Hudson River Opportunity

Nyal Williams wrote:
It might be best to talk to the pilot first. It is entirely possible that
he got his glider ratings 20 or more years ago and has not thought about
any of that for a long, long time. We wouldn't want to get egg on our
faces. (A search through FAA records for gliding instructors in my
sparsely populated mid-west state turns up more than 50, but at least half
these guys were ratings collectors who got the rating back when the 2-22
was a modern trainer and they haven't been near a glider since they got
the paper.) I hope that is not the case in this instance.


He is not listed on the members section of the SSA website.






At 14:49 16 January 2009, Steve Freeman wrote:
Although I have not heard anything on the radio or TV, the NY Times
this morning pointed out that the pilot of the Airbus is a certified
glider pilot. I think this provides the SSA with a rare opportunity to
potentially increase our membership by taking the following actions:

1. Immediately contact the major air carriers in the US and point out
the advantages the pilot had due to his glider training and how it
would help their entire group of pilots if they all had at least a
minimal experience in a glider. Suggest that they strongly encourage
all of their pilots to go out to their local glider club and take 2 or
3 rides to get a feel for piloting a glider. I know that they will
argue that they are able to train for this in the sim but this is much
less expensive and provides an opportunity to gain from the experience
of CFI's that work exclusively in the arena of unpowered flight. The
SSA could also suggest that they would be willing to discount the
flight cost at any club that air carrier pilots go to for flights.
Further, they also might suggest that if the air carrier wants to
provide this training for all of their pilots, the SSA will coordinate
so that the air carrier only has to make one payment to the SSA and
then they will reimburse the clubs around the US that provide the
service. I know this sounds like a coordination nightmare but it is a
rare opportunity to get a large number of already existing pilots
exposed to glider flight. If only 1% pursue the experience it would be
worth it. We moan and complain all the time about where we are going
to find new members. Here it is starring us in the face.

2. Find someone in the organization that knows the pilot and make a
personal appeal to him to mention when interviewed that although his
training at the airline was the largest factor, his training as a
glider pilot also helped and he would encourage all pilots to get some
training in gliders. If he is as good as they say and has as much
experience teaching crisis management he should be more than willing
to extol any training that helps in an emergency.



Nothing ventured nothing gained.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:44:49 -0800, jcarlyle wrote:

2. Slats and flaps were deployed. Pictures in the NY Times this morning
showed the plane tied up at a NYC pier with the slaps and flaps still
out on the left wing.

I thought I'd seen a report of partial deployment. However, I also
remembered reading the report of the Air Transat Landing in the Azores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

That was an A330. It lost all hydraulics when the engines stopped, which
meant no flaps or spoilers. I didn't recall what type of Airbus that was
and assumed, wrongly, that the same problem would also get the A320. I'm
certain having flaps would have helped the ditching a lot, especially as
most of the fuel for the flight would have been on board.

"Sully" did a fantastic job ditching, but to me the real wonder was the
boats pulling everyone out so quickly. With such cold air, a swift
current, and some people immersed in the river after falling off the
wings, it's amazing no one was lost. If "Sully" landed where he did to
be near boats, he deserves all the thanks we can give him!

Yes, a very good call indeed.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jan 16, 3:28*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:44:49 -0800, jcarlyle wrote:
2. *Slats and flaps were deployed. Pictures in the NY Times this morning
showed the plane tied up at a NYC pier with the slaps and flaps still
out on the left wing.

I thought I'd seen a report of partial deployment. However, I also
remembered reading the report of the Air Transat Landing in the Azores.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

That was an A330. It lost all hydraulics when the engines stopped, which
meant no flaps or spoilers. I didn't recall what type of Airbus that was
and assumed, wrongly, that the same problem would also get the A320.

Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. They
may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
hydraulic power for control to be retained.

Mike

I'm almost positive there was a RAT to keep hydraulics for the flight
controls working - there certainly is on Boeing aircraft.

-John


On Jan 16, 5:35 pm, Mike the Strike wrote:

Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. They
may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
hydraulic power for control to be retained.

Mike

Who knows with the French????

Must be some 320 drivers in group who can comment on this?

Big John

************************************************** *****************************
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:43:53 -0800 (PST), jcarlyle
wrote:

I'm almost positive there was a RAT to keep hydraulics for the flight
controls working - there certainly is on Boeing aircraft.

