Hudson ditch transcript released

[XabbaRus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7872621.stm

Cool as a cucumber.

Now read the PDF transcript and look how the bloomin call signs are all wrong all the way through Cactus1539 (the ditcher) is written as Cactus1549

[SteamWake]

I have some very interesting input on this... Ill have to copy paste from another forum... One moment please.

Quite long but raises some valid points.


This was from an AA pilot.
kf The following is an exclusive account for our members from one of our pilots who was onboard US Airways Flight 1549 when the pilots made a successful emergency ditching into New York's Hudson River. First Officer Susan O'Donnell is a LGA-based 767 pilot. She resides with her family in Winnsboro, South Carolina. Susan is a former Navy pilot, hired at AA in February 1990. She has flown the 727, F100, A300 and now the 767.

The following is her account of the flight, the rescue and recovery response, as well as the support she experienced afterward. This is intended to give each of you a unique insight into the event. We also hope that the crew's tremendous effort to take care of each other and the nearly instantaneous support of USAPA and APA responders become "takeaways" for our pilots to use when faced with an emergency.

I was a jumpseat rider seated in First Class on Flight 1549 from LGA to CLT, which successfully ditched in the Hudson River. I've been asked to share a few of my experiences on that day.
Although it was a stressful incident, the successful outcome and the assistance and support I received afterwards have been truly humbling and inspirational.

After introducing myself to and being welcomed aboard by Captain Sullenberger and FO Skiles, I was offered seat 3D, an aisle seat in the last row of First Class. I was in my uniform.
Another jumpseat rider took a seat in row 6. These were the last empty seats on the airplane. I wasn't paying much attention to the flight until, climbing out, there were several loud thumps occurring roughly simultaneously along both sides of the aircraft. "Bird strikes", I thought. A few seconds later, there was a bit of smoke and the stench of burning bird that seemed to confirm my guess. There was a turn to the left, and I assumed we were returning to LGA.

The passengers were concerned but calm. I couldn't see any part of the aircraft out the window from my aisle seat. Although I didn't hear much that sounded encouraging from the engines, I expected we would have at least partial thrust with which to limp back to LGA. We rolled out of the turn, and I could tell we were not maintaining altitude. Then we heard the PA: "This is the Captain. Brace for impact."

Obviously we weren't returning to LGA, and I could see enough out the window to realize we'd be landing in the river. The flight attendants began shouting their "brace" litanies and kept it up until touchdown. The descent seemed very controlled, and the sink rate reasonably low. I believed the impact would be violent but survivable, although I did consider the alternative.
The passengers remained calm and almost completely quiet. As we approached the water, I braced by folding my arms against the seat back in front of me, then putting my head against my arms. There was a brief hard jolt, a rapid decel and we were stopped. It was much milder than I had anticipated. If the jolt had been turbulence, I would have described it as moderate.
Thinking about it later on, I realized it was no worse than a carrier landing.

After landing, the attitude of the aircraft was slightly nose high, but not far off a normal parked attitude, and there was no obvious damage to the cabin or water intrusion where I was. No one was hurt or panicked. We all stood up. I could hear the doors open and the sound of slide inflation. There was a verbal command "Evacuate"; people were already moving towards the doors. I exited through the forward right door and entered the raft. The evacuation up front was orderly and swift, and we were not in the water long before being picked up by various boats, which were extremely quick to the scene. Many passengers were standing on the wing, going from feet dry to nearly waist deep as the rescue progressed.
They were of course the first to be picked up by the arriving boats. I was picked up by a large ferry boat, climbing a ladder hanging from the bow. It didn't take long to get all passengers into the boats and to the ferry terminals.

Once at the terminal, we were met by police, firemen, paramedics, FBI, Homeland Security, the Red Cross, Mayor Bloomberg, and more. Captain Sullenberger continued in a leadership role in the aftermath, talking with the passengers, assembling his crew and including myself and the other jumpseat rider as members of his crew. I was impressed to note that he had the aircraft logbook tucked under his arm. When the Captain asked me if I wanted to join the crew at the hotel, I told him I would really appreciate it as I had lost my wallet. He immediately pulled out his wallet and gave me $20. His concern for me when he had so much else to worry about was amazing.

The USAPA representative was on the scene very quickly, and again included the other jumpseat rider and myself with the rest of the crew. I didn't see a flight attendant representative; USAPA took care of the FAs as well. The USAPA representative escorted the entire crew to the hospital (we rode in a NYFD fire truck), where we were joined by other USAPA reps and the USAPA lawyer, all of whom continued to consider me as one of the crew. At the hospital, I had finally called the APA "in case of accident" number on the back of my ID badge for APA. I had not initially thought of that as applying to my situation, as a jumpseater on another airline, but I called anyway. I spoke with APA LGA Vice Chairman Captain Glenn Schafer, who departed immediately to come assist me.

