RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Dnomyar -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 4:24:51 AM)

It was  those dammed Canadian terriost. They should put those geese on the hit list. Why doesn't GW declare war on them.

What is the reason that they cant put some sort of screen on the engines to prevent this from happening.




tusk -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 4:29:56 AM)

I was just faxed the transcript of the conversation between the tower at LaGuardia and the US Airways captain:

*Begin Transcripts*

Tower:  Ahhhh US Airways Flight 1549, you've been cleared for takeoff on runway B-East, over.

US Airways 1549:  Roger, roger LaGuardia.  When we've cleared the runway we'll be setting course for one niner bravo delta and we'll set our cruising altitude for 15,000 feet...over.

Tower:  Roger...course one niner bravo delta acknowledged.  Be advised 1549...large flocks of geese have been observed within your flight path...make sure your horn is working...over.

US Airways 1549:  Roger Tower...I'm gonna try it right now...*AAAAOOOOOOOOOOOGAAAAAAAA*  It seems to be working fine.

Tower:  Hot damn 1549...I could hear that clear over here!  Nice horn...well maintained...I like that!

US Airways 1549:  He he he ... I knew you'd like that.  Ok Tower...we're gone.  :)

Tower:  Cleared for take off...God's speed US Airways 1549.

At this point, the pilot of Flight 1549 eases the throttle down and the mighty passenger jet is maneuvered onto the runway...an ear-piercing whining of the twin jet engines and the aircraft accelerates and quickly reaches take-off speed.  Moments after the craft becomes airborne, the baggage handlers reported hearing
*AAAAOOOOOOOOOOOGAAAAAAAA*
*AAAAOOOOOOOOOOOGAAAAAAAA*
*AAAAOOOOOOOOOOOGAAAAAAAA*
Then the radio came alive:

US Airways 1549:  Dayum...we sucked up a flock of the geese you told us about Tower...dayum...dayum...the starboard main has shut down.

Tower:  Maintain your cool...how many engines do you have left?

US Airways 1549:  Well, we started out with two...one was shut down because of geese...do the math Tower!  Dayum...we're gonna die...WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIEEEE!!!  I DON'T WANNA DIIIEEEE!!!

Tower:  Get a grip captain...snap out of it!  Listen to me...the river's just ahead...you'll have to ditch it in the river!  Folla?

US Airways 1549:  I've never done that before...land a passenger jet on a river.  Is there someone there who can talk me down...WE'RE GONNA DIIIEEEE!!!!!
*AAAAOOOOOOOOOOOGAAAAAAAA*
*AAAAOOOOOOOOOOOGAAAAAAAA*
*AAAAOOOOOOOOOOOGAAAAAAAA*
*AAAAOOOOOOOOOOOGAAAAAAAA*

Tower:  Pete, the airshow enthusiast, is looking up the instructions for an at sea emergency landing...standby...and LAY OFF THE HORN captain...k?

*End Transcripts*




hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 4:41:21 AM)

I take it you've never watched any of the films of jet engine test runs?  They put the engine on a Stand and strap it down, wired to a computer to control from another room - then get the hell outta the way.  I had to sit through several of various types during one of my courses during training - Aircraft Engineering and Electronics for Pilots.  (I was working on a degree in Aviation at the time - it was a required course for the Aviation majors.)
 
The intake on a jet is Enormous.  The volumes of air being pushed through to generate that amount of thrust are almost mind boggling.
 
Problem is, there's a point of diminishing returns when you start contemplating a screen over the intake.  A screen that's fine enough not to hamper with wind flow is likely to get sucked into the intake itself - turning into shrapnel inside the engine, and causing sufficient damage to render it non-functional.  A screen that's large enough and solid enough to be secured sufficiently to prevent being sucked up by the intake itself - is going to block so much of the air intake that it chokes off the engine, rendering it effectively non-functional.  Materials that are soft/pliant enough to keep from damaging the engine if sucked into the intake aren't sufficiently rigid to stop Other objects from being sucked in, making it a futile effort to put such over the intake in the first place.




lusciouslips19 -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 5:57:03 AM)

