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.
“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)