Talk:US Airways Flight 1549/Archive 8

Intro (again)

sorry, i just don't think the addition of "unable to return to the field" (here) does anything to tighten or clarify the opening paragraph. J. Van Meter (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

These six short words concisely provide the reason why the flight ditched into the river as opposed to attempting to land at either of the two nearby airfields (LaGuardia and Teterboro) which were both offered to the aircrew by TRACON as options. The aircrew quickly determined that the plane was "unable" to reach either one, however, and therefore advised ATC that "We're gonna be in the Hudson." Even including the extra "award" paragraph, the US Airway 1549 intro is still just 179 words which, for instance, is 115 fewer then the 294 words in the intro for the the Wikipedia article on TWA Flight 800. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

a landing at teterboro would not have been a "return"; hence the lack of clarity. i would suggest "unable to reach the nearest airports" instead. J. Van Meter (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote to include rejection of all airfield options and related that to the decision to ditch in the river. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Re: Word selection:

• "Land" vs "set down": Airplanes can only "land" on land, not water (which is not land)

• "in water" vs "on water": The NTSB Aviation Accident Coding Manual describes a ditching by a land plane as being "in water." (Float planes and flying boats would set down on water, however, as they are expected to float.)

• "successfully": "successful" ditchings are rare, therefore "successfully" is significant

• "nevertheless": implies an outcome contrary to what would be expected under the circumstances which is what happened in this case (the expected result of a ditching would be the breakup of the airframe and many casualties) (Centpacrr (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

• Clearly the general press usage has agreed roughly 4:1 with the NTSB's sloppy choice of "in" over Oxford's choice of "on", but they are wrong. A ship operates on the water. A submarine operates in it. US1549 was not submerged in the river until well after the last person was off. All that said, neither choice should be excessively jarring to a reader. We have better points to focus on.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree this is not a big issue, but the length of time it took for the Airbus to "sink" should really be irrelevant in this case as it is a land plane which is not intended to float or ever be put down in water. It certainly was partially submerged immediately after touch down, and the only reason it did not go under completely much faster was that fortunately the hull of the aircraft was not significantly compromised during the ditching. Float planes and flying boats are, of course, different in that they are intended to float and operate on water.(Centpacrr (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Just as a matter of interest, why "encountered and struck"? Wouldn't "struck" on its own be enough? Or even "flew into", still linked to Bird strike.--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not absolutely essential so I deleted it. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, that was my thinking when I first encountered it. It struck me as redundant.--Father Goose (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to put too much emphasis on gliding, but I think that the term is fairly widely understood, whereas "in unpowered flight" may puzzle some readers. Yes, it's perfectly correct as a technical term; but not all terms used in WP need to be technical. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

While I suppose that "unpowered flight" is a less widely used term than "gliding" is at some level, it would not really mean the same thing in the context in which it would be used here. Gliding as applied to flight is, in my experience, generally used to describe flight that is intended to be unpowered and is done for sport. That is not the case here.

I really don't see how there can be any serious confusion caused by the usage of the more appropriate technical term "unpowered flight" here:

" ... resulting in the immediate loss of thrust in both engines. Although unable to either

return to LGA or reach any other airfield from that altitude in unpowered flight, ... "

Any "gliding" this plane did was obviously not its intended mode of flight as an A320 is a plane that can only be successfully operated under power. The text above says that both engines lost power, and as a result of suddenly being in this unintended unpowered condition, the plane did not have sufficient altitude to reach any airport and therefore ended up having to ditch in the North River. That being the case, I think "unpowered flight" is the far more accurate and appropriate term to use. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, there is the precedent of the Gimli Glider. According to the intro to the WP article, The crew was able to glide the aircraft safely to an emergency landing at Gimli Industrial Park Airport .... But I'm not going to labour the point. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume the term "glide" was used in this case because the flight had been dubbed "Gimli Glider" in popular culture. (If the flight had made its emergency landing at Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport, for instance, I'm not sure how likely it would have been called the "Richardson International Glider.") What AIr Canada 143 was technically doing, however, was unplanned, unpowered flight owing to fuel exhaustion.(Centpacrr (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

... Well, perhaps I will labour the point just a little bit!

• What about the following: The aircraft was beyond gliding range of any airfield including LGA; however the aircrew succeeded in ...?
• I'm beginning to wonder about this now: ... the immediate loss of thrust in both engines. Wouldn't it be clearer, & less open to misinterpretation, to say instead ... the total loss of power in both engines? "Loss of thrust" might be construed as "reduced thrust". --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that not all thrust was lost in the engines (see Airbus Accident Information Telex and for example http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/23/321591/hudson-a320-partial-engine-power-aided-textbook-ditching.html). According to these sources, the engines produced 35% and 15% thrust. Level flight would have required 70% thrust from one engine.IlkkaP (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro word choice:

• "any" vs "an": The flight was offered and considered the option of an emergency landing at two airports (LGA and Teterboro) therefore the plural ("any") is the appropriate word as opposed to the singular ("an");

• "Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum": This Museum is a very well known landmark (even though it is in the water) located on the North River. As such, it gives the readers a much much better instant mental picture of the site of the ditching then referring only to North River Pier 86 alone which would be all but meaningless to most readers without saying what is docked there. (This would be similar to saying only that somebody has an office at "350 5th Ave" as opposed to saying the office is in the Empire State Building. Both describe the same location, but including the name of the iconic landmark building located there makes the statement far more meaningful.) (Centpacrr (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

I know there's a certain reluctance to use the word glide (despite the fact that many reports of the incident seem to use it); but the ugly phrase the then-unpowered airliner is certainly no improvement. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Various views as to the aesthetics of the language aside, it is still the most accurate phrase to describe exactly the condition in which the A320 was after the bird strike and before the ditching. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

"Unpowered flight" sounds like an accurate phrasing, although I'm not sure what the problem is with "glide", but "unpowered airliner" is a little misleading because the aircraft did have power from its APU or possibly the RAT, apparently never having lost electrical power and hydraulics. I realize of course that "powered" customarily refers to forward thrust provided by the engines, but I'm worried readers not familiar with airbus' flight control systems might be confused into thinking the whole plane "shut down" and the pilot dead-sticked it into the Hudson. I'm not sure of the best phrasing, though, and there seems to be some edit warring going on over the lede. Hmm. Fletcher (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I have changed "unpowered" from modifying "airliner" to "flight" (as I had it originally) so that it now reads "When the pilots concluded that the airliner would be unable to reach any airfield in unpowered flight, they turned it southbound near ... " (Centpacrr (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the Intrepid, I personally would leave that detail out of the lede and just say "adjacent to midtown Manhattan". The "Ditching" section is a better place for the additional interesting details, such as the Intrepid being nearby, and the aside that that part of the Hudson is also known as the North River. Much as I am fond of the "North River" moniker, it's more a historical name than an active one. Just call it the Hudson in the lede.--Father Goose (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Adjacent only to "midtown Manhattan" describes an area which could easily be interpreted by readers as being anywhere within several miles of where the ditching took place, whereas identifying the site as also being near the "Intrepid" relates it to a well known specific landmark (even though it is in the water) located at North River Pier 86 at the Western foot of 46th Street. As such, it gives the readers a much much better instant mental picture of the site of the ditching then referring only to Pier 86 alone which would be all but meaningless to most readers without also saying what is docked there. (This would be similar to saying only that somebody has an office at "350 5th Ave" as opposed to saying the office is in the Empire State Building. Both describe the same location, but including the name of the iconic landmark building located there makes the statement far more meaningful to a general readership.)

While North River was used historically as the name for the entire 300+ mile long Hudson River, it is still very much used to describe that portion of the waterway (which is actually a tidal estuary) between Manhattan and New Jersey. That is how this section is identified on many maps (such as this example which I see was actually posted by you), how it is referred to by mariners and others who use the river, and also how all the piers are named. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm still not convinced that "unpowered flight"—however technically accurate that description may be—is the best phrase to use in an intro aimed at a general readership. Perhaps as a compromise we could link to Gliding (flight), which contains the useful explanation that All powered aircraft are capable of gliding when flying with engine power reduced to zero. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed text to "When the pilots concluded that the airliner would be unable to reach any airfield in unpowered flight, they turned it southbound just upriver from the George Washington Bridge and glided approximately eight miles to a successful intact ditching ..." which now includes both terms in a way which I think accurately describes what happened. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks: a great improvement! Personally I'm quite happy with that. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely it isn't necessary to give the flight number twice in the very first sentence of the intro, is it? (US Airways Flight 1549 (Callsign: Cactus 1549)). And I would have thought that mention of "Cactus" could safely be left to its proper place in the article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

North River

Let's stick to the sources on this one: no news outlets covering the story called it the North River. (There is a single blog there that mentions the North River, and that author is quoting from our article.) North River is pretty much an archaic term in this context, so let's not go too far in trying to repopularize it. I think it's sufficient to mention it as the "North River section of the Hudson" in the "Ditching" section and to pipe "Pier 86" in the lede to North River piers.

But incidentally, thank you for the link to nrhss.org; I've been looking for just such a reference to add to North River (New York-New Jersey).--Father Goose (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While "North River" may be an archaic usage when referring to the entire 300+ mile length of the Hudson, it is not when applied to the section between Manhattan and New jersey which is not actually a river but a tidal estuary that comprises part of New York Harbor. The link is to the specific waterway in which the plane ditched -- the North River -- which is also how it is listed on many maps such as this one that you yourself posted in the North River article:

one

The wikilink in the intro should therefore be to the article that most specifically describes where the plane actually ditched. I would prefer to identify it in the text of the intro as the "North River section of the Hudson River" for clarity, but if if it is still just called the "Hudson River" there, it should still be linked to the correct Wikipedia article for where it actually ditched which is the North River (New York-New Jersey) link. Just because some news sources do not accurately use the North River name for where it ditched does not mean that Wikipedia should compound that mistake. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

I would suggest omitting the North River mention in the intro and note it later in the Ditching section. We want the intro to be as clear and concise as possible and I doubt most readers (including me, before I read this article) will be familiar with the North River, even if it is wikilinked. If North River is an old fashioned usage I'm not convinced it needs to appear at all. Fletcher (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the article used as a source in Hudson River is to be believed, the estuary portion of the Hudson extends about 150 miles upriver to Troy: [1]. But that's not relevant to our conversation here.

The point here is that it's not for you or me to say that calling the river west of Manhattan "the Hudson" is inaccurate. Is its "official" name the North River? Not according to NOAA: [2] nor according to USGS: [3], which lists "North River" as one of several "alternative names" for the Hudson, and not a separate entity. Being an aviator, you may have some aviation maps of New York City; do they call it the North River?

