Captain Sully cashes in on his fame.

[mozg]

I don't see why the absence of prayer is at all relevant. You'd have thought that this lot was more impressed by him not praying than landing the plane.

It's not that he didn't actually pray while landing the plane, because really, that controlled crash and saving all of those people's lives is the most amazing thing I've ever seen an autopilot do...

Yeah, autopilot did all that. Some really impressive AI.

[charlou]

I don't see why the absence of prayer is at all relevant. You'd have thought that this lot was more impressed by him not praying than landing the plane.

It's not that he didn't actually pray while landing the plane, because really, that controlled crash and saving all of those people's lives is the most amazing thing I've ever seen an autopilot do...

Yeah, autopilot did all that. Some really impressive AI.

HBM was referring to the high level of emergency response training kicking in when needed, perhaps?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

HBM was referring to the high level of emergency response training kicking in when needed, perhaps?

Sully was a pilot trainer for his airline, and a glider pilot with thousands of hours of "no engine" air time. The right man in the right place for that problem.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

HBM was referring to the high level of emergency response training kicking in when needed, perhaps?

Sully was a pilot trainer for his airline, and a glider pilot with thousands of hours of "no engine" air time. The right man in the right place for that problem.

It is so fortunate that Zeus decided to make sure he was flying the plane then.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

HBM was referring to the high level of emergency response training kicking in when needed, perhaps?

Sully was a pilot trainer for his airline, and a glider pilot with thousands of hours of "no engine" air time. The right man in the right place for that problem.

It is so fortunate that Zeus decided to make sure he was flying the plane then.

Apollo.

[Trolldor]

HBM was referring to the high level of emergency response training kicking in when needed, perhaps?

Sully was a pilot trainer for his airline, and a glider pilot with thousands of hours of "no engine" air time. The right man in the right place for that problem.

It is so fortunate that Zeus decided to make sure he was flying the plane then.

Apollo.

The Sisters of Fate, actually.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Sisters of Fate, actually.

"Oh, look! This thread has quite a bit left on the end. Silly of me to think of cutting it!"

[Horwood Beer-Master]

I don't see why the absence of prayer is at all relevant. You'd have thought that this lot was more impressed by him not praying than landing the plane.

It's not that he didn't actually pray while landing the plane, because really, that controlled crash and saving all of those people's lives is the most amazing thing I've ever seen an autopilot do...

Yeah, autopilot did all that. Some really impressive AI.

HBM was referring to the high level of emergency response training kicking in when needed, perhaps?

Nope.

I heard it from someone who's actually flown one of those planes. Obviously Sully made the actual decision to land the plane on the river, but all the complicated piloting-shit involved in the landing (keeping the wings level, maintaining correct angle of descent, keeping the nose up e.t.c) that's all handled by the computer.

Sullenberger practically just had to line up the plane with the Hudson and not do anything incredibly stupid, and then trust the autopilot to do what it does and hope for the best.


But of course, an old air-force veteran makes a more photogenic all-American-hero for the newspapers than a pile of circuits (particularly if that pile of circuits is European).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sullenberger practically just had to line up the plane with the Hudson and not do anything incredibly stupid, . . .

Try it.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Sullenberger practically just had to line up the plane with the Hudson and not do anything incredibly stupid, . . .

Try it.

Hey, I heard this from a pilot, OK?

And he's clearly not alone in this opinion,
http://www.amazon.com/Fly-Wire-Geese-Mi ... 0374157189

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sullenberger practically just had to line up the plane with the Hudson and not do anything incredibly stupid, . . .

Try it.

Hey, I heard this from a pilot, OK?

And he's clearly not alone in this opinion,
http://www.amazon.com/Fly-Wire-Geese-Mi ... 0374157189

And pilots never want to dis each other.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Sullenberger practically just had to line up the plane with the Hudson and not do anything incredibly stupid, . . .

Try it.

Hey, I heard this from a pilot, OK?

And he's clearly not alone in this opinion,
http://www.amazon.com/Fly-Wire-Geese-Mi ... 0374157189

And pilots never want to dis each other.

Well technically, he was also dissing himself, along with everyone else who ever "flys" an A320.


Apparently, there's a cruel joke that Boeing pilots are known to use about the ideal Airbus cockpit crew consisting of a trained pilot and a rottweiler, the job of the pilot is to feed the rottweiler, the job of the rottweiler is to prevent the pilot from touching anything.

[Hermit]

all the complicated piloting-shit involved in the landing (keeping the wings level, maintaining correct angle of descent, keeping the nose up e.t.c) that's all handled by the computer.

I'm not sure if autopilots are capable of handling the situation with no engines operating at all. The flight simulation of a Boeing 747 doing a deadweight landing would suggest that it is not being used at all.



