PDA

View Full Version : Question About Last Thursday's Plane Splash



john hobdeclipe
01-18-2009, 08:43 PM
With both engines out, where does the power come from to control the aircraft? Are these "fly by wire," or do they still have control cables? Is it possible to fly the plane without any any power assist?

j king
01-18-2009, 08:46 PM
my guess is that they were still humming but tore up.I was a mile away when that happened.I flew out today and left before the geese woke!

John Stevenson
01-18-2009, 08:48 PM
Can't answer that but I have seen a lot of negative comments on the Airbus being fly by wire but the results of this splash were of a controlled descent.

Anyone know whose's engines were involved Rolls or GE ?

.

BillH
01-18-2009, 08:49 PM
There is an APU, usually in the tail, it's just a small turbine that drives a generator. For hydraulic power in a last ditch effort, some airplanes have what is called a RAT, ram air turbine, it comes down from the belly like a windmill and drives a hydraulic motor.
Just about all airliners flying today are triple redundant for most systems, usually.

tony ennis
01-18-2009, 08:50 PM
The aircraft is probably fly-by-wire. It would be insane to not have batteries to power the controls.

j king
01-18-2009, 08:52 PM
still need hydrolic power.

lazlo
01-18-2009, 09:08 PM
The aircraft is probably fly-by-wire. It would be insane to not have batteries to power the controls.

Powering the controls isn't the issue -- powering the hydraulics is. But Bill's explanation (backup turbine driving a secondary hydraulic motor) sounds right.

Evan
01-18-2009, 09:33 PM
It's fly by wire. It has an Air Power Unit as Bill explained. The APU generates electricity. Batteries aren't enough to power the FBW system. Not all the control systems are hydraulic. In many aircraft the horizontal stabilizer is actuated by an electric jackscrew operated by a high power servo motor. Other controls may be as well. It is possible to eliminate the hydraulic systems with the motors now available. Think CNC aircraft controls. Same thing.

One factor in the successful ditching of that aircraft is that it has a "Big Red Button" that is the ditching button. When pressed it slams shut all air intakes for the cabin pressure system and prevents the aircraft from sinking.

dp
01-18-2009, 09:37 PM
One factor in the successful ditching of that aircraft is that it has a "Big Red Button" that is the ditching button. When pressed it slams shut all air intakes for the cabin pressure system and prevents the aircraft from sinking.

I read in today's news the crew of this plane didn't have time to hit that button. Also, a cabin crewperson prevented the opening of a rear cabin door which would have substantially changed the numbers. Quick thinking amongst a horde of quick thinking.

sansbury
01-18-2009, 09:49 PM
On a plane that size and up, you pretty much need either electrical or hydraulic assist to move the control surfaces. It's not like there's a great "manual" fallback mode. UA232 and JAL123 are the classic examples of what happens when you have total hydraulic failure.

The controversy when fly-by-wire came out was that the computer underneath could override the pilot's inputs if it thought they weren't a good idea, and the fear that the computer (I believe there's 3 of them actually) could go haywire and do something stupid. These days the FMS can fly the plane to a level of precision as high and often higher than a person. What it can't do is make complex decisions in an emergency like this.

Besides the APU, the windmilling of the turbines can still generate some power as well. However, it will be interesting to see how bad the bird damage was and how much the fans were still turning.

Either way it's clear the crew still had decent control authority in order to be able to put the plane down as well as they did. As a private pilot, total power loss on takeoff over an urban area is pretty high up on my nightmare list. Takeoff accidents are bad, bad news.

Jim Caudill
01-18-2009, 09:51 PM
As long as the engines were rotating, they would be turning the various pumps and generators. I'm not sure whether the RAT would have deployed automatically or if they had any time to extend it. Bottom line is the guy made the best of a bad situation. My hat's off to him.

lazlo
01-18-2009, 09:56 PM
Out of curiosity, I just looked it up on Airbus' web page, and the A320/A330 are hydraulically operated, and have three separate hydraulic systems.

The main hydraulic backbone is the "green" system. Like Bill stated, the RAT provides power to the green system in an emergency failure:

From the A320 FCOM:

"A pump driven by a ram air turbine (RAT) pressurizes the green system in an emergency."

sansbury
01-18-2009, 09:57 PM
If you watch the video, it's about a minute from when the plane hits the water to when people make their way out onto the wings, and the ferryboats are there within a few minutes. Amazing. The FAs deserve credit for their part. This was a case that started with everything going wrong followed by everything going right.

If they'd been a few miles offshore in LI Sound or if it happened at night with a low ceiling, the successful ditching (first ever for a plane this size?) might not have happened or a lot of people could have been lost to the water.

lazlo
01-18-2009, 10:04 PM
Anyone know whose's engines were involved Rolls or GE ?

'The 320 uses two suppliers for its engines: The CFM International CFM56 and International Aero Engines V2500."

The former is GE, the latter is a consortium including Pratt-Whitney and Rolls Royce.

Evan
01-18-2009, 10:18 PM
On a plane that size and up, you pretty much need either electrical or hydraulic assist to move the control surfaces. It's not like there's a great "manual" fallback mode. UA232 and JAL123 are the classic examples of what happens when you have total hydraulic failure.


They can be manually flown without assist. They have a basic cable operated control system. It's one of the reasons they have two pilots as they can work together against the control forces.

Just a couple of months ago my wife was on an Airbus 320 on a flight out of Calgary, Alberta. About 1/2 hour into the flight over the Rockies the cabin lights and entertainment systems went off. A short while later the Captain came on to say that he had a total computer failure so was flying the plane manually and would be returning to Calgary. My wife was seated next to a helicopter pilot and he opined that they were flying entirely manually without fly by wire assist. They landed without flaps at much higher than normal speed but made it just fine.