The edits I've done to North River (New York-New Jersey) should show to you that I like the "North River", but I know not to insist that it's the "correct name" of the lower Hudson. It's at best a name of that portion of the river -- an enjoyable historical facet of the lower Hudson, but not its One True Name.--Father Goose (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't believe that the words "North River" should be in the intro, but instead introduced and explained in the main article I can accept that for the reasons you gave. However I still think that the Wiki page to which "Hudson River" links to in the intro of this particular article should be the "North River (New York-New Jersey)" page because that describes where the plane ditched with much greater precision than the generic Hudson River page does. The first image that appears when the North River page comes up is an aerial photograph which actually shows both the location of LaGuardia Airport and of the North River as it relates to Manhattan. The first image on the generic Hudson River page, however, is of a view of the river some forty miles to the north at the Bear Mountain Bridge near Peekskill, New York which can be quite misleading as it has nothing whatever to do with the locations of anything related to the accident. I have therefore deleted the words "North River" from the opening line of the intro, and linked the words "Hudson River" to the page that best shows where flight actually ditched in the river. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

I can see that reasoning. With the recent changes I made to the North River article, I think the distinction between its current and historical use is pretty well outlined, so I see less of a problem linking to it from this article for the sake of more specificity and a nice visual. In this article, I'm going to change "Pier 86, North River" back to "Pier 86" (piped to North River piers), and beyond that, I'm satisfied that the issue is settled.--Father Goose (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar incident in Denver

On Feb. 3, a similar incident like this one happened in Denver but the pilot landed back at the airport not a body of water. Would it be relevant to mention this here briefly?Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that bird strikes are quite common, and this is probably only being reported because bird strikes are "in the news" after US Air 1549. This birdstrike doesn't seem to have disabled one engine, much less two, and the aircraft did not have to make a forced landing. In that sense it's not a "similar incident". It wouldn't be necessarily wrong to add it, but it's the kind of thing I can see getting trimmed before long. Fletcher (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Status of plane

Was the plane salvagable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it was written off. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

AIRBUS Accident Information Telex

Should AIRBUS Accident Information Telex be referenced or at least the text reflect information in the Telex? The Telex is not available officially in the Internet, but it is available on many bulletin boards, for example: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6993431&postcount=128

According to the Telex, both engines had some thrust available all the time (contradicting "loss of all thrust from both engines" in the article intro. Full text of the telex:

FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE

ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX

SUBJECT: US AIRWAYS Flight US1549 ACCIDENT IN NEW YORK

OUR REF: USA US1549 AIT N°2 DATED 23rd JANUARY 2009 Previous ref: USA US1549 AIT N°1 DATED 16 JANUARY 2009

SUBJECT: US AIRWAYS Flight US1549 ACCIDENT IN NEW YORK

This is an update to the AIT N°1 issued on 16th January 2009.

The information which follow has been approved for release by the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) and represent the highlights from the initial analysis of the available data: mainly Digital Flight Data Recorder, aircraft components, ATC script and radar.

The A320 aircraft was operating a scheduled flight US1549 from New York, La Guardia airport to Charlotte, Virginia on 15th January 2009, when the aircraft ditched on the Hudson river shortly after take-off at 15:30 local time.

The aircraft performed a normal flex take-off in slats/flaps configuration 2 from La Guardia airport with the co-pilot as Pilot Flying.

At time T0, soon after the aircraft was in clean configuration at an airspeed of about 210kts, both engines suffered a simultaneous and sudden loss of thrust at about 3000ft pressure altitude. The engines N1 decreased abruptly to 35% and 15% on engines 1 & 2 respectively. This sudden and simultaneous loss of engine thrust is consistent with the reported bird strike on both engines and also with the initial observations from the remaining engine 2. (Recovery of engine 1 being still in progress).

The captain took immediately control of the aircraft making smooth nose-down pitch inputs to maintain the airspeed at about 200kts.

At approximately T0+20 sec, the crew changed the aircraft heading towards the Hudson river.

There was no more response from the engine N°2. The engine N°1 continued to deliver a minimum thrust (N1 around 35%) for about 2 minutes and 20 seconds after T0.

At approximately T0+2min20sec, the crew attempted at about 500ft/200kts a quick relight on engine 1 without success.

The crew then selected slat/flap configuration 2 which was achieved.

From then on and until the ditching, the heading remained almost constant. The speed decreased from 200kts to 130kts.

Ditching occurred 3 minutes and 30 seconds after the thrust loss in the following conditions:
- Airspeed was about 130kts (at the Gross Weight, Valpha max is 125kts and Valpha prot is 132kts)
- Pitch attitude was 10 degrees up and bank attitude was at 0 degree.
- Flaps and slats were in configuration 2.
- Landing gear up

It is to be noted that at all times during the event and up until the ditching, the normal electrical supply (AC and DC buses) and all three hydraulic systems were fully operational and the flight control law remained in Normal law.

In line with ICAO Annex 13 International convention, the US NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) continues the investigation assisted by Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) as State of aircraft manufacturer. Airbus continues to support the NTSB investigation with advisors on-site and in the various investigation working groups.

Airbus has no specific recommendations at this stage. Should there be the need for recommendation as a result of the investigation, operators will be notified accordingly.

VICE PRESIDENT FLIGHT SAFETY

AIRBUS

IlkkaP (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider this a viable reliable source for the information in it, personally, at least until the NTSB releases its final report. (Interesting note, 35% N1 is basically ground idle thrust on a modern high-bypass turbofan. If #1 was generating 35% N1 to the end, it was still running, but only barely.) rdfox 76 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources." 71.236.251.6 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Note the "usually" in that statement. In any event, we're not actually citing the forum posting itself; we'd be citing the official Airbus telex. It's not any different from citing a television broadcast or film as a reference after seeing it on YouTube. While YouTube itself isn't a reliable source, and can't be linked on Wiki, we can reference the material actually shown on it, regardless of whether it's posted legally or not (the reason for banning YouTube links).

In any event, the telex includes important information that won't be available from a more typical source (like the NTSB report) for at least a year, so I'd invoke WP:IAR on this one. rdfox 76 (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But is there any proof this is real and not something someone just decided to type up? And why would it pop up at an Apple speculation forum? 71.236.251.6 (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Time for Archive 4! Could whoever did the previous archives please move the bulk of this page? I'd do it myself if I knew which archiving method was used. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

done. J. Van Meter (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And the method used was ... ? Cut 'n' paste—or something altogether more sophisticated? I'd like to know for future reference. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

cut and paste it is. J. Van Meter (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that's reassuring! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Climb out?

What is climb out and why would aviation jargon belong in the intro? 842U (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See climb. As for why aviation jargon belongs in the intro, maybe, just maybe, because this is an article about an aviation incident. There are specific terms for specific phases of flight. Mind blowing, I know. - auburnpilot talk 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Condescension is not needed, no matter what the subject. Please keep your comments civil. It was a legitimate question, the answer should be respectful and considerate. – jaksmata 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart, please. Some editors have been doing their damnedest to remove any word or phrase that has any relation to aviation. A question asking why an aviation term is used in the intro of an article about an aviation incident is about as legitimate as asking why we use political terms in a politician's bio. Sometimes the connotation is just as important as the definition. - auburnpilot talk 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

So, the solution then is use terms the reader won't understand, e.g., "on climb out"? Gotcha 842U (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the solution is to link uncommon terms and provide a brief explanation, as is standard throughout Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As a pilot I can say from experience that the initial climb out is a very specific and always critical phase of flight because the plane is still flying at a relatively slow speed, is at or close (METO) to being under maximum power, is usually heavy and perhaps even still over its maximum landing weight (full fuel load), and it does not yet have much altitude "in the bank" to provide the aircrew much time to find a place to put down if there is a sudden loss of power at low altitude as there was in the case of US Airway 1549. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Great guys, but don't expect any other readers besides "the pilots," to know what you mean by "on climb out." Furthermore, you'd think if linking to climb were enough, that article might mention "climb out." But low and behold, even an entire encylopedia article on the phrase itself...is missing the phrase itself. But go ahead, write "for pilots." 842U (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Magic. Using correct terminology is not writing "for pilots"; it's writing accurately. Also, a simple Google search brings up several news articles using the term. Some of the articles are about Flight 1549, while others are not. - auburnpilot talk 22:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can clarify, what part of "wikt:climb" "wikt:out" is confusing? It doesn't seem to be terribly specialized vocabulary.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then show me another single reputable account of the ditching that used the term "on climb out." I'm thinking The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, or The Washington Post. The term obviously means something extremely specific. And once again, the pilot editors feel their doing a great service to the average reader by not defining their terminology. So go ahead, show me the other reports that used this term... 842U (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should have left my comments in. The incessant nonsense in this articles lead seems unstoppable. Hudson North? What the hell? Climb phase? Oh my God!. ", they turned the aircraft southbound while about a mile upriver from the George Washington Bridge" Seriously, why is it so impossible to produce a human readable lead section for an article here? MickMacNee (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what is it with this stupid article that any idea that the LEDE is supposed to be an accessible simple summary flies right out of the window? Pun intended. MickMacNee (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Think you could dial down your comments here and in edit summary? You don't have a monopoly on clarity - in fact your last edit left the lede too cryptic in my view (i.e., hitting birds does not automatically translate to the lay reader as loss of power - that needed to be stated). There's really no need for the nastiness. Tvoz/talk 03:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jargon needs to be linked. Advising people to look for it in Google is not the right way to do things. The term ditch is linked. There are probably links to words like airplane and Hudson River. It's a good bet that a lot more readers know what those things are, than know what the aviation term "climb out" means. To the average reader, "climb out" is what the passengers did after the plane ditched. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point BB. Tvoz/talk 03:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Climb out was linked, to climb. My point about Google was that the term is used in reliable sources, contrary to what 842U wants to believe (Fox News, Dayton Daily News, New York Times, and others). I wouldn't direct a reader to Google, but I expect an editor to use it (I don't intend to hand feed any editor). As I stated above, link uncommon words and provide a basic explanation. Don't, however, remove a term or phrase simply because its origin lies in aviation. - auburnpilot talk 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the article has been pirated by pilots-editors, much to its detriment. Two of the sources that you cite, AuburnPilot, for "on climb out" use the term in highly technical context, and the other isn't referring to the term "on climb out" as the critical phase of flight.

These three instances actually show how to properly use the term (or just the words), and show how NOT to use them in a general readership article:

The Fox News used the term when Geraldo Rivera quoted from an Airworthiness Directive: "RIVERA: A random bird strike? I hold in my hand what's called an Airworthiness Directive. All right, this Airworthiness Directive, which is, in effect, December 31, 2008 reads: "This Airworthiness Directive results from an Airbus A-321 airplane powered by a..." and it goes on to designate the engine, the turbo fan engines experiencing high pressure compressor stalls during climb out after takeoff. In other words, airplanes with that Airbus with the engines that that airplane had were suffering stalls…"

The Dayton Daily News used the term — at the end of their article — when quoting Kevin Poorman, a senior research engineer at the University of Dayton Research Institute, and in a context where he both used the term and explained what it was: a critical phase in the flight: "The plane brought down on Thursday reportedly hit one or more birds, disabling its two engines. If both engines are hit and they lose power on both of them, especially in a critical stage of the aircraft's flight like climb-out or approach, then it doesn't leave time to do any corrective action," Poormon said."

