Talk:US Airways Flight 1549/Archive 1

Bird
It has been reported that the plane was hit by a bird, should we include it?--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen/heard multiple reports to that effect, so I'd say yeah. 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wainstead (talk • contribs)


 * They are reporting that it was specifically a flock of seagulls. (WABC)--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the band? --24.187.17.186 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No..literally a flock of seagulls(although it reminded me of Jules )--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, current reports are that it was Geese. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Geese "biologically engineered by al-Qaeda"?! Seriously? Lihan161051 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording of the article on this is too "statement of fact" for speculation "A double bird strike disabled one or both of the plane's engines". It would be better described as "Eyewitness reports state that a double..."--91.107.199.7 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, Cite 8 "Passenger reaches Charlotte neighbor by phone" makes no credible reference to the bird strike, just a user comment.--91.107.199.7 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will restore the reference to the FAA believing bird strike could play a factor, citing http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ag4k6AQPCaoQ&refer=us--91.107.199.7 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No I won't somebody has provided a suitable alteration.--91.107.199.7 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

page name
Should the page be moved to US Airways Flight 1549 crash or US Airways Flight 1549 accident? Although it's not entirely consistent, other articles in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2008 have the "crash" or "accident" as part of their name. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like its rather haphazard. Does the Aviation Wikiproject standardize this? Joshdboz (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, "haphazard" is the best word. I asked for some input at the project. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to move, title is fine as it is. See British Airways Flight 38, BOAC Flight 712 etc. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, fine as is. See articles in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1979, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1999 for similar names accident articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. We avoid crash as too tabloid, preferring accident.LeadSongDog (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Officially, pilots call it "ditching." Trent370 (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Images on Flickr
More images on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=hudson%20river%20crash&s=rec —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs)

Wish I had a better camera... :/. It might be a good idea to borrow a picture off of Flickr and substitute that for mine. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

npr report
listening to a report on NPR at the moment, reporter stated that he was told the landing was soft for a water landing. Don't have a link, so I don't want to add it myself. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I heard that too. However, this report quotes a guy who says differently. Bsimmons666  (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of passengers
Is the number of passengers 146 or 148? The main article is saying 146 but the sidebar is saying 148. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.249.66 (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC News article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7832191.stm is stating at least 150. I doubt anyone knows for sure yet though. That site was saying 135 only a few minutes ago. Sky83 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 150 Passengers, 2 Pilots, 3 Crew = 155 per ABC News --Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The press release on the US Airways web site (I forgot to get the link) states there were 150 passengers and 5 crew. MplsNarco (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated BBC report (same link as above) says 148 passengers, 4 crew. Bsimmons666  (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

146/148
Seems there's conflicting reports in regards to the passenger count. Some say 146, some say 148, which is correct? - Enzo Aquarius - Walkie Talkie!  21:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * NPR just cited the FAA as saying 146, if that helps. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * CEO reported 150 (could've been a quick estimate?) and a user is adding 151. This is getting pretty baffling. - Enzo Aquarius - Walkie Talkie!  22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the third press release issued on the US Airways web site, there were 150 passengers and 5 crew members. MplsNarco (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Coord
I added an approximate coord to the "site" line of the infobox based on the description in the article and the pictures. I'm hoping someone else will refine it. - Denimadept (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think you're in Central Asia...Joshdboz (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Thanks! Joshdboz (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that would have been an approximation... just not a very good one. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, true. If you want to ref the coords, the Times has an approximate map. Joshdboz (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like approximately where I put it. Neat! - Denimadept (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the CNN graphic shows it on the NJ side of the river. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that until someone gets there with a GPS, or gets BACK with the results, we won't know exactly. - Denimadept (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the plane has since drifted downriver, an approximation is likely all we'll get. Radagast (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just had a nasty thought. What if the Times blogger got his approximate location from our article?  Could be! - Denimadept (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a lot of breaking news articles, you wouldn't believe how frequently that happens. I've "written" a whole bunch of newspaper articles already. :-) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Flight information from does not match our coordinates. Puts the plane below the Lincoln tunnel  --Govtrust (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fboweb.com has AWE1549 crash site located at 40°45'0.00"N 74°1'0.01"W --Govtrust (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cropped image
The cropped image in the infobox is better than the original, in which the plane was too small, but doesn't show the city in the background, and could therefore be anywhere, Please can someone make an intermediate version? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the closeup is more appropriate; the precarious position of the plane, wings, and passengers should be as hi-res as possible. Pulling back the photo to show some buildings nearby might be appropriate for a photo down lower in the article.  Tempshill (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Details in References
A few of the references just say ABC News Special Report or CBS News Special Report, and even one to just USairways.com. Is it possible to add some details or possibly links to these references?--Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How do we refer to a video? Perhaps the date of the "special report" would be a good idea! - Denimadept (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If an on-line source is found to support the text it should be replaced. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

155 Survivors
People keep changing the number to 146 and 148. Anything happen?--Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not including the crew? hbdragon88 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Still shouldn't be less than 150--Christopher Kraus (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Recovery
On NBC news it was said by New York's Mayor that the plane was pushed by tugs towards one of the piers and tied up until an investigation could be done.Knowledgekid87 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The wiki article says it remained afloat. I would question that since all video/pics of the aftermath shows it had sunk at least to only the tailfin sticking out of the water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.238.191 (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw a contradictory reference that said it sank. Is there reliable and consistent info on what happened to it? And to the luggage and such, for that matter, as I doubt the passengers were opening overhead compartments and lollygagging like they normally do when a plane lands routinely. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * These sites indicate it was indeed towed.  Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rarity of successful water landings
AFAIK, there have been only 3 or 4 water "landings" of large commercial airliners in which there were any survivors. It'd be useful to note this up top if someone can find a reference. Tempshill (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I found a good quote at Water landings from The Economist and added it. Tempshill (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remove that part for now as the A320 is not a "widebody" aircraft. See if we can find something else of note. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We could link to Water landing and say there have been 11, but that article is not at all necessarily comprehensive.... Tempshill (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder why the plane was not tore to peaces even though it had engines below wings. As far as I know in this kind of situations the engines (or more likely another one of the engines) make the first impact and then tore the wings away or drag the plane so that the nose is not heading to the movement direction anymore, causing the plane to start rolling side first. If anyone can explain why this didn't on this occasion it would be very interesting addition to article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.72.36 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not torn to pieces because of the skill of the pilot in keeping the aircraft perfectly level during the ditching. When ditching a plane in water, if one side contacts the water before another, it will pivot and turn to one direction while forward momentum will carry the whole craft and eventually flip it over and cause breakup. Even though the engines hang lower than the belly of the A320, contact with *both* engines at the same time produces a drag only and no pivoting, change of heading, or anything but smooth "sailing".TheBigZzz (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aircraft engines are designed to tear away from the wings before tearing the wings off of the fuselage (this fact is mentioned at Delta Air Lines Flight 191). There have been incidents where engines fell off of airplanes followed by a safe landing, but I can't find a reference right now. I don't know if the engines detached in this case, but it is not surprising that the engines didn't tear the wings off. –  j ak s mata 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone just added a link to a NY Times article, "Left Engine Missing From Downed Plane". Pictures of the plane (linked to from the same article) just before it hit the water clearly show both engines still attached. Although it's OR right now, it's pretty clear that the impact with the water tore off the engines, but not the wings. In a few months, when the NTSB has compiled its report on the incident, they will undoubtedly have an authoritative answer as to how the aircraft survived (almost) intact. –  j ak s mata 19:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Missed Opportunities
This article could be greatly improved by adding info about the missed opportunities by the crew. I understand it is far more popular to avoid questioning their actions (/inactions) when there has been a wave of support, but ideally the NPOV policy would steer this article toward covering a complete set of angles.

Here is a diagram showing two optional flight paths that were available, but not taken:

This does not even address the fact that Teterboro had been within gliding range when the aircraft was turned south (albeit that Teterboro did not have a last-minute ditching alternative that LaGuardia had in case the gliding energy was not managed sufficiently). And this too does not address the missed opportunity of being more vigilant in see&avoid where the huge flock of large birds (which was big enough to show up on radar) could have been seen in time to make an evasive maneuver that would have been uncomfortable for the passengers, but could have avoided the collision entirely.

Yes, this is entirely speculative. But aviation experts have been publishing this type of analysis since the incident occurred in Jan 2009. If we want an unbiased article here, we will add mention to these options not taken.

The best proof would be if someone posted a video link from a simulator to show how easy it would have been to glide back and land at LaGuardia, starting from the initial condition of the birdstrike. This would not even need to be from an expensive FAA approved airliner simulator. There are cheap PC-based sims these days that have high enough fidelity.ChrisfromHouston (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this is entirely speculative (your words) it can't be included in Wikipedia per policies regarding original research. –  j ak s mata 21:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with jaksmata: Wikipedia articles about events relate what is reliably sourced as being known to have happened, not guessing what might have happened if circumstances were different. Speculation is right out. Centpacrr (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing mentioned in the article is that four pilots, given a setup identical to when the bird strike happened by the NTSB, were able to glide back to Laguardia. When the NTSB imposed a 30-second day, they all crashed.  That sort of documented test from a reliable source (who presumably also made the test realistic, based on the precise flight data) would be good to add, if you can find such sources which discuss it.  But, complete speculation can't go in the article, particularly any assumptions about if the pilots should, or could, have seen the birds before they hit or not -- that would be hard/impossible to recreate in a simulator I would think.  Maybe the final NTSB report will have more of this sort of information.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I look at the article and find no justification of the NTSB's 30 second delay. Indeed when the crew contacted control they were already clearly taking action. It seems to me not the technically informed data which was sought but an arbitrary number plucked from the air proving nothing. Why not take a 20 second delay? The course taken over the ground is (IMV) exactly the one that any "fanstop" specialist would recommend. Get the nose down, look for somewhere to land ideally not more than 30 degrees off course and bring the aircraft gently round onto the new heading. "Gently" because people die though over zealous turns that close to the ground (with an aicraft in an unfamiliar configuration) which instantly turn into irrecoverable spins. That lovely stretch of open flat water would begin to look like the gates of heaven once you had decided that you might make the tarmac, but only at the risk of a stall while trying to stretch the glide, a stall which would kill everybody on board. IMV hats off to the pilot & crew who did an amazing job without having a 30 second doze as the NTSB imply without (it would seem) justification.

And there speaks a man who lost his CO because he thought he could make it back to the airfield.Drg40 (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing that out, Carl. That was exactly what I was trying to say that this article needed. I had totally missed finding that.


 * I was not advocating that we inject our own speculation into the article. I was saying that we can cite experts who have commented on such alternative trajectories, and performed their own studies. Their speculation is encyclopedic info that would make for a more complete article. A more thorough disclosure I'm sure will show that the birds could easily have been avoided had they done a better job in visually clearing their flight path (Sully's primary job at the time was to be head down, cleaning up checklist items). And given that the crew hit the birds, that they could have glided to a safe landing at either Teterboro or, as already cited, LaGuardia. And since the experts/officials have not released hard data on any of these alternative trajectories, that's where a YouTube of a MicroSoft FlightSim vid would make for very powerful evidence. An External Link to such a vid at the bottom of this article would be totally appropriate.


 * ...and most importantly, imagine what pilots for future situations will be able to learn from an unbiased article that refrains from glorifying the actions taken, while sweeping mistakes under the rug.