BillH
01-18-2009, 10:21 PM
If you go to flight aware and follow the track, he was only flying for 6 minutes, at least tracked by radar. He took off, hit the geese, and flew a classic traffic pattern. He was on the downwind leg which happened to be over the river. At this point is became evident he could not maintain level flight.
The other day I spoke to a co-worker who just got his PIC type rating for the A320.
What fly by wire has done is made it so a 7 year old could fly the airplane. From the pilots point of view, that airplane does not fly like an airplane, it flies like a dumbed down basic flight sim. You cannot stall the airplane, it simply will not let you. The throttle has only three real positions. Sorry, it is not a throttle, it is thrust levers. The pilot never touches them after take off until he lands.
On take off, you pull back on the side stick, a little green ticker moves on the Vertical speed indicator. Once it is on a value you like, you let go of the stick. The airplane will maintain that constant rate climb.
I have over 1100 flight hours now and still don't have enough hours to get on with an airline due to the economy. Keep in mind, in Europe, they throw kids into the right seat with only 250 hours flying these things. Fly by wire flies the airplane, the pilot simply tells the system the set performance to use.

Evan
01-18-2009, 10:29 PM
There is a helicopter, a bell 212 or a huey (about the same thing) that is equipped with a complete fly by wire system and acts as a multi machine trainer. It can be programmed to have the flight characteristics of just about any helicopter there is. I forget who has it but a search should turn it up.

BillH
01-18-2009, 10:36 PM
They can be manually flown without assist. They have a basic cable operated control system. It's one of the reasons they have two pilots as they can work together against the control forces.

Just a couple of months ago my wife was on an Airbus 320 on a flight out of Calgary, Alberta. About 1/2 hour into the flight over the Rockies the cabin lights and entertainment systems went off. A short while later the Captain came on to say that he had a total computer failure so was flying the plane manually and would be returning to Calgary. My wife was seated next to a helicopter pilot and he opined that they were flying entirely manually without fly by wire assist. They landed without flaps at much higher than normal speed but made it just fine.

I am pretty sure the A320 does not have cable assist from the side sticks, simply by the nature of the design of the sticks. L1011's and 727's surely have this feature. I believe Airbus has 3 seperate computers for flight. I can ask my friend, maybe even get the trainer for the a320 and study the systems. What your wife experienced, certainly some systems were lost and they flew back with reduced functionality. But I am pretty sure that it was not cable assist.
The L1011 throttle quadrant center console I have and the systems manual goes into details of the backup systems. They could disconnect dual yokes from each other on either pitch and or roll in case if one of the cables snapped, for one yoke, it wouldn't affect the other pilots yoke. These levers can be seen next to the throttles, big red handles that look like fire handles.
The 727 has manual reversion mode where cables can move a servo tab on the aileron that in turn moves the rest of the aileron. Also backup hydraulics and electric hydraulic motors that put out less pressure than the engine driven pumps, so you lost some of your flap settings due to slow retraction in case of a go around.
I telll you, each and every model of airliner is an incredibly complex system, I tend to think of the L1011 as the USS. Enterprise.

dp
01-18-2009, 10:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mLKfRVU3qM

Fancy stick and rudder work by all present.

BillH
01-18-2009, 10:40 PM
There is a helicopter, a bell 212 or a huey (about the same thing) that is equipped with a complete fly by wire system and acts as a multi machine trainer. It can be programmed to have the flight characteristics of just about any helicopter there is. I forget who has it but a search should turn it up.
The A380 can be programmed to fly like a 747 or an A340, the technology is there, all your doing is limiting control throw and rate of throw of the flying surfaces. Of course physics still apply, it is not going to be as nimble as a A320 or 737.

Evan
01-18-2009, 10:42 PM
The A320 has cable control of the rudder via the pedals and the elevator is cable controlled via the trim tab system. These can be used to fly the plane, just barely, in a total system failure.

dp
01-18-2009, 10:43 PM
I telll you, each and every model of airliner is an incredibly complex system, I tend to think of the L1011 as the USS. Enterprise.

And nearly as heavy :). I used to weigh them on scales in the 1980s for baseline weight and balance calcs (this was for Delta at Atlanta). Appx. 350,000 lbs empty if memory serves.

spirit20
01-18-2009, 10:50 PM
I lived right next to Detroit City Airport (& a graduate of Aero Mechanics High School) & have witnessed several plane crashes on take off :eek: and it is not only scary for the pilot but we who live in the flight path. It sounds like the aircrew did exactly what they are trained to do with out having to take the time to ponder the decisions. I am just glad that the crash was not too bad, unless I guess you owned the aircraft.;)


Spirit now living in mid Michigan.

Willy
01-18-2009, 11:00 PM
APUs (auxiliary power units) have been around for a long time especially in commercial aircraft. In addition to emergency power in the event of total lose of main engine power, they are also more commonly used for "hotel power" on the ground, so that the main engines do not have to run to power air conditioners, water, and light systems.

Before everything went turbine, gasoline powered piston engines did the work of generating electricity instead of jet fuel powered turbines. I remember back in California in the 50's and 60's my dad acquired a surplus APU from a B-29, a V-twin ...it made for one heck of a generator!

Here's what one looked like. B-29 APU (http://www.enginehistory.org/G&jJBrossett/CAF%20Midland/B-29%20APU%20front.JPG)

timz1999
01-18-2009, 11:07 PM
I have 20 years as a certified Airframe and power plant mechanic. And I have worked on both the Airbus A320,319,and the 310 as well as the Boeing 727,737,757,767,and 747 the 737 does have cables that go from the yoke to the flight surfaces (rudder, ailerons and elevator ) with in most cases about half the travel as if there was hydrolics applied. There is no rat on the 737 the main back up would be the APU (auxiliary power unit) providing electric power to the electric pumps the airbus does use the rat to provide hydraulic power only the flight controls have backup DC command from the joy stick (it is a lot like flying on your computer) in any case the crew did a hell of a job !

gunbuilder
01-18-2009, 11:48 PM
As far as looking at the engines to see there how bad they are. I have no experience but I would say if they were turning very fast on impact there are in bad shape now from ingesting water.