NEW YORK – The pilot who guided a crippled US Airways jetliner safely into the Hudson River — saving all 155 people aboard — became an instant hero Thursday, with accolades from the mayor and governor and a fan club online.
The pilot of Flight 1549 was Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III, 57, of Danville, Calif., an official familiar with the accident told The Associated Press. Sullenberger is a former fighter pilot who runs a safety consulting firm in addition to flying commercial aircraft.
Sullenberger, who has flown for US Airways since 1980, flew F-4 fighter jets with the Air Force in the 1970s. He then served on a board that investigated aircraft accidents and participated later in several National Transportation Safety Board investigations.
Sullenberger had been studying the psychology of keeping airline crews functioning even in the face of crisis, said Robert Bea, a civil engineer who co-founded UC Berkeley's Center for Catastrophic Risk Management.
Bea said he could think of few pilots as well-situated to bring the plane down safely than Sullenberger.
"When a plane is getting ready to crash with a lot of people who trust you, it is a test.. Sulley proved the end of the road for that test. He had studied it, he had rehearsed it, he had taken it to his heart."
Sullenberger is president of Safety Reliability Methods, a California firm that uses "the ultra-safe world of commercial aviation" as a basis for safety consulting in other fields, according to the firm's Web site.
Sullenberger's mailbox at the firm was full on Thursday. A group of fans sprang up on Facebook within hours of the emergency landing.
"OMG, I am terrified of flying but I would be happy to be a passenger on one of your aircraft!!" Melanie Wills in Bristol wrote on the wall of "Fans of Sully Sullenberger." "You have saved a lot of peoples lives and are a true hero!!"
The pilot "did a masterful job of landing the plane in the river and then making sure that everybody got out," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. "He walked the plane twice after everybody else was off, and tried to verify that there was nobody else on board, and he assures us there was not."
"He was the last one up the aisle and he made sure that there was nobody behind him."
Gov. David Paterson pronounced it a "miracle on the Hudson."
A woman who answered the phone at Sullenberger's home in Danville hung up on a reporter who asked to speak with the family.
Candace Anderson, a member of the Danville town council who lives a few blocks from Sullenberger, said it was an amazing story and she was proud to live in the same town as the pilot.
"You look at his training, you look at his experience. It was just the right pilot at the right time in charge of that plane that saved so many lives," Anderson said. "He is a man who is calm, cool, collected, just as he was today."
Sullenberger's co-pilot was Jeff Skiles, 49, of Oregon, Wis., a 23-year US Airways veteran.
"He was OK," said his wife, Barbara. "He was relieved that everybody got off."
___
Associated Press writers Haven Daley in Danville, Calif., Lisa Leff in San Francisco, Colleen Long and researcher Susan James in New York contributed to this report.
Collaps




samboct -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 6:33:15 AM)

There's more than one hero here.  While I don't want to detract from Sully's piloting skills since it's a real trick to set down a glider that big into the drink with the only injuries being a set of broken legs and soaked and frozen tootsies- the other people who deserve kudos are the folks piloting the ferries and other vessels that came quickly to their aid.  Without the rapid rescue, more people would have died from hypothermia- and to be able to maneuver a vessel next to a jet aircraft without damaging it and picking people off is quite a trick. I'm pretty sure the airplane was intact from the ditching and stayed that way since it didn't sink till it was 4 miles downriver- even with the ripping current, that's probably still over an hour afloat.  Thankfully it's clear the people on the rescue vessels didn't learn their procedures from Hollywood, since they didn't wait for the airplane to blow up first.


Sam




Lucylastic -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 6:53:33 AM)

SO happy that no person was killed, heros abound in this, the rescuers, the pilot, and the passengers, gawd I bet it was cold out there tho.
Lucy





tornaway -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 6:54:18 AM)

 
   An amazing alignment of good luck :   good location ( could've been over land , where a ditching would not be an option ) ,  good timing ( still daylight ) , and a highly skilled pilot who set the plane down just right ( who apparently teaches other pilots emergency procedures ),   and good response by rescue folks ( many of whom happened to be in the vicinity of the crash site in the river )  !  
 
     Thus - a happy ending,  and 150-or so folks with some exciting stories to share !    [:D]




Mercnbeth -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 7:18:27 AM)

Good thing the environmentalists prohibited the removal and destruction of the bird habitat at the end of the runway, or the flight would have taken off uneventfully and the pilot wouldn't have had a chance to be a hero. Although PETA is filing a $20 Million lawsuit against him and the US Air on behalf of the dead birds.




kittinSol -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 7:19:51 AM)

[8|]




ThundersCry -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 7:26:50 AM)

They can`t....read...