Also, a review of the book mentioned by HBM casts doubt on the use of an autopilot during the crash landing. Here's the conclusion:

Let's look at the things that were critical to passenger safety on this flight:

* getting the APU on after the engines were damaged, to ensure electric power
* figuring out whether it was possible to land at an airport or, if not, where to ditch
* configuring the airplane for best glide
* avoiding a stall
* configuring the airplane for a water landing

Let's take each one in turn and see how much help Sullenberger and Skiles got. The Airbus computer system knew that the plane was in flight and could see that the engines were spinning down and that loss of the generators was imminent, yet the software neither suggested turning on the APU nor turned it on itself. The Airbus computer system knew how high above the ground the airliner was, knew about the obstacles and terrain in the area, and knew where the nearby airports were and what runways they had. The computer system also continuously calculated the wind speed and direction by comparing airspeed and groundspeed, heading and track over the ground. The computer system could easily have been programmed with the gliding capabilities of the A320. Did it offer any suggestions about the nearest glidable airport and runway? Did it highlight those airports in a special color on the moving map? No. The US Airways crew's most difficult decision was whether to try to make it back to LaGuardia or to land off-airport and the Airbus computer system provided no help.

In configuring the airplane for best glide, the most important thing would be to get the flaps and gear up while retracting any spoilers. The Airbus provided no help in this regard. There is no big "I'm gliding" button. There is no logic that when the engines spool down and the plane is high above the ground the gear should be pulled up and, if airspeed permits, the flaps pulled back in. As it happens, Sullenberger and Skiles were already configured for best glide so they didn't have to do anything other than set a reasonable airspeed. They got some help from the Airbus computer system, but most jet pilots are aware that best glide speed is somewhere between 200 and 250 knots. In this particular accident, there was no need to glide especially far. In fact, as noted above, the landing would have been gentler if they'd turned right rather than left and landed to the north, into the wind, never needing to clear any bridges over the Hudson.

What about avoiding an aerodynamic stall? Major airline pilots are accustomed to paying a lot of attention to the airspeed indicator. It seems very unlikely that Sullenberger and Skiles would have let a Boeing 737 stall. If they had gotten anywhere near that point, the 737's stick pusher would have put the nose forward and prevented a true stall.

Finally there is configuring the plane for a water landing. The Airbus has a "ditch switch" but it doesn't do most of the things that would help a pilot, e.g., disabling landing gear extension (something that pilots might be inclined to do by habit), suggesting the use of partial flaps if neither engine is operating (to avoid a high descent rate), and notifying the flight attendants that a water landing is imminent. The "ditch switch" on the Airbus is similar to the "close the outflow valves" switches on other airliners and has the effect of sealing up the pressure vessel. In the case of US Airways 1549, the pilots forgot to press the switch, but that probably didn't have a big effect on how quickly the fuselage filled with water. The fuselage was damaged due to the impact vertical speed having exceeded the design limit (certification standards are great at ensuring that the airframe is strong enough to withstand a ditching with one or both engines operating, but sadly nearly all of the airliners that have ever ditched have done so after fuel exhaustion or some other event that resulted in all engines failing).

Langewiesche convincingly shows that the Airbus fly-by-wire system helps a lot of pilots avoid the consequences of their sloppiness. He fails to show that it made any difference to U.S. Airways 1549. Despite this failure, the book is well worth reading.

http://philip.greenspun.com/book-reviews/fly-by-wire

Surely, if it was a case of "all the complicated piloting-shit involved in the landing (keeping the wings level, maintaining correct angle of descent, keeping the nose up e.t.c) that's all handled by the computer" then there would have been words to the effect that this was indeed what happened.

[mozg]

Surely, if it was a case of "all the complicated piloting-shit involved in the landing (keeping the wings level, maintaining correct angle of descent, keeping the nose up e.t.c) that's all handled by the computer" then there would have been words to the effect that this was indeed what happened.

It wasn't the autopilot that responded 'Can't do it' when the tower suggested Teterboro as an alternate landing site.

I actually heard somewhere that in addition to Sully and Skiles skill and professionalism, it was partially due to the fact that this was a Thursday flight filled to the gills with business travelers who fly a lot that the evacuation after the ditch went as well as it did. Now, I don't know if that's a verifiable fact or not, but I'm inclined to think it makes sense.

Recently I was on a flight on American Airlines on one of their MD-80s and we were struck by lightning while in a holding pattern over DFW. It was a Monday morning flight (full of business travelers with only a few vacationers) and most of the passengers didn't even wake up. A lightning strike on a plane is loud, but not really that big of a deal while you're in the air. One woman did freak the hell out, and she looked like someone who didn't fly too often. The rest of us that were awake were mostly annoyed by the delay in landing. I could see how people that are numb to flying would react better in a ditch than people who still get on the plane with wide-eyed wonder at the big magical mechanical birdie.

[Trolldor]

Maybe it was because I was a child, but that wide-eyed wonder lasted about an hour and a half in to the flight, then it was boredom. Turbulence was the highlight of the trip.