 * As for that delay that the NTSB imposed, pilots make life/death decisions in a split-second. 30 seconds is an aviation-eternity of indecision. If your plane loses thrust, your first assessment is whether you can glide to a suitable landing spot. If you can, then that is where your primary attention belongs. Restarting engines is gravy. And focusing your efforts on a restart can potentially be a tragically misdirected waste of time when you are gliding past completely suitable airstrips. Awesome to know that in this particular case, the most tragic aspect of the outcome was turning a perfectly good jet into scrapmetal.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And by the way, if you do decide to sip coffee for 30 seconds before taking any action, you can still easily make it to Teterboro. Here's the quote from that reference:
 * "...in recognition that it wasn't reasonable to expect a pilot to assess the
 * situation and react instantly, the NTSB imposed a 30-second delay before
 * simulator pilots could turn back to LaGuardia..."


 * The smart pilot will have the situational awareness that as you're in your left-hand turn, there's Teterboro Rwy 24 passing right off your nose. It's been well over a year since this incident has happened, and the NTSB not making it more clear to all the pilots out there about alternatives that could have had a less destructive outcome is negligence akin to them not telling Toyota drivers how to put their cars into neutral in a stuck throttle situation. I suggest that covering alternative actions not taken deserves its own subsection in the article, and not a small statement that is easily overlooked.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm no pilot but... reacting immediately would seem to be just about impossible. Probably took them a little bit to figure out that *both* engines actually went out, etc. -- nobody would normally expect that, even with a bird strike.  Looking at the audio, it was 30 seconds from when they started to inform the air traffic controller of the problem, to when the air traffic controller gave them a possible runway to return to (since the controllers would have to make sure outgoing flights stopped first, I would assume).  I also seem to recall reading that Teterboro is too small to land that type of plane; that could be a worse result if the plane doesn't stop on the runway.  That said, they probably could have thought about Teterboro a bit earlier to get clearance, again looking at the audio.  But I would guess the plane was already lined up with the Hudson, and that probably looked rather attractive immediately -- the pilot was thinking about that pretty early in the audio transcript (that was presumably the suitable landing spot, which also had no risk of crashing in a populated area).   Making any kind of assumptions as you are making above (NTSB is borderline negligent, assuming 30 seconds was an unreasonable delay to add, assuming Teterboro was preferable to what they did given the relatively limited amount of information we all have compared to what the NTSB has at its disposal, assuming the pilots were spending time on stuff you think is irrelevant) all seems to be original research to me.  Even other folks probably don't have the detailed info available to make as good a simulation, though a fair bit was released, so maybe.  Other alternatives were possible I'm sure, but it doesn't mean they were reasonable alternatives under the circumstances (that is the part where we really need reliable, informed sources), and it also doesn't necessarily mean that they were better alternatives than the one chosen (there may have been a better possibility of saving the plane, but also a lot higher possibility of a much worse outcome like crashing in a populated area).  If you have particular references in mind though, point them out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Capt. Sullenberger explains in great detail in his book Highest Duty (at pages 206 to 239) exactly what happened with the bird strike and why he and First Officer Skiles quickly rejected attempting to make a deadstick landing of their 150,000-pound fully loaded and fueled airliner at either LGA or Teterboro as the most likely outcome of either would be a crash and fire with many fatalities among both the 155 souls on board his aircraft as well as potentially many more on the ground. Also as a pilot myself I have twice been involved in minor bird strikes neither of which I could have possibly avoided by the time the birds became visible. According to the FAA, there have been more than 109,000 similar strikes reported (and likely many more unreported) to the Agency since 1990, and presumably none of these were either intentional or avoidable. The NTSB also is the only designated authority with a commission to investigate and analyze this accident and determine its probable cause, a process which almost always takes a year or more to complete. When the Board's report is issued, an objective summary of its findings will surely be added to the article. Anything else, however, would seem to clearly constitute speculation and POV, especially if such "studies" consist of the theories by non actors in the events about proposed possible alternate outcomes based on events that did not happen instead of what actually did happen. Centpacrr (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are very easy ways for us to analyze the wealth of data that's been made public. And it does not take a pilot to do that. (But Carl, with a name like yours, I recommend you take lessons and learn to solo! Not necessarily trans-Atlantic.)


 * Ok, here's how easy it is... Consider how long the crew did delay.  Then they turned left.  All you have to do is imagine wrapping that groundtrack around in a full left turn back to LaGuardia and you can see that the distance is long enough to reach that airport. And since there's water all around LaGuardia, you still have the ditching option if you mess up your one shot at landing.


 * Now with a little piloting knowledge, some might be critical about the above distance assessment because the aircraft will dump some lift while banked longer for the bigger turn. But even basic textbook knowledge about piloting tells you that the crew did not fly a glide that maximized distance. This is obvious by the fact that they climbed after passing over the GW bridge. It's also obvious because of the pilot's account of not flying exactly on the max Lift-over-Drag green dotted airspeed. And one more loss of range came from how late the crew lowered flaps. None of that matters when you're aiming for the Hudson.


 * ...but it is absolutely critical when we're told stories by the NTSB that "all four pilots crashed" when attempting to reach LaGuardia (after that 30-second delay). My expectation is that you can take 1549's exact trajectory right up to the point where they rolled out of the left turn, and if instead of rolling out, you continue the turn and use all of the max range techniques mentioned, then the problem you will face is that you have too much airspeed for landing at LaGuardia Runway 13. And again, if you roll out on final and see that it's screwed up, then just bank left again and ditch there. If a pilot does that birdstrike followed by a 30-second delay and cannot make it back to LaGuardia, then I expect that they did not do all the basic things that would make it easy to get back there.


 * I have read an account written by a person who is said to be an experienced pilot. He related that the optimum way for getting the plane pointed back toward LaGuardia would be by flying a steep banked turn. This would be a HUGE mistake. It would lose too much altitude and bleed far too much airspeed. If that's what those NTSB pilots at Toulouse were doing, then I'm not surprised at all that they crashed. My expectation is that the maximum-stretch maneuver after birdstrike (+reaction time) would be to continue a climb to gain altitude while slowing airspeed toward Max L/D while simultaneously initiating the left turn and lowering flaps. Optimum bank angle would be <30deg. And if you do all that, then you are actually creating a problem for yourself by having too much energy for either LaGuardia or Teterboro. If you did that, then your trick will be figuring out how to dump that excess energy while on final approach. And that can be done gracefully with a gentle pitch maneuver, or more radically with something like s-turns or stomping the rudder to use it as a speed brake. As to the suitability of Teterboro, its Rwy 24 is over 6,000' long. That's enough length to land the Space Shuttle on and bring it to a complete stop (a glider that flies at 300 knots on final, and touches down at 200 knots). And even if you attempt it and land long & fast, I'd still rather drive off the end of a runway at below freeway speed than ditch in the water.


 * As for how common birdstrikes are, we are certainly agreed on that. The point of disagreement is how avoidable they are. If you have 20/20 vision (required) and have good reflexes and are being attentive, I am sure that a large flock of geese are avoidable. The reason why so many birdstrikes happen is because the vast majority of the time, the birds are small in size and number (hard to see) or the pilots weren't being vigilant in clearing their flight path. And let's not forget that the birds in this case were tracked on radar. This was not a normal birdstrike. The only reason why I can think of that the crew did not see them earlier was because they weren't looking. Even the left-seater running the checklist should have been trained to work a checklist by scanning outside to clear the flight path ahead while taking peeks down to read checklist items. It would be so easy for someone to tell us that both pilots tested to 20/20 vision as a basic part of the investigation. Yet I have heard absolutely zilch on that matter.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider how long the crew did delay. Then they turned left. All you have to do is imagine wrapping that groundtrack around in a full left turn back to LaGuardia and you can see that the distance is long enough to reach that airport. So, you recommend turning back towards LaGuardia before you receive clearance to do so, a runway to aim for, and before you're sure planes taking off from those very same runways have stopped?  And since there's water all around LaGuardia, you still have the ditching option if you mess up your one shot at landing.  Does that area and angle make it nearly as easy to ditch the plane, as opposed to the Hudson which had no worries about being a little too short or a little too long?  Seems to me there is barely a runway's worth of open water there, and lots of bridges and other fun stuff the pilot would have to worry about avoiding, rather than only having to concentrate on making as level and smooth a splashdown as possible.  Does that area have nearly the ferry traffic to rescue the passengers after the ditching (the water isn't too warm mid-January)? You know for sure there weren't going to be any air pockets or other abnormalities which would suddenly invalidate the tiny margin of error you started out with?  You don't mind creating a fairly large risk of crashing into a metropolitan city, thereby endangering a large number of other lives in addition to the ones already at risk, at the maximum further benefit of saving the airplane?   To me, all the above sounds like fun speculation bounced around blogs and message boards, which may have little bits of occasional interesting insight, but by and large seems (to me, a complete layman) to ignore a large number of other factors.  It's fun to argue about, but it is all complete speculation (or "original research", if you prefer).  It's also fun to second-guess the NTSB, but I'm betting they are more correct 99.9% of the time or more than this type of thing.  Wikipedia needs reliable sources to put anything like this in the article; do you have any to point to?  That is really the point of this talk page, not to turn into a message board, as well -- the internet has plenty of forums better suited for that.  So... if there is specific material from specific sources you have in mind, discussing that material directly would be a lot more productive I think.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This will be my last reply here for the time being, because I do agree with your point that this Talk page should focus on article improvements. And I also agree with Centpacrr's point that we can have a much better informed discussion after the official report is released. I'll post feedback to the your rebuttal and to Centpacrr's post below, then if anyone wants me to reply to anything else now, please post it on my Talk page.


 * CL: "you recommend turning back towards LaGuardia before you receive clearance to do so" --- As an emergency aircraft, you own the sky. It is the job of other aircraft to stay out of your way. A point that needs more emphasis in the article is how 1549's Mayday call was not heard nor acknowledged. And info about the crew's decision regarding Squawking Emer on their transponder.


 * CL: "Does that area and angle make it nearly as easy to ditch the plane, as opposed to the Hudson which had no worries about being a little too short or a little too long?" --- The map posted at the beginning of this section shows how after turning to final toward LaGuardia, there is still the option for ditching whether you find yourself to be low energy or high energy. As for ferry traffic, I expect it would be a lot less. So survivors would have to wait longer before pickup. They could use the rafts to help avoid hypothermia. Not a primary concern. I see plenty of margin for making the runway. And if you waste away all of that margin, then there's a much greater margin for doing a safe ditching similar to the Hudson (albeit with a longer wait for pickup).--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid, Chris, that it is clear that you have never actually flown an airplane, have no first person experience of how hard it is to see a flock of birds (especially a low altitude against a background of a populated area) which you are approaching at several hundred miles per hour — let alone maneuver a climbing out aircraft to avoid them, or are familiar with Capt. Sullenberger's first person account of what happened which appears at pages 206 to 239 in his book, Highest Duty, in which he describes in great detail exactly how and why he and First Officer Skiles quickly determined that neither LGA nor Teterboro were viable for an emergency landing under the circumstance. The 6,000 foot runway at Teterboro (on which I have landed) is barely a minimum to safely put down an airliner the size of an Airbus 320 which is not disabled (the certificated minimum for a fully functioning A320 under ideal conditions is 1,540 meters or 5,050 feet), let alone making a deadstick landing in one that is over its gross landing weight (because of unexpended fuel) and without the ability to use reverse thrust from its engines (and quite possibly without either flaps or spoilers either) to stop before over running the end of the runway. (I don't know where you came up with comparing this to landing a space shuttle on runway 15/33 at KSC's Shuttle Landing Facility which is 300 feet wide and 15,000 feet long with 1,000 foot overruns at each end or almost three times the length of the runway at Teterboro. Shuttle pilots practice making hundreds of controlled approaches in modified Gulfstream II "Shuttle Training Aircraft" before ever flying a real mission, and according to NASA the rollout for such shuttle landings are generally 9,000 feet or more.) Also Teterboro is located in the middle of a highly populated area and completely surrounded by residential and commercial structures. A failed emergency deadstick landing attempt there would lead to many potential injuries and fatalities on the ground as well as among the 155 souls on board the aircraft. In addition, uncorrected 20/20 vision is not a requirement for a First Class FAA Medical Certificate, but instead it must be correctable to 20/20 for distant vision, and to 20/40 for intermediate vision (32 inches) over the age of 50.


