Talk:US Airways Flight 1549/Archive 6

Write-off

I have twice removed the statement that "The almost ten year old airplane (N106US, c/n 1044) was written off.", the second time refactoring it thus. Others have also moved or removed it. Two of the three references given do not even say that the plane is written-off, so I removed them. Via a series of intermediate edits (hard to identify, due to missing or misleading edit summaries), that statement has been returned yet again. The age and identity of the aircraft is already in the article, so I think my wording should be restored. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I found one of the restoring edits, edit summary "Please stop 'dumbing down' article by removing sourced technical material". See also next section. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say your edit is reasonable enough, and is better than the current wording. Go for it. - auburnpilot talk 22:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had removed a sentence fragment from the intro section yesterday stating "A hull-loss accident." with "hull-loss" linked to "write-off"; because the two references supplied had only provided speculation. Tempshill (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've restored that. Hopefully, anyone who disagrees will talk here before reverting again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NYTRACON

The text:

The captain radioed to air traffic control that he had experienced a bird strike…

was reverted (in the same edit referred to in the preceding section) to:

The captain radioed to air traffic control (NYTRACON) that he had experienced a bird strike…

with the edit summary "Please stop 'dumbing down' article by removing sourced technical material".

The problem with that text is that the linked page does not define "NYTRACON", nor is its meaning clear from the context on the page. Fixing such problems is not "dumbing down", it is making the article readable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How is NYTRACON not clear? It's the New York area Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). - auburnpilot talk 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Terminal Control Center is a better link than TRACON, or NYTRACON. --John (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If it further clarifies, replace it with a piped link: New York Terminal Radar Approach Control. - auburnpilot talk 21:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a case of AIBUAA. I trust that's equally clear. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

TRACON was linked, AIBUAA is not. But I think we all know that AIBUAA = Assuming Intelligence Belittles Us All, Ass. No? ;-) - auburnpilot talk 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No. And though TRACON was linked; it did not define NYTRACON. Perhaps you might now look at the section preceding this one? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rescued

I have more than once removed wording to the effect that passengers were "rescued from the river" from the lede, but one or more editors keep reverting to reinstate it. I would remind people that the Wikipedia process is Boldly edit, if Reverted, Discuss - not keep adding the wording you like, without discussion. In this case, the wording is misleading, because most passengers were not in the river; and unnecessary, because once we've pointed out that they all "survived the incident", the process by which they were restored to land is adequately covered in the body of the article. The latest revert also reintroduces the ungainly repetition of "ditching" in the lede. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A forced "landing" in the water is called a "ditching" which is exactly what happened in this case. All on board survived the ditching, but they were hardly out of danger at this point as the cabin quickly began to fill with very cold water. The plane was still floating in the middle of river several hundred yards from shore and drifting down stream when the occupants climbed out on the wings and the inflated slides to avoid being drowned if it then sank at which time they were then subject to injury or death from exposure to the frigid waters. It is from this second peril that they were most assuredly subsequently "rescued" from by nearby ferry boats and watercraft which promptly came to their aid. Had these impromptu rescuers not been there so quickly many of the survivors of the ditching would have very likely suffered serious injuries or death from exposure. The "incident" (as you call it) was in fact two very distinct and separate incidents -- the disabling of the airplane's engines and subsequent ditching, and the water rescue which followed -- with very different perils and potential outcomes. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

FWIW, "Rescued from the river" is vague enough to be misleading. By the way, I troubled to look up "ditching" on the NTSB site, and their aviation accident coding manual at [1] defines "ditching" as "A planned event in which a flight crew knowingly makes a controlled emergency landing in water. (Excludes float plane landings in normal water landing areas.)" (Just wanted to note that here; I'm not contradicting your statement above.) Tempshill (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

*Now reads "... rescued from the partially submerged plane..." for unambiguous clarity; and...

*As my above response posted at 01:54 (as had been requested by the original poster in this talk section) was not responded to (or apparently read) before unilaterally reverting my edits in the intro on the subject of the water rescue 2:24 later (at 4:18), I repeat it here briefly for his convenience. Acknowledging the water rescue operations separately in the intro is not superfluous as it was every bit as much responsible for the 100% survival rate among the 155 souls on board which occurred after the ditching was completed as the aircrew was for ditching and evacuating the plane before the rescue boats arrive. These were two quite separate events which presented very different perils and requirements for success. (Centpacrr (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

• "Escaped" vs "Rescued": The passengers and crew escaped from the Airbus to the wings and inflated slides on their own and without outside assistance. The were then rescued by others in ferry boats and other watercraft who arrived after their original escape from inside the plane. These were two separate actions -- the first (escaped) being "active" (on their own), and the second (rescued) being "passive" (aided by others). (Centpacrr (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

NTSB preliminary report

FYI - NTSB has posted its preliminary report (synopsys). This may be used as a reference to support a bird strike and simultaneous loss of power in both engines. Ikluft (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Condensing the references.