I can't speak for the AirBus but the 747 I saw at TWA overhaul base in KC in 1972. Had one APU over each engine, for power and AC, IIRC.

I am SEL, but haven't stayed current for a quite a few years.

Thanks,
Paul

blwn31
01-19-2009, 02:10 AM
On the Boeing 747, the motors on top of each engine are Thrust Reverser Drive Motors. It is driven by bleed air from the engines at 40 PSI which drive teleflex cables, that intern drives 4 jack screws. When the pilot pulls on the T/R handles the motor unlocks and drives the T/R sleeve back, the pilot can then pull the T/R handles farther back excelllerating the engine blowing the fan air away from the engine through cascade vanes, this intern slows the aircraft, basically an air brake. This system is electrically controlled, pnumatically operated.
Changed many of these. Fun to play with.

They also have pnuematicly driven hydraulic pumps in the pylon (the part that holds the engine to the wing).

Keith...

Mariss
01-19-2009, 02:32 AM
Clearly there was control surface power because the pilot skillfully maneuvered the plane to a successful landing (ditching). That means aligning with the river and keeping the plane in a nose-up attitude, lowering flaps and other lift-assist wing surfaces and most important, keeping speed to just above stall prior to impact.

This has never been done before with a jet transport to my knowledge. By all accounts the pilot at the controls was an exceptional individual and his skill and experience paid off.

The larger question is why airports should double as wildlife sanctuaries. These geese should have been eliminated instead of protected. Airports are not protected migratory species habitats. These geese should be shot, cleaned, stuffed, cooked and eaten.

If not, the next plane should be stuffed with conservationists and be repeatedly flown through flocks of geese and yellow-bellied gnat catchers until the plane crashes or those on board scream for relief. Upon exit the conscious ones should be interviewed about how best to deal with this problem.

I for one am sick of piloting a small plane through flocks of sea-gulls wondering which of the thousands I see will come through the windshield to drape across my face as I'm on short final into Banning, California for instance.

Mariss

blwn31
01-19-2009, 03:03 AM
I am willing to bet all airports chase away wildlife. The ones I've worked at anyway. Wildlife and aircraft don't get along. If airports didn't chase away wildlife, airports wouldn't exsist. The A320 most likely ingested those geese off airport property, i.e. mid air. Not trying to be a smart a** just trying to prove a point. Aircraft are not cheap, the engines alone run about 2-3 Million Dollars each. :eek:

Keith...

Evan
01-19-2009, 03:04 AM
What I want to know is what the heck is that aircraft in the background doing there?

http://metalshopborealis.ca/pics5/hrditch.jpg


These geese should have been eliminated instead of protected.

Geese are itinerants. What are you going to do? Eliminate all geese?

dp
01-19-2009, 03:27 AM
It's a Concorde on display at Manhattan Island.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/mcgeehans-concorde-post/

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=space+museum&sll=40.75779,-74.010515&sspn=0.036343,0.066433&ie=UTF8&ll=40.765551,-74.001245&spn=0.002271,0.004152&t=h&z=18

oil mac
01-19-2009, 06:55 AM
Over here in the U.K. we have total admiration for the pilot of that unfortunate aircraft, His cool headedness and skill has earned him the admiration of the whole world, Even after the plane ditched in the Hudson river, he put his passengers welfare above his own, being last to leave doing his check to see no one was left
I for one am greatly gratified on reading of him recieving the freedom of the City of New York, I hope he recieves the congretional medal of honour also, He would be a more suitable recipient, to obtain this honour, for his services to humanity, than the farcical award to our ex British premier
To the pilot I say WELL DONE SIR.

Evan
01-19-2009, 07:44 AM
The Congressional Medal Of Honor is a military service award only. It cannot be awarded to a civilian.

Circlip
01-19-2009, 08:46 AM
Firstly, the outcome and expertise of the handling of the incident is to be applauded and congratulated and shows the skill and dedication of the whole of the aircrew involved.

BUT, the pilot does in fact run training exercises in flying disaster management, has had an initial training regime far in excess of a "Normal" airline pilot, and lets face it, he is paid to be able to safely drive an unatural mode of public transport. It never ceased to amaze me when landing in bad weather conditions (Rain and Blow) how passengers clap as soon as the wheels hit the deck? This is the guys JOB, we don't do it through lack of skill or capability, how would he fare tuning a carb or setting a manual machine to make a ballturner.

I'm not trying to detract from the bravery, but he did exactly what many with far less training and flying hours did in driving "Horsa's" and "Hotsper's"

Regards Ian.

Davek0974
01-19-2009, 08:48 AM
Over here in the U.K. we have total admiration for the pilot of that unfortunate aircraft, His cool headedness and skill has earned him the admiration of the whole world, Even after the plane ditched in the Hudson river, he put his passengers welfare above his own, being last to leave doing his check to see no one was left
I for one am greatly gratified on reading of him recieving the freedom of the City of New York, I hope he recieves the congretional medal of honour also, He would be a more suitable recipient, to obtain this honour, for his services to humanity, than the farcical award to our ex British premier
To the pilot I say WELL DONE SIR.

I totally agree with that, we fly regularly(passengers) and seeing this level of excellence in training and sheer cool-headedness certainly makes me feel safe.

As for that **other** award, dont get me started on that waste of space:)

And yes, its Concorde, probably the best plane ever built. We visited on our last trip, had an aircraft carrier next to it from what i recall.

Dave

aboard_epsilon
01-19-2009, 09:23 AM
why have they never had heavy grills in front of the engines ?

all the best.markj

wierdscience
01-19-2009, 10:01 AM
why have they never had heavy grills in front of the engines ?

all the best.markj

Because it would seriously affect air flow into the front of the engine.