 * As I have already pointed out above, the NTSB is the only designated authority with a commission to investigate and analyze this accident and determine its probable cause, a process which almost always takes a year or more to complete. When the Board's report is issued, an objective summary of its findings will surely be added to the article. Anything else, however, would seem to clearly constitute speculation and POV, especially if such "studies" consist of the theories by non actors in the events about proposed possible alternate outcomes based on events that did not happen instead of what actually did happen. Centpacrr (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (This is my last reply here for the time being, as explained in reply to Carl above.)


 * Cent:"it is clear that you have never actually flown an airplane, have no first person experience of how hard it is to see a flock of birds (especially a low altitude against a background of a populated area) which you are approaching at several hundred miles per hour — let alone maneuver a climbing out aircraft to avoid them" --- I know an Air Force pilot very well who easily avoided a swarm of small birds while in the middle of a dive-bomb run. This is at very high speed with a background of terrain. 1549 had those very large geese contrasted with a sky background. They were on climbout. 1549 would only have had a "background of a populated area" if they were descending at the time of the impact. Simple geometry. Now that Air Force fighter-type aircraft is certainly more maneuverable that the Airbus, but it does not hurt to at least try to avoid the birds. A common technique that is taught is to do a pull-up maneuver. Birds, if they see you, are known to dive. And if the pull-up does not avoid the impact, then at least it reduces the chances that the birds will penetrate the cockpit, and they might bounce harmlessly (or with less damage) off the bottom of the jet.


 * Cent:"in his book, Highest Duty, in which he describes in great detail exactly how and why he and First Officer Skiles quickly determined that neither LGA nor Teterboro were viable" --- That strikes me as very strange, because if you watch this video at the 2m40s point, you can hear the transmission, "What's over to our right? Anything in New Jersey? Maybe Teterboro?" Now this is happening over half a minute (read: eternity) from the rollout of the left turn. If you're aware of the Teterboro option, then you'd be thinking about rolling out earlier than 1549 did. With a greater level of Situational Awareness, you'd never make that call. Certainly not at the end-game when they did. They've prioritized engine restart. Has anyone pointed out that a moving map display on the aircraft would have made it a lot more clear to see which runways were reachable? And the low-tech solution is to look at a paper map. It is far better to be self-reliant than to query a controller for this info. AVIATE-NAVIGATE-COMMUNICATE are the first-cut priorities that are commonly taught.


 * As for vision, I'm glad to see we're in agreement that 20/20 is required. I was certainly not suggesting that the NTSB take their eyeglasses away and see if they could pass an eye test. And I hope we're clear that any "intermediate vision" requirement is totally N/A for that topic, the ability to see and avoid birds.


 * Cent:"according to NASA the rollout for such shuttle landings are generally 9,000 feet or more" --- What is required, what is typically done, and what can be done are three VERY different things. 9k' rollouts happen because they can. If you land on, say, a 9,000' Emergency Landing Site then you get on the brakes earlier. And if you want to land and get stopped on a 6,000' runway, then you land on brick one, you land slow, and you stomp on the brakes until you're sure you can get stopped. (And again, if you do happen to roll off the departure end, it can still be a lot less damaging than ditching.) Yes, the area around Teterboro is crowded. If you line up on long final and feel like you can't make it, then you can still switch back to the Hudson. But with water being a lot closer around LaGuardia, you can make that switch later than an attempt at Teterboro would force you to. But I see both of those runway options to be very possible, even given a delayed reaction time. I hope to see the NTSB thoroughly address that. ...and with that, I'm fine with sitting on my hands until they come out with their final report.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Chris, a reading of the two chapters entitled Sudden, Complete, Symmetrical and Gravity (pp. 206-239) in Capt. Sullenberger's book, Highest Duty, will provide you the answers to all the questions you have posed above, and should fully disabuse any doubters of any misconceptions they may still have as to what happened to disable Flight 1549, what was possible to do about it, and why and how Capt. Sullenberger and First Officer Skiles quickly and correctly analyzed the dire emergency situation in which they found themselves to make exactly the right choices as to how and where to put their crippled airliner down with the best chance to save the lives of the 155 souls on board as well as to avoid causing any potential casualties on the ground. Per the CVR, from the time that the birds became visible (3:27:10.4) until the plane hit them (3:27:11.4) was one second, hardly enough time to do anything to avoid them. (I also suggest reading the paper Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990-2005 by Edward C. Cleary, Richard A. Dolbeer, and Sandra E. Wright presented at the 2006 meeting of the FAA's Bird Strike Committee.) At pages 223-5 of the book, Capt. Sullenberger (who has more than four decades of flying experience including 11 years of active duty in the USAF followed by 30 years as an Airline Transport Pilot, 40 as a glider pilot, 27,000+ hours of flight time, and as a former instructor and safety chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) acting as an air accident investigator including contributing to an NTSB inquiry into a major accident at Los Angeles airport that "led to improved airline procedures and training for emergency evacuations of aircraft") gives the reasons why both LGA and Teterboro were quickly ruled out as viable options and ditching in the Hudson River near the USS Intrepid was selected as the location providing them with by far the best chance to save the lives of the passengers and crew. The results of their actions clearly proved the aircrew to have been spot on in these choices. Centpacrr (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the pointers. I'll be going into the 'read-only' mode now here.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Conclusion #15 of the NTSB's final report (p. 120) on this accident states that: "The captain’s decision to ditch on the Hudson River rather than attempting to land at an airport provided the highest probability that the accident would be survivable. " Centpacrr (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been silent on this ever since the release of the NTSB Final Report. That is because I was so disappointed in its lack of teeth in investigating and reporting on viable landing alternatives - the two airports discussed here that were reachable. [5Jul edit: The biggest shock to me in my first look at that report back in 2010 was seeing how the analysis started after the birdstrike.--ChrisfromHouston]

Now take Conclusion #15 (as pointed out above by Centpacrr). It totally neglects the fact that the plane as well as the people on it were well within parameters for being saved. Consider a hypothetical scenario back when Sullenberger was in the Air Force. After takeoff, his F-4 hits birds and flames out both engines. Instead of turning toward a viable landing site, he elects to focus his attention on trying to restart the engines, to no avail. He gives up that effort and can no longer reach any runway. He commands a bailout. The lives of both he and his backseater are saved as they both softly parachute to the ground. The Air Force investigates and releases a report that offers the conclusion that, "The captain's decision to parachute to the ground rather than attempting to land at an airport provided the highest probability that the accident would be survivable. "

Would anyone buy that conclusion? Or would pilots be quick to point out that the effort to restart the engines was totally misdirected when there was a perfectly suitable runway he could have landed at.

It is clear to me that the NTSB in choosing which story to tell in their report decided that it was better to perpetuate the "miracle" version of the story, instead of teaching pilots what the proper prioritization is when all thrust is lost and runways are reachable. If a similar incident were to happen again, the NTSB has done a huge disservice if the lesson pilots take from their report is that it is proper to focus on engine restart while wasting your runway landing options.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is neither the practice nor the mandate of the NTSB to "choose" which "story" to tell about an accident it investigates nor to "perpetuate" any version of such an accident other than what the board concludes from an objective analysis of the evidence adduced from such an exhaustive and unbiased investigation conducted by the NTSB independently of any of the parties in interest. As explained in the Board's report (as discussed in detail above), there was never any real chance for this aircraft to reach and then "safely land" at any airport after suffering the bird strike, and that the aircrew's choice to ditch in the Hudson River was thus the best -- and only -- option available to provide any realistic probability that the accident would be survivable. Your contention that the NTSB report "totally neglects the fact that the plane as well as the people on it were well within parameters for being saved" in any other manner is pure speculation and is not supported by any of the objective findings of the investigation. Centpacrr (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Au contraire. Anyone who is experienced with mishap investigations is well aware of how politics often affect what is decided to be published for the masses. There are many examples, one of the more famous being the 1982 USAF investigation of the incident where the entire Thunderbird formation flew straight into the ground. The investigation team concluded that the cause was pilot error, but that was never published in the report because Gen Creech kicked it back with a statement to the effect that "Thunderbird pilots don't make errors."


 * So you want to maintain that NTSB reports are free from political constraints whereas others are not? Well no one has to take my word for it. Anyone who is open to questioning the mainstream understanding can hear it in this video, straight from the mouth of one of the key investigators of this incident:


 * Air Crash Investigation, Flight 1549 - NatGeo [Dec20 edit: Air Crash Investigation, Flight 1549 - NatGeo, fix to bad link.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)]
 * Katherine Wilson, NTSB Human Performance Investigator
 * "One of the most challenging things in this case was nobody wanted to sully Sully. You know, he was the hero in this case and we were the ones who was [were] potentially going to pick apart what he did and try to find out what he did and whether it was right or not."


 * I'll repeat, because her words are quite succinct: "nobody wanted to sully Sully."


 * Sully, verb
 * 1. to soil, stain, or tarnish.
 * 2. to mar the purity or luster of; defile: to sully a reputation.


 * Oh the irony. Well, her words explain why the report did not publish whether or not the 1549 pilots had their eyes tested to 20/20. It explains why the report did not publish how easy it is for a pilot with 20/20 and who is attentively clearing the aircraft's flight path to see a flock of ~10 pound Canadian geese and pull back on the controls to prevent the entire incident in the first place.


 * The NTSB had a national hero on their hands. It's clear to me that they decided to publish a report that was consistent with that story. Katherine Wilson's assessment belongs in the article. That is, unless we here at Wikipedia decide to just go along with the untarnishable hero story that everyone loves so much. My preference is for an encyclopedia to present facts instead of myth. The facts as I know them are that the birds could easily have been seen and avoided. And with that not done, the aircraft was well within parameters for landing back at La Guardia as well as Teterboro.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Seeing" birds and being able to avoid them once spotted are two completely different things which I can tell you from personal experience of having been involved in a bird strike while piloting an airplane. The job of an aircrew is to use their training and experience to deal with such an emergency in real time and that is exactly what this aircrew did. While they did briefly consider attempting to reach and perform a "dead stick" landing at Teterboro, they quickly rejected that option as much riskier than ditching in the river. Teterboro's runway is only about 5,000 feet -- inadequate for an A320 even under normal circumstances -- and the airfield is surrounded on all sides by homes and commercial structures. The probability of many fatalities both among the 155 souls on board as well as people on the ground was almost certain. Attempting to return to LGA was equally risky as the amount of altitude lost in making the turns necessary for such an approach made that unlikely to be successful as well. The only reasonable option the aircrew had for a survivable accident was to ditch in the Hudson which is exactly what they did with no fatalities and only five injuries. (See NTSB Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10/03 PB2010-910403 "Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River" US Airways Flight 1549 Airbus A320‐214, N106US Weehawken, New Jersey. January 15, 2009. Adopted May 4, 2010 §2.3.2 Decision to Ditch on the Hudson River, pp 88-89)


 * Remember that the total time of the flight was less than six minutes, the time from the bird strike to ditching about four minutes, and from bird strike to when the aircrew had to make their final decision as to where to put down not more than a minute. Also a USAF or other military accident investigation is a completely different animal from an NTSB investigation. In the case of the military it is investigating itself whereas the NTSB is designed to be completely independent from any of the parties in interest in the accident including other government agencies such as the FAA. Their sole function is to establish the probably cause(s) of the accident and to make recommendations for any changes in procedures, operations, equipment, etc derived therefrom. The proper source for use in Wikipedia for these findings is the NTSB Report. Unsourced and unvetted statements or the personal speculation of individuals not contained therein, however, are just that -- speculation.