Owner59 -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 8:18:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

[8|]


It`s b/c no one died that jokes can be made.


~~~~~~~~~~

Remember when cheney shoot that old guy in the face?

It was really funny and all.Jokes at the podium and WH press room,ha-ha-ha.

Till one of the pellets(bird shot) somehow got into the guy`s heart,putting him into the hospital with a heart attack.

Then is wans`t so funny.

Thank god no one died,right Merc?




Mercnbeth -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 8:50:50 AM)

No 59, the point is that in the 'old days' they removed the birds and killed them, that is no longer an option due to environmentalists. However, I'm sure they felt, and still feel, the birds life is equal in value to any human. Nobody died this time. I doubt this close call will change anything and next time the causalities won't be limited to birds. Similar to many other short sighted, 'good intent', initiatives.

Glad to give you another opportunity to bring up Cheney - feel better? You've become like a second time bride groom who is trying to convince himself that his new wife is 'perfect' by consistently comparing him to your ex. Doesn't speak of any confidence in the beauty of the new bride.Corruption, tax evasion, hiring criminals, deficit, inaugural spending; ALL formerly condemned, not excused and rationalized. Its great to see them all rationalized by the hypocrites. I hope you're enjoying the entertainment as much as me. Enjoy!  




kittinSol -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 8:52:04 AM)

Do you even know for sure that the specie of bird responsible for the crash was environmentally protected?




samboct -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 9:41:16 AM)

Kittinsol

In all likelihood the birds involved were some species of gull- and yeah, the dratted thing are protected.  People on shore think seagulls are beautiful- sailors who have to clean up their droppings and other offal tend to be a bit more prejudiced.

However, Merc's anti environmentalist rant actually has very little accuracy since it implies that bird strikes are a recent phenomenon.  They're not- and control of birds with any technology has always been problematic. Airports tend to be located some distance away from urban areas (they're not downtown) and the open spaces needed for approach paths are attractive to wildlife.  Furthermore, given where this aircraft crashed, I suspect we're going to find out in a few days that the bird strike occurred several miles from the airport. 

As an aside in Australia, one of the biggest concerns of pilots are kangaroos- which have also lead to fatalities.

Sam




kittinSol -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 9:47:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

As an aside in Australia, one of the biggest concerns of pilots are kangaroos- which have also lead to fatalities.



I had no idea kangas could jump that high [8D] .




philosophy -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 9:50:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol


I had no idea kangas could jump that high [8D] .


...they can't. However kangaroos, wearing hoodies and stealing hang gliders for joy-rides are a growing menace.......




lronitulstahp -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 9:58:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol


I had no idea kangas could jump that high [8D] .


...they can't. However kangaroos, wearing hoodies and stealing hang gliders for joy-rides are a growing menace.......
i'm not typically a snorter...but that post made me emit one tiny, ladylike, and refined *snort*




Mercnbeth -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 10:11:49 AM)

quote:

However, Merc's anti environmentalist rant actually has very little accuracy

A statement of fact a "rant". Don't you ever tire of exaggeration, or is it required from your agenda based perspective?

It's not a new phenomena, but the policy of trying to scare them versus killing them is relatively new, and increased the likelihood of more of these situations occurring.

The 'save the pigeons/seagulls/whatever' is no different than the saving the spotted owl while killing lumbering jobs, or saving the caribou, in order to insure reliance on middle east oil and buying it people who need a 'PETA' type group to protect the children in the area. Except in that case 'PETA' would be an endangered species, if not extinct.




bluepanda -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 10:16:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

As an aside in Australia, one of the biggest concerns of pilots are kangaroos- which have also lead to fatalities.



I had no idea kangas could jump that high [8D] .


God damn it. When I feel like being a smart ass, I need to post a lot more quickly when you're roaming about at large. [sm=angry.gif]




rulemylife -> RE: US Airways flight just went into the Hudson River (1/16/2009 10:52:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

However, Merc's anti environmentalist rant actually has very little accuracy

A statement of fact a "rant". Don't you ever tire of exaggeration, or is it required from your agenda based perspective?

It's not a new phenomena, but the policy of trying to scare them versus killing them is relatively new, and increased the likelihood of more of these situations occurring.

The 'save the pigeons/seagulls/whatever' is no different than the saving the spotted owl while killing lumbering jobs, or saving the caribou, in order to insure reliance on middle east oil and buying it people who need a 'PETA' type group to protect the children in the area. Except in that case 'PETA' would be an endangered species, if not extinct.


Agenda-based perspective?  This coming from someone who has introduced a theory in a non-political thread that this would not have happened but for liberal environmentalists.

Scaring them versus killing them has nothing to do with regulation, policy, or environmentalism.  It has to do with practicality.  La Guardia, and many others, especially waterfront airports use sound cannons because it has proven to be the most effective method.  Many farms near here use the same method.  Not because the farmers don't want to kill the poor little birdies, but because it is not a realistic solution to fend off huge flocks of birds.

Not to mention what someone said earlier that we don't know if this happened on takeoff or when they were already airborne.  Unless you think we should have A-10's patrolling avery airport to shoot down every bird they see in the area.






Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875