Posted on 01/18/2009 10:40:56 AM PST by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
The pilot of a crippled US Airways jetliner made a split-second decision to put down in the Hudson River because trying to return to the airport after birds knocked out both engines could have led to a catastrophic crash in a populated neighborhood, he told investigators Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Mediabistro is reporting that he will NOT be on the Today show with Matt Lauer on Monday. He cancelled at the request of the Air LIne Pilots Association....no other details than that.
Apparently, Sully has also said “no exclusive” if he does appear on tv, he will do ALL the networks pretty much at the same time.
I believe that Sully does not want to be a part of the media circus; what happened was serious, with the current environment of our “media” he must realize that they aren’t interested in the story, but just the “get”.
Good for Sully.
The point simply is it doesn't matter what the moronic media is interested in, the story is what matters, and the more people who see this pilot and know about him the better.
With all that said, if the pilot declines the interviews I find nothing wrong with this either. I hope he writes a book and makes millions!
I disagree. As we see in the World War II vets that never spoke of their heroics or the completely anonymous benefactor, humility is the higher road.
There is a dignity in humility that is lost upon our celebrity obsessed culture where living vicariously seems the order of the day.
Matt Lauer and Katie Couric cannot add value to this story.
You are correct Sharp...
One interesting note. Sully's job was as well as all involved in the financial system (Frank and Dodd and the assorted Fakakta Carnival cast of characters) is to steer away from hazard. In the case of the financial system, "Moral Hazard" i.e. exposing yourself and your clients to a risk you wouldn't take yourself.
Their are many decision making and critical thinking skills that can be learned in regards to PIC (pilot in command) duties, that are applicable to other life circumstances.
Unfortunately, it is to late for many in the financial and political arena to learn these lessons, in fact they should be treated more as suspects in a criminal proceeding.
It's obvious, you do not understand my point.
The story is the value, and cuts through the circus. It appears, can you only see the circus. That's sad...
I wish the pilot had to integrity to not become part of the media circus.
A lot of those are gone, and very few are presented in public by a disdainful media that only wants scandal and blood.
Captain Sullenberger, made a decision based on years of flying, not only powered aircraft, but unpowered gliders as well. That kind of experience lends itself to being able to make snap judgements in milliseconds.
All the Monday morning quarterbacking going on here takes away from the facts.
He didn't have power. (Birds through BOTH engines)
He didn't have altitude.
He did have a 'soft' spot to land with little or no traffic to interfere.
He had a Flight Crew that DIDN'T panic.
Hero's all. We need to see them.
I thought that too. One interview is helpful and not circusy, though IMO.
“I think the natural reaction of most people would be to try and get it back to the runway.”
“Back in my flying days I learned that this sort of wishful thinking is why many power off emergencies ended in tragedy.”
I have “limited” PA experience and am out of license, but recall lessons where instructor would cut engines and say: ..you’ve lost power, choose your landing site. It’s amazing how quickly you lose air speed and have to make choices. The silence is not golden.
The lesson is to determine where to get DOWN safely, ASAP! (before all other choices are lost). With a Pilot and Co, there are options, the PIC has one.
Landing on water is not the best option... it’s harder than “ground” due to variable surface ‘structure’ (think of it as landing on an always changing surface). Grass strips can be as challenging.
I could add other possible ‘interferences’ at the heights involved, such as cross winds from buildings, updrafts, bridges (which he reportedly cleared or was at 900 feet), water born traffic on the river, the time needed for airports to clear landing and take off traffic to clear runways... etc. (we have read about near misses of outgoing flights versus incoming and those that are on taxi ways... these might have been possible thoughts for the Captain?)
Captain Sullenberger’s glider experience will probably be considered a plus. I’ve just seen some video of the ‘flair’ as the plane made contact with the river and it was impressive. Scrubbing off air/speed and positioning for minimal/optimal body contact is not so forgiving as when doing so with wheels down.