New York Times used the words "climb out" (vs. "on climb out") without using them as aeronautical jargon , the same way a six year old would say "now I'll climb out of my fort." The words are the same, but here the New York Times, near the end of the article, is describing a simple action rather than the "critical phase of aircraft flight:" The A320 would normally climb out of LaGuardia with the nose pointed high in the air, limiting forward visibility and would have been moving at close to 200 miles an hour, at which speed a pilot would have little time to recognize a flock of birds and take evasive action, aviation experts said.

In other words, the introduction to a Wikipedia article is not an Airworthiness Directive, and is not the place to introduce a technical quote of a senior research engineer. It's possible the pilots who are editing this article have lost perspective on what an introduction to a Wikipedia article is actually about. In the elegant parlance of our article, the pilot-editors have struck birds 842U (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of text, but nothing really meaningful is there. Whether or not the plane was climbing out of LaGuardia or in the phase of flight referred to as climb out, it's a simple statement of fact. Personally, I'd rather include the statement in the body of the article rather than the lead, as such detail is not needed in the opening paragraph. But it should be somewhere, as it is fact. Wherever, I would suggest something along the lines of "During climb out, the portion of flight operation between takeoff and the initial cruising altitude, the Airbus A320 struck a flock of birds and lost thrust in both engines". Obvious it can be tweaked, and should be. - auburnpilot talk 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And its all back in again. Seriously, why is it not possible for some people to see that currently, the lede section is a total nonsense from any normal perspective, and it does not do what it is supposed to do - summarise the article in an accessible manner. Nobody cares about half the stuff in there at the lede stage, it might as well be a duplicate of the ditching section right now. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the climb—"out" or otherwise—need to be mentioned at all in the lead? (I notice, incidentally, that there is only one other reference to climbing in the entire article.) Almost all readers will know that after takeoff planes just tend to, well, climb. Given the additional information that 2 minutes later the aircraft hit the birds at 3,000 ft, any lingering doubts as to the vertical movement of the plane are quickly dispelled.

With this in mind, & incorporating a couple more simplifications, the first 3 sentences of the 2nd para could be rewritten along the following lines:

About two minutes after taking off at 3:25 pm, the Airbus 320 struck a flock of large birds at about 3,000 feet resulting in an immediate loss of thrust from both engines. Realizing that the airliner would be unable to reach any airfield from that altitude in unpowered flight, the pilots turned south about a mile north of the George Washington Bridge. After gliding above the river for some eight miles, the aircrew successfully ditched the airliner intact at 3:31 pm not far from the USS Intrepid Museum (Pier 86, North River) in midtown Manhattan.

I've deleted the weasel word significant referring to the loss of thrust. I was under the impression that the loss of power was complete: is that right? If so, we'd better spell it out. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, loss of thrust was not complete. Engine 1 fan was revving at 35% speed and engine 2 fan at 15% speed after the bird strikes until the ditching. Although not enough to maintain level flight, there was still some thrust left.IlkkaP (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Climb Out: A flight's initial climb out is a very specific and always critical phase of flight because the plane is still flying at a relatively slow speed, is at or close (METO) to being under maximum power, is usually flying heavy and is often even still over its maximum landing weight because of a full fuel load, and it does not yet have much altitude "in the bank" to provide the aircrew much time to find a place to put down if there is a sudden loss of power at low altitude as there was in the case of US Airway 1549.(Centpacrr (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't suppose anyone's disputing the accuracy of this (repeated) paragraph. I'm off on a wikibreak from this article: good luck to the remaining editors. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Capt, Sullenberger in his interview on 60 MINUTES on February 8, 2009: "Well, it was a normal climb out in every regard. And about 90 seconds after takeoff, I notice there were birds, filling the entire windscreen, from top to bottom, left to right, large birds, close, too close to avoid," (Centpacrr (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Use of "sic" in this article

It is not necessary with reference to the call sign. It is spelled correctly and is otherwise proper and normal usage.

Sic also belongs in brackets and not parentheses. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the wrong flight number.Tvoz/talk 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point: it indicates that "1539" isn't just a typo. BTW I don't know why someone unlinked the word sic. It's rather a scholarly term, & I doubt whether it's widely understood: hence the link, which I've now restored.

The fact that both Sullenberger & the ATC get the flight no. wrong is, perhaps paradoxically, proof of just how professionally everyone reacted to the emergency. They were entirely focused on the essential task of getting the aircraft down safely: the flight no. was an irrelevant detail at that stage. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A better question is why they used "Cactus" apparently as a pseudonym for USAirways? With all the pedantic detail about the aviation field, that explanation is lacking at present. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Bugs, actually it isn't missing at all -- and never has been. Simply click on footnote 34 immediately next to the callsign in the article and it will take you directly to the FAA reference document ("PART 1 Section 3. FDC General NOTAMs (FDC 8/5299) September 1, 2008) that explains the reason that the call sign for all US Airways flight is now "Cactus." (This is, by the way, why these are called "references.") (Centpacrr (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it is missing. The footnote is in the wrong place, but aside from that, the linked document does not explain where "cactus" came from, only that it's to be used. My question is, where did they come up with "cactus" as a name? Why "cactus" and not "tumbleweed", for example? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me where, in this "citation", that it explains how they came up with "cactus": "FDC 8/5299 - SPECIAL NOTICE AS A RESULT OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF US AIRWAYS (USA) AND AMERICA WEST AIRLINES (AWE) EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 AT 0800 UTC UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. ALL FLIGHTS OPERATED UNDER EITHER CORPORATE LIVERY WILL HAVE THE TELEPHONY "CACTUS". AIRCRAFT OPERATORS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT ATC WILL UTILIZE THE CALL SIGN "CACTUS" WHEN COMMUNICATING WITH OR REFERRING TO THOSE FLIGHTS. WIE UNTIL UFN." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that it matters why the callsign is Cactus. What does matter is that it is accurately reportd that it is Cactus. There's scope here for a List of airline callsigns if anyone really wants to write it. I've wikilinked sic yet again, as it is a word that many will not be familiar with. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Latin for "thus", and is used as a cue to the reader that although the item that precedes it might look like an error, it's reported the way it was stated. A link to "sic" is a good idea, just as a link to the definition of "climb out" was a good idea. Whether it "matters" why it's called cactus depends on whether you think the names of things in general matter. Some readers might, including readers who already know what "sic" means. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Call sign#Aviation has a little more about call signs. As Centpacrr notes, America West's association with Arizona, and the desert, is a very good guess as to where it came from. Fletcher (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of the linked NOTAM is to explain why the flight was not identified for ATC purposes as "US AIR(WAYS) 1549" as it would have been prior to Sept. 1, 2008, but had been changed on that date to "Cactus" for all US Airways flights because of the consolidation of the formerly Virginia-based US Airways and America West Airlines, a carrier based in Arizona, which had long used "Cactus" as its ATC identifier in radiotelephony. I don't know why you think the "footnote is in the wrong place" as the numbered link to it is immediately next to the callsign in the text to which it refers. Is there somewhere else that you would have expected it to be? (Centpacrr (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

[out]I don't think we need to cite the erroneous callsign 1539 twice in this article. Reference to the callsign could safely be dropped from the Ditching section (where it merely interrupts the flow of the narrative). It's far easier to justify its inclusion in the Accident investigation section, since that section explicitly discusses the recently-released audio tapes.

I've deleted the first mention & slightly reworded the second. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The callsign is appropriate here as this is the first mention in the narrative of the report from the flight of the bird strike. Deleting it also removes the link that explains why US Airways flights use the callsign "Cactus" instead of US AIR(ways) as had been done by the carrier until September 1, 2008, and which was the main reason that the callsign was included in the first place. The redundant verbatim repetition of the pilots' report of the bird strike (which was added much later to accident investigation section) has been deleted. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

The footnote that explains "cactus" is not next to "cactus", it's next to the flight number. That's why I said it was in the wrong place. If they picked up "cactus" from America West's designation, that makes sense and it answers my question. Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we've mentioned that the pilots got the flight no. wrong ("1539"), I don't think it would be unreasonable to quote the ATC's mistaken "1529" (repeated more than once on the audio tape). This isn't a facetious point: I think it vividly illustrates the extraordinary pressure all participants were working under during this emergency. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Borat?

Has Borat recently developed an interest in editing WP? Some recent edits here & in the article itself might suggest that he has. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What type of birds?

there is no mention of the type of birds were that took the engines out... I referenced it for this reason, so im sure others would want to know as well.Andrew Powers (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure we'll want to get the genus and species into the intro. 842U (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on the photos of the engines, I'd say they're a species of sh-redbird. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The type of bird is being determined by DNA testing conducted by the Smithsonian Institution, and by their examination of the feather recovered from one of the engines. (Centpacrr (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

When the information is released, it can be added to the article. For now, "birds" is sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure 842U will be pleased to hear that we did briefly have the full scientific name of the geese. I'm afraid I deleted this didactic detail, which is of course available in the linked article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Andrew, an important question, especially given that most (if not all) testing of aircraft bird strike is typically performed using a standard chicken of pre-defined standard weight? But a more significant question, not dealt with in the bird strike article, might be whether or not changes in migratory paths are increasing the risk to aircraft using coastal airports. Geese and ducks seem to be particularly hazardous. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter of particular concern at my home airport, Philadelphia International Airport (KPHL), which has the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge extending right off of the threshold of runways 9L and 9R. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Opening of the rear door?

"Evacuation" section contains claim:

One rear door was opened by a panicked passenger, causing the aircraft to fill more quickly with water

I suspect the validity of this claim. One of the references (48, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/nyregion/17flight.html) contradicts the claim by explaining:

Inside, as if heeding one collective thought, everyone moved to the rear of the cabin, only to find the exit doors there locked tight and water rising as the tail dipped below the surface.

“If that door opened, everything would go under,” said Brad Wentzell, 31, a patio-door salesman from Charlotte, the flight’s destination. The crowd turned and began moving up the aisle all at once.

Furthermore, in the post-ditching videos both rear doors seem to be closed. Opening of an armed door would automatically inflate the emergency chute which is not visible.