This is what they look like on a test stand-

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/wierdscience/rolls-royce-2.gif

aboard_epsilon
01-19-2009, 10:05 AM
W......ell geese seriously effect the flow into the engine, don't they ?

would there be a need for them to be so fine and massive as that one in the test pad

they could have holes inch by inch ...with sharp edges like a fries cutting machine.

then geese would be chopped up into inch chunks that the engine could survive .

all the best.markj

Circlip
01-19-2009, 10:15 AM
The shape of the grille on the above picture is to stop the enginge Injesting it, stuff can be digested through jet engines, but not a seven course meal

Regards Ian

Lew Hartswick
01-19-2009, 10:19 AM
You guys make me laugh a bit. If you are realy intrested in such info.
go read a few of the aircraft news groups for a while. I wouldn't
recomend posting any of the "observations" I've seen here on them
though. :-) I use to fly sailplaines and still read rec.aircraft.soaring
regularly.
...lew...

Circlip
01-19-2009, 10:25 AM
Are they aircraft ----- without engines????????

Question I was often asked when describing Model Thermal Flying, "Well if it hasn't got an engine, how do you make it fly"

Regards Ian.

Evan
01-19-2009, 10:27 AM
with sharp edges like a fries cutting machine.


They have found that sharpening the edges of the front compressor fan does help a lot to chop up the birdies. A grill is not a practical solution. Not only would it reduce engine performance costing millions per engine operational life it would also reduce passenger load in proportion to it's weight costing additional millions. The performance loss would also effective increase pollution due to efficiency losses and increase fuel cost. You can be assured that if it were a viable solution it would be used. Vancouver airport had about 140 bird strike incidents last year and that is in line with other airports close to the sea. The engines can easily eat smaller birds without trouble but geese are the size of small turkeys. There is a limit what can be handled.

lazlo
01-19-2009, 11:51 AM
You guys make me laugh a bit. If you are realy intrested in such info.
go read a few of the aircraft news groups for a while. I wouldn't
recomend posting any of the "observations" I've seen here on them
though. :-)

We specialize in that here Lew -- we have more "experts" on more topics than any other Internet forum :)

Willy
01-19-2009, 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lew Hartswick
You guys make me laugh a bit. If you are realy intrested in such info.
go read a few of the aircraft news groups for a while. I wouldn't
recomend posting any of the "observations" I've seen here on them
though. :-)


http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j31/250willy/SeriousCat2.jpg

Dawai
01-19-2009, 01:28 PM
I see your ***** cat and raise you a 85lb psychotic pitt bulldog.. Surely not this 100lb wimp snoring on my couch thou. He hides behind me when loud noises happen.

OKAY.. wanna talk real fast in poor engineering?? how about a ducted fan jet engine, the ducts have flappers that dump anything ingested be it flat-top carrier crewman or bird that travels down the duct?? The easiest is the simplest, so we do that.. Harriers flying off a unclean field? Not good.. What do they call the pilot runway walk of clearing??

How many experts are here? about half as many as they think they are.. ha..
Ahm'a hillbilly wif a cnc.. and a cutting torch and hammer. Ah Machine to have my toys.. not machine as a hobby..

Teenage_Machinist
01-19-2009, 01:51 PM
LOL! lolcats on the forum! Internet memes go mainstream... Hey, it rhymes.

Liger Zero
01-19-2009, 01:55 PM
LOL! lolcats on the forum! Internet memes go mainstream... Hey, it rhymes.

Well now that the "old folks" are using LOLcats I guess they are no longer hip and cool. Time to find another meme. :D

*dives for bomb-shelter*

lazlo
01-19-2009, 02:22 PM
I see your ***** cat and raise you a 85lb psychotic pitt bulldog.. Surely not this 100lb wimp snoring on my couch thou. He hides behind me when loud noises happen.

David, if you're going to up the ante, you have to have a goofy picture like Willy's :)


OKAY.. wanna talk real fast in poor engineering?? how about a ducted fan jet engine, the ducts have flappers that dump anything ingested be it flat-top carrier crewman or bird that travels down the duct??

What do you expect David, the Harrier's a British design :D

Seriously, we're still de-bugging the anti-grav lifters, so how else would you do it? The new F-35 VTOL operates the same way: there's a ducted fan behind the cockpit.

wierdscience
01-19-2009, 03:03 PM
W......ell geese seriously effect the flow into the engine, don't they ?

would there be a need for them to be so fine and massive as that one in the test pad

they could have holes inch by inch ...with sharp edges like a fries cutting machine.

then geese would be chopped up into inch chunks that the engine could survive .

all the best.markj

Whatever the intake was covered with would quickly starve off air flow considering any mesh of any size would decrease the area from 100% to some percentage less.This not to mention all the voticies the mesh would introduce.The mesh in that ball is 3/4" IIRC,last summer was the last time I was near it.

Then we create another problem,what happens when this screen breaks?

Basically there is no simple solution to what seems like a simple problem.

dp
01-19-2009, 03:19 PM
Intake screens are not an impossibility but probably not worth the expense:

http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/138111.html

lazlo
01-19-2009, 03:48 PM
Most Russian fighters (MiG-29, Su-27,...) have intake covers that are deployed during taxi and takeoff. Air is pulled in from vents above the engine intake.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/mig-29.jpg

Much higher resolution version here:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Poland---Air-Force/Mikoyan-Gurevich-MiG-29A-(9-12A)/1386939/L/

Evan
01-19-2009, 04:15 PM
The reason for that is because all their runways are crumbling.

tony ennis
01-19-2009, 04:32 PM
...and their best customers are 3rd world despotic dirtbags that can't build or maintain a modern runway.





The US only sells weapons to 3rd world despotic dirtbags who CAN maintain runways!

J Tiers
01-19-2009, 11:18 PM
It makes sense to me to guard the intakes as the Russkies do..... opens up more options........

I thought about the various approaches....... Screens are obvious non-starters.... The screen necessary even withstand impact of birds at 2 or 3 hundred knots is just way too heavy to be considered seriously.

Some helicopters have sand-removing intakes, which spin or otherwise change air direction to drop out heavy items.

The stealth fighters have intakes that are not directly forward-facing, and the concept has the potential to exclude heavy or massive items (relative to air).

But all of these solutions have energy and weight costs. YOU are cheaper in the long run. A few people are killed, but in general the results of NO protection are likely a net positive, per operational analysis.