-John


On Jan 16, 5:35 pm, Mike the Strike wrote:

Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. They
may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
hydraulic power for control to be retained.

Mike

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:43:53 -0800, jcarlyle wrote:

I'm almost positive there was a RAT to keep hydraulics for the flight
controls working - there certainly is on Boeing aircraft.

Yes, same on the Airbus. However, on both the 767 (Gimli) and A330 (Air
Transat) the RAT only provided enough hydraulic power to drive the
primary flight controls and brakes, so both landed 'hot' with no flaps
deployed.

One account I read said the A330 had 30 mins battery backup for its glass
cockpit and radios. It landed after 19 minutes on glide. The Gimli 767's
glass cockpit quit with the engines, leaving just basic mechanical
instruments for navigation and landing, so they were lucky that P2 knew
the area and that the radios had backup batteries.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jan 16, 2:35*pm, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:28*pm, Martin Gregorie

wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:44:49 -0800, jcarlyle wrote:
2. *Slats and flaps were deployed. Pictures in the NY Times this morning
showed the plane tied up at a NYC pier with the slaps and flaps still
out on the left wing.

I thought I'd seen a report of partial deployment. However, I also
remembered reading the report of the Air Transat Landing in the Azores.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

That was an A330. It lost all hydraulics when the engines stopped, which
meant no flaps or spoilers. I didn't recall what type of Airbus that was
and assumed, wrongly, that the same problem would also get the A320.

Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. *They
may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
hydraulic power for control to be retained.

Mike

I think the A320 has a RAT for hydraulics as I doubt you can certify
an airplane that turns into a lawn dart without engine power.

TEB shows a field elevation of 9 feet. There are cliffs between the
airport and the Hudson, but if you are clear of the GW Bridge road
deck you are above the cliffs too. I recall reading a report that the
crew requested clearance into TEB but obviously didn't go there. It
wouldn't have been a straight-in from where they were. At least on the
river there are no obstacles if you end up short of your intended
touch down point.

I've had to make some hard decisions about final glide, but this was
higher stakes than any of those.

9B

[IMG]http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii80/mhudson126/Balls.jpg[/
IMG]

a href="http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii80/mhudson126/?
action=view&current=Balls.jpg" target="_blank"img src="http://
i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii80/mhudson126/Balls.jpg" border="0"
alt="Photobucket"/a

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/i...n126/Balls.jpg

I posted this on RAP but the comment made by my friend fits the
situation exactally and I like to spread good things around.

Quote

Great job by the Air Bus driver. As always, the media passed right on
over what he did that marked him as a REAL pilot :-) After he went
post impact and had lost both fans, ATC gave him a clear corridor into
Teterboro. He had scant seconds to make the decision and he made the
right one. He looked at Teterboro, glanced at the altimeter, figured
the angles and did the math. He decided in that nano second that he
couldn't make Teterboro, and THAT decision made his entire salary for
a lifetime career. The rest was just good flying.

You can always count on the media to miss the main point.

Unquote

Big John

************************************************** *********************************

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:53:49 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 16, 2:35*pm, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:28*pm, Martin Gregorie

wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:44:49 -0800, jcarlyle wrote:
2. *Slats and flaps were deployed. Pictures in the NY Times this morning
showed the plane tied up at a NYC pier with the slaps and flaps still
out on the left wing.

I thought I'd seen a report of partial deployment. However, I also
remembered reading the report of the Air Transat Landing in the Azores.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

That was an A330. It lost all hydraulics when the engines stopped, which
meant no flaps or spoilers. I didn't recall what type of Airbus that was
and assumed, wrongly, that the same problem would also get the A320.

Reports also said that both engines continued turning after the bird
strikes, but produced insufficient thrust to sustain flight. *They
may, however, have continued generating enough electricity and
hydraulic power for control to be retained.

Mike

I think the A320 has a RAT for hydraulics as I doubt you can certify
an airplane that turns into a lawn dart without engine power.

TEB shows a field elevation of 9 feet. There are cliffs between the
airport and the Hudson, but if you are clear of the GW Bridge road
deck you are above the cliffs too. I recall reading a report that the
crew requested clearance into TEB but obviously didn't go there. It
wouldn't have been a straight-in from where they were. At least on the
river there are no obstacles if you end up short of your intended
touch down point.

I've had to make some hard decisions about final glide, but this was
higher stakes than any of those.

9B