Therefore, I don't believe this sentence to be valid. Could it be removed? IlkkaP (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It may a actually be valid. The flight attendant who was in that section described the opening of the door by a passenger, and her efforts to close the door (which failed) as water rushed in up to her chest level. The interview was on 60 Minutes last night, and she described that particular event while in the presence of the entire crew, none of whom contradicted her. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, have to believe. Still sounds strange that the emergency chute (apparently) didn't inflate. IlkkaP (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[ec]Flight attendant Doreen Welsh, who was seriously injured with a deep gash in her leg, said "one panicked passenger opened a rear door against her instructions, which let water in." [4] --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the more interesting aspects of the incident. Hopefully much more will come to light about what actually happened with the door. In the 60 minutes episode Doreen Welsh seemed the most emotional of all the crew, saying she wouldn't put on her uniform, giving one reason that the uniform itself was torn to shreds... I seriously doubt she only owned one uniform or that 60 minutes wanted her to put on a shredded uniform. It seemed like she was being emotional in the interview even. During the incident she said she panicked and started pushing people toward the front. Also, have we ever heard how she got the gash in her leg? 842U (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[Discussion of "Panic" moved to a new section below]

This is a YouTube video of the A320 emergency door opening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXBRrgxnpc I don't believe it would possible to close the door once it is opened. Someone might have tried to access the door, but not actually opening it. Water was probably flowing in from damage when the tail hit water. IlkkaP (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There was some reported damage to the tail from the impact, but according to Ms. Walsh in the 60 MINUTES interview, most of the water in the rear of the cabin came when a passenger opened the door "slightly" which she was then unable to reclose tightly. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't think this is correct. On Discovery channel there was a special about what happened. This was not mentioned once. There was mention of a passenger told to go to there nearest exit and open the door. The device on the door did not inflate like it was suppose to and the attendant told him to jump. He didn't open it without being told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.95.29 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The door referred to in the Discovery Channel program which was opened by the passenger in seat 2A and from which the slide did not immediately deploy was the forward port side door. The door discussed in this section of talk was a rear door which had been cracked open by a passenger without instruction to do so resulting in the flooding of the aft portion of the cabin when the flight attendant was unable to reseal it. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

"Panic"

This is one of the more interesting aspects of the incident. Hopefully much more will come to light about what actually happened with the door. In the 60 minutes episode Doreen Welsh seemed the most emotional of all the crew, saying she wouldn't put on her uniform, giving one reason that the uniform itself was torn to shreds... I seriously doubt she only owned one uniform or that 60 minutes wanted her to put on a shredded uniform. It seemed like she was being emotional in the interview even. During the incident she said she panicked and started pushing people toward the front. Also, have we ever heard how she got the gash in her leg? 842U (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Flight attendant Doreen Welsh did not say in the 60 Minutes interview that she had panicked, instead she said "I had some panic in the back (among the passengers) and so had to calm the them down." She also said that it was a passenger who cracked open the rear door which she then tried to close again because it was flooding the rear of the cabin.(Centpacrr (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

And Centpacrr, your point is? Doreen did not say verbatim "she panicked." I did not use quotation marks. But here is an exact quote: "I just went crazy back there." Close enough. These were some of her exact quotes: "The most shocked I'd ever been in my life." "It was crazy back there." "There was no doubt in my mind it was over." "I just went crazy and started yelling at people and pushing people to go over the seats." I stand by my characterization. And without a doubt, she did an amazing job given her considerably more violent landing and more dangerous immediate circumstances after the landing. 842U (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you quoted Flight Attendant Walsh as saying that during "the incident she said shepanicked and started pushing people toward the front." She certainly said that she pushed people toward the front which was exactly what she was supposed to do. But she definitely did not say that in the interview or any other time that she had panicked. "Panic" is defined as "a sudden fear which dominates or replaces thinking" -- a condition that leads to inaction, not action. I know of no evidence that Ms. Walsh or any other member of the aircrew did that, and certainly none of them said that they did.

Ms. Walsh certainly did indicate in the interview that she was fearful, but her demonstrated response to that fear was not to panic and become petrified by it, but was instead to do what she was trained to do: to get the passengers out of the plane as quickly and safely as possible. If she had to do that by "going crazy", i.e., by being extremely forceful in giving her instructions to get the passengers to overcome their panic and move forward to get out of the plane, then that is exactly what she was supposed to do. If she had actually panicked, however, by definition that would have rendered her incapable of doing her duties and that was clearly not the case. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Ms. Walsh's exact words: "I just went crazy back there." By definition, panic does not preclude action. People panic and act all the time... sometimes they get lucky. If you watch the interview, and I mean this out of no dis-respect to Ms. Walsh, anyone can see and feel that her energy is very different from the rest of the crew. Her description of what happened in the rear of the plane didn't reflect the personal calm of her crew-mates. Even in the interview she was agitated and anxious. You make a good point that the training she received may have helped her push through what I call her panicky anxiety to do what she did. Still, what happened in the rear of that plane with respect to her energy and that door were one of the more touch-and-go aspects of the incident — note use of aeronautic jargon. You are perfectly welcome to hyper-analyze what I've written here, and most likely will. I could care less. I stand by my original statement. 842U (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I watched the interview very carefully and could see that Ms. Walsh was agitated, distressed, and had clearly been through more of an ordeal in the back of the plane than the rest of the aircrew. My only point is that you specifically said above that she said that she had panicked thereby ascribing that word to her and she just did not say that. That wasyour word, not her's. The dictionary definition of panic is "a sudden overwhelming fear, with or without cause, that produces hysterical or irrational behavior, and that often spreads quickly through a group of persons or animals." You are, of course, free to interpret how she behaved in any way you want to, but Ms. Walsh herself never said in the 60 MINUTES that she had "panicked." (Centpacrr (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Centpacrr, you are hilarious. Nobody, not even 842U, cares if she "went crazy" or "panicked" except you. Give it a rest. 842U isn't trying to change the text in the article, and neither is anyone else.

The original question of this thread (was the rear door opened) has already been answered. Personally, I agree with you that she did not "panic", but it's so completely irrelevant. – jaksmata 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have both missed the point. The whole purpose of the safety and emergency training of aircrew is to teach them how to prevent panic in themselves and to mitigate it in the passengers. The only time Ms. Walsh used the word "panic" in her interview had to do with her calming down panicked passengers just prior to the ditching. ("I had some panic in the back and so had to get out of my seat to calm the them down." )

It is this very training that has been correctly credited for being responsible for the pilots being able to successfully ditch the their very seriously compromised plane virtually intact, and for the fact that all 155 people on board were able to safely evacuate the cabin and survive the accident. The only reason I brought this up at all was that 842U stated that Flight Attendant Walsh said in a nationally broadcast television interview that "she had "panicked"" which was simplynot true. This may be a small and insignificant point to people who have never been actively involved in aviation, but it is not to those of us who have been. Panic in an aviation emergency can have huge consequences for the outcome. It is hardly irrelevant. (See "Coming to Grips With Panic" by Sharon Barthelmess, MA "Cabin Crew Safety", Vol 23, No 2 March/April, 1988; Flight Safety Foundation, Publisher) (Centpacrr (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Wow, that really puts me in my place. If only I knew how to recognize what's important like you do. I weep for myself. I'm definitely crying for some reason. – jaksmata 20:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, sir, it is you who said that whether or not a member of the aircrew "panicked" during the accident is "completely irrelevant," not I. I am not trying to put you or anyone else "in their place," only to point out a basic and universal tenet of flight safety. You are welcome to your view, of course, but I think that you will find that it is not one that is shared within the aviation and flight safety community. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I said it was completely irrelevant, referring to this thread, not referring to the aviation community (context!).

By the way don't keep moving my comments outside of the "Opening of the rear door?" thread. You are violating talk page guidelines. See in particular the bullet on split threads that says: "Splitting a thread should not in any way alter the meaning of any comments therein;" [emphasis theirs]. I have referred to "this thread" twice now, meaning "Opening of the rear door?". This thread is the subject of my posts, not panic. Panic: I agree with you. This thread: Irrelevant. – jaksmata 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The only posts I moved to the "Panic" sub-section were the ones relating directly to the panic issue although I left a copy in both places of the one post that addressed both the panic and door issues. These included two posts of yours both of which were addressed directly to me and related only to the "panic" question. The only reason I moved them at all was that you complained that they were irrelevant to the "door" question which you also observed has already been answered. I also left a bold faced notation in place of the moved posts that indicates what had been moved immediately below. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

In that case, thank you for your good-faith effort to resolve my concern, and thank you for leaving it as a sub-section. – jaksmata 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, sir. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

When I read the above I almost panicked. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I almost panicked but didn't. Do you get that: I didn't panic. Actually, it should be very clear to all — save one, that is — that what is packaged here as erudition, is in fact a form of... how shall I say (suspecting I'll be quoted)... er... trolling. 842U (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I am puzzled as to why you seem to be taking this discussion so personally, or why you perceive it as trolling. Nothing I have said has ever been meant to be taken that way. I have only ever tried to make two points regarding the issue of panic:

• 1) Flight Attendant Walsh did not say at any time in the 60 MINUTES interview that she had "panicked" as you stated that she had.

• 2) Had Ms. Walsh (or any of the other crew members) actually panicked before or after the ditching, it is highly unlikely that she (or they) would have been able to carry out their duties to protect the passengers and evacuate the plane in the professional and competent manner that, based on the excellent outcome, they most assuredly did.

For a discussion of this later point, please see page 2 of the article "Stress, Behavior, Training and Safety (in Emergency Evacuation)" from the journal "Cabin Crew Safety" (Vol 25, No 2), May/June, 1990. The Flight Safety Foundation, Publisher. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Maybe everyone panicked and no-one wanted to admit it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsequiturs in the lead

According to WP:LEAD, it should summarize content from the article, yet looking at the references we find several that are used only in the lead. At FAR, this is one of the first signs for a reviewer that the lead contains content that is not in the article. Let's have a look to see if the statements in the lead supported by the following refs are actually in the body of the article.
The refs in question that need to be chased down are:

• Munro, Ian (January 16, 2009). "Passenger jet plunges into Hudson River". The Age (Melbourne). http://www.theage.com.au/world/passenger-jet-plunges-into-hudson-river-20090116-7ie3.html?page=-1. Retrieved on February 9, 2009.
• US Airways (January 15, 2009). US Airways Flight 1549 Initial Report. Press release. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=196799&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1245239. Retrieved on February 9, 2009.
• US Airways (January 15, 2009). US Airways Flight 1549 Update # 2. Press release. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=196799&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1245262. Retrieved on February 9, 2009.
• Wald, Matthew L. (January 16, 2009). "Plane Crew Is Credited for Nimble Reaction". New York Times: p. A25. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/nyregion/16pilot.html?_r=1. Retrieved on February 9, 2009.
• Gittens, Hasani; Hogarty, David (January 15, 2009). "Plane Crashes Into Hudson: Hero Pilot Saves Everyone". Chicago, Illinois: WMAQ-TV (MSNBC). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679133/. Retrieved on February 9, 2009.
• Mike Brooks, Jeanne Meserve, Mike Ahlers (January 15, 2009). "Airplane in Hudson River after failed takeoff, FAA says". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/15/new.york.plane.crash/index.html. Retrieved on January 15, 2009.
• Michelle Maskaly, AP (January 16, 2009). "Pilot in Hudson River Crash Flew Air Force Fighter Jets". Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480108,00.html. Retrieved on January 16, 2009.
  LeadSongDog (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