 * With respect, sir, your contention that a statement taken out of context in an edited interview by a single individual that ""No one wanted to sully Sully" means that some alleged finding of the Board that it is "easy it is for a pilot with 20/20 and who is attentively clearing the aircraft's flight path to see a flock of ~10 pound Canadian geese and pull back on the controls to prevent the entire incident in the first place" was withheld from their Accident Report is both a complete non sequitur and pure unsupported speculation on your part. The same can also be said of your own claims that you "know" as a "fact" that "the birds could easily have been seen and avoided" and that "the aircraft was well within parameters for landing back at La Guardia as well as Teterboro". This is all personal speculation and POV, and as such has no place in an encyclopedia. Centpacrr (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not put those statements into the encyclopedia. I put it here, where we are discussing what is best to have in the article. What I did suggest adding to the article was the quote. She is not merely "a single individual". She is an NTSB investigator. In the NTSB Report, page 87 (pdf-pg104of213) has the start of the Analysis section regarding Flight Crew Performance. Section 2.3.1 begins with:
 * "At 1527:23, about 12 seconds after the bird strike, the captain took control of the airplane."


 * It says nothing about the crew hitting the birds. The analysis starts after the birds had been hit. Not a single word about how well the crew might have been able to see the birds well in advance if they had been clearing their flight path. There isn't even a single word of analysis about how prior to the impact, the Captain verbalized "birds". The report skips that entirely. As to the visual acuity of the pilots, all the report says is that both had current medical certificates. It doesn't say that they independently verified the crew's eyesight to be 20/20. The right-seater was required to wear corrective lenses, and here the report says:
 * "The first officer stated during postaccident interviews that he was wearing corrective lenses at the time of the accident." (pdf-pg25of213)


 * That's the basic info the report gives on analyzing the possibility of seeing and avoiding the birds. Perhaps the most egregious part of this report is in its (lack of) analysis of the "Decision to Ditch in the Hudson River" - Section 2.3.2, which starts on pdf-pg106of213. It says very little, and the section is less than a page long. Worse than that, it presents statements that are not accurate. It quotes the Captain as having stated that turning back to Laguardia "would have been an irrevocable choice, eliminating all other options". The map at the top of this section clearly shows that a ditching option remains after having lined up for approach to Laguardia. It states, "to accomplish a successful flight to either airport [LGA/TEB], the airplane would have to have been turned toward the airport immediately after the bird strike." The one specific simulation it discusses is where a "real-world" delay of 35 seconds before turning back to Laguardia failed to reach the airport. This is misleading on two counts: 1) Such a delay brings the aircraft closer to lining up with Teterboro - it actually helps, assuming the pilots have situational awareness as to where Teterboro is, and 2) it makes no sense to impose a "real-world" delay that is longer than what the crew actually flew - we know what the real-world delay was because 1549 turned back in time to reach LGA.


 * That last fact makes it clear to me that the NTSB bent over backwards to find ways for simulation pilots to not be able to make it back to Laguardia. And then they reported this excuse with no mention that it helps to line up to TEB. Clearly the crew had no awareness of where this alternate landing site was, because when this option was verbalized, they had long past that option. The NTSB reported not a single word about the crew's lack of awareness. So much for "analysis" of the crew's decision.


 * Once again I am voicing my opinion that the article will be improved by adding the quote about not wanting to sully Sully. I am totally open to the notion that these words are somehow taken out of context and that I have misunderstood what she meant. I invite comments from anyone who would like to support this view presented by Centpacrr. And Centpacrr, I would be very interested to learn your own interpretation of that quote, since you are understanding it very differently from the way I hear it. I've provided a wealth of support for the plain speech understanding of her words.


 * You made two statements that I want to respond specifically to:
 * "The only reasonable option the aircrew had for a survivable accident was to ditch in the Hudson which is exactly what they did with no fatalities and only five injuries."
 * It is clear that they could have returned to LGA, as was proven in the simulator by various pilots.


 * "Remember that the total time of the flight was less than six minutes, the time from the bird strike to ditching about four minutes, and from bird strike to when the aircrew had to make their final decision as to where to put down not more than a minute."
 * I totally disagree with that as well. Just look at the map. After turning to line up with the Hudson as the option having the least threat to anyone on the ground, guess what is out the Captain's window? He gets to look at Laguardia for about a whole minute as the aircraft tracks toward the runway centerline. That entire time he can be deciding whether to give it a go. And even after lining up with LGA, the ditching option still remains open if the approach to Laguardia gets messed up for any reason. The map shows this as a turn to the left while on short final to LGA.
 * Btw, the shortest runway at TEB is over 6,000' long.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is that everything you say above is your own personal speculation, interpretation, and POV as to what may or may not have happened. All editors are, of course, free to have any personal views they want and even to advance and discuss them in talk. But as personal POV, they are also by definition both unsourced and unencyclopedic, and therefore such material is never appropriate to be included in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The bottom line that I see here is that human nature includes a remarkable talent for avoiding facts that, for one reason or another, we would rather not face.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's as may be but editorial speculation and POV are still just not "facts" — they are speculation and POV — and thus not encyclopedic. What Dr. Wilson "meant" by a six word statement taken out of context from a long interview is far from clear without knowing the premise and circumstances of the interview, the questions asked, and hearing the entire interview. For instance the next thing she said could well have been "However that "challenge" was never a real issue as the evidence made it clear that he did exactly the right thing as ditching in the river was the most reasonable (and only) option the aircrew had under the circumatances for a survivable accident. If the Board had come up with a different conclusion, however, it would have of course stated so." Or she could have said "My field is human performance, not operations, airmanship, or survival factors, and my task was to evaluate whether or not the aircrew acted reasonably under the circumstances which they did and I fully support the conclusions in the report." Of course these possible additional statements are just my speculation and not evidence of anything, but they are also things that she might well have said in the interview that would completely debunk what you have speculated she meant by not wanting to "sully Sully".


 * If you can come up with Dr. Wilson saying something like "I do not support the conclusions of the NTSB Report as they relate to the human performance of the aircrew" then you might have something to work with, but "One of the most challenging things in this case was nobody wanted to sully Sully" without some context as to what that means with respect to the reliability of the report is meaningless as evidence to support your contention that "human nature includes a remarkable talent for avoiding facts that, for one reason or another, we would rather not face" applies in any way to this accident report. That's still just speculation and POV, not "facts". Centpacrr (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional Comment: I have now watched the entire National Geographic program from which you took the quote from Dr. Wilson and found an additional excerpt from her interview in which she says: "In this case both Capt. Sullenberger and First Officer Skiles acted extremely professionally. Each member had their own roles and responsibilities, they stayed with those roles and responsibilities throughout the accident flight, and communicated only when necessary. ... We had a very experienced flight crew with very good training." Thus from a human performance perspective (her area of the investigation) she found nothing whatever to "sully Sully".


 * Also the first responsibility and duty for an aircrew in such situations is to "first fly the airplane" which is exactly what they were doing for those first 35 seconds while assessing the problem they had and seeing if they could regain power. The Board found that if an attempt to reach LGA were made even at the start of that time, aircrew attempting to do so in a simulator were only able reach the airport in half of the simulations. (What kind of "landing" they would have been able to make there is unclear.) The choices made by the aircrew after first making sure that they had control the aircraft and had then determined that they were not going to be able to restore any power from the engines were found by the Board to be correct and this was proved by both the outcome of the accident and by the Board being unable to find any simulations that would have been successful in landing anyplace other than the river. Those are thus the verifiable facts (not speculation or POV) included in the article which are sourced by the NTSB Report. Centpacrr (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You have dismissed all I have written as my personal opinion. But there are plenty of facts that my comments included. Wilson's quote is a verbatim fact. Her words have plain meaning. Your effort to argue that the quote is taken out of context strikes me as quite a stretch. But I would agree that there is a chance, however slight, that her intended meaning could be colored differently in context of something she may have said before or after.


 * An irrefutable fact that you have not commented on is that the NTSB report started their analysis after the birdstrike. The fact that the report failed to comment on the crew's ability to see and avoid the huge flock of birds fits perfectly with the plain language meaning of Wilson's quote.


 * You are free to ignore this fact once again. My previous reply was referring as much to you as it was to the NTSB along with America at large. Ignoring salient facts makes it so much easier to persist in one's beliefs that may be tragically faulty. If anyone would like to offer a rational explanation as to why the NTSB published this 'in medias res' analysis, I'd be interested to hear it.


 * If the NTSB actually believed that the crew did not make a severe error in not avoiding the birds, it would have been much more clear if their report included a statement to the effect that, "Hitting the birds was unavoidable." Or, "The crew took proper (in)action in not attempting to maneuver to avoid the birds after visually identifying the hazard." But no. They just SKIPPED over that whole part.


 * There are many people who have not let the crew errors go unnoticed. Here is a blog post by Dave Brough from March 19, 2011, that lists a much more full set of mistakes than I have been highlighting here:
 * http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/02/03/how-sullenberger-really-saved-us-airways-flight-1549
 * Quotes:
 * - "didn't turn back to LGA immediately (he had a 35-second window to do it in - all pilots that sim'd the event in that time made it back safe and sound)"
 * - "The joke of it is, he's passing himself off as an 'expert' on aircraft safety when, as his own experience shows, he's an abject screw-up. The title of his next book should read "Flight 1539: What I Forgot to Tell You"."


 * His post is loaded with harsh criticisms. I myself do not see Sully & Skiles as incompetent. I see them to have made two huge mistakes - perfectly honest and understandable mistakes. First, not clearing their flight path adequately in departing the traffic area. Second, not attempting a return to Laguardia in order to save both plane and all on board, still having the option to ditch north of LGA if the lineup on final was not looking salvageable.


 * Those are two huge mistakes that cost the loss of a perfectly good airline hull, and inflicted several injuries. But for the options that they did pursue, they carried it out to an amazingly effective outcome. They are to be commended for that. But when it comes to reporting on what they could have done differently, it is a huge disservice to ignore their near-fatal mistakes that got them into that situation into the first place.


 * The birds were avoidable. Laguardia was reachable. I see these to be solid facts. I agree with the assessment that my opinions here and blog posts like Dave Brough's are not appropriate for adding to the article. But there are aviation experts out there who feel the same way. The way I see for improving the article is to find those sources and then incorporate them into the body of the article. I do not have those references today, but I am confident that they will be found.


 * As for immediate improvements that can be added to the article today, I see two significant things: 1) Wilson's quote, and 2) The fact that the NTSB began their report on analysis after the birdstrike had already happened.
 * Centpacrr, however big a stretch I may see it to be that Wilson's quote would change meaning given full context, there are ways to add it to the article while pointing out your reservations. The quote can be added, along with a statement such as "the full context of this quote was not available", or some such caveat.


 * So those are the two proposed changes that I am suggesting. --ChrisfromHouston (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect, sir, I'm afraid that you are still not recognizing the difference between conjecture, speculation, and POV on the one hand, and verifiable, sourced "facts" on the other. You claim that "The birds were avoidable. Laguardia was reachable. I see these to be solid facts." but you still provide no reliable sources or other basis whatsoever to support that other than this is how "you" see them.


