Talk:US Airways Flight 1549/Archive 2

Departure Time

The time US Airways give in their press release (3:03p) is the pushback time from the gate. The take-off time was 3:26p - see FlightAware or Flightstats Extended Details (free sign up needed for extended details). I changed this as the take-off time is probably more interesting for most readers. --SmilingBoy (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Make sense. Good change. I may change wording to "took off" instead of "departed" for a bit more clarity.Stu (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight Duration

Currently, we have: "The plane was in the air for about three minutes before it went down, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said, adding that preliminary information indicates a bird strike." On FlightAware (which uses radar tracking), the duration of the flight was 6 minutes. Any other sources? --SmilingBoy (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pilot's age

The plane was piloted by...a 29-year employee of US Airways who flew F-4 Phantoms...from 1973 to 1980. ??? He clearly wasn't flying F-4 phantoms 35 years ago if he's only 29 years old... I have removed this for now. 93.97.36.253 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"A 29-year employee" is not the same as "a 29 year-old employee." There is no contradiction in the text you deleted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep I'm with you on that, I was caught out by American English grammar; the only situation we would use an age like that is with -old suffixed to the year so my mind turned it into what I was expecting! That'll teach me. 93.97.36.253 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about a reword ... an employee of US Airways for 29 years who...--91.107.199.7 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

US and Local News

Would it make sense to stay away from BBC and stick to the most local news possible for an ongoing event?--Christopher Kraus (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguably you should stick to news agencies such as Annova etc... who are internationally known and respected. Sources such as the Charlotte observer whilst credible aren't as "respected" in the international community as BBC et al. (yes I'm a Brit!)--91.107.199.7 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference with the BBC/Reuters/AP etc is that they don't rush to publish unverified stories. They may take a little longer to get the story out but when they do tend to get it right. 84.9.35.34 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC had reporters on the riverbank in New York. They have exclusive interviews with people who saw the plane land. How much more local to the event do you want them to be? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably for this case, one may want to also look at stories from the New York Daily News, New York Post, and New York Times, which have all put up stories from their own reporters on their web sites. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Injury count

Where did we get 76 injuries from? Anyone have a cite? Greensoda (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Apologies to those editors who I just reverted, but I couldn't figure out an easier way to revert this edit by Naruto76 (talk · contribs). It seems like an unnecessary and unexplained revert to an earlier version of the article. - auburnpilot talk 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Animals

Were there any animals being transported in this airplane? Cause I think they will probably die. --Voidvector (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I wondered about this, havent seen any reports yet. Superpie (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.242.178 (talk • contribs)

I'm also curious to know about this. I hope someone can find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.59.67 (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

On CNN.com's webcast this question was brought up, and the reporter on-camera said that sadly if there were any animals in the hold, they were most certainly a casualty. But I have found no archived source for this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As an animal lover myself, I was wondering offhand about this, but I have not seen anything. Might be worth adding if we can find sourcing about it.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget those birds that were flying along and minding there own business when an Airbus came along and sucked them into its turbofans. Bye bye birdies! How long until some animal rights groups wants to have the pilots charged with murder for dicing the birds, and drowning the animals? Heroes indeed! - BillCJ (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, was a comment of this nature really necessary? Umbralcorax (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a fair question cloaked in sarcasm, and there are apparently thousands of bird strikes every year, so it's unlikely they would have any success singling this one out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nickname

Well, most of the news that are covering this story are calling this the Miracle on the Hudson. Should we incorporate this into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrolman89 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a miracle is an insult to the flight crew. They performed a textbook dead stick water landing in a very complicated aircraft which has never been tested or trained for such an eventuality. Bravo, yes. Miracle, absolutely not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.183.137 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but had there been more bridges along the Hudson River above the GWB, I wonder if the outcome is so certain. Therefore, in retrospect, it is a miracle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It can easily be considered a "miracle" if they landed an aircraft perfectly despite never being tested or trained in this complicated maneuver. But I guess this would lead into the theological discussion about the definition of a "miracle". More importantly, whether it is or isn't an insult is irrelevant when reliable sources are using that term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if both tabloids follow Patterson's lead and use it as their head, then we can make it a redirect to this article. I suppose it's a miracle in that you never can be sure, even given conditions as generally favorable as this (well-trained and experienced crew, daylight with no precipitation and good visibility, ditching very close to two heavily populated areas in a busy waterway where it was certain experienced well-equipped and -trained rescuers would come soon, passengers following instructions and remaining calm) that you won't even a single fatality. As it is we could have been looking at even one hypothermia death, even with all that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave the labeling of "miracles" to the Pope and movie makers. Unless it is being widely and overwhelmingly used, the incident should be referred to only as US Airways Flight 1549. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is typically referred to as "Miracle on the Hudson" (in quotes) as I have seen it. Trent370 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

