handled a stressful situation well, but a situation well within the bounds of his job. Most pilots of his experience would have the airmanship skills to put the aircraft down in the Hudson as he did. The pilot deserves credit not so much for the display of stick-and-rudder flying skills, but for his decision-making process. His background in crisis management undoubtedly helped him keep his cool. More praise-worthy was his decision to ditch in the river. I would guess that a large percentage of pilots in his situation would have attempted a return to LGA or a diversion to Teterboro. When available, an airport is always the #1 option in case of engine failure. We also pick the best possible open space in case a straight stretch of road or airport is not available. The Hudson was not exactly ideal, but it was a very large, straight area not dotted with buildings, which fits the criteria of an acceptable forced landing site. In short, Capt. Sullenberger deserves to be most commended for his decision to ditch in the river, as opposed to a deadstick into LGA or Teterboro.

We should all keep in mind that the death of a single person during the evolution would quickly turn the tables on the Captain, and he may very well have been vilified for his nonsensical decision to ditch in a river (water ditchings historically do not have an enviable survival rate) when two perfectly good airports were within gliding range.

A reconstruction created with MS FS: http://enrevanche.blogspot.com/2009/01/pilots-eye-view-of-flight-1549.html

There is also a blogger's armchair analysis of the three options constructed with FS. I'll try to find it again.

Wikipedia has a compilation of so-called "water landings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing#Survival_rates_of_passenger_p...

Also, the reasoning behind not returning to La Guardia or heading over to Teterboro is that the latter may possibly been beyond the engine-out glide range for the aircraft, and a return to LGA would mean a glide over a city full of tall buildings where coming up short would be disasterous.

Your posts are very insightful. It was interesting to hear him say that he was doing what he was trained. Makes enough sense. And you are right about the decision making. From the interview it is clear that he knew his best option for EVERYONE was to land in the river to avoid the general public. Better to be lucky than good.

This story is receiving so much attention because it happened in New York. I guarantee that if this plane landed in a river anywhere else in the country, it wouldn't be getting half as much coverage. This only bothers me because I hate New York.