And, as we see, not every maximum-case bird strike results in fatalities. Apparently both engines lost essentially all thrust at about 3200 feet, according to the paper today.

It doesn't get a lot worse than that.... except maybe losing thrust at Orange County, where steep climb rules are in force for noise abatement... just as you enter the climb. That sounds considerably worse.

dp
01-19-2009, 11:29 PM
Some lunacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America_by_dec ade

Bears kill 52

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_GYUHMQY_QDL5v3q0okVIb2mKkQD95PSVG02

Geese kill zero

Response: Kill the geese, there's too many of them.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01172009/news/regionalnews/hey__geese__get_150594.htm

Response: Save the polar bears
http://www.polarbearsos.org/

wierdscience
01-20-2009, 12:00 AM
Most Russian fighters (MiG-29, Su-27,...) have intake covers that are deployed during taxi and takeoff. Air is pulled in from vents above the engine intake.

Much higher resolution version here:



A turbojet can breathe through the top of the wing and produce thrust where a turbofan cannot since the engine is used instead to spin a fan which produces thrust.That air flow problem again.

I suppose you could design a plane with doors to do just that,but building a wing with an 8-11' diameter hole in it would be difficult:)

Best and probably cheapest solution-

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/wierdscience/images.jpg

J Tiers
01-20-2009, 12:24 AM
A turbojet can breathe through the top of the wing and produce thrust where a turbofan cannot since the engine is used instead to spin a fan which produces thrust.That air flow problem again.



You'd be hard-pressed to find a pure turbojet these days..... virtually everything flying is a turbofan engine...... They look just the same, other than the larger intake, and they virtually ARE the same...... You could, at the risk of terribly offending the ME types, say that a turbofan is a turbojet with extreme amounts of compressor air bleed.........

But the fan is run on a separate shaft, the familiar compressor and turbine are used as a gas generator for the fan turbine, with some actual jet thrust. originally the fan was just an augmentation to the jet thrust. But if you look at new aircraft like the 767, or Airbus planes, the fan is the main feature, the large fan duct forms the main apparent bulk of the engine. I don't know the exact thrust ratio fan vs jet.

steve45
01-20-2009, 12:47 AM
Firstly, the outcome and expertise of the handling of the incident is to be applauded and congratulated and shows the skill and dedication of the whole of the aircrew involved.

BUT, the pilot does in fact run training exercises in flying disaster management, has had an initial training regime far in excess of a "Normal" airline pilot, and lets face it, he is paid to be able to safely drive an unatural mode of public transport. It never ceased to amaze me when landing in bad weather conditions (Rain and Blow) how passengers clap as soon as the wheels hit the deck? This is the guys JOB, we don't do it through lack of skill or capability, how would he fare tuning a carb or setting a manual machine to make a ballturner.

I'm not trying to detract from the bravery, but he did exactly what many with far less training and flying hours did in driving "Horsa's" and "Hotsper's"

Regards Ian.

I have to agree. I applaud Sully's great performance, but as a former charter pilot, I know he was just doing what he was trained to do. I'm sure he called upon his glider experience, too (I also hold a glider certificate).

I think the fact that he went down in a calm river, as opposed to open water with large waves, played a major role in the successful outcome. If there had been 10 foot waves, the results could have been really bad.

wierdscience
01-20-2009, 01:01 AM
You'd be hard-pressed to find a pure turbojet these days..... virtually everything flying is a turbofan engine...... They look just the same, other than the larger intake, and they virtually ARE the same...... You could, at the risk of terribly offending the ME types, say that a turbofan is a turbojet with extreme amounts of compressor air bleed.........

But the fan is run on a separate shaft, the familiar compressor and turbine are used as a gas generator for the fan turbine, with some actual jet thrust. originally the fan was just an augmentation to the jet thrust. But if you look at new aircraft like the 767, or Airbus planes, the fan is the main feature, the large fan duct forms the main apparent bulk of the engine. I don't know the exact thrust ratio fan vs jet.

The picture showed a fighter jet,the last bastion of a pure turbojet.

Looked at some Rolls product last summer,nice big titainium composite fan,blades have hollow crossection.Don't remember the number but the fan even though it was pushing 9' in diameter was very light.

Here's a Trent 900 eating chicken-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSafRuLB0c0

And a destructive test,9 million pounds,down the tubes-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA&eurl=http://iagblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/destroying-trent-900.html

J Tiers
01-20-2009, 09:46 AM
The picture showed a fighter jet,the last bastion of a pure turbojet.



Nope..... t'ain't so.......... most if not all current fighters have some form of turbofan engine....... naturally not an extreme high bypass geared fan like a slower commercial aircraft..... but a turbofan nonetheless.

They are useful up into the supersonic speed range.

lazlo
01-20-2009, 10:45 AM
Best and probably cheapest solution-

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/wierdscience/images.jpg

Or mount belt-fed 12 gauge shot guns on the engine cowlings.

Kind of like a Phalanx system for migratory birds :)

derekm
01-20-2009, 02:12 PM
...

Best and probably cheapest solution-

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/wierdscience/images.jpg

Curiously enough model gliders freak out most birds as they circle around finding thermals... They obviously mimic soaring raptors and this behaviour engages with the birds.

BillH
01-20-2009, 02:34 PM
Bird strikes are a serious matter. I almost had a bald eagle take out my wing strut, I had a red tail hawk go THUMP into my engine cowling, numerous other close calls to buzzards.

Circlip
01-20-2009, 03:08 PM
That's why propellors are much safer. Dependent on pitch setting ,varies the slice thickness.

sansbury
01-20-2009, 04:51 PM
They can be manually flown without assist. They have a basic cable operated control system. It's one of the reasons they have two pilots as they can work together against the control forces.