All seven of these references are to articles or documents published within 24 hours after the accident and have most likely been replaced in the article by later references which contain more up to date details as well as the earlier information. Perhaps all that is required is to substitute the later references in the lead for the earlier, now stale ones. The text of the lead itself, however, appears accurate, up to date, and is supported by the more detailed accounts of the flight, ditching, rescue, etc, in the main article. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, but please see my last comment in Intro_(again) above. The mere fact that "Cactus" is mentioned in the text is not in itself a reason for introducing it in the first sentence. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add "Cactus" to the lead, somebody else did. I agree that it does not need to be there because it is fully explained and footnoted in the "Ditching" section and so I have removed it. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

If replacement refs are found and used, please strike through the replaced ref in the above list.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Best practice examples

For best-practice examples, see Category:FA-Class Aviation accident articles.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Refs

I have formatted all refs from #1–67 (except #63 and 64). They were a bit of a mess and inconsistently formatted. Authors should now be listed last, first; newspaper and magazine titles are italicised, and all links have been checked to make sure they still work, which is why I've updated the accessdate on them. Those that didn't exist any more have been replaced with other versions (a lot were AP articles that appeared in many publications). I will finish the rest tomorrow. Regards Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that altering the accessdates was quite the correct thing to do, but what's done is done. Good work in checking and formatting them though. Mjroots (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not? I accessed them. Some of the references had expired already. It shows that all references work as of February 11 or 12. I'll continue to work on the remainder today, but if you wish I won't update the accessdates. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If the link is OK when you check it, there's no need to change the date. If you have to alter a link, then the date should be altered too. Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Brittany Catanzaro

I disagree completely that including the age (20) of Brittany Catanzaro, captain of the the ferry Governor Thomas H. Kean, is an irrelevant detail in the overall narrative of the ditching and rescue. That the aircrew of a fully loaded airliner would be able to successfully ditch in the North River in the middle of the winter and everyone on board would be successfully rescued is a remarkable story. That the captain of one of the commercial ferry boats that was a key to that successful rescue effort was a twenty year old female is, I think, even more remarkable, and was the subject of major interest and news coverage in the days following the accident. If the captain of the Gov. Kane were a 47 year old male, for instance, then the age and gender would not have been a significant detail or element of the story. That she is a 20 year old female, however, certainly is. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Do we have sources that tell us the usual age and sex of new ferryboat captains? LeadSongDog (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the New York Times, Capt. Catanzaro is both the youngest ever and first (and only) female NY Waterways ferry captain. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this whole incident was remarkable, and fought to mention it in the 2009 article for that very reason. I also find it fascinating that the heroes of the day ranged from an atypical airline captain (a former fighter pilot and a published scholar) to an atypical boat captain (a young woman). But unless we can demonstrate that someone in a reliable source has also found this fascinating, then we can't emphasize it without orienting ourselves in the direction of original research. If Catanzaro was indeed "the subject of major interest and news coverage," then something substantive from this interest or coverage should probably be mentioned. Simply inserting her age may make the reader go, "Wow!" but alas it is not the job of an encyclopedia to make jaws drop. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at the linked reference source which does just that, and that's why I added the link when I restored her age to the entry. I really don't see, however, how anyone can seriously dismiss the fact that one of the key figures in the remarkably successful rescue effort (which is the section of the US Airways 1549 article in which the information is included) was a 20-year old female ferry boat captain as being an irrelevant detail. This is not original research, but a well sourced fact that was widely reported in the media and for which a Google search currently returns 1,730 hits. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

That seems fine to me. I like the way our current wording gives her (obviously feminine) name, rather than going out of its way to state that she's female, which would be slightly patronizing ("look what a girl can do!"). In short, it's fine to state notable facts as long as we can avoid editorializing. Fletcher (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The fact that she is 20 years old is extensively sourced. The opinion that this matters is not—at least as far as I have seen. The source you provided emphasizes the significance of her gender ("Catanzaro, the authority's first female captain..."; "The captain seemed embarrassed by all the attention she has attracted, not only for the rescue, but for her presence in a male-dominated profession") and, in fact, downplays the importance of her age a little bit ("In many ways, the captain is a typical 20-year-old"). I never said that it "is" original research to point out her age; I said that we're "orienting ourselves in the direction of original research" if we go to unusual lengths to imply that something matters without citing a source that is explicit about its mattering. It is not standard practice to state the ages of encyclopedic subjects in non-biographical articles. It is not clear what her age has to do with her ability to command a boat or to rescue people from the water. The fact that two unusual people proved to be heroes during an unusual event is quite poetic, and I wish that I could use this opinion of mine to justify mentioning her age. But to do so would be to be to do an unusual thing for an original reason. We can do unusual things and we can have original reasons for doing things, but when we do both at the same time, we make things stick out like sore thumbs on an encyclopedia. Surely, if no one can "seriously dismiss" her age, then you can find at least one independent source in which someone takes her age seriously? Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If it were a twenty-year old male captain that would have been notable as well. The point of the linked resource story ("Young captain reacts like 'seasoned pro'") was that despite her young age, the Captain reacted to and performed in an unexpected emergency situation in which many lives were at risk as a far more experienced mariner than would be expected for one so young. ("But when she saw the plane in the water, Catanzaro reacted like a seasoned pro who has spent a lifetime around boats.") A very significant percentage of the hits returned in the Google search also make the same point and take quite seriously her unusually young age for both being a ferry boat captain, and for her skill, competence, and professionalism in rescuing so many occupants of the ditched airplane. I really don't see that you have made a case for not including this objective and relevant fact that is both well sourced and was widely acknowledged and reported in the media as being significant. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

<sarcasm>Should we also include the ages of the flight attendants? That would give a nice mix of both young and old women? It seems that now the only ones whose age is mentioned are Captain, FO and ferry captain.</sarcasm>IlkkaP (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, I somehow missed the first two. I have no idea why the ages are given for Sullenberger and Skiles. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of "Young captain reacts like 'seasoned pro' ") is that the sex was notable (she is stated to be the first female captain with the NY Waterway Authority) but the age is not so notable (she's said to have been driving boats for eight years). It's certainly not notable that she came to render aid, that is required by law under the Safety of Life At Sea convention even if it has been the expected behavioural norm for seafarers for centuries. Her age is, to my reading, less significant than the fact that she is a Coast Guard Reservist. Still, it is well supported in the sources and mildly interesting trivia. For three characters, just put it in. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

She is apparently the youngest ever NY Waterway captain (male or female) -- just as interesting as her gender. There was a NYTimes article on her last December.[5] I'm not sure it deserves too much space in this article, but it is interesting -- maybe much of it should be in a footnote. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The headline of the article about the 20-year old ferry boat Captain reads ("Young captain reacts like 'seasoned pro'") and the line within the article relating to it is"But when she saw the plane in the water, Catanzaro reacted like a seasoned pro who has spent a lifetime around boats." That relates to her performing at a level which appears to be beyond her years. The ages of the plane's Captain and First Officer (which are mentioned) and of the flight attendants are not nearly as significant because they performed at a level which was not beyond their years and would be expected of professionals with as much experience as they had. According to the captain on 60 MINUTES, the aircrew's experience in the aggregate exceeds 120 years. Her experience commanding a commercial motor vessel plying the busy waters of New York Harbor with as many as 170 passengers amounts to but a few months. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Centpacrr's source is informative and well-written, but only in a rhetorical sense does it present the image of a "captain by day, kid by night" (if I may paraphrase). What the source doens't do is tell us what that means: Is it indeed an anomaly? Does it indeed make the day's events more shocking or profound? Is it, in the final analysis, encyclopedic? But by pointing out that not only is she their first female captain, but indeed also the youngest, Carl Lindberg's source allays my main concerns. Still, though, if she was just following protocol, as LeadSongDog suggested, then she should probably not be emphasized to the point of distracting the reader from Sullenberger, whose actions and overall being have been downright brilliant. And for that very reason, there are also things about Sullenberger (e.g., his research on airplane psychology) that are far more relevant and interesting than his age (but aren't necessarily mentioned in the article), so while I won't continue to contest the mention of Catanzaro's age, I've gone ahead and removed Sullenberger's (and, at least for symmetry, Skiles's). Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Catanzaro is notable enough to have her own article. That would remove the need to mention her age here. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, per WP:NOT#NEWS. Her young age is an interesting fact, but she's only really notable for this one news event. Fletcher (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are so fixated on removing ages. The ages of Sullenberger and Stiles are useful biographical facts of two of the principal actors in this story. They don't take up much space. And there is no conflict between providing their ages and providing other important facts about them. Like I've said, providing simple facts does not conflict with our original research policy, as long as we don't editorialize about them. Fletcher (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm "fixated" on a minor issue, it's because I don't have any bigger complaints about the article. It's well-done--I could see this being a GA or even an FA--and I'm just trying to polish off some spots. (And if you're fixated on taking the opposite stance on this minor issue, I presume it's for a similar reason.) Yes, their ages are useful biographical details, but this leads to two slippery slopes. First, other factors (e.g., hometown, ethnicity, alma mater, political persuasion, religious beliefs) are just as important, if not more so. Why not mention any of them? Second, other people also have ages. Imagine how silly this would look: "U.S. President George W. Bush, 62, called Sullenberger to thank him for saving the lives of the passengers, as did President-elect Barack Obama, 47..." (or imagine that sort of thing even in an article about something in which Bush and Obama were "principal actors"). To be fair, I realize that many news reports will introduce relatively unknown individuals as "John Smith, 36"; it helps to personalize things a bit, which is, I guess, a clever thing for a rather impersonal and indiscriminate news media to do. But an encyclopedia has tighter standards about which stories matter enough to be told, and about which people matter enough to have their own articles. We don't need, figuratively speaking, to shake hands with every name we meet as we read an article, because that name is presumably A) in an article about something that's already supposed to matter to us, and/or B) wikilinked to a biographical article that can provide information that would be off-topic in the other article. If the reader wants to know Sullenberger's age/background/hometown/etc., then the reader can click on the wikilink to his BLP. Skiles probably deserves his own article, as well--in fact, the whole airline crew is probably notable enough for an article about them collectively--but his non-wikilinked presence in the article indicates that, at the very least, his particpation in a notable event is worth our attention, regardless of any of his biographical details. And, frankly, the presence of their ages in the article seems a bit superfluous and distracting. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The pilots' ages give an indication of their experience... nearly all decent-length airline accident wikipedia articles give that info, and it should be there. It is far more relevant than Catanzaro's age (which should probably be in a parenthetical comment or footnote to describe why it is interesting). Even more relevant would be info like how much the ferry captains train for scenarios like this, which greatly aided their efficiency (pretty important in near-freezing weather)... Catanzaro mentioned they use life rings in the water, and practice keeping the boat alongside it.[6] Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair points. My inclination would still be to omit the pilots' ages, but that looks like a reasonable-enough case for including them that I won't revert again if anyone re-adds them. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I care one way or the other on including/excluding ages, but to imply that older age = more experience is completely wrong. There are young people who are highly experienced pilots, and old people who are beginners. Saying that "ages give an indication of experience" is only true if you are unaware of how experience is gained. It's gained by flying, not by getting old. – jaksmata 22:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly true when speaking of amateur practitioners, but it is far more significant when included as one of a group of facts when discussing the backgrounds of professionals such as airline pilots, ship masters, physicians, surgeons, attorneys, watchmakers, journalists, musicians, or those in any of dozens of other fields in which age and concomitant experience can be one of the indicators of their expected -- or in some cases even unexpected -- high level of skill, competence, and judgement. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Per the above discussion, I have restored the ages of the Captain and First Officer of the plane which are appropriate facts for the article because they provide a fair indication of their extensive levels of experience as professional airmen, a factor which was widely acknowledged in the coverage of the event as having been a key to the fortuitous outcome for the 155 occupants after the plane's airworthiness had been fatally compromised while inflight. The inclusion of the age (with linked reference) of the Master of the Gov. Kane is also appropriate for the various reasons I have laid out in detail above.

