I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy, the
pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets to
practice.
He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody survived!
That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a long time. Way
to go Sully!
"PCPaul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:59:32 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>> I thought Airbus jet planes were "fly-by-wire", and since both main
>>> engines were out there must have been power from batteries or an APU to
>>> operate the control surfaces?
>>
>> I always thought passenger jets could glide w/o engines like a rock?
>
> They're not good. Luckily the pilot took his work home with him and flew
> gliders as well... if anybody could stretch a poor glide into a safe
> landing, that's who you'd want.
Ahhh. Shades of the Gimli Glider. Not that it applies in this case, but who
do you want on the flight deck, a skilled and experienced glider pilot? or
someone who intuitively knows that mass/volume is specific gravity, and that
1.6 is not in the ballpark for JP1?
> What about the passenger who had to be dragged out as they wouldn't go
> without their luggage, though?
It would suck to be transporting Mom's remains or something like that. I
don't really want to make a joke of that person's loss, not knowing what he
lost.
"Mark & Juanita" wrote
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>> I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy, the
>> pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets to
>> practice.
>>
>> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
>> survived!
>> That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a long time.
>> Way
>> to go Sully!
>
> Equally impressive was the instant response of boats on the water to get
> to the plane to rescue the passengers.
>
I liked that. First all the commercial craft shows up. Then the gubmint
boats show up later. Just goes to show that in an emergency, whoever is
closest is the first responder. And can perform valuable services to the
victims.
You have to admit, in case of a water landing, you couldn't get much better
emergency services than on the Hudson river. It is well serviced by
numerous agencies with impressive training, watercraft, helicopters, etc.
I get a kick out of those pictures of the people standing on the wing. They
look like they are standing on the water. A little bit of walk on water
magic there.
But it looked awfully cold out there. I wouldn't want to be standing around
in that water, in that weather, for very long.
"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy, the
>>pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets to
>>practice.
>>
>> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
>> survived! That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a long
>> time. Way to go Sully!
>>
>>
> Every time I hear the safety speech about "in the event of a water
> landing... blah blah blah" I think to my self, "yeah, 'in the event', kiss
> your butt goodbye". I guess I was selling the professionals short. Never
> again.
>
Apparently a lot of pilots felt the same way. This incident has changed
some minds. They now know it is possible.
Still, a lot of luck played into this. The location, time of day, etc But
that does not in any way discount what a tremendous job was done by the
pilot.
"Morris Dovey" wrote
>
> Hmm - not only did I manage to mis-spell "Kudos" twice, I took for granted
> the folks who designed and built the Airbus that didn't lose its
> structural integrity in the water landing. Methinks they deserve praise,
> as well.
>
They have a "ditch switch" that seals all openings on the belly of the
aircraft. This allows them to stay afloat longer in case of a "water
landing". That is some good thinking/engineering.
And the Airbus folks were very impressed with the landing as well. They had
good things to say about the pilot.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a64959f9-e638-4ec3-908f-00083895ca08@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 6:18 am, PCPaul <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:30:50 -0600, MikeWhy wrote:
> > "PCPaul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> What about the passenger who had to be dragged out as they wouldn't go
> >> without their luggage, though?
>
> > It would suck to be transporting Mom's remains or something like that. I
> > don't really want to make a joke of that person's loss, not knowing what
> > he lost.
>
> That's true enough - but really it's all about priorities. And the odds
> are if you linger inside the plane you're either going to drown there,
> and even if you don't then the chances of ending up in the water when you
> get out are pretty high too.
>
> Apparently there has been an experiment over here (UK) where they wanted
> to inject some realism into the evacuation time tests they do - instead
> of just letting the non-paniced student volunteers leave the plane in an
> orderly fashion and get out in double quick time, they offered a decent
> prize to the first thirty people to get out.
>
> That was much more like a real life evacuation - fighting, climbing over
> each other etc. etc. Took a lot longer too.
>
> Not a good place to be.
Well, if you had to be in a plane crash, this one was the place to be.
You had an almost impossibly skilled and calm pilot, a co-pilot with
24 years experience, and excellent flight crew, passengers who in
general were sensible and well behaved, and local (canyou REALLY call
NYC local?) rescue boats that evidently were teleported to the scene.
