Talk:US Airways Flight 1549/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Coincidental link with Captain's career

I'm not sure where it belongs in the article, but if the pilots' military training is relevant enough to mention twice, then it's only respectful to acknowledge Captain Sullenberger's life work in aviation safety systems and training. The story of the "Pilot As Hero" is great for newspapers, but the work that really makes these happy endings more likely deserves to be at least mentioned. Sullenberger developed and championed safety and reliability programs, and taught skills like CRM to his fellow pilots - it's pretty apt that he should end up in exactly the sort of situation he helped teach others to prepare for.

But! I'm not a Wikipedian, so I'm not going to push this too far. This edit was my attempt - could anyone suggest a better way to briefly acknowledge this? 128.100.48.225 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Chesley Sullenberger has his own page now. Problem solved.128.100.48.225 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bird strike

In the box: "Type Multiple bird strike (preliminary)" There is no reference for that, and nothing official statement has been released confirming that. And Wikipedia isn't a collection of unverified claims. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.147.185 (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

it's what multiple news channles have been say accros the world so I think it is probably true for somat like this. rdunn 08:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And they are using each other's informations. So when you say "multiple" it is possibly only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.147.185 (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Google is your friend. A simple lookup finds multiple sources, and named sources at that.

"Authorities said the pilot of the Airbus A320 reported a "double bird strike" during takeoff, forcing the crew to make an emergency landing in the Hudson River as both engines lost power. [1]
Flight 1549's pilot reported a "double bird strike" to air traffic controllers moments after taking off, and said he had lost thrust in both engines, said Alex Caldwell, a spokeswoman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. [2]

I don't think there is much debate about the fact that birds are overwhelmingly the culprit at this point, but it should be noted this is "preliminary" until an official report comes out. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know what kind os bird(s) it was? Was it a flock of turkeys or sparrows that brought the aircraft down? Radzewicz (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not known for certain, but the New York Times is reporting either geese or seagulls. --Carnildo (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They haven't recovered the engines yet, and all sources are hedging on the bird strike matter ("reportedly", etc.) until the facts are determined for sure. Presumably they would find the remains of whatever birds honked their last honk. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They are supposed to interview the pilot on Saturday, and that will probably shed some official light on the matter even before they find the engines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

The co-ords would look better displayed as degrees, minutes, seconds instead of decimal degrees. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see: {{Coord}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The only problems I have with the coordinates specified is that (1) they're an approximation I came up with, and (2) no one has refined them at all, and (3) they're too precise for an approximation. :-/ I might remove some of the less significant digits. It's too bad Google Maps isn't updated in a more frequent way (every 5 minutes or so!) so I could have found the plane by looking for it directly. Oh well. - Denimadept (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The last ping bugs me [3] Is it possible the planes position could have been adjusted by rounding? Otherwise why is there a ping below the Lincoln tunnel? [4] --Govtrust (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also did you use this photo in your coordinates? [5] I believe it is the earliest. Denimadept thanks for the approximation. --Govtrust (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight tracker graphic is incorrect. The plane was reported in the water MSNBC and CNN reported the plane in the water at 56th street. According to Flight tracker, the plane is still 500 feet up. A better site to see where the plane was and when, is [6] Set the clock to Jan 15 15:25. The Flight 1549 will appear as a green marker at the top of LaGuardia Airport(LGA) at 15:25:52. You can then click on it to show more detailed information The bird strike occurred near Bronx Park. This is data is generated by the LGA radar return. If this isn't accurate then the air traffic controllers don't know where the plane is. 1549 drops off the view at an altitude of 500 feet near the north end of central park. If you watch the two grey planes traveling the river you can see where they are circling and can see that the point is north of the Lincoln Tunnel as the A320 is already in the water. Rjhawkin (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Blog

If possible, someone please replace the NYT blog with a better reference. Squash Racket (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The plane

