Hudson Ditching Left Engine Running at 35%

[say again]

Here come the lawsuits if this is true. Returning a plane back to service for engine trouble, then 2 days later it goes down from engine trouble. The media is looking into a cover-up about the whole bird issue.

Just what I heard, 5 minutes ago.

So there was a double engine failure?!?! Gimme a break. A strange coincidence, but a cover up? I highly doubt it.

 

[Bringupthebird]

It comes down to this Folks....

The following are to be commended for doing exactly that which they have been trained to do. They executed their procedures, perhaps flawlessly, and saved 155 lives as well as their own.

God Willing, the same should happen to you in a similar situation. But there," For the Grace of God" go We.

The training they had and the procedures that were developed all came as a result of folks scrutinizing what went wrong in previous incidents. No one let pride or hero worship get in the way of gleaning valuable info for the next crew facing such an emergency.

I for one think that they DID NOT follow procedures flawlessly, and the survival of their passengers may have depended on not doing so.

For instance, does the Safety Information Card show people standing on a wing in the ditching diagram?

 

[great cornholio]

That is very interesting.

I seriously was wondering why he didn't go for runway 11 at Newark. If you look where he put it down, I think he easily could have made 11 in Newark.

Especially if he had engine thrust on one engine.

Heck, he could even pull a CAL, and land on the taxiway for 11 in EWR. It is slightly closer than the runway. LOL

Very interesting.

I'd say its pretty simple. Always go for the option that will kill least amount of people when it hits the fan.

 

[ron burgundy]

FWIW....Just on the news tonight.

That exact plane had an in-flight engine failure 2 days before this crash landing in the Hudson. NTSB said the engines have high-time and an AD was recently complied with pertaining to these engines on those Airbuses for in-flight engine failures.

Here come the lawsuits if this is true. Returning a plane back to service for engine trouble, then 2 days later it goes down from engine trouble. The media is looking into a cover-up about the whole bird issue.

Just what I heard, 5 minutes ago.

This thread is the "Jerry Springer of Aviation".

 

[Pocono Pilot]

Doesn't anyone else find it odd that only one engine came off the plane? Could it be because that engine was still running when it hit the water?

Why didn't the other engine come off too? Differential thrust is why!!

I'm not saying this is a cover up, but some things really don't add up here.

 

[landlover]

Doesn't anyone else find it odd that only one engine came off the plane? Could it be because that engine was still running when it hit the water?

Why didn't the other engine come off too? Differential thrust is why!!

I'm not saying this is a cover up, but some things really don't add up here.

maybe an uneven amount of canadian geese was ingested in each engine. no go put make up on your two black eyes.

 

[Pocono Pilot]

maybe an uneven amount of canadian geese was ingested in each engine. no go put make up on your two black eyes.

Yeah, but that's assuming that there were even any geese at all.

So far all we know is that the plane had engine trouble the day before, one engine was still producing power, he CA considered turning back to LGA.

It's possible that there might be more that we havn't heard yet.

 

[C601]

Come on kids, enough chatter ...

Let's see if there is FI.com "Sully's" out there.

Don't forget to post your scores ..

http://hudsoncrashgame.lagencetorich.com/


BTW just make up a email address, no need to use your real one.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

Doesn't anyone else find it odd that only one engine came off the plane? Could it be because that engine was still running when it hit the water?

Why didn't the other engine come off too? Differential thrust is why!!

I'm not saying this is a cover up, but some things really don't add up here.

Most likely the left wing was 'slightly lower' when the a/c impacted the water. If You take notice of the pics of the a/c, the left outboard slats were completely torn free from the a/c. And, the first pics of the a/c in the water showed it turned to the left in the water, the nose facing NYC. The pics of the a/c, after removed from the water show the right slats still attached, and the right engine still attached but canted slightly downward, from the impact with the water. All of this info is probably consistent with the possibility that the left wing took the brunt of the impact with the water, and thus no real mystery.

The same a/c two days earlier experienced 'compressor stall' on the right engine during initial climb out, NO Engine failure. The compressor stall condition was written up, the engine was 'inspected' as per the AD, NO damage found and returned to service. So, appears that NO cover up exists.

But, with your 'lack of real aviation experience' not surprising that you cannot understand any of this. As many have said before, you are an idiot. But, I hope this helps.

For what its worth.

PD

 

[AC560]

the possibility that the left wing took the brunt of the impact with the water, and thus no real mystery.

Or the possibility that the missile hit the left wing first....