Just a couple of months ago my wife was on an Airbus 320 on a flight out of Calgary, Alberta. About 1/2 hour into the flight over the Rockies the cabin lights and entertainment systems went off. A short while later the Captain came on to say that he had a total computer failure so was flying the plane manually and would be returning to Calgary. My wife was seated next to a helicopter pilot and he opined that they were flying entirely manually without fly by wire assist. They landed without flaps at much higher than normal speed but made it just fine.

IIRC in the fly-by-wire Airbuses the Flight Management System and the Flight Control System are different boxes. The FCS takes control inputs from the pilot or the FMS and moves the control surfaces. My guess would be they lost the FMS, which deprived them of "George" the autopilot rather than the FCS.

As for loss of hydraulics, my point about the JAL123 and UA232 crashes was simply that "manual" systems are not inherently safe from catastrophic failure modes either. So far the more alarmist predictions about the Airbus system seem to be pretty overcooked. But we might need another 10-20 years in service before the fleet has enough time to compare to the 7x7s.

Evan
01-20-2009, 05:06 PM
The B52 can be flown entirely normally without electricity onboard. It was built that way because it was the easiest way to deal with electromagnetic pulse damage from a nearby nuclear burst (including their own). Among other things the control surfaces, except the ailerons which it doesn't have, are all operated by servo tabs on the control surfaces which are all mechanical with rods and cables. The B52 really does have two pilots to manage the control forces as it can take up to 200 lbs of back pressure on the yoke to flare the aircraft on landing.

Instead of ailerons the B52 has spoilers that extend up from the wing. They are aerodynamically neutral to extend which makes it possible to fly without assist. The problem though with spoilers is that if you crank in enough bank the lift vector changes from vertical to closer to horizontal and spoiling the airflow over the wing does little to level the aircraft. Too much bank angle was the proximate cause of the B52 crash at Seatac (?) some years back.

sansbury
01-20-2009, 05:08 PM
Also, Canada geese are not "itinerant" along much of the East coast. Once a flock finds a nice office park or golf course, they often settle down permanently.

A while back I flew out of Groton-New London airport, which is right on Long Island Sound, in my C-172. Right before the tower cleared me for the active, the airport cop drove over, rolled his window down, and tossed a cherry bomb out, which sent a few dozen assorted sea birds scurrying off.

Apparently after a while though they realize it's just noise and it becomes less effective. My father said that he'd be happy to provide a more permanent solution, so long as the airport authority gave him a hot breakfast and a few boxes of birdshot in the morning.

Evan
01-20-2009, 05:13 PM
Also, Canada geese are not "itinerant" along much of the East coast.

Are you quite sure? The geese that come here for the summer and leave in the fall come from someplace along with many thousands more that we see every year. Even the American Bald Eagle is really Canadian. :) They migrate south for the winter like many other Canadians do.

BillH
01-20-2009, 05:24 PM
Are you quite sure? The geese that come here for the summer and leave in the fall come from someplace along with many thousands more that we see every year. Even the American Bald Eagle is really Canadian. :) They migrate south for the winter like many other Canadians do.
The town I live in, Naples, the population quadruples with those pesky "snow birds" The most annoying ones coming from New York.

Daminer
01-20-2009, 07:33 PM
>This was emailed to me this morning by a retired airline pilot friend.....I'm also airline retired.....(PSA & USAir)


> The following are not my words. I’m not sure whose they are. Fowarded by a friend. Fred
>
> __________________________________________________ ____________
>
>
>
> So. you wanna be an airline pilot...
>
>
>
> I am sure by now that you have heard of the USAIR 320 crash in NYC, and have
> been filled with the "experts" opinions' on what happened. While not
> considered an expert on Airbus aircraft, (as I have just 7,000+ hours flying
> time on the 321/320/319, Check Airman/Instructor credentials, 12 years MAJOR
> airline experience, investigated several accidents/incidents and, oh yes, I
> landed on aircraft carriers at night , plus I am not paid well) I shall
> attempt to provide a glimpse into what most PROBABLY happened.
>
> Keep in mind that from the emergency to the ditching, the accident took
> place within a time span of approximately 3 minutes! ! !
>
> Flight took off LGA RWY 4, Northeast bound, Rykers Island on the left. If
> memory serves me correctly, LGA departure traffic get assigned 2-3,000 feet
> initially with turns North, then West, etc. sequenced with other dep/arr
> aircraft (JFK,EWR, LGA, et al). At 1500', the crew would have reduced power
> from Takeoff (TOGA/FLEX) to Climb, and retracted the flaps/slats. This might
> have been done at 3000' depending upon USAIR procedures regarding noise
> abatement. At this point, I'll assume aircraft is clean at 1500'. From the
> 1500' point the aircraft is climbing/accelerating to 250 kts, all things
> being equal.
>
> At some point, the boys see a gaggle of birds and wham...these lucky devils
> get to have some real fun.
>
> Keep in mind that from this point on, only 3 minutes will elapse.
>
> Reports are that an explosion/fire on the left engine occurred. Thus, if
> correct, an ENG 1 fire warning/failure (loss of thrust) ding ding ding. Crew
> would be performing applicable procedures according to the ECAM ( TV screen
> in cockpit, tells us what to do). From what happened, though, it appears as
> if the other engine was affected as well. Not sure yet if it had failed, or
> was operating at insufficient thrust to keep the plane airborne. As we all
> know, you can fly just fine on one engine. Because the aircraft didn't stay
> airborne much longer, and aircraft was controllable (some hydraulic power) I
> assume that both engines are not working. Now, you have a DUAL engine
> failure at 3000' with at least one engine is/was on fire. (Later pictures
> show no smoke trail)
>
> Naturally, the crew declares an emergency and tells ATC they want to land
> immediately. ATC gives them a vector back to LGA, but no more transmissions
> are heard. This is because the **** is hitting the fan in the cockpit.
>
> Most likely, the Captain was flying while the FO was applying the emergency
> procedures. When you have a dual engine failure on the Airbus, you lose two
> of the three hydraulic systems. These two systems, green and yellow, control
> most of the aircraft systems. The third system, blue, is powered by an
> electrically or air turbine (RAT) powered pump. This blue pump/system
> provides enough hydraulic power for basic aircraft control, ailerons, some
> spoilers and slats but no flaps. Also, the engines power electrical
> generators; lose the engines, lose most electrical power. When this happens,
> the RAT, Ram Air Turbine, automatically deploys from the bottom of the
> aircraft and provides essential electrical and hydraulic (blue pump) power.
> Unless, of course, the APU is running.
>
> The APU, Auxiliary Power Unit, is the small jet engine in the tail of the
> Airbus which provides enough electrical and pneumatic power for most of the
> electrical systems. The blue pump is electrical. Also, the yellow pump can
> be powered electrically by pushing a button. This would in turn allow the
> green system pump to be powered by a PTU, power transfer unit. This PTU can
> be powered by either green or yellow system to allow both systems to work
> normally thus allowing 100% hydraulic power. Everything would work..gear,
> flaps, slats, etc.
>
> Keep in mind, only 3 minutes were available to the crew. The clock is ticking.
>
> What is not known yet is if the APU was running prior to the engine(s)
> fire/failure(s). This depends upon company policy and Captain's discretion.
> If it was running, then the electricals would be powered by the APU
> generator, and the crew would have been directed by the emergency procedures
> to turn on the yellow hydraulic pump electrical switch thus allowing for
> hydraulic power. If the APU was not running, then most electricals would not
> work, thus the RAT would deploy. And, the procedures would have the crew
> start the APU. HOWEVER, you have to wait 45 seconds AFTER the dual engine
> failure to start the APU. Why, you ask? Because the RAT hasn't done its
> thing yet and the aircraft is powered by internal batteries only. Should the
> RAT fail, you would have battery power only,( a real ****ty situation on an
> Airbus). Thus, if you try to start the APU and it doesn't start, no RAT, no
> battery juice,.....welll now you have bigger headlines and a bunch of
> lawyers getting into the mix. Oh yeah, it takes 1 minute for the APU to
> start AFTER you press the button.
>
> Keep in mind that the crew had 3 minutes. The clock is ticking louder.
The river is getting closer.

