A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 27th 20, 06:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

Yes, now I recall having read that.

On 9/27/2020 10:33 AM, 2G wrote:
On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 8:28:45 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
On 9/26/20 5:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA
Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
Glider?

The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?) became a
CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli and
Hudson incidents were glider pilots.


Pardon me playing Captain Obvious, but the both involve landing
airliners with no power and no loss of life. But none of this is
exactly breaking news.

One thing that was interesting from the Gimli incident that wasn't
covered in that clip, the 767 had in-op fuel gauges and was allowed to
make the flight. Not the primary cause of the accident, but would have
provided much earlier notification of a problem than having an engine
flame out.

-Dave

That is covered extensively in the accident report. The pilots violated the Minimum Equipment List, making it an illegal flight. The incident would never have occurred if their fuel computer was working, or if they used the correct specific gravity for fuel (they used the value for lb/l instead of kg/l, resulting in the loading of less than half the fuel required).

Tom


--
Dan, 5J
  #2  
Old September 27th 20, 08:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
kinsell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 546
Default Landing on the Hudson is cool. Check this out

Here's the Cliff Notes version of the report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEUQeaa1bhY

They could have had a working fuel gauge if a technician hadn't restored
a circuit breaker as part of a trouble-shooting exercise.

So yes it was not airworthy, but it wasn't as simple as the captain
saying "Screw the MEL, we're going anyway".



On 9/27/20 11:47 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Yes, now I recall having read that.

On 9/27/2020 10:33 AM, 2G wrote:
On Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 8:28:45 AM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
On 9/26/20 5:32 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 21:48:33 -0700, Doug Levy wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlkCofOyxUA
Colour me mystified: what of earth has the Hudson to do with the Gimli
Glider?

The Hudson was Sullenberger's show. BTW, I seem to remember that at the
time he was said to have no glider experience, but that's wrong:
apparently he did have a glider rating at the time and (later?)
became a
CFIG, so about the only connection is that the P1 for both the Gimli
and
Hudson incidents were glider pilots.


Pardon me playing Captain Obvious, but the both involve landing
airliners with no power and no loss of life.Â* But none of this is
exactly breaking news.

One thing that was interesting from the Gimli incident that wasn't
covered in that clip, the 767 had in-op fuel gauges and was allowed to
make the flight.Â* Not the primary cause of the accident, but would have
provided much earlier notification of a problem than having an engine
flame out.

-Dave

That is covered extensively in the accident report. The pilots
violated the Minimum Equipment List, making it an illegal flight. The
incident would never have occurred if their fuel computer was working,
or if they used the correct specific gravity for fuel (they used the
value for lb/l instead of kg/l, resulting in the loading of less than
half the fuel required).

Tom



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sulleburger (USA Flt 1529) landing in the Hudson Animation J3mia03 Aviation Photos 0 February 16th 10 11:57 PM
Sulleburger's (USA Flt 1529) landing in the Hudson Animation J3mia03 Aviation Photos 1 February 16th 10 11:28 AM
Hudson landing animation John Cochrane Soaring 4 November 13th 09 09:44 PM
Check this Approach & Landing out! nmg175 Naval Aviation 5 September 27th 06 02:07 AM
Landing Check Lists Nyal Williams Soaring 24 December 31st 05 12:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.