There are currently 72 references, which take up about one third of the total article size. Some facts are referenced four times, and many facts are covered by other references, but the fact not attributed to them. Now I am all for a properly referenced article, and do like a really good set of reference, but I think that the current set are excessive for the story.
What I suggest is a trimming of the references, with the minor facts being attributed to newer references, or refs. supporting more or major facts. e.g. the second ref. in the Injuries section can be used to support the first ref.ed fact. Martin451 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think it needs to be done, go for it. Just be sure not to remove any reference that is used more than once, unless you replace it with a reference that covers each use. Also be careful when choosing between which references are removed and which references are kept. If choosing between MSNBC and Yahoo News, for example, remove Yahoo News as their links tend to die off quickly. MSNBC links tend to stay alive and well for long periods of time. - auburnpilot talk 01:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right - and the first references cited are going to be the less valuable ones, more full of speculation than the later references. Thanks for tackling a thankless task. Tempshill (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bird Strike

I need clarity, if possible on what altitude the plane was at when the bird strike occured. The article uses the verbage: "While climbing through an altitude of 3,200 feet (980 m) about ninety seconds after takeoff, the crew reported by radio that their twin-jet Airbus A320 had been involved in a bird strike and had lost power to both engines.[7][8]" So at what altitude, did the bird strike occur? Truth4Sale 2009-01-19 06:41 UTC

I'm betting that will come to light when the flight data recorder is analyzed. Tempshill (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jet Fuel

I would like to know if sources have stated whether or not any jet fuel was dumped before the landing, or is the jet fuel still in the airplane, and if so, was it leaking out? Truth4Sale 2009-01-19 06:41 UTC

A few media outlets reported that the fuel was being drained as part of the process to remove the aircraft from the Hudson river, so at least some fuel remained in the tanks. (Besides, dumping fuel for a couple of minutes at most wouldn't have helped much at all.) There's no telling whether all the fuel remained in the wings, though. That's the sort of thing the NTSB states on their investigations' reports. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

the A320 has no fuel dump system WP:Fuel Dump so when the aircraft entered the river it was pretty much filled up with what it had upon take off. What managed to leak out into the river after that is currently unknown, but with one engine being torn off, leading edge flaps breaking away I think there is a reasonable chance that some fuel was able to escape. We'll have to wait and see on that score though. Feralicious (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about if the fuel would have added buoyancy to the downed aircraft. It should be lighter than the water it displaces. could this have helped keep the aircraft afloat and slowed water rushing in through the damaged bottom side of the fuselage? I gather from reports of the route that the A320 could have had nearly a full fuel load (6,300 lbs.) which was not dump-able as noted above. Thoughts or documentation? -- Rjhawkin (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While oil will float on water, I wouldn't count on a "container" of fuel (such as an airplane wing) being kept afloat. However, there's a simple test you could try. Take a gas can, fill it with gas, seal it up, and see if it floats or sinks in a small body of water (such as your filled bathtub or something). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside from being WP:OR, the above addresses the wrong question. The comparison should be between the density of kerosene and the density of entrapped air in a sealed empty tank. The aircraft's MTOW should be well documented, as should it's fuel capacity. No need for experiments. According to the FAA type certificate the A320-200 series can have either 3 or 4 tanks containing 19,274 or 21,594 kg of usable fuel respectively.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original question was whether the full fuel tanks would help the wings stay afloat. I'm looking for an answer to that question somewhere in your response. Meanwhile, the original questioner could still try what I suggested, and get a sense of what the answer could be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. WP:OR applies to article content. This section of the talk page is not an article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope that nobody is foolish enough to take Baseball Bugs seriously and puts gasoline in their bathtub. It's a fire hazard, and gasoline fumes can be dangerous. Even if just a little bit is on the outside of the can it will contaminate the water, tub, drain, etc., and you'll have a persistent smell if nothing else. Besides, jets don't use "gas" they use jet fuel.