Does anyone know how they're going to get the plane out of the water? Will they have to cut it in pieces? Is it likely to ever fly again? Would be interesting to know. 193.54.174.3 (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If they put that plane back into service, getting anyone to buy a ticket on it will definitely qualify as a "miracle". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been towed by tug and presumably will be lifted by a crane or ... ? Apparently a plane that ditched in San Francisco Bay some years ago was retrieved from the bottom of the bay some months later and recommissioned so it's a virtual certainty this one will be as the damage is less. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a plane that ditched in San Francisco Bay some years ago was retrieved from the bottom of the bay some months later and recommissioned so it's a virtual certainty this one will be as the damage is less.. See Japan Airlines Flight 2. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what condition the luggage is in by now? At some point, the passengers might want it back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The CBC website was riddled with hyper-active whining by people crying that the pets stowed in the cargo hold were not rescued before the human passengers were. Only on the CBC website would that even be possible.139.48.25.60 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of precedent for crashed vehicles being re-used. City of Elgin, formerly City of Edinburgh, the plane which suffered a quadruple engine failure (and fuel contamination) owing to volcanic ash in the Jakarta incident was cleaned and returned to service, where it continued for many years. The 'diver' locomotive which took its crew and all passengers to the bottom of a river in the Tay Bridge disaster of 1879 was put back into service, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See also the Gimli Glider, which after crashing on land continued in service for over 20 years. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They'll have to strip the interior and give every system a complete reassembly to ensure there's no rust, contamination, etc; but I would imagine the airframe is still serviceable. Radagast (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would seriously doubt it will go back into service as a whole, I wouldn't imagine rust being a problem as A320s are constructed of composites but the stress of a water landing on the airframe etc could render it unsafe. More than likely it will be stripped and serviceable parts will be returned to the airline and reconditioned after the investigation. Ṃ~~μštўç~~RUŠTЎ ♣ 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustycrusty (talk • contribs)

Well since we are talking about an airplane that costs $73.2 to $80.6m to make (According to the wiki article of the type of plane here) I would say something will be done to save it.Knowledgekid8714:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how old the plane was (A320 have been around since 1988). The US Airways fleet is on average 12 years old, so if it is somewhere near that age, I gather it will be written off.

In any case, the airframe may be damaged by the impact. The engines are destroyed by the geese, all interior is destroyed by water, and all electronics will be compromised by the water. Even if it can be recovered repairs will be very, very expensive (multiple millions of dollars). Arnoutf (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

According to one of the articles I read US Airways Flight 1549#Aircraft, the plane dates from 1999. - Denimadept (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ASN Aircraft database states that the plane was written off due to the damage (It doesn't specify which damage but I'll place money on extensive water damage). I feel it suffices to say that engine damage alone doesnt equate to a write off given that engines are a dime a dozen and the easiest part of a plane to replace and repair. [[7]] Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The plane will be written off, because damage is beyond economical repair. It will be raised from the Hudson on Sat. 17, according to newspapers. _{(I think it deserves a place it in a museum of flight and technics, good plane!)} 89.245.244.62 (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft like this one carry major insurance, that will have to pay big bucks for it once it is written off, it is very unlikely that it will ever fly again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.186.245 (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor injuries?

There are conflicting statements about injuries - i.e. "only minor injuries", "passenger with 2 broken legs", "flight attendant with one broken leg". Can someone with access to the facts sort this out? I know that this is a developing story, but when new information is added the older statements need to be revised. Are we in the realms of what WP is not here, i.e. not a news channel? --TraceyR (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

N106US

N106US doesn't seem to redirect here. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It does now. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Well done to everyone who worked on this and got it up so fast. Dloh cierekim 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, well done to every editor involved. Is there a community barnstar that can be placed on an article? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic work. A great read. --Merbabu (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hudson river crash

Hudson river crash redirects here... aren't there any other articles on crashes on the Hudson? (car crash into it, boat crash, other planes, etc) 76.66.198.171 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any but if there are others then this can be converted into a DMB page. TerriersFan (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Planes were crashed into buildings above the Hudson Terminal, but that's a bit farfetched. --NE2 03:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been other hudson river related incidents but those involved helicopters and currently have no wikipedia page (I checkecd). And to NE2 no one is going to get the veiled reference given that the specific plot of land hasnt been referred to that in over thirty years.Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

injuries

I've noticed something a little confusing in some of the sentences of the article that I wanted to bring up here.