I know of one other water landing off a NYC airport, and it might have
been from Idewild, maybe 40-45 years ago. Everyone died. This time, no
one died. A much to be preferred result. Congratulations to all the
professionals involved, and many of the volunteers.
The pilot and his family are a total american dream. Almost every cliche
and sterotype applys. He is being called a publicist's dream. I wonder how
many movies, good and bad will be made of this incident.
On Jan 16, 9:45=A0am, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>I know that everyone is using the word miracle. =A0But this Sully guy, =
the
> >>pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets to
> >>practice.
>
> >> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
> >> survived! That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a l=
ong
> >> time. =A0Way to go Sully!
>
> > Every time I hear the safety speech about "in the event of a water
> > landing... blah blah blah" I think to my self, "yeah, 'in the event', k=
iss
> > your butt goodbye". =A0I guess I was selling the professionals short. =
=A0Never
> > again.
>
> Apparently a lot of pilots felt the same way. =A0This incident has change=
d
> some minds. =A0They now know it is possible.
>
> Still, a lot of luck played into this. =A0The location, time of day, etc =
=A0But
> that does not in any way discount what a tremendous job was done by the
> pilot.
Exactly. He had a limited offering of options, and chose the one that
worked.
Kept his cool under pressure.
A wheelbarrow for his brass balls.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:59:32 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> I thought Airbus jet planes were "fly-by-wire", and since both main
>> engines were out there must have been power from batteries or an APU to
>> operate the control surfaces?
>
>I always thought passenger jets could glide w/o engines like a rock?
...I saw a report by an "expert" last nite; he stated that that
particular aircraft had a "one to twenty" glide ratio...that's for
every thousand feet of altitude lost, you gain 20,000 (4 miles) on the
ground. The caveat unsaid is "...if you have airspeed."
But, still, that's pretty dang good.
cg
On Jan 16, 6:40=A0pm, PCPaul <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:59:32 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
> > Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
> >> I thought Airbus jet planes were "fly-by-wire", and since both main
> >> engines were out there must have been power from batteries or an APU t=
o
> >> operate the control surfaces?
>
> > I always thought passenger jets could glide w/o engines like a rock?
>
> They're not good. Luckily the pilot took his work home with him and flew
> gliders as well... if anybody could stretch a poor glide into a safe
> landing, that's who you'd want.
>
> What about the passenger who had to be dragged out as they wouldn't go
> without their luggage, though?
I wonder what was in that luggage? Diamonds? Drugs? A Bomb?
Ooooweeeooooooo
On Jan 17, 2:03=A0pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a64959f9-e638-4ec3-908f-00083895ca08@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 17, 6:18 am, PCPaul <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:30:50 -0600, MikeWhy wrote:
> > > "PCPaul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> What about the passenger who had to be dragged out as they wouldn't =
go
> > >> without their luggage, though?
>
> > > It would suck to be transporting Mom's remains or something like that=
. I
> > > don't really want to make a joke of that person's loss, not knowing w=
hat
> > > he lost.
>
> > That's true enough - but really it's all about priorities. And the odds
> > are if you linger inside the plane you're either going to drown there,
> > and even if you don't then the chances of ending up in the water when y=
ou
> > get out are pretty high too.
>
> > Apparently there has been an experiment over here (UK) where they wante=
d
> > to inject some realism into the evacuation time tests they do - instead
> > of just letting the non-paniced student volunteers leave the plane in a=
n
> > orderly fashion and get out in double quick time, they offered a decent
> > prize to the first thirty people to get out.
>
> > That was much more like a real life evacuation - fighting, climbing ove=
r
> > each other etc. etc. Took a lot longer too.
>
> > Not a good place to be.
>
> Well, if you had to be in a plane crash, this one was the place to be.
> You had an almost impossibly skilled and calm pilot, a co-pilot with
> 24 years experience, and excellent flight crew, passengers who in
> general were sensible and well behaved, and local (canyou REALLY call
> NYC local?) rescue boats that evidently were teleported to the scene.