{{citationneeded}}. Cable news marketing hyperbole used in on-screen graphics should not be considered any type of consensus (or even accurate description of the story). As others have noted below, this is not much miracle and a lot more training and preparedness. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Referring to this as a "Miracle" is grossly inappropriate and denigrates the skill and levelheadedness of the aircrew which, like all professional pilots and cabin attendants, continually train and practice all their professional lives to handle just such an emergency. The application of the term "miracle" to this event by the media and non-aviators is nothing more than an example of their complete misunderstanding of how aircrew prepare to meet the challenge of safely bringing down a severely crippled airplane with no loss of life. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:44, 16 Janury 2009 (UTC))

Totally agree. It's especially ironic since the Captain spent his entire career working in airline risk management, planning and developing air safety systems precisely to guard against 'one in a million events' and 'acts of god'. You're insulting his life work by calling this a miracle. 128.100.48.225 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave it to wikipedians to decide that we're smarter than the reliable sources. The skill and teamwork of the flight crew is not mutually exclusive with the "miraculous" nature of the event. The sky was clear, it was daylight, and the water was relatively calm, and the crew had nothing to do with those facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

USAToday quotes the New York Governor as calling it "The Miracle on the Hudson". [1] Of course, USAToday is just a tabloid, the Governor is a nobody, and wikipedians know everything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A "miracle" is defined as "a visible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can only be explained by divine intervention" which is really a religious concept. The fortunate outcome of the event was the result of the skill of the five members of the aircrew, the behavior of the passengers, and the speed of response of the civilian and government rescuers, not an "interruption of the laws of nature." The Governor of New York is a POLITICIAN, the last occupation one would want to select to be the arbiter on "divine intervention." USA Today was simply reporting what a politician said, but "reportage" is hardly the same thing as an endorsement of what he said. (Centpacrr (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Lots of things have to come together, and the crew had no control over the time of day, the weather, and the relative calm of the river. If you don't like "miracle" then you could call it "luck" or "fate", but it's all really the same thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The aircrew also did not have any control over the flock of birds their plane hit or any other physical circumstance related to the event, but none of these factors in any way constituted a "a visible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can only be explained by divine intervention." And this fact does not in any way denigrate the accomplishments of the aircrew, passengers, and rescuers -- it only enhances them. Nothing that happened was in any way a "miracle" that could only be "explained" by a suspension of belief of the laws of nature -- the commercial and political utterances and coloquilisms of the media and political classes notwithstanding. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

By your strict definition, miracles are impossible. You need to think outside the pedantic box. No matter how experienced a pilot may be, there is always a luck factor. It was bad luck that they hit a "fanjet of birds" (two of them, yet) and it was good luck that weather factors were reasonably favorable. And while experience increases the likelihood of survival, it does not guarantee it. And wikipedians are not smarter than the media, even though many of them think they are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguing the merits and/or faults of such concepts as "miracles, fate, and luck" is appropriate on religious, philosophical, or spiritual websites, but not as being in any way factual on an encyclopedic site -- especially when writing about a non-fictional event. Reducing this accident to requiring a belief in any of these by definition unprovable concepts as being in any way causative or controlling of its precursors and transpiration is the same as saying that there is therefore no purpose to investigating and determining the real events and the causes/explanations therefore. And I am saying this as one who, at one time or another in my life, has been a professional aviator, writer, journalist, and/or broadcaster. (Centpacrr(talk) 12:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There was an extremely low probability of this all turning out well, yet it did. Hence the term "Miracle on the Hudson", which is a reliably sourced term, which overrides your personally finding it offensive, and your misguided assumption that it somehow diminishes the heroism of the crew and the various boaters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I am afraid that you have completely missed the point and are still confusing the advocation of the employment of religious and spiritual concepts as unprovable explanations for events in place of searching for the real facts and understanding them by the application of the scientific method. Nothing about this event will ultimately be found to be mysterious or unexplainable. "Miracle on the Hudson" is only sourced as being a term that has been invented, applied, and promoted primarily by politicians and the media as something they decided to call it. It is in no way an actual provable "miracle" which, by definition, must be unprovable because it depends on a belief in "divine intervention." Encyclopedias are about being factual, not an exercise in proselytization. (Centpacrr(talk) 13:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

