On Jan 16, 8:10*pm, Tech Support wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Howdy,

Just a few comments here. After the birdstrike, a left downwind back
to rwy 4 was quickest and most logical, or a short hop to the longer
runways at EWR (Newark), if they had power (same direction).
Obviously they didn't, so they were lined up for the Hudson.
Teterboro was a poor option because the route is over a densley
populated area and the 320 has a poor glide ratio (but great XC
speed!). Attempting to land at an unfamiliar airport, while trying to
set up and configure the airplane and while running out of altitude,
would have been off the scale risky. Did I mention that they were
heavy, though probably around 25k or so below gross weight. The
Hudson was a good choice and took the pressure off. It's like looking
for a landout field and finding a mile long hay field that's just been
cut and cleared. Why risk going over a forest to get to the airport
that's in marginal gliding distance? Good decision.

Current and wind didn't matter too much because there wasn't too much
of either, and besides, with limited room to manuver, limited
altitude, high sinkrate and a touchdown speed of around 130kts, the
few knots that would be shaved off the touchdown speed would be
negligable and not worth it. Again, my guess is that they were
setting up for a left downwind to LGA, if they could get power
restored. Did you see the "aviation expert" Dr. Phil say that they
cleared the GW bridge by "only" 900 ft.? They just come out of the
woodwork, don't they? Nuf said.

The RAT (ram air turbine for those who don't know) probably didn't
deploy because one or both of the engines were at or near idle or the
APU was started. The engines can take a lot of abuse and still stay
lit at idle power, so they most likely still had electrics and
hydraulics. The flaps were out, although I'm not sure if they were at
3 or full. Procedure calls for full.

Left engine sheared off, hence the right wing submerged first. I
don't know that it's a design feature but I would guess that it is.
Lose the engine to save the wing. Makes sense to me. Ditching
pushbutton that Steve described is very helpful in these situations,
and I'm sure helped. Everyone I know is amazed that it stayed afloat
as long as it did. Had the rear doors been opened, it would have been
different.

I have no doubt that God was with them because everything came
together perfectly. Sully did an outstanding job of orchestrating an
improbable situation to a great outcome. It couldn't have happened to
a better, more capable guy, not that I would wish it on anyone. I
can't wait to talk to him and get all the details. Just remember that
he had Jeff in the cockpit with him and three highly trained flight
attendents in the back. I'm sure that Jeff flew the airplane sometime
during the 3 minute flight and, when he didn't, was busier than the
proverbial one armed paper hanger diagnosing or setting up the "majic
boxes" (not the black ones). The flight attendents were suddenly,
and without warning, thrown into a ditching situation that only a
small handful of airline crews have, since the beginning of aviation,
ever experienced. As far as we can tell at this point they, as a
team, did everything the best it could have been done and, I think
their 150 passengers would agree.