So, let's see where we are...
>
>
> From the pictures it looks as though the gear was up, slats and some flaps
> extended. No RAT was visible.
>
> From the start of the emergency, the Captain was looking for a place to
> land. The FO was extremely busy going through the checklists. Realizing not
> much time was left, they may have skipped the engine/hydraulic, etc.
> procedures and went to the emergency landing/ditching procedures. They had
> the APU running thus hydraulic power available. Captain figured out early
> enough that they had no chance at a runway and decided to ditch flaps
> extended.
>
> Thank God it was daylight, clear and not at night in the goo.
>
> I have serious concerns that the outcome would have been catastrophically
> different had the crew been 100 hour wonders, marginal training/experience,
> and limited CRM skills. Read into this as you desire.
>
> Keep in mind that the crew had just 3 minutes to do what they did.
>
> not paid enough.
>
>

Thruthefence
01-20-2009, 07:44 PM
This is excellent.

Circlip
01-21-2009, 05:29 AM
Observations given by a couple of "Professional" pilots, and I state the term in the truest sense of the word. Ain't it the same in every industry, Ole farts (professionals) get the same pay check as the five minute wonders.

Regards Ian.

Evan
01-21-2009, 07:49 AM
Ole farts (professionals) get the same pay check as the five minute wonders

They both get a paycheck but it isn't the same. In the airline pilot business it takes a long time to work your way up to the top jobs and the top pay. In general paycheck and the number of people you are responsible for go together as do low pay+older aircraft vs high pay+new aircraft.

Median pay for a Airbus 320 driver is $78,000 whereas a 747-400 or a 737-800/900 pilot makes $110,000 to 120,000. The salary scale covers a very wide range with the top jobs paying more than double the starting jobs.

BillH
01-21-2009, 08:14 AM
Oh please, unless your in the damn industry you have no freaking clue.
Does it make sense that I make twice as much money flight instructing in a Cessna 172 than I would if I went to a regional airline with 90 of your loved ones sitting behind me?
Well that is the reality of it and I am home every night.
I also get to fly twice as much. This is NOT a job for some one that wants the "glory" of being a pilot. There is NONE unless you were that pilot that was "lucky enough" to get to do what he did. The days of the 250 hour wonder pilots getting hired by the regionals are over.

Evan
01-21-2009, 08:57 AM
Take it easy Bill. Those numbers are only for airline pilots, not pilots in general. I have had plenty of contact with the industry over the years. You want a dangerous job that pays squat? Try water bomber pilot or crop dusting. If you are being well paid as a flight instructor then you are lucky since that is not the general case. Flight instructor jobs are usually a route to employment with the airlines and a way to build hours and type certifications. I do have a pilots licence and about 15 types when I used to fly and I worked in the industry for some years a long time ago. I have friends that are in the business now.

madman
01-21-2009, 09:05 AM
Well im NOT a Pilot, I have Flown some of my friends Aircraft once they got the Darn things off the Water or Ground. Ive always Liked Airplanes a Lot. NOW I do know 2 Commercial Pilots and I was told a few Years ago that he made around 100,000 dollars a year. he flies to Hong Kong a Lot. NOW with his WiveSSS(Hes had a few ) and Alimony Payments .I think he is doing worse than me and I dont even have a Job. LOL. So the Moral of this Post is Dont fly if Youre Married cause youre gonna meet some real Cuties as you Jet Around the World??? Also watch out for Ducks and them Geeses. Just my 1 cents worth.

J Tiers
01-21-2009, 09:47 AM
Are you quite sure? The geese that come here for the summer and leave in the fall come from someplace along with many thousands more that we see every year.

We have year-around flocks here.... it's hard to tell if the locals go farther south, replaced by new, or if the locals stay..... I haven't banded any, just "goosed" and hissed-at a few that got aggressive.




Even the American Bald Eagle is really Canadian. :) They migrate south for the winter....