FWIW, I’ve stuffed a small plane in and it also was on takeoff. Also have been around a ‘few’ accident sites (tree tops, grass fields, fences, tarmac). All in small residential areas.
Captain Sullenberger did a great job, but with any investigation there will be more to come out (unfortunately).
I’ll also add that initial reports about the plane being able to stay afloat so long was due to the crews training to NOT open the rearward entry/exit doors.
One report told of the planes capability to shut down all external ‘vent’s to prevent water entry.
In another report, a passenger related attempting to help (a) crew member(s) to OPEN a rearward door (which would have immediately caused flooding and sinking).
Thankfully, all worked out well and the incident (well, it won’t be recorded as such by FAA) will be used for future training.
My take is that the only thing to learn here is what damage was done to the engines that caused them to quit and be unable to be restarted.
“Wouldn’t you like to see more people with the kind of integrity that Sullenberger has? What about our leaders, our politicians?”
Yes, I would, but I’d also have to factor in Captain Sullengergers’s experience and potential suffering.
Integrity aside, one might argue that contrary to politicians, Captain Sullenberger would have also gone down with his plane (no disrespect concerning him nor his actions).
Without disagreeing with what I believe your intent to be, comparing this event to politicians or bankers, et al, is not possible unless the consequences are equally suffered.
I don’t believe that a politicians/banker/CEO etc, experience (time/longevity in office) can be proven to be as beneficial as has Captain Sullenbergers experience.
The consequences of job performance failure are simply not equatable.
Regardless, I believe that I share your frustration and perhaps disgust.
“I’d agree that in hitting water head on at 100+mph the water does appear to be hard. I also saw the video of the landing. The flare and timing of same along with apparently absolutely flat roll attitude were remarkable.”
Thank you.
My take on the single view shown so far of the landing was typical ‘tail dragger’: nose up, tail down, flare (pardon my previous ‘flair’) and “float down” (such that it were, no pun intended!). Made me think of the pilots who flew the Concordes... where’s the ground? Captain had good perception.
Something else to consider is that there wasn’t a power loss for radio contact (or other systems?) On board battery backup or did the APU deploy?
“Based on the condition of the plane as it looked lifted out of the river, in this case the water was relatively soft.”
While I’d still consider ‘soft’ to be a relative term, aircraft are constructed to land wheels up and I expect this one might see air again. However, and again only seeing the single view (from a security camera?), there appeared to be only a single ‘bounce’ before settling in. Quite a remarkable landing, even for ground based.
Additionally, I’m amazed at the structural integrity of a plane to be able to slung and lifted out as it has been done. (I’ve wondered if that is included in the engineering, but never wanted to ask)
“In addition, landing in the water tends to produce much less sparking than sliding along pavement or impacting buildings. It was nice that the passengers were able to use the over the wing exits as there was no fire.”
** You have added an EXCELLENT and valuable point for consideration!
I may be incorrect, but if I recall, there is more danger from fire upon emergency landings, regardless of landing condition? (hence attempted changes to fuel combustibility — which I haven’t followed, and changes to the composition of aircraft interior materials)
“My take is that the only thing to learn here is what damage was done to the engines that caused them to quit and be unable to be restarted.”
Yes, there will be much to learn. As to both engines out, sometimes things just happen. A single engine out might have just been an FAA/NTSB ‘incident’ after an aborted flight and return to field.
Two engines on climb out and birds, well that will bring about more changes (and most likely challenges from the usual suspects concerning ways to prevent their interference (birds/animals))
It is still a safe way to travel. I enjoyed some of those interviewed who said that would fly again... just not this week. (been there, done that)
You're right. Just discovered that myself.
Ding, ding, ding.... we have a winner.
Plane crashes are notoriously bad PR for airlines. To have one of your planes crash, but not result in ANY casualties anywhere, is a damn miracle. They're gonna milk it.
One of the survivors of the Hudson River crash SWAM to shore! I hadn't heard THAT before. I'd like to see that guy, too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.