After a routine evaluation, they transported us by police car to a hotel, where rooms were waiting. The USAPA version of our Flight Assist was also there, and they spoke to me and offered me whatever assistance I needed, again as if I was one of their own. The USAPA reps also brought all of us some clothing and toiletries that they had purchased. Captain Schafer arrived at the hotel, bringing me some necessary items. He stayed overnight at the hotel, making flight arrangements for me to go home the next day and escorting me to the airport. Captain Mark Cronin from the AA NY Flight Office met me at the departure gate, again offering assistance and support.

I am grateful for the many calls of concern and offers of help I have received, from fellow pilots, union representatives and the company, and I am grateful for and proud of the response and assistance of both USAPA and APA. I would hope that our union would treat another airline's crewmember as kindly as I was treated. USAirways has also been superb, treating me as if I was a paying passenger. I am also thankful for the professionalism and capabilities of Captain Sullenberger, FO Skiles and FAs Dent, Dail and Welsh. They certainly did our profession proud, and they saved my life.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I got this from Bill H.
kf E-mail from a buddy of mine, ex Navy A-3 pilot and retired SouthWest Airlines pilot.
Bill Hello all:

The press is having a field day turning "Sully" Sullenberger into a Lindbergh-like hero. I attended his welcoming home reception in Danville, CA last weekend... me and the estimated 3000 other attendees.
All credit is given to him and his crew, but they will be the first to tell you, "they just did their jobs." They did them well, but when your job entails holding the lives of hundreds of people in your hands every time you fly, then doing your job well is the minimum acceptable standard.

I don't, and I doubt if more than just a handful of other pilots, begrudge Sully his day in the sun. What I am concerned about is how the real cause of this accident is being glossed over and, on the part of Airbus Industries, actually lied about. There are stories circulating now about how the flight computers helped "save" the aircraft by insuring the ditching was done properly.
The stories themselves are absolute nonsense and the contention that the flight computers ensured the proper attitude was maintained for ditching is pure fabrication.

So what's wrong with Airbus wanting to steal a little glory for their computerized drones? There is a good chance it was the computers that put the aircraft into the water!

I readily admit I heartily dislike Airbus because of their design philosophy, I will never set foot in an A-380 (the superjumbo) as I consider it a really bad accident looking for a place to happen. I am not much happier with the rest of them but especially the A-320 which has killed several folks, while the engineers try to perfect software that can replace a human brain that has a talent for flying... something that I, rather naturally, don't believe possible.

It is well known that I love Boeings. I love to fly them. Beyond the sheer joy of just flying the Boeing, I also believe in their design philosophy that the last word has to be with the pilot, not the machine.
No pilot, no matter how hard he tries, can turn an A-320 upside down. It just won't do it. Airbus believes it has designed a computer that is smarter than a pilot (the evidence of dead bodies scattered around Mulhouse, France to the contrary) and gives the last word to the computer. If a pilot moves the controls so as to turn the airplane upside down, the computer will refuse.

I can turn the B777 upside down. Once I get it upside down, if I let go of the controls, it will turn itself right-side up (smart airplane). I don't believe I will ever be in a situation where I will need to turn the airplane upside down, but I feel good knowing I have the control to do it. That's why I'm not really kidding when I say: "if it ain't a Boeing; I ain't going".

What follows is an e-mail from a retired US Air Pilot who has flown the Airbus A320 just like the one that ended up in the Hudson. It was written in response to a friend asking him if he knew the pilot who did the ditching. It is most illuminating and worth the read...

Dear Chuck, I don't know him. I've seen him in the crew room and around the system but never met him. He was former PSA and I was former Piedmont and we never had the occasion to fly together.

The dumb **** press just won't leave this alone. Most airliner ditchings aren't very successful since they take place on the open ocean with wind, rough seas, swells and rescue boats are hours or days away. This one happened in fresh smooth water, landing with the current and the rescue boats were there picking people up while they were still climbing out of the airplane.
It also happened on a cold winter day when all the pleasure boats were parked. Had this happened in July it would be pretty hard not to whack a couple of little boats. Sully did a nice job but so would 95% of the other pilots in the industry. You would have done a nice job.

Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water. In an older generation airplane like the 727 or 737-300/400, the throttles are hooked to the fuel controllers on the engine by a steel throttle cable just like a TBM or a Comanche. On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real. Everything is electronic. The throttles, rudder and brake pedals and the side stick are hooked to rheostats who talk to a computer who talks to a electric hydraulic servo valve which in turn hopefully moves something.