> I know of one other water landing off a NYC airport, and it might have
> been from Idewild, maybe 40-45 years ago. Everyone died. This time, no
> one died. A much to be preferred result. Congratulations to all the
> professionals involved, and many of the volunteers.
>
> The pilot and his family are a total american dream. =A0Almost every clic=
he
> and sterotype applys. =A0He is being called a publicist's dream. =A0I won=
der how
> many movies, good and bad will be made of this incident.
So far, Sully seems to take it all in stride. In fact, that is what I
admire most about this guy..." just doing my job."
I'm not saying that won't change down the road, because he does have a
young family, so offers of big bucks would be hard to turn down... and
he bloody well deserves a nice big gratuity. It is also unlikely he'll
chose JoeThePlumber's agent. <G>
On Jan 16, 7:18=A0pm, Charlie Groh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:59:32 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
> >> I thought Airbus jet planes were "fly-by-wire", and since both main
> >> engines were out there must have been power from batteries or an APU t=
o
> >> operate the control surfaces?
>
> >I always thought passenger jets could glide w/o engines like a rock?
>
> ...I saw a report by an "expert" last nite; =A0he stated that that
> particular aircraft had a "one to twenty" glide ratio...that's for
> every thousand feet of altitude lost, you gain 20,000 (4 miles) on the
> ground. =A0The caveat unsaid is "...if you have airspeed."
>
> But, still, that's pretty dang good.
>
> cg
The 'glide' converts descent into airspeed.i.e.... the energy from the
drop turns into forward motion.
On Jan 16, 9:29=A0am, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...>I know that everyone i=
s using the word miracle. =A0But this Sully guy, the
> >pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets to
> >practice.
>
> > He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
> > survived! That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a lo=
ng
> > time. =A0Way to go Sully!
>
> Every time I hear the safety speech about "in the event of a water
> landing... blah blah blah" I think to my self, "yeah, 'in the event', kis=
s
> your butt goodbye". =A0I guess I was selling the professionals short. =A0=
Never
> again.
>
> jc
Next time the flight attendant does her demo, I promise I will listen
to her and pay attention...instead of looking at her tits.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:41:24 -0500, J. Clarke cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy,
>> the pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody
>> gets to practice.
>>
>> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
>> survived! That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a
>> long time. Way to go Sully!
>
> Not just "everybody survived" but so far it looks like only one
> seriously injured.
>
> --
And even at that - it depends on how you define "seriously". It would be
easy to consider a broken bone to be less than serious - especially under
the circumstances.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lee Michaels wrote:
> I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy, the
> pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets to
> practice.
>
> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody survived!
> That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a long time. Way
> to go Sully!
I'm impressed! It was an amazing demonstration of of piloting skill,
experience, and judgment all coming together to produce the best of
outcomes from a very difficult situation.
Cudos to the entire flight crew - they exercised courage and kept their
cool when that was of paramount importance, and (it would appear) did a
magnificent job of helping the passengers keep theirs.
Cudos, also, to the ferry captains (and their crews!) for their quick
response - and to the ferry management that made the decision to have
their crews train for this eventuality.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy,
>> the pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets
>> to practice.
>>
>> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
>> survived! That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a
>> long time. Way to go Sully!
>
> I'm impressed! It was an amazing demonstration of of piloting skill,
> experience, and judgment all coming together to produce the best of
> outcomes from a very difficult situation.
>
> Cudos to the entire flight crew - they exercised courage and kept their
> cool when that was of paramount importance, and (it would appear) did a
> magnificent job of helping the passengers keep theirs.
>
> Cudos, also, to the ferry captains (and their crews!) for their quick
> response - and to the ferry management that made the decision to have
> their crews train for this eventuality.
Hmm - not only did I manage to mis-spell "Kudos" twice, I took for
granted the folks who designed and built the Airbus that didn't lose its
structural integrity in the water landing. Methinks they deserve praise,
as well.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Steve Turner <[email protected]> writes:
>Robatoy wrote:
>> Next time the flight attendant does her demo, I promise I will listen
>> to her and pay attention...instead of looking at her tits.
>
>Even if she's a Swedish blond?