Ah, but you don't understand...... Those iggles just come here to be home for the holidays:D

John Stevenson
01-21-2009, 10:46 AM
What are the regs on keeping a private license over there ?

Over here I'm sure you have to have so many hours per year plus full medical or they pull your license.

I let my heavy goods license lapse after we sold the garage as I'd had enough of the large trucks.

Only just managed to get it back again by a few months grace without having to retake a very expensive test again.

George Bulliss
01-21-2009, 11:36 AM
What are the regs on keeping a private license over there ?

Over here I'm sure you have to have so many hours per year plus full medical or they pull your license.

I let my heavy goods license lapse after we sold the garage as I'd had enough of the large trucks.

Only just managed to get it back again by a few months grace without having to retake a very expensive test again.

The private pilot certificate is good forever, but in order to actually fly you must be “current.” This requires a current medical and an endorsement in your log book within the preceding two years by a flight instructor stating that he has given you flight and ground instruction appropriate to your certificate and ratings.

A flight instructor certificate expires after two years unless you attend a FAA approved seminar or take an approved course. I pay my money and take the course every two years, even though I will likely never instruct again. I invested so much time and money in that piece of paper that I can’t bear the thought of giving it up.

George

lazlo
01-21-2009, 11:54 AM
Wow George, you're quite the bundle of hidden talents! :)

I also heard from someone in Real Life (:eek:) that you were a tool and die maker in a past life?

Evan
01-21-2009, 12:09 PM
The private pilot certificate is good forever, but in order to actually fly you must be “current.” This requires a current medical and an endorsement in your log book within the preceding two years by a flight instructor stating that he has given you flight and ground instruction appropriate to your certificate and ratings.



Same in Canada. The rules are pretty well harmonized as we are in the CADIZ (Canadian American Defense Identification Zone).

The endorsment by the flight instructor can be obtained by doing a few touch and goes with him in the right seat for something such as a C172.

George Bulliss
01-21-2009, 12:09 PM
I also heard from someone in Real Life (:eek:) that you were a tool and die maker in a past life?

Flying was fun but the jobs weren’t. After flying I did what I should have done in the first place and entered an apprentice program for mold making. Four years later I had a piece of paper that said I was a mold maker, still had plenty to learn though! I enjoyed the work and would still be doing it if there was any around.

George

sansbury
01-21-2009, 12:22 PM
Are you quite sure? The geese that come here for the summer and leave in the fall come from someplace along with many thousands more that we see every year. Even the American Bald Eagle is really Canadian. :) They migrate south for the winter like many other Canadians do.

Come to the northeast sometime and you'll find plenty of geese that haven't seen Canada or Florida in a looong time. Once they find the fat and happy life on a nice golf course or office park, they're here for the duration.

Evan
01-21-2009, 12:29 PM
Well, I lived in NYC for a time in the 60s and have been back in that general direction a dozen times since but I don't remember seeing flocks of geese in the summer. Whatever.

dp
01-21-2009, 12:35 PM
Here's an article about geese that don't migrate and why.

http://www.nhpr.org/node/14252

Evan
01-21-2009, 01:01 PM
Ah yes, the law of unintended consequences bites again.

jkilroy
01-21-2009, 01:08 PM
We have a healthy year round, breeding, population of geese here in central Mississippi.

dp
01-21-2009, 01:41 PM
Unintended consequences is a hobby of mine:

Hawaii has one native goose - called 'Nene', and they look similar to Canadian geese. They don't migrate. They're also becoming quite rare because of introduced species.
http://www.aloha-hawaii.com/hawaii/nene/

Rats came ashore with the first Europeans.
http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/12953/40/

Later some genius decided to bring mongoose over from India to kill the rats, so 72 mongoose were ordered.
http://www.instanthawaii.com/cgi-bin/hawaii?Animals.mongoose

Rats and mongoose are active at different times of day so rarely see each other. However, neither had natural predators in the new environment.

The early settlers of Hawaii brought pigs with them and these scampered off into the pahoehoe and they too have no natural predators.
http://state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/consrvhi/nativenot/pigs.html

In 1867 several deer from India were given to David Kalakaua, the king of Hawaii at the time, and they were put on Molokai Island. Today they are a blight.
http://visitmolokai.com/faq.html#deer1

Goats were introduced to the islands by Capt. Cook among others, and are well established. You can see these guys bounding over the a`a` lava on the southern coastal flows on the big island. Nasty things.
http://www.instanthawaii.com/cgi-bin/hawaii?Animals.goat

And then there are the feral cats - a problem outside the islands as well.

The big suprise for many people is the problem of feral chickens. Some chicken breeds have been in Hawaii since the first settlers arrived and are now rare, and get this, an endangered species, but still a destructive feral bird.
http://www.oahuislandnews.com/Dec05/home.htm

Cattle were introduced as well and while the cattle have been managed from the beginning, what the cattle brought with them has not. Cactus arrived in their feed and was passed on to Hawaii through their bowels.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lOXYL1qlzdcC&pg=PA419&lpg=PA419&dq=hawaiian+prickly+pear+cactus&source=web&ots=pemsPW2-I1&sig=IUbwXJ8oEryr80v_nRctuVRvQvc

And then there were the gentleman farmers:
http://www.hawaii-forest.com/natural-history/essays/1998-09.asp

Willy
01-21-2009, 02:20 PM
Yup, got em here too Evan.
Once they find a some place they like you have to yank their heads out of the trough or they stay. A real problem in some of the area parks and beaches.
There's nothing natural about nature anymore.

jkilroy
01-21-2009, 03:46 PM
Cooked right, goose is fine eating, thats all I'm going to say.

Daminer
02-03-2009, 02:29 AM
Another piece to the puzzle.
Deke

Begin forwarded message:

>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 1/30/09, APA Communications Committee Chairman <smtp@alliedpilots.org> wrote:
>
> From: APA Communications Committee Chairman <smtp@alliedpilots.org>
> Subject: Exclusive Account of US Airways Flight 1549
> To:
> Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 11:50 AM
>
> 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.