In a older generation airplane when you hit birds the engines keep screaming or they blow up but they don't both roll back to idle simultaneously like happened to Flt. 1549. All it would take is for bird guts to plug a pressure sensor or knock the pitot probe off or plug it and the computers would roll the engines back to idle thinking they were over boosting because the computers were getting bad data. The Airbus is a real pile of ****. I don't like riding on them. Google the Airbus A320 Crash at the Paris Airshow in 1998. Watch the video of an airbus A320 crash into a forest because the computers wouldn't allow a power increase following a low pass. The computers wouldn't allow a power increase because they determined that the airspeed was too low for the increase requested so the computers didn't give them any. Pushing the throttles forward in a Airbus does nothing more than request a power increase from the computer. If the computer doesn't like all the airplane and engine parameters you don't get a power increase. Airbus blamed the dead crew since they couldn't defend themselves. A Boeing would still be flying.

[FIREWALL]

I'm trying to understand the point your trying to make. :hmmm:

[XabbaRus]

Hmm just a little biased? Where is subman1?

[FIREWALL]

I'm trying to understand the point your trying to make. :hmmm:

Same statement

[XabbaRus]

Well that e-mail is bull, I was doing some checking and went to pprune.com where it got reamed.

The facts about the A320 crash are wrong, ie location and what happened, also a 777 has a FADEC engine controller so the engines in that are connected to a black box by a cable connected to the throttles by a cable...

Also this article has been doing the rounds by another jump seat passenger under a different name. Looks like someone out to rubish airbus.

[SteamWake]

If your refering to my post, if you read the text, the 'point' is quite clear.

If this had not been an Airbus and its 'fly by wire' smarter than a pilot software they may not have been fishing the plane out of the river.

Thats pretty much it in a nutshell.

Airbus has a bad rap amongst alot of pilots.

Does nothing to diminish the skill and competince of the pilot, it is just a point overlooked time and time again.

[FIREWALL]

So this is about an article trashing Airbus.

[SteamWake]

Well it became one ... sorry about that.

I just wanted to point out some issues that have been glossed over.

[Enigma]

The article is ridiculous. As for Airbus having a bad rap, I've never heard it. In fact, all the Bus drivers I know refer to her as "The amazing electric jet". It's an incredible airplane. And that's coming from me, who is firmly on team Boeing.....

[Enigma]

Aaaaand....

The engines on our Airbus will try to re-ignite themselves after a failure such as this one. There will have been internal damage from the bird strike and if they re-ignite, you will have the possibility of an uncontainable fire.

Also, 3K feet is too low for an attempted restart of two engines. (a descent rate in these conditions in the A320 lies somewhere around 1600fpm with a glide ratio of about 2.5 miles for every thousand feet. Yikes.)
We know the aircraft was climbing, and we know he could not have been above 250kts because he was below 10'000 feet, so likely the aircraft was somewhere close to the range of "best glide speed". Optimum engine restart speed? 300kts. Those engines were not restarting, and a Boeing wouldn't have survived had it been in place of the Airbus.

[GoldenRivet]

well i tend to agree with the article and the assessment. I transported about 250,000 paying passengers in the last 36 months and i tend to know where these guys are coming from.

there are two kinds of airbus drivers... the ones that love the airplane, and the ones that LOATHE it.

there is no middle ground.

great work to the crew, i have flown with a lot of professionals over the years, and im confident that any crew i have ever been paired up with for a trip would have caused the same safe outcome as "sully" and his crew did.

[XabbaRus]

My beef isn't with the first half of the article. That has been on a few boards under the same name.

It is with the e-mail about the Airbus by this mystery friend.

His facts about the airbus are all wrong. Even about the engines from what I have gathered listening to people at pprune.

the crash wasn't at the Paris airshow but in Germany...and the cause of the crash is disputed. The pilot said the engines didn't respond, the investigators say it was his fault.

about the engines going back to idel, they don't know why yet. Infact the NTSB are seemingly surprised that one kept going at idle thus running the hydraulics.

Better that than roaring away and blowing up.

[CaptainHaplo]

I am a Boeing fan - but to say that just because an aircrafts controls have to be run through a computer first makes it a piece of junk - well try telling that to every F16 jockey. Its called the electric jet for a reason. Without a computer doing MOST of the control inputs - the airframe wouldn't fly. Its inherently too unstable.

Now I do understand the concept of what the "phantom emailer" is saying - when you advance the throttles, you expect more thrust. A pilot should be the one making that determination. But there is a fine line there - its not so much is it the right course of action - its can the aircraft comply without causing more proplems. With a birdstrike and likely damage to the engines - idling or full cutoff isn't an unreasonable expectation. The key is - does the computer give the pilot the ability to over-ride its view. That is why I prefer Boeing. But the "design concept" is sound - its a matter of balance. Both sides are trying to find it - and each is erring on one side or the other right now.

[Falkirion]

Anyone got just the pure ATC feed? These news articles just speak over it at the most inappropriate times.

*edit* Found the atc feed thanks to a mate over on POSKY. http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/AudioPodcast_USAirwaysFlight1549_Audio_199716-1.html?kw=HomePage