>
You've never flown US Airways, have you? They're all in their 50's,
you'd be looking at their knees...
scott
On Jan 17, 7:10=A0pm, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:51:43 -0500, B A R R Y <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Charlie Groh wrote:
>
> >> ....I saw a report by an "expert" last nite; =A0he stated that that
> >> particular aircraft had a "one to twenty" glide ratio...that's for
> >> every thousand feet of altitude lost, you gain 20,000 (4 miles) on the
> >> ground. =A0The caveat unsaid is "...if you have airspeed."
>
> >That's partially true.
>
> >Every airplane as a "best glide speed", on big ones it's weight
> >dependent. =A0
>
> Aeronautically, it's weight dependent on ALL airplanes. More
> importantly, though, it's really dependent on a combination of factors
> which also include lift & drag. Thus, with thrust factored in, you
> have the four forces acting on an airplane.
>
> >More airspeed actually equals less glide, if it's above the
> >magic number. =A0While it sounds counter-intuitive, too fast will reduce
> >glide distance just as too slow will.
>
> >The key is to establish the correct airspeed ASAP.
>
> Yep.
>
> One of the things that's always, um, amused me is people thinking an
> airplane stops flying when the power is lost/cut. The other is people
> thinking that an airplane "stalling" means the engine quit. If only
> they'd cover those basics when reporting airplane incidents. Of course
> the "talent" would have to understand it, so I guess I'll have to keep
> dreaming.
>
> --
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.nethttp://www.normstools.com
>
> Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
>
> email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
> If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
> care to correspond with you anyway.
Somebody had asked me why God would allow something like 9-1-1 to take
place. Some said He was just trying to get our attention. I think He
did it in a different way this time. Ain't God good!
They raised the age to 65.
"
>
> He's 57 years old. In three years, due to FAA ruling, he'll be
> retired. What a shame, all that valuable experience offline because
> he's 60. My dad was a commercial pilot and started in the biz before
> the FAA came into being...he had a lot of gripes about the agency, but
> the biggest was the mandatory retirement age. And that was 40-odd
> years ago. Put yourself in the cabin and answer this: Who do I want
> flying me around in this death-trap?
>
> Great job by all concerned!
>
> cg
Charlie Groh wrote:
>
> ....I saw a report by an "expert" last nite; he stated that that
> particular aircraft had a "one to twenty" glide ratio...that's for
> every thousand feet of altitude lost, you gain 20,000 (4 miles) on the
> ground. The caveat unsaid is "...if you have airspeed."
That's partially true.
Every airplane as a "best glide speed", on big ones it's weight
dependent. More airspeed actually equals less glide, if it's above the
magic number. While it sounds counter-intuitive, too fast will reduce
glide distance just as too slow will.
The key is to establish the correct airspeed ASAP.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:47:11 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> I get a kick out of those pictures of the people standing on the
>>> wing. They look like they are standing on the water. A little bit of
>>> walk on water magic there.
>>>
>>> But it looked awfully cold out there. I wouldn't want to be standing
>>> around in that water, in that weather, for very long.
>>
>> The reason they had to wait is they did not have the exact change to
>> get on to the rescue ferry.
>>
>> I did hear on the news that the ferry crews train for water rescue.
>> It was a good idea.
>>
>The plane landed fairly close to the ferry terminals on either side of
>the Hudson, and I heard the chief of the NY Waterways company (private
>entity) explain how much they train for emergency work. My hat off and a
>salute to those guys!
>
>The air was 30F or less, the water 41F. There was not too much of a
>breeze yesterday. All in all the conditions could very easily have been
>much worse. However, Captain Sully did an absolutely marvelous job
>putting the plane there so gently. Next time I fly, I hope he, or
>someone equally capable is at the controls.
He's 57 years old. In three years, due to FAA ruling, he'll be
retired. What a shame, all that valuable experience offline because
he's 60. My dad was a commercial pilot and started in the biz before
the FAA came into being...he had a lot of gripes about the agency, but
the biggest was the mandatory retirement age. And that was 40-odd
years ago. Put yourself in the cabin and answer this: Who do I want
flying me around in this death-trap?
Great job by all concerned!
cg
On Jan 16, 4:59=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
> > I thought Airbus jet planes were "fly-by-wire", and since both main
> > engines were out there must have been power from batteries or an APU to
> > operate the control surfaces?
