Way OT: Flight 1549
So I am winding the weekend down watching some 60 minutes because the Pro Bowl is, well, the Pro Bowl. I have read all the hype of Tate, and Big Will and DR, etc. This entry is to just break that up. If you are not into the OT things, then don't read any further.
The story of Flight 1549 is amazing. Hearing that pilot(Sully) talk about the situation is beyond words. All of us sit here and analyze silly football junk and his story really puts life into perspective. You talk about a hero, that man is a hero. I know there are some pilots on this blog and I would love for them to chime in. How hard is it to land something that big going that fast without power?
I think the thing that is so amazing is that Capt. Sully is so humble. I cannot imagine what size of balls it would take to save 155 people the way he did, in 3.5 minutes. A very inspiring story to say the least.
Good work Captain Sullenburger.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:59 PM ^
Double True
February 8th, 2009 at 8:01 PM ^
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%.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:03 PM ^
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.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:11 PM ^
That is what makes it amazing. The pilots are trained so well. My question is, is he that good or was he lucky? You think of how many other flights out there that have ended badly. He made some decisions for this flight not to.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:24 PM ^
he did his job. Kudos to that. If all of us were applauded for all of the times we did our job...
He's a hero, fine, but he just did his job. All commercial pilots should be expected of this.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:31 AM ^
I bet that's what the people on the plane thought too
February 8th, 2009 at 9:10 PM ^
My understanding and previous witnessing (after the fact) of water landings is that this guy had lady luck on his side in getting the plane to land as it did with very minimal fuselage damage. And very lucky that there were no deaths and very few injuries if any.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:09 PM ^
extremely OT
February 8th, 2009 at 8:12 PM ^
Fair warning.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:28 PM ^
Thank God Tate was on that plane to land it, what is this kid gonna do next?!
February 8th, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^
beat Timothy Tebow in a battle of wits.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:09 PM ^
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.h…
There is also a blogger's armchair analysis of the three options constructed with FS. I'll try to find it again.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:22 PM ^
Wikipedia has a compilation of so-called "water landings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing#Survival_rates_of_passenger_…
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.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:08 PM ^
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.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:42 AM ^
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.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:43 AM ^
I don't think that's true. The media loves ZOMG Plane Crash! stories. Especially when they come complete with good video and a balls of steel pilot.