Under the section on Passengers, there's two different ones: "though there are reported to be several mild injuries (including hypothermia)." and "There was only one major injury: a passenger who broke both legs. Seventy-eight other people were treated, mostly for minor injuries.", and the sentence in Aftermath that reads "The most severe injury confirmed as of 5:26 p.m. was a leg fracture received by a flight attendant who was scheduled to undergo surgery."

These seem a little confusing to me, and I was wondering if it might be a good idea to somehow condense things, maybe seperating out "Injuries" into a seperate section? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate the intro sentence.

US Airways Flight 1549 is a regularly scheduled (since 2005) daily two-leg commercial passenger flight operating from LaGuardia Airport in New York City to Charlotte/Douglas International Airport in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Seattle-Tacoma (SeaTac) International Airport servicing Seattle and Tacoma, Washington.

This is actually the first sentence of the article!

To airline scheduling fetishists, the above is indeed what USAir Flight 1549 is.

To everyone else in the world, USAir Flight 1549 is the airplane that ended up in the Hudson.

Can we please stop prefacing every single Wikipedia airline crash article with a long explanation of routes and scheduling? Who cares? To the general public, Flight 1549 is now and forever will be this particular flight of this particular aircraft. The above unnecessary detail can be moved later in the article to placate the airline scheduling fetishists. Tempshill (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Compare with the lead sentences at Tuninter Flight 1153 and British Airways Flight 38, to pick two examples. What would be a more consistent phrasing? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like the latter; its mention that it was "a scheduled flight that crashed..." is technically accurate and brief. Tempshill (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I rephrased the intro to mimic British Airways Flight 38, thanks for the reference. Tempshill (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've altered it further [8], the change produced virtually identical sentances in the lead and Flight section, which are not very far apart. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Go Team

I've delinked the above term because it lead to a Brighton based band (with two drummers, apparently). Anyone who thinks they know where this could usefully link to is of course welcome. Britmax (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Backup power for the flight controls systems

Has anyone reported the state of the electrical systems at the time of the ditching? As I understand it, because the A320 has no backup mechanical flight controls, to achieve such a controlled ditching, it would have to have had either some residual engine revolutions to provide power, or be running on backup electrical power from a battery/RAT/APU?. And do the backup systems on an A320 still allow full operation of the fly by wire system? (albeit of course minus the advantages of having engine any thrust). MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As you said, modern twin turbofan airplanes like the A320 have actually three engines: the two main turbofans under their wings, and a smaller engine in the tail called the auxiliary power unit. The auxiliary power unit is used for instance to power up the main turbofans before takeoff. At the time of the crash, the auxiliary power unit was probably still running. Even in the event of a total loss of power from all the three engines, there is still an emergency ram-air turbine that automatically extends out of the plane, in order to generate electricity. The movement of the plane keeps air flowing and the ram-air turbine running. Cochonfou (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Ram Air Turbine will generate hydraulic pressure rather than act as an electrical generator. The DC batteries (of which there are 2 installed on the A320/321/319) will supply power for the electrical systems on the A/C for around 30 minutes in the event of double engine and APU failure. The batteries will power the fly by wire control systems, opening valves in hydraulic lines to direct fluid into actuators - but the hydraulic fluid itself will be powered by pressure generated by the RAT. Once the batteries drain then all control will be lost as hydraulic pressure alone is useless if you have no means of directing its flow, but if you have no engines your time in the sky is pretty much limited anyway.--Feralicious (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the normal source for hydraulic pressure? The APU or the main engines? MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I believe that the aircraft's trim system can be used in place of the primary control surfaces in an unlikely complete failure of the fly by wire system. Second officer (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about ????strike

If airline could dealt with issues laborstrike and tailstrike, why it couldn't dealt with birdstrike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The birds have a separate union. The airline will be hearing from their lawyer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)