If people are describing it as a miracle, we should report that, regardless of if it is one or not, were not making decisions just reporting facts. --Nate1481 13:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, as long as it is clear any inclusion of "Miracle on the Hudson" in this article is for what it is -- a bit of commercial headline writing and/or political hyperbole -- as opposed to being represented as an actual "miracle" (whatever that is). I am sure that Capt. Sullenberger -- himself a veteran aviation accident investigator -- would be the first to agree that this is a fully explainable accident. The good outcome for the passengers and crew was the result of training and experience of the aircrew and rescuers, not "divine intervention." (Centpacrr (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes. Reliable sources are what matter, not the nose-in-the-air attitude of some wikipedia editors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources are reliable only as to the fact the term "Miracle on the Hudson" has been used and promoted by the media and politicians for their own purposes as a term to describe the accident and associated events, but not that it is an actual "miracle" which is a religious concept dependent exclusively on a belief the outcome was controlled by divine intervention. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

There is no such thing as a "miracle" under the dictionary definition. Because, by definition, nothing can defy the laws of physics. The term "miracle" is used for events that had a low probability of success - such as "Miracle on Ice" in 1980, which wasn't a "religious" miracle either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Centpacrr and the IPs are missing the point. If the incident is widely referred to as "Miracle on the Hudson" and there are sufficient sources to back that up, than our opinions on whether the term "miracle" is accurate or offensive are irrelevant. Mike R (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Miracle on Ice" is appropriate, so why not "Miracle on the Hudson?" Of course this means the media runs our lives, but what else is new? I put it in the title paragraph, in quotes. Someone else already put in the redirect.Dartholorin (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, reporting that this appellation had been applied to the event in "popular culture" is appropriate although not particularly relevant to the facts of the accident, however implying that it is an actual "miracle" in the literal sense of the word (1137, O.Fr. miracle, from Church L. miraculum: "a marvelous event caused by God") is not. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

(outdent) I suppose it is a miracle in the (somewhat sarcastic) sense that everybody did what they were supposed to do in a situation like this, from the pilots to the passengers, something we often seem to be short of. Especially the guy with the most training and experience ... Sullenberger. I mean, in how many other aviation accidents have come about because someone forgot that FAA maxim from flight training: "The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations in which he has to demonstrate superior skill", and then fell as short on that last part as he did the second. Look at the one everyone's comparing this with, Air Florida Flight 90 with the famous almost-last words about the deicing spray: "Gives you a false sense of security is all it does" (Of course, those guys didn't have adequate experience for what they were doing). Look at Captain van Zanten and the Tenerife airport collision ... 12,000 hours of flight time and he still figured he could save the airline money by pretending he had misunderstood the tower so he could get to Grand Canary and not have to put everyone up for the night. Or when a Brazilian military air controller takes 15 minutes to let the guy in the next sector know he's got a private jet with its transponder off coming in on the same altitude as a full commercial jet.

We have unfortunately come to expect that experts and professionals will disappoint us. So we call it a miracle when they don't. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As additional evidence for the nickname, "Miracle on the Hudson" returns 2583 hits on Google News from yesterday and today alone.Dartholorin (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And regarding the religious aspect of it, unless the complainant has a red phone direct to God, he is in no position to know what role, if any, God played in this event. A religious person could easily make the argument that the hand of God guided everyone in this potential disaster - and hence, a miracle. And not just the immediate event as such, but also something positive for Americans to focus on in dark times. And lessons learned that may save lives in the future. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

People, people, people....the term "miracle" is being used figuratively. All of you who have superanalized the use of the word "miracle" in connection with this incident need to get a life. Folks like you are the reason our government gets so inefficient for dealing with so much red tape. Life is too short folks. Get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.170.50 (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget the "Miracle Mets" of 1969. I, as a Cubs fan, certainly never will. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(I don't know which of the above statements I should post this reply directly under, so I'll put it here.) I have seen or read at least one news report that said that it was very fortunate that the plane was ditched where it was because ferries were nearby and able to go there and pick up the survivors quickly. Had help arrived a number of minutes later, someone might have died from hypothermia. So the word miracle might be used (informally) to describe more than the results of the actions of the crew. --anon. 68.160.230.107 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Did the airplane crash in New York or New Jersey?