 * You claim, for instance, that this aircrew was guilty of "not clearing their flight path adequately in departing the traffic area" but provide no source to support this contention. I am puzzled as to just how you or anyone would expect the aircrew of this (or for that matter any) flight to "clear" their flight path of a flock of birds? This and all other flights out of LGA (and all other controlled airports) approach and depart under the mandatory positive control of ATC (TRACON) and thus are not free to fly any route other than they are instructed to follow. This aircrew was flying a standard departure profile for Runway 4 exactly as they were instructed and cleared to do by the departure controller in order to maintain adequate separation from all other traffic. Neither the aircrew nor ATC, however, had any "control" whatsoever over the flock of migrating Canada Geese with which the A320 collided and thus there was no possible way for either to "clear" the flight path of them. This flock was also never seen on radar by ATC and was only spotted by the aircrew one second (15:27:10.4) before impact (15:27:11.4) thus making it impossible for the flight to avoid the collision.


 * Using "I do not have those references today, but I am confident that they will be found" as a basis for inclusion in an article is just not sufficient. Wikipedia instead requires that you must have reliable and verifiable sources (i.e. things such as published peer reviewed papers, official accident reports, or similar documents, etc; "blogs" and unverified "opinion pieces" won't do) first before inclusion. Until then they are still just your personal subjective POV no matter how convinced you may be of their veracity. Citing an otherwise unidentified individual, who as "David Brough from Park City, UT" has posted multiple screeds in the form of unvetted public comments similar to the one of his you linked to, is meaningless as a source. His postings are all made in response to complimentary online articles relating to Capt. Sullenberger's performance as PIC of Flight 1549 and they all denigrate Sullenberger in personal terms by making wild, unsupported charges of incompetence with no pretense at objectivity. Such postings certainly do not in any way qualify as reliable or verifiable sources of anything at all.


 * As for the portion of the flight prior to the bird strike, the Board did analyze it and concluded that "...the takeoff and initial portion of the climb were uneventful" as stated on page 1 of the report in section 1.1 History of the Flight. That being their finding, the Board did not need to address it again. As for Dr. Wilson's out of context don't "sully Sully" remark and all of your other contentions, I have addressed each of these in great detail in my many earlier comments in this section going back more than two years and thus will simply incorporate them again here by reference. While I appreciate your passion for your beliefs, their basis just does not conform to WP policies and guidelines for inclusion in the article as they are still based on unsourced and unverified conjecture, speculation, and POV and thus are misleading and unencyclopedic. Centpacrr (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We are in total agreement that my personal opinion, and views posted in a blog do not qualify as adequate sources.


 * But the two items that I am suggesting to add to the article are properly referenced. You can believe Wilson's quote is out of context, and that is your personal opinion, so nothing you've posted tells me that it does not belong in the article.


 * Now for the hard fact that the NTSB final report chose to present their analysis starting after the birdstrike had already happened, again, I find nothing you have rebutted here to change my view that this fact belongs in the article as well. Here's my take on the quote you've highlighted:


 * "...the takeoff and initial portion of the climb were uneventful"


 * This is not an analysis of the moments before hitting the birds. It says nothing as to whether the NTSB concluded that hitting the birds was unavoidable. I don't see how anyone can take this page 1 statement and believe that it is proper for the NTSB to start their analysis after the bird strike.


 * The single most important question that the NTSB had to answer in their entire 200+ page report was whether or not the birds could have been avoided. That is the singular event that precipitated the rest of the mess.


 * Brand new pilots are taught three key priorities: Aviate, Navigate, then Communicate. In that order. Sully saw the birds. He chose to communicate, and not maneuver (aviate). Instead of talking, he could have grabbed the controls and pulled the aircraft up abruptly. The NTSB is well aware of this option, and they could have commented on whether that might have been effective.


 * But it was Skiles who was flying. And he admits that he was not visually clearing the flight path. He reveals this in that NatGeo episode:


 * Quote:
 * "I caught something out of the corner of my eye. And slightly to our right, but still ahead of us was a line of birds, and they were very very close. Too close for us to maneuver around. And that fast we're just on top of them."
 * (NatGeo video with Skiles saying he saw the birds out of the corner of his eye)


 * A jet airliner travels much faster than geese can fly. That means that the only way you can hit them is if they are right in front of you, between your 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock position. For a pilot clearing the 12 o'clock position, birds cannot appear at your 2 or 3 o'clock position and be a threat to you hitting them. You, flying so much faster, will always pass them. The only way for Skiles' 11-to-1 sector to be "out of the corner" of his eye is if he is not looking out front. Imagine how much sooner Skiles could have seen those birds if he had been clearing out front. The NTSB could have reported on the analysis of the exact distance that a flock of such birds could have been detected by a pilot with 20/20 vision. And they could have reported on how easy it would have been to maneuver to avoid hitting those birds. But instead the American public was given a report that begins its analysis after the birds had been hit. And we have an NTSB investigator who stated that one of the most challenging things in this investigation was that nobody wanted to sully Sully. I don't see any of this to be out of context. I see them to be pieces that fit perfectly together to tell the complete story of Flight 1549.


 * The article as it currently stands fails to tell the complete story.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I neglected to reply to one of your points:
 * "...and thus there was no possible way for either to "clear" the flight path of them [geese]."
 * The word 'clear', as I have been using it, is standard pilot terminology. It means to visually clear, as in to look and make sure your path is clear so as not to hit anything. The pilots' duty to clear their flight path ahead means to vigilantly look around for any hazards. In the terminal area, that means things like other aircraft as well as birds. Good flight instructors teach new students to continually clear their flight path. Instruments checks are done with momentary glances, then the eyes go back out to where the collision hazards are. A common instruction is to "keep your head on a swivel". It is a solid teaching for a person learning to drive a car, as well as pilot an aircraft. Experienced pilots can get lax in this duty, as the 3-dimensional air is typically a lot more free of obstacles than the roads we drive our cars on. An old joke for airline pilots is the After Takeoff Checklist:


 * Gear - up
 * Auto-pilot - on
 * Newspaper - out


 * Most of the time, having that newspaper out will not bite you. But there are times, like with what 1549 had in its way, when it will.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I remind people that this page is for the discussion of improvements to the article, which is based on published sources. If I were Mr Sullenberger I would take your quotation of that joke here in the context of your other remarks to my legal people for an opinion on the possibility of libel. Please take your arguments to an aircraft discussion site unless you can substantiate these ideas are not Original Research. Britmax (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You mention libel as though it fits with your stated focus of improving the article.


 * As to the appropriateness of discussing the points I have highlighted in this thread, I've summarized it in my reply to Centpacrr below. All are well sourced. I am here on Wikipedia because I want to have a better article. The difference between me and other editors, apparently, is that I am more concerned about facts than I am about any need to not sully Sully. If an official investigator states that "One of the most challenging things in this case..." was a concern of not harming the hero reputation of the pilot, then the article will be vastly improved by noting that. Any investigator who upholds that as a concern, let alone a primary concern, is doing a very different job than the one the taxpayers paid her to do.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Again everything you have said here is entirely your own unsourced personal conjecture, interpretation, speculation, POV, and (as Britmax correctly points out) "original research" for which you have also never provided any reliable and verifiable independent source(s) to support. As a pilot myself, I can tell you from both experience and common sense that your contention that the aircrew could have possibly avoided the flock of Canada Geese which the CVR indicates they hit only one second after seeing them constitutes a totally unrealistic view of both human performance and flight dynamics. I also fail to see any merit whatsoever in your apparent conspiracy theory that Dr. Wilson's out of context "don't sully Sully" comment somehow means that she is implying that the NTSB Report is a fraud and a coverup. You are, of course, free to personally believe anything you want to about these issues. But any editor's personal beliefs, interpretations, conjecture, speculation, POV, and "original research" are never appropriate or acceptable for inclusion in WP articles. It is not the function of WP editors to second guess the sources (in this case the NTSB Accident Report), but instead to use the published report to reflect the Board's findings as accurately as possible.


 * I also understand the meaning of "clear" in this context, and repeat that there was no way for either the aircrew to see the flock of birds before they were literally on top of them as they were dark, small (compared to airplanes), and would have very likely been lost in the background of the city over which they were flying, nor for ATC to warn them of the flock as "traffic" as birds have very low reflectivity and would not show up on TRACON radar. Centpacrr (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Summary of hard facts that have yet to be included in the article:
 * - NTSB investigator quote saying that "...nobody wanted to sully Sully."
 * - Pointing out that NTSB final report analysis section begins after the birdstrike.
 * - Skiles quote saying that he saw the birds out of the corner of his eye.


 * These facts are irrefutable. None of it is unsourced personal conjecture, interpretation, speculation, POV, or original research. All references have been provided above. You persist in rejecting the NTSB's official report as well as these personal testimonies captured on video as being my POV. It appears you are taking the strategy of repeating something often enough until it is believed. You are certainly free to try. But it will never change the words that came out of Skiles' mouth, nor from Wilson, nor will it change the words published (and not published) in the NTSB report.


 * As to your last comment,
 * it is exactly because the birds are dark is why they are visible. On climbout, the flight vector is going upward so the background is all sky. The only way for the background to be city buildings below you is if you are descending. Simple geometry (that any pilot should be well aware of). Of course they are small compared to an airliner, but they are huge for birds. And there were many of them, so it is totally conceivable that their visual signature would be comparable to the size of an aircraft.


 * As to the flock of birds being detected by ATC radar, the NTSB report makes it perfectly clear that they were detected. The only reason why this return did not appear on the controller Patrick Harten's radar display is because he had it set to show only "correlated returns". He deliberately inhibited his ability to see the birds. From the report:


 * From p44of213:
 * At 1527:01, when the airplane’s altitude was about 2,500 feet, recorded radar data from the EWR and JFK radar sites indicated that the airplane’s path intersected a string of unidentified primary targets. A subsequent review of the radar replays showed that these primary targets were not displayed to the LGA departure controller. (See section 1.10.3.3 for more information about the displayed radar targets.)


 * From p46of213:
 * ...according to the recorded keyboard entries and filter selections in effect at the LGA departure controller position at the time, the controller had chosen to display only correlated primary targets, which did not include the primary returns associated with the flock of birds.
 * [Emphasis added by me on 5Jul.]


 * From the NatGeo episode, here's Harten's comment about using radar to see the birds.
 * "...the key would be how to incorporate that without increasing workload to an already stressed controller."
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75dZK18mo-s&t=12m30s


 * A different approach is to set your ATC display to the more difficult mode that shows the birds, and then just work harder and deal with the added stress. Or at least consider stepping up to this level of much harder work whenever you are warned like this...


 * From p43of213:
 * "The FAA Airport Facility Directory entry for LGA included the following advisory: “Flocks of birds on and in the vicinity of the airport.”"


 * Bruce, you are a PR man. You are in the business of Protecting Reputations. I prefer Wikipedia to present clear facts without distortion nor significant omission. That has been my driving motivation throughout this discussion. I would like to add a story from when I was a young kid and first read the children's book about the emperor who had no clothes. I did not get it. Why would anyone write a book about something so obvious? It was not until much later as an adult did I realize the deep wisdom of that book, only after having experienced time and again adults who are faced with plain obvious facts and persist in denying them. A sequel could be written... 1549: The Flight That Tarred And Feathered Themselves But Everyone Saw Them As Heroes.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I also need to reply directly to your statement:
 * "...your contention that the aircrew could have possibly avoided the flock of Canada Geese which the CVR indicates they hit only one second after seeing them constitutes a totally unrealistic view of both human performance and flight dynamics."


 * The words I have stated and your understanding of what I have stated are two distinctly different things. Now here is what I had said...
 * I said that if you were diligent in your duty of looking ahead to ensure that the sky in front of you is clear, then it is totally conceivable that you can see those birds in time to avoid them.


 * What I also said...
 * Even if you had failed to properly visually clear your flight path ahead of you, you can still react as soon as you do see the birds. Yes, it will be too late to avoid them, but by pulling up you may minimize the damage they will do to your aircraft.


