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 Air type in the Hudson?????????
- Thread starter Capt.LongThrust
- Start date
- Watchers 128
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
Captzaahlie
My kind of FOD!
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Posts
- 1,564
The Prussian
Stecknadelkopf
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Posts
- 671
I'm thinking he probably means USAir is proud enough of this outcome, to not paint over the USAir logo...so far...
Last edited:
Amish RakeFight
Registered Loser
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2005
- Posts
- 8,006
It's common to "white wash" the logo after an accident. Bad PR.
I honestly believe that revealing the enormous experience of that crew, their skill and judgment that day has boosted USAir's reputation a bit. It's possible that in the publics eye, USAir may be perceived as having very skilled and experienced pilots, which might lead to a poisitve slant towards their ticket sales.
Anyone buying any of this? Maybe in the very short term.... If it's a toss up btwn a few bucks for a flight, some might be wiling to click on the USAir fare in lieu of the less expensive one.
Who knows...
I honestly believe that revealing the enormous experience of that crew, their skill and judgment that day has boosted USAir's reputation a bit. It's possible that in the publics eye, USAir may be perceived as having very skilled and experienced pilots, which might lead to a poisitve slant towards their ticket sales.
Anyone buying any of this? Maybe in the very short term.... If it's a toss up btwn a few bucks for a flight, some might be wiling to click on the USAir fare in lieu of the less expensive one.
Who knows...
Captzaahlie
My kind of FOD!
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Posts
- 1,564
Thanks Prussian, I was slow making the connection. Probably because of exactly what you are saying, why hide something so positive?
The Prussian
Stecknadelkopf
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Posts
- 671
I would agree that that this particular event has not hurt USAir in the least, and has more than likely helped USAir's public image.
Captzaahlie
My kind of FOD!
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Posts
- 1,564
The truly clueless are thinking.....
"Hey maybe Capt. Sully will be my pilot!"
I wonder how many times FA's will be asked that question as pax board a flight?
The Prussian
Stecknadelkopf
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Posts
- 671
No problema...gotta admit, it didn't jump out at me right away either.
fischman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Posts
- 2,360
Pilot Says Bird Warnings Not Much Help To Aircraft
Pilot says bird warnings not much help to aircraft
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
(06-09) 14:43 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Shortly after takeoff, the pilot of Flight 1549 remarked on two things almost immediately: a breathtaking view of the Hudson River and the sickening thump of birds hitting his engines. Warnings about the birds probably would not have helped, Capt. Chesley Sullenberger told federal safety officials Tuesday as they looked for ways to prevent a recurrence that could prove deadly.
"In my experience, the warnings we get are general in nature and not specific and therefore have limited usefulness," Sullenberger said during a hearing by the National Transportation Safety Board.
The board began three days of hearings into safety issues arising from the Jan. 15 accident, including efforts to prevent bird strikes and the ability of aircraft engines to withstand collisions with large birds. Other issues include whether the Federal Aviation Administration's aircraft certification standards are adequate to protect passengers in event of a forced water landing.
In the case of US Airways Flight 1549, the Airbus A320 suffered a rupture near the tailcone that sent water gushing into the cabin after its forced landing on the Hudson River. All 155 aboard managed to escape the sinking craft.
A cockpit voice recorder transcript released by the board showed Sullenberger and co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles were admiring their surroundings less than a minute before their plane struck a flock of Canada geese and lost thrust in both engines.
"What a view of the Hudson today," Sullenberger remarked.
"Yeah," Skiles responded.
Thirty-three seconds later Sullenberger said, "Birds," Skiles said, "Whoa," and there is the sound of thumping.
Passenger Billy Campbell, a Woodland Hills, Calif., businessman who was in a window seat in the second-to-last row, said the engine he could see out his window after the bird strike was a "bonfire."
Sullenberger told the board that he didn't attempt to return to New York's LaGuardia Airport because he thought, "I cannot afford to be wrong."
"I had to make sure I could make it before I chose that option," he said. Instead of risking a crash in a densely populated area, he glided the plane into the river.
In the last 21 seconds of the flight — with cockpit warning systems blaring "terrain, terrain" and "pull up, pull up" — Sullenberger turned to co-pilot Jeff Skiles.
"You got any ideas?" he asked.
"Not really," Skiles replied.
Campbell testified that water came flooding in his window when the plane hit the river. There was also a rupture in the fuselage near the tail and someone cracked open a rear door.
"My concern was that the plane was going to sink and we were going to be stuck in the back," he said.
In recent decades, many bird populations — including Canada geese — have rebounded thanks partly to environmental regulations. Air travel has also soared since deregulation in the late 1970s encouraged greater competition and lower fares.
Board member Robert Sumwalt, a former US Airways pilot who flew A320s, said he "never really worried about birds bringing my airplane down."
"Now this has caused a whole new focus on this," Sumwalt said in an interview.
With more planes and more birds in the sky, "we have a situation here — almost a numbers game — where eventually something is going to happen," Michael Begier, national coordinator of the Agriculture Department's airport wildlife hazards program, said in an interview. "We're very fortunate that Flight 1549 was not a catastrophe. It is a warning shot."