>
> I always thought passenger jets could glide w/o engines like a rock?
>
> --
> Jack
> Using FREE News Server:http://Motzarella.orghttp://jbstein.com
Well, you're not going to catch turbulance and stay up for 3-4 hours...
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1e324b8b-7554-43a6-af4b-4d2b99ac3a5d@v13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 16, 9:29 am, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
Next time the flight attendant does her demo, I promise I will listen
to her and pay attention...instead of looking at her tits.
You could do both. ;~)
I saw it - I saw the ferry there but where was homeland defense ???
Zodiac boats ?? Machine guns ?? was this a threat or was it revenge ?
Where was the 'home guard' ? I see the latest - post rescue some showed
up - but really.....
Martin
Lee Michaels wrote:
> I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy, the
> pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets to
> practice.
>
> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody survived!
> That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a long time. Way
> to go Sully!
>
>
>
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:59:32 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> I thought Airbus jet planes were "fly-by-wire", and since both main
>> engines were out there must have been power from batteries or an APU to
>> operate the control surfaces?
>
> I always thought passenger jets could glide w/o engines like a rock?
They're not good. Luckily the pilot took his work home with him and flew
gliders as well... if anybody could stretch a poor glide into a safe
landing, that's who you'd want.
What about the passenger who had to be dragged out as they wouldn't go
without their luggage, though?
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> I get a kick out of those pictures of the people standing on the wing.
> They look like they are standing on the water. A little bit of walk on
> water magic there.
>
> But it looked awfully cold out there. I wouldn't want to be standing
> around in that water, in that weather, for very long.
The reason they had to wait is they did not have the exact change to get on
to the rescue ferry.
I did hear on the news that the ferry crews train for water rescue. It was
a good idea.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:30:50 -0600, MikeWhy wrote:
> "PCPaul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> What about the passenger who had to be dragged out as they wouldn't go
>> without their luggage, though?
>
> It would suck to be transporting Mom's remains or something like that. I
> don't really want to make a joke of that person's loss, not knowing what
> he lost.
That's true enough - but really it's all about priorities. And the odds
are if you linger inside the plane you're either going to drown there,
and even if you don't then the chances of ending up in the water when you
get out are pretty high too.
Apparently there has been an experiment over here (UK) where they wanted
to inject some realism into the evacuation time tests they do - instead
of just letting the non-paniced student volunteers leave the plane in an
orderly fashion and get out in double quick time, they offered a decent
prize to the first thirty people to get out.
That was much more like a real life evacuation - fighting, climbing over
each other etc. etc. Took a lot longer too.
Not a good place to be.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>> I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy,
>>> the pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody
>>> gets to practice.
>>>
>>> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
>>> survived! That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a
>>> long time. Way to go Sully!
>>
>> I'm impressed! It was an amazing demonstration of of piloting skill,
>> experience, and judgment all coming together to produce the best of
>> outcomes from a very difficult situation.
>>
>> Cudos to the entire flight crew - they exercised courage and kept
>> their cool when that was of paramount importance, and (it would
>> appear) did a magnificent job of helping the passengers keep theirs.
>>
>> Cudos, also, to the ferry captains (and their crews!) for their quick
>> response - and to the ferry management that made the decision to have
>> their crews train for this eventuality.
>
> Hmm - not only did I manage to mis-spell "Kudos" twice, I took for
> granted the folks who designed and built the Airbus that didn't lose its
> structural integrity in the water landing. Methinks they deserve praise,
> as well.
>
I thought Airbus jet planes were "fly-by-wire", and since both main
engines were out there must have been power from batteries or an APU to
operate the control surfaces?
Lee Michaels wrote:
> I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy, the
> pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets to
> practice.
>
> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
> survived!
> That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a long time. Way
> to go Sully!
Equally impressive was the instant response of boats on the water to get
to the plane to rescue the passengers.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody survived!
> That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a long time. Way
> to go Sully!
It sounded as if they were originally going to go for Teterboro, which
literally has 50 feet of grass at the end of each runway before the
heavy population starts. Coming up short would have guaranteed many,
many dead. Coming up short at LGA meant the river. What a landing!