 * ...and of course the bigger point for the article is that the NTSB chose not to comment either way on the matter. They did not even report whether or not they had confirmed that the pilots had 20/20 vision.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dr. Wilson's "nobody wanted to sully Sully" strikes me mostly as something she probably said that way as a play on words, but without the context of both the question she was answering when she said this and the rest of the interview it doesn't really seem to mean much one way or the other. The NTSB is also not in the business of "wanting to sully" anybody, but only of being objective and letting the chips fall where they may, both good and bad. Sure it is a "fact" that she uttered the words, but to then claim that by this she meant to imply that the report somehow "pulled its punches" as to the performance of the aircrew or it is otherwise unreliable, fraudulent, and/or a sham constitutes unsupported conjecture, interpretation, speculation, POV and "original research".


 * The NTSB final report analysis section begins after the birdstrike because that's when the actual accident began. However the first 77 pages of the report before that section addresses in considerable detail the equipment, aircrew, preparations, preflight history, and many other factors that happened both after and before the birdstrike. The conclusions section at the end of the report also includes many findings of the Board that relate to pre birdstrike factors. Your apparent claim that the Board failed to exhaustively consider and analyze all the salient factors that contributed to the accident both before and after the birdstrike thus strikes me as being both false and a strawman argument which constitutes unsupported conjecture, interpretation, speculation, POV and "original research".


 * First Officer Skiles did indeed say "I caught something out of the corner of my eye to our right but still ahead of us (which) was a line of birds", however the rest of the quote is "and the were very very close, too close for us maneuver around and that fast we were just on top of them." So what's you point here? How is this in any way inconsistent with Capt. Sullenberger (who was not flying the plane at the time) saying "Birds" when he spotted them at 15:27:10.4 followed by the sound of impact one second later at 15:27:11.4. Your apparent contention that FO Skiles partial statement that "I caught something out of the corner of my eye" (while ignoring the rest of what he said) somehow means that the collision with the birds could have been avoided constitutes unsupported conjecture, interpretation, speculation, POV and "original research".


 * With respect your suggestion that a sequel could be written called "1549: The Flight That Tarred And Feathered Themselves But Everyone Saw Them As Heroes" based presumably on your analysis of these three "hard facts" (as you call them) seems to me to betray an abject lack of objectivity on your part and constitutes unsupported conjecture, interpretation, speculation, POV and "original research".


 * Please do not take any of this personally. I don't know you, anything about you, or what experience (if any) you have in aviation or accident investigation, and I certainly respect your passion in defending your beliefs. The problem is that you have just not made the conspiracy theory case for them with the backing of any reliable and verifiable published sources that support your personal conclusions and interpretations of what you claim are "hard facts" mean, let alone that they then somehow refute the findings of the NTSB as published in their report.


 * You have made you points clearly as have I. That being the case, I don't really see much if anything new is to be gained by continuing this discussion any further. As I said I thank you for your passion and civility in making your case, but again with respect I just don't see how any of it meets the policies and guidelines of WP for inclusion in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My theory in a nutshell:
 * The Canadian geese were leading members of the Illuminati. Sully and Skiles were on a secret mission to have them taken out with extreme prejudice. Mission accomplished!


 * On that totally facetious note, I will depart this discussion with my agreement that we have been lacking in progress here. In a circular holding pattern, if you will. I will now step back into the read-only mode once again. I will leave it to other editors who may wish to review our cases and perhaps they will seek to establish a consensus. So until something new unfolds, I will sign off here.


 * And thank you too. I appreciate your civility in this impassioned discussion. I need to say one final thing for the sake of clarity. I was never suggesting to have any of these facts included along with my personal analysis. What I've been advoacting here is strictly factual additions on those points (bolded in my previous post above). And with that, goodbye for now. I remain hopeful for progress on the article by other editors, yourself included. I just went back to my previous post and highlighted the statement quote from the report about the controller selecting a mode that would not show the flock of birds. There - four points that editors other than me may see to be important to add to the article.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditching location
Listing the "approximate" ditching location to the sixth decimal place of a degree reduces the authority of this excellent article. The sixth decimal place of a degree is of the order of one millimetre. One decimal place is about as far as an authoritative encyclopedia should go. PDAWSON3 (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely. One position after the decimal (10-1) is not enough recognizable data for an accurate position. However 5 significant digits is too fine (a significant digit is one decimal place less than the accuracy to which your data is recorded). I suggest 3 or 4 significant digits myself (italics in the chart). If you don't want to do the math, below describes why 5 is too many and 1 is far too few.


 * The earth's circumference at the equator according to Wikipedia is 40,075.16 km. Since the earth is a flattened sphere points along the equator form the worst case scenario for maximum distance between adjacent points. For other areas, the distance between points of Latitude stay approximately the same, but the points along a line of Longitude at a given Latitude become closer together.


 * GPS units report a combined Degrees with decimal Minutes-Seconds(MS) reading. Degrees don't mater in this equation, we are just looking at the divisions within a single degree:
 * 40,075.16 km / 360 degreees = 111.31988 Km/degree = at the equator, a single degree spans 111.31988 Km


 * For those of us in the US still using inches, it is 2.54 cm to the inch and a meter is about 1.1 yards
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Resolution !! Position difference between adjacent points on a line
 * x (just degrees) || 111.319888 km
 * x.1 (10-1) || 11.1319888 km
 * x.01 (10-2) || 1.11319888 km
 * x.001 (10-3) || 111.319888 m (the river might be twice this wide)
 * x.0001 (10-4) || 11.1319888 m
 * x.00001 (10-5) || 1.11319888 m
 * x.000001 (10-6) || 11.1319888 cm (about 4.25 inches)
 * }
 * The point of all of this is at best WAAS data is accurate from 0.9 meters to 1.5 meters based on real world testing(see WAAS). GPS based Surveying equipment may be accurate down to 10-6 digits, gear of that complexity is unlikely to be on a plane. As a comparison, If we were on Jupiter, 10-6 digits would define surface points separated by a maximum of 1.247 m Rjhawkin (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * x.0001 (10-4) || 11.1319888 m
 * x.00001 (10-5) || 1.11319888 m
 * x.000001 (10-6) || 11.1319888 cm (about 4.25 inches)
 * }
 * The point of all of this is at best WAAS data is accurate from 0.9 meters to 1.5 meters based on real world testing(see WAAS). GPS based Surveying equipment may be accurate down to 10-6 digits, gear of that complexity is unlikely to be on a plane. As a comparison, If we were on Jupiter, 10-6 digits would define surface points separated by a maximum of 1.247 m Rjhawkin (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * }
 * The point of all of this is at best WAAS data is accurate from 0.9 meters to 1.5 meters based on real world testing(see WAAS). GPS based Surveying equipment may be accurate down to 10-6 digits, gear of that complexity is unlikely to be on a plane. As a comparison, If we were on Jupiter, 10-6 digits would define surface points separated by a maximum of 1.247 m Rjhawkin (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fly by Wire
Eventually, the article on Flight 1549 and this Discussion Page will need to deal with the recent book by William Langewiesche. This book should be read by all those who have commented above. As I approach the the end of "Fly by Wire," I am ready to make my principal observation. I believe that Mr. Langewiesche doesn't deserve to hold Mr. Sullenberger's sweaty jock strap, but will listen to your counter argument that he indeed does. When the covers of "Fly by Wire" are compressed, the author's tears of envy cascade to the floor. Remember to hold it over a sink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.60.165 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Opening statement in need of overhaul
I find the opening sentence of this article to be in need of major improvement. Here's how it currently reads:


 * US Airways Flight 1549 was a scheduled commercial passenger flight from New York City to Charlotte, North Carolina, that, on January 15, 2009, was successfully ditched in the Hudson River adjacent to Manhattan six minutes after departing from LaGuardia Airport.

...and tagged with three footnotes. I've gone through all the TalkArchives (thanks, Centpacrr!) and seen the lengthy discussions.

PROPOSED CHANGE for Maximum Info in Minimum Words:


 * US Airways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 flight scheduled from LaGuardia to Charlotte that, on January 15, 2009, struck a large flock of birds shortly after takeoff, lost thrust in both engines, then glided to a safe ditching in the Hudson River where all 155 passengers and crew survived.

Here's the rationale... Criticism of the current rev

Key info that is missing: - Why did it ditch? - What kind of plane? - How many people died?

Overly detailed info that is better left for later in the article: - Flight duration of "six minutes". - Flight termination location "adjacent to Manhattan". - Destination specified to be in "North Carolina".

Ambiguously defined term: - "successfully ditched"

Redundancies that can be eliminated (or captured in hypertext): - Flight 1549 / scheduled commercial passenger flight - New York City / LaGuardia Airport / Manhattan

It's enough to state "LaGuardia". This is an globally familiar airport (like Ben Gurion, Narita, etc). And then after stating informatively that it hit birds shortly after takeoff and glided to a ditching, then the proximities of Manhattan / New York City can be inferred (as well as the short flight duration of <10min). And after stating the 155 survivors, the fact that it was a "passenger flight" becomes obvious.--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Centpacrr, your latest edit makes a big improvement!--ChrisfromHouston (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewrites of the lead section

 * Version A
 * Version B

Which is better, and why?--Father Goose (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm now satisfied with Version C. A nice bit of give-and-take.--Father Goose (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. Centpacrr (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten Heroes
Captain SULLENBERGER has received a great deal of praise, and rightfully so, but we seem to have forgotten that his First Officer Jeffrey B. SKILES, was also on that plane, doing his part. ¿Where’s his page? It re-directs to this page.

I submit that this should be addressed. It’s an injustice that he’s been ignored outright, especially here, a site that pretends to be a record of events and facts.174.25.42.71 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON
 * See wp:GREATWRONGS. We don't create sources, we reflect them. If there are other substantive wp:Reliable sources about Skiles beyond this wp:ONEEVENT then he might be wp:Notable.LeadSongDog come howl!  22:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Shawn Dorsch is the president of the Carolinas Aviation Museum. I'm sure all of us following this story appreciate his hard work. At the same time, User:Sadorsch has been making a number of edits recently (and an IP has made edits in a similar pattern). These are either unsourced good faith additions or links to further information. I took the liberty of moving the links to "External links" and the rest of you can decide if they are appropriate. They also weren't added in the right way, but newcomers usually need to learn the right way to do things.Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the link to the Facebook page per External_links/Perennial_websites. The Carolinas Aviation Museum has a distinct web presence already at http://www.carolinasaviation.org/ and people should have no trouble finding it through regular avenues of web searching. I think the links come off as advertising here. —Diiscool (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if this was one of the exceptions for Facebook. I'll trust your judgment.Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 15:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

merge discussion - Chesley Sullenberger

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * Result of the discussion was "don't merge." Orlady (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Notable in his own right (just). The article is too big to be sensibly merged with the accident article anyway. If someone condenses the Sullenberger article to one or two paragraphs then think again.Petebutt (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Notable in his own right. Nightscream (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Capt. Sullenberger's career and importance as both a long time aviator and a leading civil aviation safety expert is far more then just this one less than ten minute flight even though that's what made him internationally famous. Centpacrr (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Sullenberger's notabiity has endured well beyond the one event. He appears regularly on TV in relation to aviation matters, and continues to make the news on a regular basis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

When did the bird strike occur??
As far as I can see, there is no mention anywhere in the article WHEN exactly the bird strike actually occured! That would be a tremendously helpful piece of information and I'm sure it is known to the millisecond ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, added that information. 82.139.196.68 (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Condition of the Airplane after the Incident: a total loss?
I realize the public would not have the confidence to fly in this aircraft again. But was it really a total loss? Is it possible, after this incident, to have cleaned up the plane, and examined it, and certify it as service-ready? What is the cost to purchase this type of aircraft new? And what is the cost to have restored this airplane to the level of being service-ready? As much as buying it new? I ask the question out of curiosity. Im sure the airline enjoyed the positive publicity surrounding Capt. Sully, and the donation to the museum was a great Public-relations move. But realistically, could this plane have flown again? I would appreciate somebody answering that in the talk page, regardless of whether you want to add it to the article or not. Marc S, Dania Florida, posting as 206.192.35.125 (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although at the time of the accident the airframe was about ten years old with 16,299 cycles and 25,241 hours which represented "middle age" in its design life, the cost or repairing it to an airworthy condition (even if possible) would far exceed the depreciated book value for which it was insured and therefore it was "written off" by the underwriter. It would simply not be economically viable to attempt to repair and recertify the airframe for return to flight operations, particularly since the pressure bulkheads, etc, had been compromised and the airframe had been submerged in the seawater of a tidal estuary (New York Harbor). Centpacrr (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds logical enough. thanks for the reply.  206.192.35.125 (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank You
This article is well done. Thank you to all the contributors and editors for your fine work!--Mt6617 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. This is a very well-written article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Colipon+ (Talk) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image
A few days ago, changed the infobox image from the plane in the water to a generic A320 image. This makes absolutely no sense to me. The IP left no edit summary giving a rationale for this change. I reverted the edit. Today, —probably the same person as the IP based on geolocation and Sahibdeep Nann's user page info—made a similar edit, again with no edit summary/rationale. Again, I reverted the edits. —Diiscool (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dramatizations
The dramatization section only lists one dramatization/documentary, but there are several.

