The real "hero" of 1549
- Thread starter Snoopy2
- Start date
CrippleHawk
Well-Known Member
It's the man not the machine.
AngelFuree
Well-Known Member
It's only one of the factors. I give a lot of props to the mechanics/engineers behind the airplane. They did a good job of allowing it to withstand such impacts.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
I've heard that the A320 engine FADEC'ing is a little odd.
Apparently, the engines were both running when the airplane hit the Hudson.
Word is, Sully commanded full power from both engines, but the FADECs didn't like that, and the logic says that when the Thrust Lever Angle (TLA) is a certain difference off from what the FADECs consider appropriate, it sets the engines to IDLE THRUST.
This is all second-hand information, but if there's any truth to it, it calls a good deal to question.
Apparently, the engines were both running when the airplane hit the Hudson.
Word is, Sully commanded full power from both engines, but the FADECs didn't like that, and the logic says that when the Thrust Lever Angle (TLA) is a certain difference off from what the FADECs consider appropriate, it sets the engines to IDLE THRUST.
This is all second-hand information, but if there's any truth to it, it calls a good deal to question.
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
Sully who?
Don't forget Mike!
LOL:laff:
:yeahthat: A lot of things had to be just right, and a little bit of luck thrown in never hurts either.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
That's sort of a normal logic to FADEC.
Here's the QRH entry for the CRJ 700 for a L/R THROTTLE Msg.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
True, I suppose. So my point here is that he didn't really have full "dual engine failure". The FADEC just told him to piss off, he wasn't getting that power, no matter what.
Seems there are some times you might just want to be able to override the FADEC logic, no?
Bumblebee
Commodore
first line of this article . . .Think Sully will give some of his "memoir"royalties to Airbus??
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us_airways200906
Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, the pilot who landed US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River last January, was justly celebrated for his skill and courage.
'nuff said.
I would sumbit that the most important thing Sullly did was quickly realize he couldn't make it back to the field and focused in on a river landing. After that it was pretty elementary flying with the planes' systems making it really hard for Sully to screw up. These are not our fathers airliners. These computerized bad boys are smart as hell and hard to mess up.
A polite author!
Chesney has been embarrassingly overkilled and with his full blessing of course.
Uh oh, don't tell me you've been "media hyped" into submission too??
This wasn't an accident. This was a successful water landing.
Your thoughts on the gist of the article, i.e. the deceasing importance of stick and rudder piloting in this computer age.
charlie1017
Well-Known Member
Given that there's been at least 10 A320 hull losses in crashes I wouldn't claim they are "hard to mess up". You still need pilot skill like in the A320 incident in this video.
[YT]MHBP75QbAcg[/YT]
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
How many hours do you have in transportation size aircraft? That could be one of the dumbest thing I have ever read on JC. :banghead::banghead:
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Neither do I. I'm glad he successfully conducted a ditching that kept everyone alive, but outside of that single event, he hasn't been the best human being in recent years. He just spent a few days in a court out in PHX testifying in the Addington litigation trying to defend uSAPa for screwing over the West pilots. Prior to that he sued his fellow pilots that were acting in his best interests as members of the USAirways MEC when they terminated the pension plan to save the airline. Had it not been for them, USAirways would have ceased to exist and his career would have been gone years ago. To show his "thanks," he filed a lawsuit against his own union reps. Scum.
How many pilots have attempted water landings on glass-smooth water surfaces like the Hudson on a low-wind day? This wasn't a ditching in open seas, remember. I happen to agree with Snoopy2 that most pilots would have been able to successfully accomplish this ditching. Sully is no super-pilot, he was just doing his job like any other experienced Captain.
I do, however, disagree with Snoopy2 that technology had anything to do with it. Airplanes are still flown by people (even the Airbus). An autopilot didn't land that plane, a pilot did.
coa787
Unknown Member
Nah, I wouldn't necessarily say that. The pilot control inputs are processed by computers, and the computers then activate the hydraulic actuators to move the appropriate control surfaces, which move the aircraft in the direction that the pilot wants to go. The computers can modify the pilot inputs so that the control surface movements are "appropriate" for the flight conditions and are in accordance with control parameters. Technology at work right there.
I know what you mean, though.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Joe Gremlin
Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware that there have been other ditchings of Airbus aircraft where all the variables were similar to this case. Could you provide links to the relevant unsuccessful cases?
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Nobody has ever ditched a transport category aircraft without getting somebody killed.
Ever.
You want all the variables to be similar? Seriously? He landed an airliner in the water without killing everybody! There's your similar variable; water.