The FAA is testing bird-detecting radar that might help airports manage nearby bird populations. Some experts have also suggested aircraft engines should be designed to withstand bigger birds. Newer engines on commercial airliners have to withstand an 8-pound bird, but Canada geese can weigh twice that.
Disrupting bird habitats close to airports would probably not have helped Flight 1549. An analysis of remains of Canada geese in the plane's engines showed that they were migratory — perhaps from Labrador, Canada — not part of the Canada geese population that lives year-round in the New York area, according to the National Zoo's Migratory Bird Center. Moreover, the plane-geese collision occurred several miles from the airport.
Sumwalt told the hearing that he regrets saying that he expected Campbell to testify that the rear door of Flight 1549 was opened by flight attendant Doreen Welsh, who was seated near it. In fact, Campbell did not testify that Welsh had opened the door and instead called her "courageous."
Welsh has said in interviews and congressional testimony that a passenger pushed past her and opened the door, but no passenger has been identified.
Pilot says bird warnings not much help to aircraft
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
(06-09) 14:43 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Shortly after takeoff, the pilot of Flight 1549 remarked on two things almost immediately: a breathtaking view of the Hudson River and the sickening thump of birds hitting his engines. Warnings about the birds probably would not have helped, Capt. Chesley Sullenberger told federal safety officials Tuesday as they looked for ways to prevent a recurrence that could prove deadly.
"In my experience, the warnings we get are general in nature and not specific and therefore have limited usefulness," Sullenberger said during a hearing by the National Transportation Safety Board.
The board began three days of hearings into safety issues arising from the Jan. 15 accident, including efforts to prevent bird strikes and the ability of aircraft engines to withstand collisions with large birds. Other issues include whether the Federal Aviation Administration's aircraft certification standards are adequate to protect passengers in event of a forced water landing.
In the case of US Airways Flight 1549, the Airbus A320 suffered a rupture near the tailcone that sent water gushing into the cabin after its forced landing on the Hudson River. All 155 aboard managed to escape the sinking craft.
A cockpit voice recorder transcript released by the board showed Sullenberger and co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles were admiring their surroundings less than a minute before their plane struck a flock of Canada geese and lost thrust in both engines.
"What a view of the Hudson today," Sullenberger remarked.
"Yeah," Skiles responded.
Thirty-three seconds later Sullenberger said, "Birds," Skiles said, "Whoa," and there is the sound of thumping.
Passenger Billy Campbell, a Woodland Hills, Calif., businessman who was in a window seat in the second-to-last row, said the engine he could see out his window after the bird strike was a "bonfire."
Sullenberger told the board that he didn't attempt to return to New York's LaGuardia Airport because he thought, "I cannot afford to be wrong."
"I had to make sure I could make it before I chose that option," he said. Instead of risking a crash in a densely populated area, he glided the plane into the river.
In the last 21 seconds of the flight — with cockpit warning systems blaring "terrain, terrain" and "pull up, pull up" — Sullenberger turned to co-pilot Jeff Skiles.
"You got any ideas?" he asked.
"Not really," Skiles replied.
Campbell testified that water came flooding in his window when the plane hit the river. There was also a rupture in the fuselage near the tail and someone cracked open a rear door.
"My concern was that the plane was going to sink and we were going to be stuck in the back," he said.
In recent decades, many bird populations — including Canada geese — have rebounded thanks partly to environmental regulations. Air travel has also soared since deregulation in the late 1970s encouraged greater competition and lower fares.
Board member Robert Sumwalt, a former US Airways pilot who flew A320s, said he "never really worried about birds bringing my airplane down."
"Now this has caused a whole new focus on this," Sumwalt said in an interview.
With more planes and more birds in the sky, "we have a situation here — almost a numbers game — where eventually something is going to happen," Michael Begier, national coordinator of the Agriculture Department's airport wildlife hazards program, said in an interview. "We're very fortunate that Flight 1549 was not a catastrophe. It is a warning shot."
The FAA is testing bird-detecting radar that might help airports manage nearby bird populations. Some experts have also suggested aircraft engines should be designed to withstand bigger birds. Newer engines on commercial airliners have to withstand an 8-pound bird, but Canada geese can weigh twice that.
Disrupting bird habitats close to airports would probably not have helped Flight 1549. An analysis of remains of Canada geese in the plane's engines showed that they were migratory — perhaps from Labrador, Canada — not part of the Canada geese population that lives year-round in the New York area, according to the National Zoo's Migratory Bird Center. Moreover, the plane-geese collision occurred several miles from the airport.
Sumwalt told the hearing that he regrets saying that he expected Campbell to testify that the rear door of Flight 1549 was opened by flight attendant Doreen Welsh, who was seated near it. In fact, Campbell did not testify that Welsh had opened the door and instead called her "courageous."
Welsh has said in interviews and congressional testimony that a passenger pushed past her and opened the door, but no passenger has been identified.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