There is even a new one filming in 2013 in the UK (a friend of mine just spent a long day in a lake as an extra being a passenger rescued from the water), but I can't find a referenceable source for this one yet.

--78.105.239.145 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * None of them are really notable, perhaps they should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Windshield quickly turned dark brown suggested change
Suggest getting rid of that "not in citation given" (The windshield quickly turned dark brown [not in citation given] and several loud thuds were heard.)

Found: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/USAirwaysFlight1549Crew_SawBirdsFillWindshield_199597-1.html "Flight 1549 Crew: Birds Filled Windshield"

NTSB board member Kitty Higgins said.

Sullenberger recounted seeing his windshield filled with big, dark-brown birds.

"His instinct was to duck," Higgins said, recounting their interview. Then there was a thump, the smell of burning birds and silence as both aircraft engines cut out.

or

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2009/01/us_airways_flight_1549_lifted.html By The Associated Press "US Airways Flight 1549 lifted out of river; flight recorders head to D.C."

the same quote

"Sullenberger recounted seeing his windshield filled with big, dark-brown birds."

Canadian geese apparently did not splatter the cockpit windshield, though the reference ( National Transportation Safety Board.p31) states: "A dent with no evidence of paint transfer was observed below the right cockpit window with traces of bird remains in the damaged area." Hence suggest replacing

The windshield quickly turned dark brown [not in citation given] and several loud thuds were heard. with ==The windshield view was quickly filled with big, dark-brown birds and several loud thuds were heard.

If no one has scholarly objections, in a couple of weeks or so I will make the changes. Best Regards SteamWiki (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is what happens when people don't read sources carefully, or allow their own interpretation of the source to overshadow the bare information. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Too much unrevealing content about the aircraft
I think it just need few words to describe what the aircraft is because the accident is caused by bird strike but not aircraft itself. Like this:
 * The aircraft was an Airbus A320-214, registered N106US, powered by two GE Aviation/Snecma-designed CFM56-5B4/P turbofan engines. It was delivered on August 2, 1999.

Other parts belong to A320 and it's not revealing to this accident. -- Newtypedivision Talk 15:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't say that I agree with this approach at all. The description of the aircraft contains the standard information found in any NTSB accident report and this type of detail is of interest to many readers who are likely to visit this article. Wikipedia is not meant to be written only to appeal to the lowest common denominator among those who visit its articles. If a reader is personally not interested any specific information such as this he or she can easily skip over it, but many others are interested and thus should not be denied it. All articles, especially those of a technical nature, contain some information that not everybody who accesses them cares about, but that choice should properly be left up to each individual visitor. Centpacrr (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Centpacrr. I still prefer clearing away some parts in the article that are redundant. It is not relevant to the cause of accident and not clear enough. To be one of 74 A320s in the US Airways fleet will lead to a bird strike, or evacuate much faster? Two side-sticks are more easy to control a plane succeed a water landing? No, these are not the things we need to emphasise. If the reader really wants more detailed informations, he or she should go to check the other page related (wiki pages, sources and the NTSB report). Or In the other way, as you said, if we want this article be more interesting and specific, other parts (like the flight crew) can be added more ample contents. Thank you for the reply! -- Newtypedivision Talk 01:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is quite a mature and stable article to which as of today 1,171 Wikipedians have contributed 3,742 revisions since it was first created on January 15, 2009, the vast majority of which had been made to the entry by August, 2009. The section relating to the accident aircraft to which you refer has existed largely in its current size, form and detail for more than six years now with not one of those almost 1,200 contributors or over 200 active page watchers ever seeking to question or alter that section's size or general content over that time thus indicting that a very strong consensus has been long established by the community to be appropriate in all its aspects as exactly as it is. Centpacrr (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That doesn't preclude a discussion on changing consensus when a user raises it. It's better to deal with substantive reasons for keeping certain points rather than just being dismissive because it's been stable for a long time. The key issue is whether or not the sources actually make the claims, such as the side stick making the aircraft more easy to control in a water landing, or is it just an interpretation of what the sources say, or even just an opinion of the person who added that to the article? If certain statements really aren't that relevant to the incident, or distract the average reader with trivial information, they should be removed on that basis. Just as too many cooks can spoil the broth, too many writers can spoil an article, and we should never be afraid of taking a fresh look at an article to see if it can be improved. - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not "being dismissive" -- far from it -- but am instead just pointing out that in a case such as this article where such strong consensus had already been achieved and existed for such a prolonged period of time (six years), seeking to make broad changes is not properly subject to casual whim. Instead policy calls for strong, well reasoned, and very broad support from the community to do so. Not respecting that just invites unnecessary chaos and disruption to articles that have already been carefully and collaboratively developed by the project's well established editing process. I have no problem with challenging specific statements in the text on the basis that a cited source may not adequately support it. That's perfectly appropriate as long as it can be proved. But seeking to delete large amounts of relevant, factual, and well sourced technical or other information on the grounds of essentially "that's more than personally interests me" is an altogether different proposition that I find to be counterproductive and which, for the reasons I have already expressed above, only serves to defeat the purpose of the project. Centpacrr (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a "casual whim", I suggest you to check more air accidents just on wikipedia (especially good articles), most old accidents' pages had been created in 2004 and have been there for 10 years. If this article is a standard, should every accident involved with A320 add the part "fly by wire" & "side-stick"? This is about the aircraft, not the accident.-- Newtypedivision Talk 06:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest, sir, that perhaps you read Capt. Sullenberger's book, "Highest Duty", in which he writes at considerable length about how fly-by-wire and other aspects of the A320 directly related to the success of how he was able to deal with the situation he was presented with, its management, and how that specific accident aircraft behaved in the ditching and literally served as a "lifeboat" afterwards that saved the lives of every one of the souls on board in this highly unusual commercial air carrier casualty. As I understand your initial posting here, however, you dismiss all that and want to replace the carefully developed and well written 460-word, five paragraph section supported by nine cited sources detailing how and why N106US was truly the central "character" in this accident with two simple un-referenced sentences of about twenty words. With respect, sir, in this case that would constitute encylopedic malpractice. While the bird strike was the participating event that caused the accident, it was far from the whole story. What, how and why the A320 and the aircrew flying it did afterwards and interacted with each other were far more important than the Canada geese in the overall event and its outcome. And no accident article is a "standard" for any other simply because every accident is different. Centpacrr (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While that's a somewhat better response that deals more with the substance, there's still far too much of an ownership attitude in it. Further, accusations of "encyclopedic malpractice" is quite odd, whatever it actually means, especially since the user hasn't actually made any changes to the article. Your very strong over-reaction to his good-faith suggestions makes me wonder. - BilCat (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please notice I haven't completed the contents nor replaced with it since we're still discussing. Laying words about side-stick and fly by wire in the Aircraft part to emphasise the importances, why not let readers judge by themselves? To me, it's better to put the parts to "Aftermath". Whatever, I just want to improve the article and make it better, if you really think I'm kind of "encyclopedic malpractice", I prefer to end up this discussion. Thank you Centpacrr, for typing so many words. And thank you BilCat, for not excluding my opinion :) -- Newtypedivision Talk 08:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As for "ownership" that is not now nor has it ever been the issue with me in this article or any section thereof. The only material I recall contributing in 2009 to this particular section is that in the first two paragraphs which relates to details and history of this specific hull and its engines. I did not produce the other three paragraphs containing the material being challenged by the OP which nonetheless seem to me to be relevant and important to include and retain here as a basis for better understanding how and why the design and characteristics of the A320 type proved to be a material factor in the survivability in this ditching when the accident aircraft itself became the "lifeboat" that made it possible for all 150 souls on board to be rescued and for other reasons specific to this case which I noted above.


 * The other point that I was making has to do with general process and established WP practice when dealing with a proposal to make blanket changes in long standing content in a stable article, in this case by virtually eliminating a major section which had been created and accepted by literally many hundreds of editors who had contributed to this article over a period of many years. In such a case the burden on a proposer for achieving consensus to make such wholesale changes is necessarily very high and the consensus needed from the community to do so must be broad and convincing.


 * I also did not say that the OP (or anybody else) had engaged in encylopedic malpractice -- far from it. What I expressed is that any such radical blanket deletions of relevant, well sourced material if they had actually been made in the mainspace without good and convincing reason and not having achieved the necessary broad consensus to do so in advance would, in my view, have constituted malpractice, not that it had taken place. I have never objected to discussions in talk such as this one as this the place to exchange views and always I find that valuable. What happened here is that the OP made a proposal and gave his reasons which was the proper thing for him to do. I disagreed with his proposal and gave my reasons. Nothing in the article itself, however, has been changed and no damage has been done. So there has been no harm, no foul, and no malpractice. Centpacrr (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs in the Aircraft section are relevant. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 could be moved elsewhere into the body of the article as they are not specifically about the aircraft, but how the systems incorporated therein contributed to a successful outcome. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As long as all the information is retained within the article for the reasons I noted above I have no problem with that. I think paragraphs 3-5 work ok where they are now, but they could also be moved elsewhere if done so with care and fit the flow in a logical way that makes sense to the reader. Centpacrr (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Successfully"
There's no need for "successfully" in the sentence, "...they turned it southbound and glided over the river into which they successfully ditched the airliner virtually intact near the USS Intrepid Museum in midtown Manhattan."

