Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

US 1549 ATC Audio

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Tape has been edited.

"...couldn't get it for you." Couldn't get what?

Sounds like he wanted to go straight back into path of departures and they turned him down forcing them into the Hudson.

Let us hear the whole tape! Unedited!

100-1/2

He doesn't say that. The controller says, "if we can get it to you, do you want to try to land runway one-three"

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/1549/media/Full Transcript L116.pdf

transcript..unless I missed something
 
All of the tapes are certified by the QC/PC people at the beginning of the "re-Recording". That certification states the range of the recording covered. Several of the tapes' total recording is less than the stated amount in the certification by as much as 90 seconds and there are about 5 minutes of radar track while only about 3 minutes of Communications are provided when you sync the tapes' timestamps to the transcript.

You can say anything you want in a transcript and make the audio recordings match with a re-recording.

Also,

"COULD-ENT.....get it for you"

"IF-WE-CAN.....get it for you"



HOOK - ED PU-HON-ICS WORK - ED FOR ME.

Same concept.

If he did suggest "if we could" where is the tape of him trying?

100-1/2
 
It was Sully on the radio... he was PM on intial contact, then kept the radios while the FO was running the QRH and he flew.

It's a shame the radio transmissions don't tell the whole story. Sully was also doing the Cabin Preparedness demo, overseeing the running of the QRH, adding a creamer to his coffee, doing the sudoku puzzle in the USAToday's Life section, sweeping the dust off the radios with a paintbrush he keeps in his flightbag, making a grocery list in his head, creating waypoints for a home made "Sully.1" in the FMS so it he could "Manage" the aircraft's lateral and vertical decent into the Hudson, and evidently he was flying. I've only recently heard there might have been other USAir employees on the aircraft. I'm trying to find more information on this.
 
Last edited:
Let's face it, the media has grabbed hold of this one and made one man the hero. Realistically, there 4 other heros on the plane, a bunch others in ferries and some dead birds. The Captain has given credit to all those involved, but the media prefers to focus on him. The media is comprised of a bunch of morons...I don't think you'd want to blame that on the captain would you?
 
I guess my take on the controller's actions is a little more critical.

If you are going to be critical, when did the aircrew declare an emergency? On the recording I listen to, I never heard the aircrew say the magic words "mayday" or "emergency". They only requested a return to the airport. It was the controller who was the first to use the term emergency.
 
If you are going to be critical, when did the aircrew declare an emergency?

When the pilot of a twin-engine aircraft says that he's lost thrust from both, that could be considered an implicit declaration of an emergency. When the pilot of an airplane multi-engine land reports that he'll be landing on water, that would also be a hint to the controller.
 
I will admit that I can be critical of controllers. It's the back and fourth controllers and pilots do in our healthy rivalry. That being said, I feel this controller did a great job of dealing with this aircraft while continuing to work aircraft in his sector at the same time. Remember, he is a radar controller working a departure corridor where he is turning/climbing/and handing off jets in the most stressful work environment the FAA has save EWR/ORD//LGA ground in the evening.. I think he did an excellent job of transitioning from a departure controller with fixes/airways up on his screen to a makeshift arrival sector/tower controller giving a distressed aircraft runway options at 2 and almost 3 airports. I think that as the tape continued, the controller wanted to be on tape as having offered as many options as possible to the crew. He just about offerred every runway in the area to the flight in question.
I can't stand the delays we get in the NYC area on departure on clear days. I don't want to understand the issues these guys are dealing with both in traffic and staffing. It is frustrating. But everytime there has been an abnormal at LGA or EWR that I have witnessed on the radio both in the air or on the ground; the real "controller" seems to come out in these guys who I truly believe are the best of the best. I've heard a EWR Tower controller issue instructions to 3 airborn aircraft so quickly to avoid a PIA 747 from causing some real "noise issues" as it almost ran down an MD-80 and a 737. There is no place on earth I'd rather have an emergency then in the NYC Tracon area. Just wish these guys would chose to use their A-game everyday... Maybe we could move some aircraft in and out of the area a lot more quickly.

IAHERJ
 
Last edited:
Sully for President in 2012!!!! Seriously, that guy is my hero. Nerves of STEEL..... I like that the FO actually gets his picture on TV too (it's about time)...

I'll be watching Sully on 60 Minutes this Sunday and on Larry King Monday night at 9PM EST. It's a great story...
 
Who cares if he didn't "declare an emergency". In the situation he was in, the people on the ground can't do anything for you anyway. And it isn't like landing an Airbus in the Hudson is gonna go unnoticed without rescue help on the way.
 
Did anybody notice that the controller kept calling them "cactus 1529" instead of "cactus 1549"? Anyone who has flown lately knows when a controller uses the wrong call sign we don't pay attention to what they are saying. Notice he keeps calling "cactus 1529", to no response!
 
I heard a few "USAir" in there too.

Controllers did great. Unless you've been in a position of controlling and coordinating traffic, you have no idea how hard it is to be perfect all the time. The best you can expect is not to make the situation worse, and just do the best you can at the time. We have no idea how many resources this controller had available at the time...many controllers work by themselves without a D-side. The guy has a dozen things to do immediately and the longer he takes to prioritize them in his head, the longer it takes to get them done. Sometimes you just pick one of the more important ones, do it, and keep going down the list that you are constantly changing the order of in your head, while adding other items to it as people call you on the phone, supervisors yell at you for info, radio traffic...

It's like critiquing a crew when they didn't do everything perfectly in an emergency. OMG They didn't hit the "ditching switch!".
 
100 and 1/2, maybe you are right and in time we will see, but for now you are making a big assumption that the cactus crew asked to do something and the controller denied it. You have no evidence at this point to back up your claim. When the NTSB releases its report I'm sure it won't cover for the FAA if they did something like that and you will see the whole transcript. Of course it will most likely match this one. Can you imagine what the media would do if they found out the FAA had edited this stuff? I just don't think that happened.
 
I for one think this controller did as good as anyone could do. He had seconds to try and get a mental picture of what this crew at low altitude was needing. I hope some recognition goes to this controller for keeping it together with other metal moving at high rates of speed while dealing with this emergency. I see nothing in this that the controller did wrong.
 
Sounds like everyone did a fine job!

One thing that had me wondering was the lack of CRC's in the background when cactus made radio transmissions. I had previously thought that when they lost the engines, or one of them with one producing "some" power, that the CRC's would be going off with the ECAM ding continuously going as well as systems drop off line. I guess not. Maybe that one engine producing "some" power enabled all systems to operate normally for the short remainder of the flight...but i would still think the one engine being shut down with the switch in the on position should have set off some bells...I will see if i can simulate the engine loss and one engine at 35% in my next PC/PT just to see what exactly the "sim" says will happen.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top