Instead of performing dangerous experiments, why don't you use some sort of reference medium... like, I dunno, Wikipedia? the Jet Fuel article says that JET A-1 has a density of 0.8075 kg/L, whereas water is 0.998 kg/L. Since jet fuel would weigh less than the water it displaces (per Archimedes' principle), jet fuel floats in water, and it would therefore increase the buoyancy of an aircraft afloat, since it weighs less than the water it displaces. – jaksmata 17:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There ya go. :) Now, as a followup question, the fuel tanks are in the forward wings, right? Which could explain why the forward wing portion stayed above water longer than the tail wings, right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Beats me. One of the principles of flight is that the center of lift (the wings) is at the center of gravity, but I guess the center of buoyancy is a different question all together. There are probably a lot of factors - damage, leakage, cargo, contents of overhead compartments shifting... – jaksmata 20:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

See the link for the A320 Ditching Button which includes this Federal Aviation Regulation Part 25, Section 801 quote: "If the airplane has fuel tanks (with fuel jettisoning provisions) that can reasonably be expected to withstand a ditching without leakage, the jettisonable volume of fuel may be considered as buoyancy volume." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This has me a bit puzzled: the volume of the wing remains the same whether it is full or empty. Air is less dense than fuel, so jettisoning fuel would seem to improve buoyancy. Is that what is meant by the above? As LeadSongDog noted, the relevant question is the buoyancy of an empty air filled wing vs. a fuel filled wing, as some people seem to believe the fuel in the wing improved buoyancy. The fact that jet fuel is less dense than water seems like it would help it from sinking, but not as much as an empty wing would. Likewise if you take a rowboat and fill it with toy boats, the rowboat will sit a little lower, not higher, in the water. Even though the toy boats are buoyant, the total mass of the rowboat increased while its displaced volume remained the same -- hence less buoyancy. Fletcher (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But, um, furthermore: "... the A320 family and various regional jet ("RJ") aircraft do not have fuel dump systems installed." (see Fuel dumping). Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the original question was more along the lines of whether the fuel tanks help keep the wings afloat. But he raises an interesting point. Suppose you were approaching NYC and the engines conked out and you made a water landing, with nearly empty fuel tanks. It sounds like the wings would float better if the tanks were empty. Either way, they would probably do better than the tail did - although there was a rumor that someone partially opened a rear door, which didn't help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The original question was "... whether or not any jet fuel was dumped before the landing...?" The answer must be no. And so yes, fuel still leaking out. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger. Going back to the gas can test, it's reasonable to assume that a sealed but empty gas can would float higher than a can full of jet fuel would. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Empty things tend to float better than full things. Provided they're sealed. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's where things start to get tricky: I recall a story about a plane that was carrying a priceless cargo of exotic birds in its cargo hold. There was one problem: They could only make one flight, and they were about double their weight limit for cargo. So they had to hire a guy to sit in the cargo hold and bang on the cages to startle the birds off their perches and thus keep at least half of them flying at all times. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They must have been empty birds. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, they were stuffed with bird seed. Hence the need to keep them flying. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the sanitized version of the story. In reality they found it much more effective to jettison the guy they hired out the cargo hatch. Fletcher (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He hung onto the bird cages for dear life, hence the term "clutch cargo". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Airline schedule fetishists in the intro

US Airways Flight 1549 was a daily scheduled commercial passenger flight from LaGuardia Airport in New York City to Charlotte, NC, and Seattle, WA.

Only airline schedule fetishists talk this way in the intro of a Wikipedia article. To the world at large (including practically all news media organizations), Flight 1549 is now the name of the individual aircraft that ended up in the Hudson. The above sentence is no longer appropriate for the intro. I rephrased the intro accordingly. Tempshill (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead is going to mention the departure and destination anyway, so why not put the flight into its proper context? It can all be done in the same sentence. Joshdboz (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I grudgingly think the lead is OK now. My objections have been that other editors keep adding that "Flight 1549" is the name of a route, and then they describe the route in excess detail; and also adding that after landing in Charlotte the route went to Seatac. I think both of these facts, though true, should be sacrificed for the sake of brevity in the opening paragraph. Tempshill (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It's an introduction, and as such should move from the most general information to the most specific.842U (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what does this actually mean: US Airways Flight 1549 was a daily scheduled commercial passenger flight. Is it really necessary to say that it was a daily AND a scheduled flight. Can a flight be a daily flight without behing scheduled... in fact, isn't it implicit in the Flight number that the flight was "scheduled."842U (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)