Centpacrr argues that "most ditchings are unsuccessful, therefore a successful ditching is notable." True, yet the sentence does not just say "they ditched." It says they "ditched the airliner virtually intact," which not only indicates success, but is more descriptive to boot. PRRfan (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree that "successfully" is redundant here, but that's not my main concern with this sentence. I suggest rephrasing it along these lines: ... they turned and glided southwards following the course of the river, into which they eventually ditched the airliner virtually intact near the USS Intrepid Museum in midtown Manhattan.  The text as it stands (glided over the river) suggests—however briefly—that the aircraft merely flew from one shore to the other. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd support that. It is much less ambiguous. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Walked cabin twice": but the rear was full of water?
A small point, and not to decry Sully's amazing heroism one whit. I'm just curious how far back in the plane he was able to walk, before he exited the aircraft. According to flight attendant Doreen Welsh, who was seated in the rear at impact, the rear cabin of the plane began filling with water immediately. She said: "by the time I left there, it was [up to] here [indicating her neck-level]." (Video, fast-forward to 05:13.) She sent passengers scrambling over the seat-tops, to make sure they got out OK. Yet the WP article states: "Sullenberger walked the length of the passenger cabin twice to make sure everyone had evacuated..." The plane was at a very low angle -- maybe 5 degrees?, just eyeballing some photos, one can crudely guess the maximum water-line. If the icy-cold water was several feet deep in the rear, even if Doreen meant 'neck-level' while she was seated or she exaggerated some, then much of the cabin would have been flooded with at least some water. The full length of the A320-214 plane is 123 feet (35.6m), someone who remembers geometry can do the math. So: how far back did Sully walk, and how deep in the water did he wade? Up to his knees? His thighs? His waist? I don't recall seeing pics of him as he boarded a rescue boat or shortly after. I'm guessing he was able to get maybe half-way, just past the wings? Benefac (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's a few years on now, but I wanted to say that I think this is a good observation and question you've raised, Benefac. I see that the same wording remains in the article, and it hasn't been addressed.


 * Just now, I checked three of the four sources cited (The Scotsman, NY Times, NY Daily News) to back the claim that the captain twice walked the length of the downed jet, but that was not confirmed. They said he walked the length of the cabin immediately after the ditching once, if at all:


 * The Scotsman: "IMMEDIATELY on crash landing, the pilot left the cabin, and walked to the back of the airliner, ensuring everyone was safe."


 * NY Times: no mention of captain walking length of cabin even once; but does report he counted the disembarking passengers as they exited onto wings, and then, using printed manifest, conducted a survivor-count b/w himself and the mariners over emergency radio after they had been picked up by rescue craft.


 * It would seem that the incorrect information concerning the alleged walking of length of cabin twice comes from the NY Daily News, which quotes someone who couldn't have actually confirmed that: NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg:

"With water seeping into the plane - and all his 150 passengers and four other crew members safe - Sullenberger walked up and down the center aisle twice to make sure nobody was left before he, too, fled the jet, the mayor said. 'He was the last one off the plane,' Bloomberg said."


 * Perhaps, rather than state in such explicit detail the dubious claim that the pilot twice walked the length of the cabin, it could be said that he simply made sure all the passengers were accounted for, w/o resorting to such explicit and detailed - yet dubious - wording (for which one blames the NY Daily News for reporting as fact something sourced as hearsay, really (and notice how neither the NYT nor the Scotsman report such tabloidy detail).


 * I agree though that this potential discrepancy should be resolved and imagine it can be clarified (and certainly without in any way disparaging the captain or anyone else involved in the event, though no one should be exempt from reasonable, justifiable, constructive criticism when/if warranted, I'm sure we'd agree). To this end, I'm also asking Centpacrr, Pigsonthewing, LeadSongDog, and Nightscream for their feedback before changing anything (even though at least two of the four cited sources do NOT substantiate the claim). Hoping to hear back from you all ASAP. Cheers!  Azx2  19:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We should stick to what the sources say. If that is not seen as enough, then we can dig a bit deeper, and try contacting the writers of those sources and ask for substantiation for the claims. I mean, who was on the plane to verify this? I'm guessing that this claim comes either from crew and passengers who saw him go into the plane twice, or who were standing right at the entrance and watched him walk back, or from Sullenberger himself, in which case, attributive wording can be emphasized in the passage (i.e.: "According to Sullenberger, he walked...", or "According to members of the crew....."). It's possible that Bloomberg either go that info from Sullenberger or the crew or, wanting to create and promote a mythology around the event (he coined that term "Miracle on the Hudson" right off the bat), embellished a bit. We could contact Bloomberg and ask him how he knows this, or just omit the level of detail, as Pigsontheing suggested. I know that contacting sources for clarification is not something that may be prescribed in policy or guideline, or may be something editors typically do, but I've done it. Nightscream (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In his book "Highest Duty" Capt. Sullenberger describes his actions as follows: "Once the plane emptied I walked down the center aisle, shouting: “Is anyone there? Come forward!” I walked all the way to the back and then returned to the front. Then I took the same walk again. The second time, the water in the back of the plane was so high that I got wet almost up to my waist. I had to stand on the seats as I made my way back to the bulkhead. The cabin was in good shape. The overhead bins were closed, except for a few in the aft part of the cabin. The seats were all still in place." (Sullenberger III, Chesley B.; Jeffrey Zaslow (2009-09-25). Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters (Kindle Locations 3171-3175). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.) Centpacrr (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, well that clears that up, Centpacrr. I do not have access to Capt. Sullenberger's book, and so appreciate your investigating it. To fully resolve this however, would it be appropriate to remove from the article text the two specific inline citations I mention above that do not state that Sullenberger walked the length of the cabin twice (NY Times and the Scotsman), and replace them with a page-referencing citation to "Highest Duty"? Thanks also Nightscream for taking the time to reply.  Az<b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  01:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If that book is to be used, the statement should make the attribution clear wp:INTEXT.  We don't  normally want first party sourcing for such statements. LeadSongDog  come howl!  02:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi LeadSongDog. Would one want to preface the statement with, for example, "According to the New York Daily News, ...", since their coverage (as cited in current version of article) reports that Capt. Sullenberger walked the cabin twice? And then cite both their story (which is currently a source), and the paged-reference to the book?  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  03:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * more like "Sullenberger later related that...." The goal is not to impugn, but to attribute, so the reader knows where it comes from. LeadSongDog  come howl!  03:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As Capt. Sullenberger was apparently the only individual still inside the aircraft at the time, his account has to be accepted as the most reliable source for what happened. Centpacrr (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Reliability has nothing to do with how many sources are available, or how we word the material attributively. Nightscream (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Environmental impact
Since the plane just had taken off from LaGuardia, it must've been filled with jet fuel. Weren't there any water pollution? 212.99.225.66 (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. According to this presentation, there were 2600 gallons of fuel on board and no fuel leaked into the Hudson. —Diiscool (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably some fuel leaked into the river, but apparently the amount was relatively negligible, as the fuel tanks remained intact. So I imagine the environmental impact was rather minimal, especially compared to aircraft crashes where the aircraft did not remain (mostly) intact. 67.174.98.77 (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Real time video and first person accounts
Is it really notable, do we actually need a long list which is bordering on trivia ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Why did he not see the Geese?
The most basic question. Were the Geese flying through cloud, or was he not looking out the window (fiddling with computers instead)? Geese do not normally fly through cloud. There are no reports of any attempt to maneuver around the geese. That is the crunch of the story.

Having hit the geese, the rest of the story is bland. He just landed in the river like any competent pilot would be expected to. The fact that he did not press the ditching button to close the external vents is a pretty serious omission though that does deserve mention in the article, not the just the Talk.

The turn around section is also vague. Having seen and heard the geese, and noticed the loss of engine power, the pilot should have started to think about landing options within a very few seconds, not 35! And "Aviate, Navigate Communicate", he should have turned first and only talked to navigation afterwards. In an emergency, he owns the sky.

But is the not seeing the geese issue that I would really like to see covered. Tuntable (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I see that you're a experienced jet pilot yourself so if you know of any sources dealing with these issues we look forward to your bringing them to the attention of your fellow editors.  E Eng  22:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The information in the exosphere reconstruction, refined and rereleased last year (fifth down in the external links from the article) is interesting in this regard, particularly in respect of radar visibility of the birds. Visual visibility less of an issue given the relative speeds and that the plane was climbing and turning at the time, and the lack of time (and space, in very busy airspace) for any evasive action to have been taken. IanB2 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a Jet pilot, but an ex light aircraft pilot. Comments on the visibility would be good -- there is a passing reference to it being good. Were their clouds about that obscured the (white) geese? If not, then the large flock should have been very visible.

It is a myth that Jets fly so fast they cannot see obstacles. Your own eyes will tell you that the distances are also great, which is why the planes appear to move quite slowly. If the geese could be seen 1000m away (reasonable in good visibility) then that gives fully 10 seconds warning at 100m/s airspeed. A major problem is that some Jet pilots have the heads inside the cock pit fixated at instruments instead of outside the cockpit looking where they are going. This all presumes that the visibility was indeed good on the day, and that they were not flying through cloud.

As a light aircraft pilot, having the fan stop is always on one's mind. A failure at even 1,000' would be very easy to recover from. Jets are thrice as fast, but they glide better at about 20:1. This failure was at 3,000 feet, so it is surprising that they ended up in the river.


 * Would be, but sadly a fair few pilots don't and the ANIB (or your national equivalent) reports are not strangers to sad outcomes. With a light aircraft, we're in charge, hopefully looking outside and taking the aircraft where we want it to go.  In an Airbus the flight computer is essentially flying the plane and ATC is directing the inputs to maintain separation (noting the interesting link I flagged above discussing potential radar visibility of the birds).  The pilot is a cog in the process and probably head down (as you say) working through checklists, mostly checking that the computer and mechanics are working.  The power off glide and ditching will have been flown by the computer also, with pilot input limited to which direction to meet the ground (which of course in this case does appear to have been the critical decision) IanB2 (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

All this assumes decent visibility. In cloud all bets are off. But with visibility, the outcome seems odd. So information on Visibility would be good. Tuntable (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Added note about weather from NTSB. Also Captains comment about nice veiw of the Hudson!Tuntable (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:IanB2 for the excellent weather section, showing before and after. It turns out the geese are quite dark, and so should be visible against cloud.
 * maybe, maybe not. The two met reports, roughly half an hour each side of the incident, suggest some sort of airmass change was going on.  The recorded temperature drops by one degree despite it being a winter's mid-afternoon, and the cloud cover goes from almost complete (with breaks) to almost clear in the space of an hour.  Given the two METARs it isn't actually possible to say with certainty whether the sky was mostly grey or mostly blue at the time the plane took off.  By the time of the rescue, photos show a fairly bright day, but there are some chunky clouds around in some of them, so it is likely that the sky was quite variegated - the worst possible conditions for bird spotting at altitude  IanB2 (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * (I have never understood this pilot half flying the airplane, with things like Auto throttle. Seems like only one of the pilot or computer should be flying.)Tuntable (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * maybe they should ban automatic cars as well, while we're about it; isnt it creepy having cars changing gear by themselves while you are trying to drive? ;) IanB2 (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The Geese
Hello all,

I do not mean to be disingenuous but this article does not appear to treat the murder of around 3,000 geese and goslings objectively. The top of the article marks that there were 0 fatalities, but in reality many geese lives were lost not only in the engines but were intentionally murdered afterwards. These were innocent geese. I do not mean to start drama or a flame war... I am simply submitting this for consideration. I believe that to say nothing of the innocent animal lives lost is a clear sign of valuing the life of humans over such the geese. I believe this is not an objective view, as it is clear humanism. If no one else will say it, RIP to those geese. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.113.99 (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your cue, !  E Eng  04:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Facetious or not, the IP's comment is philosophically uncontroversial; as the late geese (with the likely exclusion of those in the addled eggs) were conscious beings ("teleological-centers-of-a-life"), and likely more aware of themselves and their reasons than many humans whose deaths we would non-negotiably consider "fatalities", there is unlikely to be an account of their deaths' exclusion from the tally which would withstand reflective equilibrium. However, the IP's implicit appeal to WP:NPOV fails to establish their point. Because we live in a hegemonically speciesist society, the overwhelming majority of the sources agree that there were "no fatalities" (e.g. the official NSTB report §1.4: other than "Injuries to Persons" and "Damage to Airplane", "No other damage occurred as a result of this accident."). Therefore, according to WP (not objective) standards, the article's current discussions of the birds' deaths during and after the incident are sufficient. FourViolas (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)