I'll echo... Way to go, Sully!
On another note... This was a typical NYC disaster response! Within
minutes, every ferry boat, water taxi, etc... in the area was on the
scene. The northeastern version of "bubba in a bass boat."
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Exactly. He had a limited offering of options, and chose the one that
worked.
Kept his cool under pressure.
A wheelbarrow for his brass balls.
Typical Texas boy. :~)
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> I get a kick out of those pictures of the people standing on the
>> wing. They look like they are standing on the water. A little bit of
>> walk on water magic there.
>>
>> But it looked awfully cold out there. I wouldn't want to be standing
>> around in that water, in that weather, for very long.
>
> The reason they had to wait is they did not have the exact change to
> get on to the rescue ferry.
>
> I did hear on the news that the ferry crews train for water rescue.
> It was a good idea.
>
The plane landed fairly close to the ferry terminals on either side of
the Hudson, and I heard the chief of the NY Waterways company (private
entity) explain how much they train for emergency work. My hat off and a
salute to those guys!
The air was 30F or less, the water 41F. There was not too much of a
breeze yesterday. All in all the conditions could very easily have been
much worse. However, Captain Sully did an absolutely marvelous job
putting the plane there so gently. Next time I fly, I hope he, or
someone equally capable is at the controls.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Jan 17, 6:18=A0am, PCPaul <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:30:50 -0600, MikeWhy wrote:
> > "PCPaul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> What about the passenger who had to be dragged out as they wouldn't go
> >> without their luggage, though?
>
> > It would suck to be transporting Mom's remains or something like that. =
I
> > don't really want to make a joke of that person's loss, not knowing wha=
t
> > he lost.
>
> That's true enough - but really it's all about priorities. And the odds
> are if you linger inside the plane you're either going to drown there,
> and even if you don't then the chances of ending up in the water when you
> get out are pretty high too.
>
> Apparently there has been an experiment over here (UK) where they wanted
> to inject some realism into the evacuation time tests they do - instead
> of just letting the non-paniced student volunteers leave the plane in an
> orderly fashion and get out in double quick time, they offered a decent
> prize to the first thirty people to get out.
>
> That was much more like a real life evacuation - fighting, climbing over
> each other etc. etc. Took a lot longer too.
>
> Not a good place to be.
Well, if you had to be in a plane crash, this one was the place to be.
You had an almost impossibly skilled and calm pilot, a co-pilot with
24 years experience, and excellent flight crew, passengers who in
general were sensible and well behaved, and local (canyou REALLY call
NYC local?) rescue boats that evidently were teleported to the scene.
I know of one other water landing off a NYC airport, and it might have
been from Idewild, maybe 40-45 years ago. Everyone died. This time, no
one died. A much to be preferred result. Congratulations to all the
professionals involved, and many of the volunteers.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> I thought Airbus jet planes were "fly-by-wire", and since both main
>> engines were out there must have been power from batteries or an APU to
>> operate the control surfaces?
>
> I always thought passenger jets could glide w/o engines like a rock?
>
The 747 has a glide ratio of about 17:1. That compares well with gliders
that can be 60:1 or the space shuttle on approach that is 4.5:1. The
shuttle is the worlds biggest and heaviest glider.
On Jan 16, 9:29 am, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...>I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy, the
> >pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets to
> >practice.
>
> > He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
> > survived! That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a long
> > time. Way to go Sully!
>
> Every time I hear the safety speech about "in the event of a water
> landing... blah blah blah" I think to my self, "yeah, 'in the event', kiss
> your butt goodbye". I guess I was selling the professionals short. Never
> again.
>
> jc
My friend, as a pilot, I can tell you that "water landing" is just a
euphemism for "crash".
Hitting the water at airline speeds is like hitting reinforced
concrete.
Yes, the pilot did a great job.
He followed his training.
That, coupled with his considerable experience, saved lives.
The water temp alone was more than enough to kill everyone aboard.
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Next time the flight attendant does her demo, I promise I will listen
> > to her and pay attention...instead of looking at her tits.
> Do both! <G>
I'm reasonably sure that Robatoy's ears shut down when he focuses on tits.