With all due respect, however, I am constrained to observe that these otherwise undisputed and fully sourced facts (which in the aggregate constitute six digits and some punctuation in the text) have been way overanalyzed to come up with reasons to not include them. The ages (and their import) of these three particular individuals have received vast amounts of attention from both persons who were in any way involved in the accident and its aftermath, and in a great many of the media accounts relating thereto. Including them in the US Airways Flight 1549 Wikipedia entry does not constitute original research, nor is it in any way "editorializing" or promoting their significance. They are simply objective statements of relevant facts with links to external source material that any reader who is interested can easily access to learn their significance.

I dare say that there are literally tens of millions of similar well sourced facts included in articles throughout Wikipedia that, if subjected to the same level of hairsplitting analyses as these three ages, would end up being unilaterally wiped away by those editors who seem far more interested in finding reasons to delete factual information than to actually contributing it. And were that to happen, Wikipedia would, I fear, be much the poorer and less useful as an online encyclopedia as a result. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

I admit that I've become a bit preoccupied with a rather microscopic aspect of the article. Nonetheless, my "hairsplitting" is really a glimmer of at least three larger concerns. First, the inclusion of ages seems like a news-like attempt to "personalize" information that, in an encyclopedia, should not have to be "personalized" or otherwise presented with rhetorical devices that incline us to appreciate the information, because encyclopedic information is supposed to be inherently, or at least prima facie, notable. I addressed this point above. Second, ages, while obviously associated with additional information, are often done so stereotypically. (Ever notice how both the very young and the very old are associated with both wisdom and poor judgment?) Jaksmata's observation above is a good reason for me to maintain my inclination to omit the ages (although, as I have said, I will not act on that inclination, at least unless consensus to do so emerges). My dad is as old as Sullenberger, but has taken only a few flying lessons. So, as much as I love my dad, I'd probably have been safer in the air with the late Vicki Van Meter when she was just eleven. Then again, there almost certainly is a rather strong correlation among professional pilots between age and flight experience. But that leads me to my third concern, namely that quantitative information about social and biographical reality is often overrated. The fact that Sullenberger was 57 years old tells us nothing about his subjective experience (remember, it's his experience that we're trying to convey, and experience happens subjectively), apart from the fact that he had "experienced" 57 revolutions of the earth around the sun. Far more humanly interesting are the facts that he is a former fighter pilot and a safety expert, let alone a scholar who has published with NASA; these facts imply action, whereas age denotes only being. And they inform the reader that Sullenberger is, indeed, highly experienced. Anyway, I can sense a rough conensus to leave the ages there, and I respect that. At this point I'm just offering a sort of apology (in the rhetorical sense), in case it comes in handy to current or future editors, for the view that the ages are problematic. Overall, though, I think this is a very good article, and it is an excellent example of how teamwork can produce some fine material in a short amount of time. But with the ages in there, or at least without the presence of the ages being scrutinized, I'd be hesitant to call it a perfect article. Then again, so what? Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Latte on this. If we want to include age as a surrogate for experience, why don't we give Captain Vincent Lombardi's age too? Presumably because he's boringly middle-aged, with an average amount of experience ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Essentially" unpowered flight

Intro says: "After gliding for about eight miles in essentially unpowered flight, the aircrew set the airliner down intact in mid-river" (my bold). What is the meaning of "essentially" unpowered here? AFAIK, the aircraft was in "just plain" unpowered flight, and we should rephrase this as "After gliding for about eight miles in unpowered flight, the aircrew set the airliner down intact." Or am I missing something here? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "essentially" is included because according to to the AIRBUS Accident Information Telex above, the engines were still producing some power after the bird strikes. ("The engines decreased abruptly to 35% and 15% on engines 1 & 2 respectively.") The A320 would have required at least 70% MRT from one engine to maintain flight. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

Was the residual power sufficient to extend the glide at all? In other words, was the achieved glide angle down the Hudson better than it would have been with a total power failure? If so, that should definitely be mentioned. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not found anyplace that quantifies how much the severely compromised engines may have extended the glide if at all, only that they still appeared to be providing some thrust and so that is why it would seem to be more appropriate to say the plane was in essentially unpowered flight as opposed to just unpowered flight. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree on the current wording "essentially unpowered". I am not sure how much remaining thrust helped to glide the plane, but at least the available power kept the plane all the time in Normal Flight Law, meaning that flight control computers prevented the plane from stalling etc.IlkkaP (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but essentially sounds perilously like a weasel word (sort of hedging our bets)! Should it be effectively, perhaps? My question about extending the glide really needs to be answered at some stage, since it could well mean the difference between a 4-mile glide, say, & one of 8 miles. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The AIRBUS Accident Information Telex confirms that engine fan speeds were 35% (#1) and 15% (#2) after the bird strikes. As you say, we need an aviation expert to validate whether that translates to any useful thrust in gliding the plane. I think that Captain Sullenberg said in the CBS interview that there was no usable thrust (or useful, I don't remember the exact wording) available after the bird strikes. However, even with no usable thrust, my understanding is that engines generated hydraulic pressure and electricity keeping all the plane control systems operating as in normal flight (and thus preserving Normal Law flight protection controls). With complete loss of engine power that would have been a problem, as it takes some time to start the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) and/or RAT (Ram Air Turbine) to generate backup hydraulics pressure and electricity (both of them were deployed).IlkkaP (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Might also be useful to clarify which, if any, of the A320 aircraft systems are dependant on engine power above 35% / 15%, regardless of whether or not the engines were providing any thrust/ steering control. This information does not appear to be available in Airbus A320 family. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comments. Suggest that we add to the article text some brief clarification along the lines of Centpacrr's first post: " "The engines decreased abruptly to 35% and 15% on engines 1 & 2 respectively." The A320 would have required at least 70% MRT from one engine to maintain flight." (Cited, of course.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The telex also notes that the #2 engine completely stopped very quickly, and the #1 engine completely stopped after 2 minutes 20 seconds, so it sounds like it was completely unpowered when it ditched (by the engines anyways; there are units like the APU and RAT mentioned in the article which apparently provided enough power to control the plane). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Too bad that neither APU nor RAT get any mention, even in the "design" section, of the A320 article, and that the articles for those units themselves also don't mention A320, although one supposes that principles of operation are common to all airliners. See also ETOPS. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While neither engine appears to have been providing any usable thrust at the moment of ditching, at least one of them appears to have been turning for almost two-and-a-half minutes after ingesting birds. As the "glide" from the GW Bridge to touch down in the water only lasted only about three minutes or so, in the absence of further evidence it would seem to be presumptive at this time to state that neither engine was providing any usable thrust, no matter how slight, for at least some portion of its essentially unpowered flight down the river. I suspect that the answer to that question will probably not be know definitively one way or the other until the NTSB issues its final accident report. The Wall Street Journal reported in a story published on January 20 entitled "Backup System Helped Pilot Control Jet" that "the plane's auxiliary power unit made by Honeywell International Inc. was operating during the descent and gave the pilot full use of the jet's flight-control system, according to a spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board and other people familiar with the details." I have not found that confirmed elsewhere, however. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

This Flight Global article seems to be written from an expert view (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/26/321541/ditched-a320-crew-had-full-hydraulics-and-electrical.html). We could perhaps source it unless these technical details are deemed too complex for this article. Based on the article, engines were running at 35% and 15% until the ditching (as the engine they tried to re-light didn't react to the relight sequence). When APU had started it would not have mattered even if the engines had stopped completely (provided that the thrust they generated was not needed in the glide).IlkkaP (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the engines weren't providing thrust, by turning they may have been able to supply generators and hydraulic systems, as per BA009. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[out]OK, let's approach this a different way. What glide angle did the aircraft actually achieve over its 8-mile unpowered flight from the GWB? Is this glide angle consistent with what one would expect from this aircraft flying with a complete loss of power? That's what we need to know. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this not featured?

It seems fairly stable now and it's excellently done. Spinach Monster (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a peer review first; or GA review, to hammer out some of the minor issues, that are bound to have room for improvement. The people at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates really appreciate that rigorous checking has been done on an article before it is candidated for Featured Article, as they are overworked as it is.

That said, having had a quick look at the article I think after such a peer review it might make a good chance for promotion. Arnoutf (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason at all why this shouldn't eventually go on to FA status. However, we ought to let the dust settle a bit first: barely a month has elapsed since the incident, & new material facts continue to emerge. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It could take a year or more before the final report into the accident is released. There will be a lot more info once that has happened, with possible scope for major expansion of part of the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured status is not the same as fixing an article; so maybe possible even before final reports are out. I would suggest to wait though; at least untill the dust has settled. Arnoutf (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Expanded injuries section

It was an excellent idea to include the psychological effects of the incident in this section. Two brief comments:

• suggest the title be changed to something like Injuries and after-effects
• too many passenger names given, making the text sound journalistic. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the addition to this section; it sounds very trivial, almost tabloid to me, and if I'm not mistaken the source given is in fact a tabloid (People). The "after effects" just don't seem to be very notable at all -- it should be obvious people on board were shaken up, and might take some time to return to normal. First Officer Stiles experienced temporary sleeplessness? Heavens! Passenger Andrew Gray "sought videos... to understand what happened." Oh my, I hope he recovers from his video search. Anyone else have a similar reaction? This comes off as soft news rather than actually encyclopedic information. Fletcher (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this portion is thin and should probably be either deleted altogether or reduced to a single sentence or two indicating that psychological counseling had been offered to the aircrew and that they have been given time off until they feel ready to return to flight status which is what both the Captain and F/O have said in TV interviews that I have seen (60 MINUTES on CBS; Charlie Rose on PBS). Some level of PTSD is likely to be suffered by anyone involved a similar incident no matter what the physical injury. What would be remarkable is if they had not been so affected. (Centpacrr (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Quote from F/O Jeffrey Skiles re PTSD on the Charlie Rose show (PBS), February 10, 2009:

• "Well, it’s a -- when we -- the night after, when we got to the hotel -- actually, the night of -- when we got to the hotel, you are actually surrounded by your union representatives, because we’re in a pilots’ union, and one of the things they have is they actually have a critical incident response team that are people who are trained in the psychological effects of what this can do to you. And just sort of to talk you down at that point. And everything they said is true. It’s post-traumatic shock. It’s standard reactions. They sat us down. They said you probably won’t sleep tonight. You may not sleep tomorrow night. Then you might sleep an hour, wake up, relive the incident in your mind, and you just can’t turn off your mind. And slowly, over time, that will get better. And they were absolutely right. I would say the first two weeks, I probably averaged three hours of sleep. I’m much better at it. Right now, it really doesn’t bother me as much, but you know, it’s been almost a month now." (Centpacrr (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

People (magazine)

Really? Since when do we treat this sort of thing as a WP:RS? Let's get a serious source or lose the blurb.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

People is published by Time Inc. and is not a tabloid in the vein of The Globe and The Inquirer. They focus on soft news, so the issue is one of encyclopedic value. I'm thinking this is trivia. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ps- this seems like a continuation of the previous thread directly above. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Refactored to subheading accordingly. See [[7]]. Quite simply, we can't trust it, particularly for negative biographical content on living people per WP:BLP. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Other than the editor who originated that thread, the 3 on point cmts suggest People should be ok: (1) "People (magazine) is a celebrity magazine, and not generally classed as a tabloid rag." (2) "I am surprised the magazine published it, . . . . Perhaps their standards are higher today--this was in 1988." (3) "People in 88 was reliable, . . . ." I'm not sure whether that's a concensus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As a one-time subscriber to People, I'd say it's pretty reliable; its journalists really do interview people, and they announce factual errors that they've made in previous issues. I also think that they try to create a reasonable balance (if such a thing exists) of celebrity news and ordinary-person news. The problem is that, when talking about ordinary people, they often report ordinary news about them. I agree with Fletcher and Centpacrr here: it's not the least bit surprising that passengers were traumatized or that they've sought understanding of the events. I'd like to hear what I can't simply assume; I want to know about passengers who react in unusual ways. For example, an Australian singer on the flight ([8]) didn't even know that the Hudson River existed, then remained calm throughout the ordeal, and then wrote a song about it and performed it for the entire flight crew on Larry King Live. That's atypical; that's probably worth mentioning--as is the fact that many passengers did indeed react as expected, but it would be odd to give unusual prominence to individuals who reacted in usual ways. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Library book story = trivia?

I added something about the Captain's library book which was removed here. I thought it a nice addition to the article as it showed the extreme attention to detail displayed by the Captain. It was also reliably sourced; it's quite easy to find more coverage of the story. What do others think? --John (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A nice and well sourced vignette, but probably one which is much better suited for the Wikipedia article on Capt. Sullenberger himself. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

As the killjoy responsible for removing the story (which I agree is a nice touch illustrating Sully's punctiliousness), I'd go along with Centpacrr's suggestion. The story has a bearing on the Captain's character, not on the ditching itself. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's already there. --John (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pets

Why are the non-existent pets mentioned under Injuries? It seems that the hold contained no zoo animals either: so there were no caged casualties, but they are passed over in silence. If the pets must be mentioned, put them under Evacuation to document the fact that, not being present on board, they were not evacuated. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason the non-existent pets are mentioned is that there were a several questions about them (on this talk page) earlier in the development of this article. That sentence was added in response. You could delete it as non-information, but then people would just come here asking "what about the animals?" again. (see here and here) – jaksmata 17:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Drowned pets" was widely rumored and/or reported in the early days after the incident, so it's worthwhile for us to keep a single sentence in the article that addresses those rumors.--Father Goose (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oughtn't the article to stick to verifiable and supportable facts, but not include factual statements about rumours? What if the spokespeson had said "We don't carry bombs in our cargo"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In order for the statement about pets to fit into the "Injuries" section, it should probably be prefaced with something like, "Despite early rumors that pets had drowned in the plane's cargo hold..." I wouldn't mind adding this myself, except that I cannot locate a source to confirm it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the question is: when does a rumour become notable? My reaction in general to rumours is "So what?" One day I'll tell you all about my pet theory ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the main idea is that "no loss of life" should be understood in the broadest reasonable sense. I don't know if the plane bonked a fish or two on the head, but the crash didn't kill any of the life forms, human or otherwise, that humans can generally relate to. So perhaps it should be clear that no humans or animals died in the accident, although the current way in which this message is conveyed comes across as rather out-of-place and awkward. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Several animals (canada geese) did die...  – jaksmata 12:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any other WP article on an aircraft incident that mentions (non-human) animal life when discussing survival rates & fatalities? It would of course be notable if, for example, valuable racehorses were being transported. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see the entry for G-AMAD here. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! Luckily no horses died in the Hudson this time round. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that several major newspapers did cover the "pet" angle ([9][10][11][12]), it makes a reasonable case for our including a single sentence about it too. The "zoo animals" question is a straw man, as that question wasn't brought up by the newspapers -- on the other hand, had a spokesperson said anything about bombs, that would have been covered very widely by newspapers, and whatever the spokesperson said would be in our article.

We raise the pets question because the news raised it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Father Goose. A simple declarative sentence indicating that there were no pets or service animals being carried in either the cargo hold or cabin is appropriate and necessary. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Still a little uneasy that, simply by denial, this article gives credence to an irrelevant and distracting piece of media-hyped rumour. Good job there weren't any straw men in the cargo hold. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At least they would have floated.--Father Goose (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[out] I'm not that impressed with Father G's links: 2 of them are simply answers to individual readers' questions. I'm not going to take up arms in an edit war over this, but I think that with the passage of time the inclusion of non-pets in this article will appear increasingly ridiculous. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. That is one of the advantages of Wikipedia being a living encyclopedia: we can cover topical stuff with a topical focus, and as it slides into the historical, we can change our focus to match. By the time the NTSB final report comes out, much of what's now in the article will become irrelevant.--Father Goose (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Precise headings needed?

I'm glad to see that the everyday terms northeast and southeast have been retained in the Ditching section. I wonder, though, how much is added by giving the precise headings (to within 6 minutes of arc!): 045.4° and 135.5° (as opposed to 045° and 135°, which are the exact equivalents of the terms NE & SE). Any reader needing such extraordinary precision can easily click on & examine the LGA diagrams in the section on Flight designations, route, and crew. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, seems a little over-precise. Exact departure heading relevant to the accident? The proposed landing runway was never used. Runways generally referred to by means of just a two digit number? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As the runway number is the approximate magnetic heading (divided by ten) it also seems superfluous. Fletcher (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Runways numbered 1 to 9 are referred to only by a single digit while 10 to 36 use two digits. (If there are parallel runways at a field then the last digit is also followed by an "L" or "R" for left or right.) As these numbers are derived from the approximate headings of the runways, for accuracy I also included the exact magnetic headings (to 0.1º) for runways 4 and 13 at LGA which is how that is specified on the FAA's airport diagram plate for that field. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

That is US practice, in the UK, runways are numbered from 01 to 36. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NigelG that the plate diagram should speak for itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead & deleted the headings. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

TV and film

I've added a section on TV and film. So far, there have been two programmes. It is likely that there will be more. The three links under the CBS 60 minutes section are the actual programme. I've no idea how long they will remain live, but while they are live I think they should be included. It enables those outside the USA to see the programme. The C4 programme is not available online yet. C4 has a policy of 30 days availablilty. Again, a link should be provided as long as the programme is available IMO. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be available now, though the website insisted on some plug-in I don't have before it would let me see it. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's restricted to over 18's, you need to register and get a Pin. As it may not be admissible in the article according to Wikipedia policy, the link is here for those who are interested and would otherwise not have seen the programme. Windows Media Player 11 is also needed. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Near the museum?

Doesn't the intro's second paragraph suggest that the plane landed near a building... or "nearer the Intrepid museum than any other building?" Or even 'next to' the museum?

Didn't the plane land in the middle of the river? Or is that incorrect and the plane landed near a building?

The GPS coordinates don't show the landing spot as near any particular building -- rather the coordinates seem to show the plane landing in the middle of the river at a point parallel to the Intrepid museum in Manhatten and the Hoboken ferry terminal in Hoboken -- I might have the Jersey side landmark incorrect, but that's the gist... the plane landed in the middle of the river, at a point parallel to tow points on either side of the river... rather than next to or even actually "near" a building.

Why the suggestion that the plane landed near a building? 842U (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum is not a building, it's a ship; specifically, a museum ship that is in the river on the Manhattan side. – jaksmata 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you seriously think anyone will be misled by the word "near", you could use the (unfortunately less familiar) word "abeam" instead. I'm not sure we didn't have that at one stage. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who originally added "near the Intrepid Museum" to the article to provide readers with a well known reference point on the river that they would likely be more familiar with than just "North River Pier 86" which is where the ship is docked. (This issue was previously discussed above at great length on February 5th and 6th.) The aircrew later visited the museum where they filmed part of the interviews for 60 MINUTES with the spot that they ditched in the river visible in the background. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

How about "opposite" or "off", if we feel that "abeam" is too technical?--John (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Opposite" is a good word. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So if the plane didn't land near the Intrepid Museum itself, rather it landed in the middle of the river at a point across from, abreast of, off, parallel to, or opposite the Museum, why does the sentence currently leave the reader to figure this out? Someone unfamiliar with the incident wouldn't be wrong to imagine the plane landing twenty yards from the museum. What's the advantage of leaving this open to misinterpretation? 842U (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Intrepid's own website describes the point of ditching as "near" the Museum which seems perfectly straight forward and far less ambiguous than any of the other suggestions. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

I still don't like "near". We can do better than that. --John (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A simple Google search returns more than 1,000 hits with references to Flight 1549 having ditched in the river "near the Intrepid." The whole issue of the "Intrepid" and its propinquity to the ditching was hashed out and resolved in talk more than two weeks ago. It was only raised again a couple of days ago by a user (who has apparently since been blocked for Disruptive editing elsewhere) because he thought it was a building instead of a ship, a misapprehension which he could have easily overcome by simply clicking on the words in the lead describing the USS Intrepid Museum and its location at Pier 86. The word "near" seems to me to be perfectly clear and unambiguous in the context in which it is used here, and that is why I selected it when I originally added this information to the article about a month ago. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

I am indifferent as to the block log of someone who raised what seems like a valid objection to this vague terminology. As an encyclopedic project, we do not need to base our exaxct wording on the results of a Google search. Certainly we should try to follow the sources, but precise wording is important too. --John (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The museum's security cameras captured the touchdown (Youtube), making me think it was in fact "near" to the museum, though not dangerously close to it. I always read that sentence as giving the east-west position relative to the shoreline by saying "mid-river" and the north-south position relative to Manhattan by saying it was near the museum. I could see how "near" might be confusing if it had landed in a very large body of water, but in this case I think "near" works to provide position, but still isn't misleading if interpreted as proximity. The touchdown looks to be just a few hundred yards from the museum. I'm not fan of "opposite" which would imply on the other side of the river. Fletcher (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If the location of the ditching and rescue were, as User:John seems to imply, "precise" and static, then perhaps a narrower or more specific term describing such a geographic location in relation to the Intrepid might be appropriate. However the plane came down in a body of flowing water and thus it did not remain stationary but moved down river with the current. All of the other terms that have been proposed would imply that it stayed in the same geographic location after the ditching. It did not, of course, and thus using any of these other terms would in and of themselves be misleading.