Not as easy a question to answer as you might think, given that it ditched somewhere near the mid-Hudson.69.141.86.93 (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

After a Flickr review aided by Google Maps, I believe the crash happened north of the Lincoln Tunnel but soon the plane drifted south of the tunnel; however, I am still unsure which side of the border the crash was on. It may well have occurred in both states. 69.141.86.93 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight Tracker in Google Earth, although it apparently incorrectly places the crash site south of where it should be, does suggest strongly that this was a New Jersey crash. The Hudson River has a southeast "kink" in it below the Chelsea area, and the pilot could well have tried to compensate for the kink by slightly aiming for impact on the west side of the river, facing southeast. That raises the likelihood of the crash being in NJ. 69.141.86.93 (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop being funny. His attempt was to save as many lives as possible. **** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.135.112 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC) wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC) If the plane landed, or rather, watered.. on the western half of the river the specifics get a bit tricky. Per the "treaty of 1834" "The state of New York shall have and enjoy exclusive jurisdiction of and over all the waters of the Bay of New York and of and over all the waters of Hudson River, lying west of Manhattan Island... and of and over the lands covered by the said waters to the low water mark on the westerly or New Jersey side thereof..

On the other hand, "The state of New Jersey shall have the exclusive right of property in and to the land under water, lying west of the middle...of the Hudson River.."

Link to the Google Earth Flight Path on Floweb.com [2]--Govtrust (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Where the state line is shown on the map is irrelevant. The Treaty of 1834 is the last word as far as emergency services and public safety people on both sides of the river are concerned ... famously, bodies of people on the losing end of certain business decisions made in Little Italy social clubs that have washed up on the shores of Hudson County a few days after they were last seen getting into a car somewhat nervously were almost always fobbed off on the NYPD even if they were above high water when found, and sometimes the Jersey City/Hoboken/Weehawken PDs would surreptitiously move them to the water's edge before they called their brother officers across the river to make sure about this.

OTOH, if the plane had sunk, it sounds like NJ would get it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a shame, because there seems to me to be more elbow room on the Jersey side of the Hudson for pulling up a plane - and, besides, I heard a report that the engines of the plane went to the bottom of the river. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Swam for it?

Someone has written in the Passengers section that some people "swam for it." I've asked for a citation because I have not seen or read this suggestion in any media. It also seems, at best, highly implausible. Wine Guy Talk 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

New York times article suggests at least one passenger swam for it [3]--Govtrust (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be the guy Katie Couric was talking to by phone on CBS News on Thursday evening. He talked about being the last passenger out of the plane, and how he attempted to swim, and how quickly his lower extremities went numb from the cold water. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about looking at the picture at the top of the article that shows people swimming beside the plane? 66.234.41.21 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They weren't swimming, they were floating (with the aid of a life vest or seat cushion) while awaiting rescue. "To swim for it" implies making an effort to get to somewhere (else). (By the way, I've taken the liberty of properly indenting your comment so as to make clear it was you to whom I was replying.) --anon. 68.160.230.107 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a guy who tried to "swim for it" and was not only pulled out of the water, but ended up with a crewman's shirt. I don't recall names, but this is a guy who went to the hospital with a broken sternum. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Water temperature

I have seen several different reports of the water temperature. Some say 32 F, other differ. Can we get a fix on this? Trent370 (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NY1 and CBS said the water temperature was roughly 42 degrees. The fourth paragraph down states the temperature was 41 [[4]]

Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Timesonline says it was -6 deg C - which is much colder than the above - surely there would be ice at that temperature ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.25.70.58 (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that the river water is salt at that point, it could well have been colder than 0° C. I would not have wanted to spend any length of time in it if I didn't have to. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we include the freezing point depression, from the extrapolated data? Or would this be original research? Trent370 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Water flowing past the [|Battery Park NOAA Monitoring station] at 1530 on January 15 has the water temp at 41.4F(5.2C) and falling If the 42 degrees mentioned was converted to +6 Celcius, this is probably the reason for the confusion, a misplaced hyphen being taken as a negative symbol.Rjhawkin (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)