After all, there's only so much attention ability to go around.
:)
"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:gkqk9p$oi6
> Someone will make him a trainer. Then there's the lecture circuit.
From what I read, he's already doing the training and lecturing for
airlines.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Next time the flight attendant does her demo, I promise I will listen
> to her and pay attention...instead of looking at her tits.
>
> You could do both. ;~)
Says Leon wondering if they float. :)
Lee Michaels wrote:
> I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy,
> the pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody
> gets to practice.
>
> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
> survived! That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a
> long time. Way to go Sully!
Not just "everybody survived" but so far it looks like only one
seriously injured.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Charlie Groh wrote:
> He's 57 years old. In three years, due to FAA ruling, he'll be
> retired. What a shame, all that valuable experience offline because
> he's 60.
Someone will make him a trainer. Then there's the lecture circuit.
But with the book deal and movie rights, he'll never *have* to work
another day, the rest of his life.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> I thought Airbus jet planes were "fly-by-wire", and since both main
> engines were out there must have been power from batteries or an APU to
> operate the control surfaces?
I always thought passenger jets could glide w/o engines like a rock?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:51:43 -0500, B A R R Y <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Charlie Groh wrote:
>>
>> ....I saw a report by an "expert" last nite; he stated that that
>> particular aircraft had a "one to twenty" glide ratio...that's for
>> every thousand feet of altitude lost, you gain 20,000 (4 miles) on the
>> ground. The caveat unsaid is "...if you have airspeed."
>
>That's partially true.
>
>Every airplane as a "best glide speed", on big ones it's weight
>dependent.
Aeronautically, it's weight dependent on ALL airplanes. More
importantly, though, it's really dependent on a combination of factors
which also include lift & drag. Thus, with thrust factored in, you
have the four forces acting on an airplane.
>More airspeed actually equals less glide, if it's above the
>magic number. While it sounds counter-intuitive, too fast will reduce
>glide distance just as too slow will.
>
>The key is to establish the correct airspeed ASAP.
Yep.
One of the things that's always, um, amused me is people thinking an
airplane stops flying when the power is lost/cut. The other is people
thinking that an airplane "stalling" means the engine quit. If only
they'd cover those basics when reporting airplane incidents. Of course
the "talent" would have to understand it, so I guess I'll have to keep
dreaming.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 16, 6:40 pm, PCPaul <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:59:32 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>>> I thought Airbus jet planes were "fly-by-wire", and since both main
>>>> engines were out there must have been power from batteries or an APU to
>>>> operate the control surfaces?
>>> I always thought passenger jets could glide w/o engines like a rock?
>> They're not good. Luckily the pilot took his work home with him and flew
>> gliders as well... if anybody could stretch a poor glide into a safe
>> landing, that's who you'd want.
>>
>> What about the passenger who had to be dragged out as they wouldn't go
>> without their luggage, though?
>
> I wonder what was in that luggage? Diamonds? Drugs? A Bomb?
> Ooooweeeooooooo
lace trimmed skivvies?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:37:53 -0600, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:31:41 -0800, Charlie Groh wrote:
>
>> He's 57 years old. In three years, due to FAA ruling, he'll be retired.
>> What a shame, all that valuable experience offline because he's 60.
>
>Perhaps if some of us mentioned that to our congressman or senator?
...this would be a GREAT time, eh?
cg
J. Clarke wrote:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy,
>> the pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody
>> gets to practice.
>>
>> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
>> survived! That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a
>> long time. Way to go Sully!
>
> Not just "everybody survived" but so far it looks like only one
> seriously injured.
No matter what that pilot gets paid, he deserves a raise.
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I know that everyone is using the word miracle. But this Sully guy, the
>pilot, pulled off a textbook landing of something that nobody gets to
>practice.
>
> He landed a commercial passenger jet on a busy river and everybody
> survived! That is remarkable feat and the best news I have read in a long
> time. Way to go Sully!
>
>
Every time I hear the safety speech about "in the event of a water
landing... blah blah blah" I think to my self, "yeah, 'in the event', kiss
your butt goodbye". I guess I was selling the professionals short. Never
again.
jc