While "near" may not describe this with the exactitude that some might desire, it is by far the best choice, especially for an introduction to the article. I originally added this information to help relate for the reader the general area of the river in which the ditching and the rescue took place to an already well known landmark. By the very nature of the accident, however, this is not a precise or static spot, but one that extended over the time it took for the overall incident to play out from north ("above") to west ("abeam," "opposite," or "adjacent") to south ("below") the Intrepid's fixed location at Pier 86. "Near" is the term that best takes all of that area into account. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the security camera footage, the aircraft appears to have landed upstream from the Intrepid. Therefore I've struck my earlier comment, and fully support "near" as being the most appropriate word to use. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolving conflicts raised by differences in the administration and regulation of aviation between the US and Commonwealth countries

As demonstrated in discussions appearing above, there are a variety of differences between US and Commonwealth practices relating to the administration and regulation of aviation (such as runway numbering) that have seem to have been the source of a number of issues and conflicts about formatting, terminology, language usage, etc, that have been raised over the past weeks mostly by the many UK and Commonwealth based editors who have contributed to this article. However as this accident involved as US commercial air carrier and took place in the New York, under the WK:MoS, US usages should prevail in resolving all such cases or conflicts. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Somewhat related to this article

I came across a few articles [13] [14] that describe how the Smithsonian identifies birds after a bird strike. The first was written before Flight 1549 ditched in the Hudson, and the second only has a few specifics on Flight 1549, but they describe the very people who identified the geese in this case, and the methods they use. Interesting reading, anyway.

I found the articles because they are linked from "snarge" - a word I looked up after seeing it used in a different article about a helicopter/bird strike incident. I can't tell if "snarge" is a technical term, or (more likely) just military slang. – jaksmata 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The drink

I've removed the "Sully" drink from the article. It is not notable and unencyclopaedic. The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster article doesn't mention the "Space Shuttle" cocktail (A 7 Up and a Teacher's) which was "invented" after the disaster. Of course, that one could have been a joke in poor taste but it is still non-notable and unencyclopaedic. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the drink doesn't belong here - based on the first source that was given. With the NYP source, it becomes a bit more notable, but still not enough so to remain in the article. If this becomes more than just a passing fad then I will be convinced that it should stay, although I don't think that's likely. As far as I can tell, right now only one bar serves it. Hardly notable even if there is a newspaper blurb on it. – jaksmata 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion -- move the drink info (which does have legit citations) into the Chesley Sullenberger article. it's named for the man, after all, and not the flight (See Roy Rogers, Shirley Temple, and Rose Kennedy) J. Van Meter (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The three "cocktails" given as examples above have all been well established in the popular culture over decades and were named for people who were already long time famous public figures. Two are also non-alcoholic euphemistic "cocktails" named for entertainers popular with children, the other is a regional drink named for the matriarch of a prominent New England political family, and all three drinks have a Wikipedia entry of their own. This is not the case with the so-called "Sully" which is apparently served at a single small bar in New York which apparently "created" it to commercially exploit the transient notoriety of a single current news event. In and of itself, however, the cocktail has nothing whatever to do with the actual ditching of US Airways Flight 1549, the rescue of its occupants, or the investigation of its causes, but instead is basically transient fluff which is neither notable nor encyclopedic in any sense of these words. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't think the drink belongs anywhere in Wikipedia unless it's notable enough to merit it's own article (i.e., survive an AFD). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, for the record, that's not how Wikipedia works, otherwise 99% of the content of every article would not belong. Perhaps you're thinking of something like WP:UNDUE? Regardless, this should be discussed on the Sully page. Joshdboz (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone added "In 2009, (insert notable band here) sang a song about the flight," that would be debatable under undue. If someone add "In 2009, (insert unsigned non-notable band here) sang a song about the flight, there would be no debate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And I'm entitled to order both a Manhattan and a Kamikaze but refuse to have them served together over a cold buffet. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sullenberger testimony

Last night Channel 4 News featured some clips from the testimony of both Sully & Harten before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Some of the material (notably on the effects of pay cuts on morale & pilot quality) probably belong in the Sully article rather than here. But both men had some interesting things to say about the ditching. Can anyone find a good video link? If so, please add it to the TV and film section. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See hereLeadSongDog (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Compensation and claims

Today’s UK Times includes the story “Survivors of Hudson River air crash consider suing airline” [15]. Do editors feel that this topic warrants inclusion? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Virtually every air carrier accident eventually results in litigation of some form or another. Such cases generally take many, many years to resolve and include many broad pleadings and counterpleadings that are made to cover every possible or potential ground to claim relief. (Many, if not most, of these may never be proven.) As such it is really a separate legal "story" which does little to elucidate -- and sometimes even obfuscates -- an otherwise objective view of what happened during the original incident itself. Those findings are properly left to the NTSB.

In general such litigations are usually settled quietly between the plaintiff(s) and the airline's insurance carriers years later without much public notice or ever going to trial. It probably would be more notable, in fact, if there were NO litigation ever contemplated or filed as opposed to the contrary. Unless and until a case would reach the trial phase (not likely) and/or be publicly settled, none of what happens in the interim is probably worth mentioning here. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

I see from the Times story that: "The airline has sent the passengers a letter of apology, a $5,000 (£3,500) cheque to assist with “immediate needs”, reimbursement for their tickets and a promise to be upgraded to first class on flights until March 10." But I suppose this is typical. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say we don't need to include it yet, but could do so if a lawsuit is actually filed. The source for this news story seems to be an announcement by the passengers' law firm. It's possible the firm is testing the waters to see what the public reaction would be to a lawsuit. Unlike most other aviation incidents, in this incident the crew, and by extension the airline, came out with better publicity and more respect than I have ever seen for this industry. I'm not sure why else the lawyers would announce that their clients are considering a lawsuit, but haven't actually filed one yet. Is that a normal practice? Until we see a lawsuit, or even a decent theory of liability, there is not much to add to our article. Fletcher (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise that the New York law firm that the original story says is the one that has been "contacted by passengers of Flight 1549 about claiming damages for post-traumatic stress disorder" is Kreindler & Kreindler which since its founding in 1950 by the late Lee Kreindler has been the leading practitioner in the areas of major domestic and international air carrier accidents and developing the practice of aviation accident law. Such preliminary contacts, however, are still a very long way from actually filing a lawsuit, and I suspect that finding a provable cause of action for a culpable tortuous or negligent act on the part of the air carrier would be difficult indeed in this particular case. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, would probably be a wild-goose chase. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Airspeed in glide

Centpacrr, you state in a recent editing summary that "airspeed [is] not really the determining factor for distance in unpowered flight, altitude and winds are". Try telling that to a glider pilot (including Sully)! Of course, altitude & head/tail wind are the major factors—but any glider (& I guess by extension any unpowered aircraft) has a "best glide" speed, given the wind strength & direction, which will ensure that it covers the maximum distance. As I'm sure you know, the best glide can be read off the polar curve. In this case, however, you're right to strike out the "then velocity", since that was determined by the residual energy of the climbout & had nothing to do with best glide. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you on this, that but didn't really have enough space in the edit summary to explain it so my comment there was necessarily imperfect. The point I was trying to make is if the aircrew increased the airspeed above "best glide speed" (220 mph achieving a 1:15 ratio descending at 1,000 fpm for an A320) by pointing the nose down, the plane would have actually traveled a shorter distance (even though moving "faster" through the air) because it would have also lost altitude over distance more quickly. Also a sailplane is aerodynamically a much different animal as far as what can be coaxed out of it than an crippled airliner which is not designed to be operated in unpowered flight. The altitude already attained (which was the "storehouse" of the residual energy from the climb out which was then expended against gravity in the glide to cover final distance traveled to the point of ditching) and winds were, once the best glide was established, therefore the factors that most mitigated against being able to reach an airfield for a dead stick landing. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Location of ditching: In the Hudson River vs in "New York City"

If the claim is being made that the eastern portion of the Hudson River between New Jersey and Manhattan is the same as "New York City" than that needs to be sourced. However according to the 1834 Compact between New York and New Jersey as approved by Congress pursuant to the Compact Clause, the line down the center of the Hudson River constitutes a border between the States of New York and New Jersey, not the cities of New York and Weehawken. Beginning in 1921 these waters came under the administration not of New York City, but by the Port of NY Authority which in 1972 became The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to more accurately identify its status as a bistate agency.

Flight 1549 ditched in the tidal waters of the Port between Manhattan Island and New Jersey. If the claim is being made that at no time did it ever drift across the State border line between New York and New Jersey than that would also have to be sourced, but it really makes no difference as to whether the plane came down in New York City or Weehwken, NJ, because it came down in neither. While the portion of these waters in New York State themselves at this location may also be considered as territorial waters of the New York City, a ditching in them is no more a ditching "in" New York City than would be a ditching, for instance, in the the territorial waters of the United States in the Casco Bay be a ditching in the City of Portland, Maine. Waters and "territory" which they abut are just not the same thing. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

I would agree with that and I found the edits saying "in New York City" somewhat awkward. If I were writing that I would say "in New York City waters" or "within New York City boundaries", but it's a moot point because the infobox only needs to specify physical location to help readers understand the topic; the specific jurisdiction is of lesser importance and can be specified in the body of the text, if it merits comment at all. Fletcher (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Style/content of the intro section

Regarding this diff, I think some of our language has become bloated in the interest of precision, even though it does not add significant understanding to the reader:

- "safely reach" an airfield implies they would land there; it's not like they were going to buzz the tower, to "reach" it without landing.

- "Then altitude" is redundant - we know airplanes are always moving in flight, not hovering. It's a given the altitude and location will change while the plane is moving and descending. It sounds odd.

- "That being the case" - sentence just seems to have a lot of words for the meaning it conveys.

- Successfully is implied by intact; you can say they successfully set it down or set it down intact but you don't need both. I'm not sure what "virtually" adds as you are either intact or not. Dicdef: "Not damaged or impaired in any way; complete". Either we have the wrong word choice, or the damage was trivial enough to ignore. In general all these adverbs are poor style.

"thereby ending the flight" -- isn't that obvious?

"lifted off" - isn't "take off" more conventional in aviation? I wouldn't say it's wrong, but it sounded odd to me.

"successfully rescued" - redundant. An unsuccessful rescue would not be a rescue, but an attempted, or partial rescue, and we would spell out what went wrong with it. Fortunately that was not the case.

You've made good contributions to the article but remember you don't own it. I think these edits are justified. Fletcher (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fletcher's changes are good, and not worth an edit war over. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)