Talk:US Airways Flight 1549/Archive 4

Animals on board / pets in cargo hull / deaths
Is there any reliable information regarding the death of animals/pets in the cargo hull on this flight? Safe Air Travel for Animals Act requires that the airlines report pet deaths to the U.S. Goverment pursuant to the Safe Air Travel for Animals Act (2000). Likewise, Section 710 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR-21”; P.L. 106-81) requires U.S. airlines that perform scheduled passenger transportation to file reports with the Department concerning incidents involving the loss, injury or death of animals during air transportation. This requirement was implemented through the issuance of 14 CFR 234.13 (70 FR 7392) as supplemented by a Reporting Directive published at 70 FR 9217. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bundas (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the article you'd see that it clearly states the following:
 * According to the airline, no pets were onboard in the cargo hold, with a spokesperson stating: "We don't carry pets in our cargo".
 * --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos were on Twitter before any traditional media
This is kind of interesting, and a first for a plane crash of this magnitude: the first published photo from the crash appeared on Twitter, rather than on any traditional news media. It was taken by Janis Krum, a passenger on a ferry that got pulled into the immediate rescue operation. Covered in Detroit Free Press and New York Daily News. TJRC (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it's interesting; add it if you can find a reference stating it's "the first for a plane crash of this magnitude". Tempshill (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is helpful or not, but I'm pretty sure Fark.com linked a story about this (I think on the main page, not one of the subpages) about this yesterday. I can't remember if it was from a source that we'd consider reliable or not, and can't get to Fark at the moment to verify it. But if anyone wants to go check it out, it might be useful. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the last bit of the lead?

 * Note:Post refers to this information

No problem with the details of the Japan Airlines flight, but where's the source for its being specifically the "largest previous zero fatality water landing for a commercial airliner"? I imagine such a source would be reasonably easy to find, so it needs to be in there. Equally, with the Ethiopian plane, no problems about the flight details themselves, but we need a source for its being the "last water landing comparable in aircraft size to Flight 1549". 86.132.138.159 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved this to the ditching section as I think it fits there much better than in the lead (which should give the core information of this specific case) Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was in the lead because Wikipedia considers every crash landing notable, with the move you now have to read the entire article to establish just exactly why this is being considered so newsworthy. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel this needs a reference, I looked at the water landings article and even though the information is in there, it too is unreferenced.Knowledgekid87 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes these other landings are notable, that's why they have their own articles. Is it essential for the reader to know this information to understand the article (I think not), is it interesting background information (definitely yes). Therefore, in my opinion it belongs in the main text, but not in the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, all crashes are considered notable. People are raving about this crash precisely because of the rarity of surviving a water landing (added:and for an airliner of this size), which is what those two specific links show (subject to sourceing). That is quite different to just saying, 'here is some background info about other crashes'. It's all about context. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It belongs I agree, but just make sure it has a reference to it.Knowledgekid87 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Knowledgekid - Where does it belong? In the lead or in the main text.
 * Re MickMacNee - Aha, now I understand the intention of the addition better. I tend to agree the lead could do with some emphasis on the rarity of safe ditching. In my view the current text did not convey that message sufficiently.
 * How about something. "The ditching of flight 1549, is one of the very few cases in history were a large passenger aircraft has succesfully landed on water. Examples of landings on water are Japan Flight 2 and Ethiopian flight ..." More details about water landings can then be explained in detail in the main text. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A reference should go after this: "The largest previous zero fatality water landing for a commercial airliner was Japan Airlines Flight 2, with 96 survivors in 1968." One was added to the Ethiopian flight info.Knowledgekid87 14:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I specifically chose those two examples as relevant reference points, i.e. the largest previous no fatalities result, and the result of the last comparable attempt (by aircraft size). "Examples of ..." is just vagueness, and might as well not be there, as examples are already handled by linking the ditching article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My main argument was that we should be explicitly mentioning that succesful waterlanding is extremely rare, ie more than poviding examples alone, but by making the statement. PS I agree my phrasing of the example is indeed vague, you're right about that, so happy to rephrase. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia (Specifically WP:AVIATION) does not consider every aircrash notable. See WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral compressor stalls
As this keeps showing up in the introduction, let's be clear: the pilot's initial report did not include information about "bilateral compressor stalls and partial or complete loss of thrust in both powerplants." So far, the editors that keep including this in the intro, keep failing to provide a verifiable source for this reporting.

At this point, the bird strikes haven't been proven. It has been reported that the pilot said he'd encountered a bird strike incident, it has been reported that bird strikes will be investigated. But at this point, there is no confirmation that the bird strikes in fact occurred, nor is there a verifiable source that the the engines experienced "bilateral compressor stalls and partial or complete loss of thrust." So leave it out. 842U (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The FAA Preliminary Report of this incident states that this flight "...MADE A FORCED LANDING ON THE HUDSON RIVER AFTER STRIKING BIRDS AND LOSING ENGINE POWER." Several passengers on the flight stated in TV interviews broadcast on many local and national outlets that they heard a series of loud bangs and saw flames shooting out of the engines which rapidly lost power and could also smell fuel fumes in the cabin which is exactly what happens when fanjet engines ingest large birds and undergo a compressor stall. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Do you have citation which refers to compressor stalls in relation to this incident? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever used the term compressor stall is probably getting confused with the Air Florida Flight 90 accident 27 years ago. Not all jet engine failures are compressor stalls.  A compressor stall is an aerodynamic condition where the jet engine's compressor, in effect, fails to keep biting into the air.  (The compressor blades experience an aerodynamic stall.)  This was a mechanical failure of the entire engine due to impact with birds.  The preliminary NTSB report (synopsys) already concludes it was a multiple bird strike - that's good enough to use as a reference for calling it a bird strike in the article. Ikluft (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a pilot myself, I am not confused by the aerodynamic (wing) stall suffered by AFL90 owing to ice build up on the airframe which distorted the wing airfoils resulting in their inability to provide sufficient lift to maintain flight and a fatal low altitude stall. Bird strikes are the most common cause of compressor stall (or "surge") in turbojets used in aviation by distorting and/or destroying the compressor blades and thus rendering them ineffective. In this case the damage was clearly so severe as to cause these stalls to be complete and non-recoverable. (Centpacrr] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk) 14:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC))
 * The disputed, uncited text has been returned. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This text is NOT uncited. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC))
 * That this event featured compressor stalls is uncited; WP:SYNTHESIS refers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As the above request has not been answered in two days (Centpacrr has edited both the article and this talk page in that time) I've removed the disputed wording, Please do not re-add it, unless such a citation is provided. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditching
This section has two statements without references comparing this accident to others. If these are not substantiated with verifiable sources, they'll be removed.


 * This needs verification: "The largest previous zero fatality water landing for a commercial airliner was Japan Airlines Flight 2, with 96 survivors in 1968."


 * The reference for this statement doesn't say this was the last comparable in aircraft size.... : "The last water landing comparable in aircraft size to Flight 1549, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961, resulted in 125 fatalities and 50 survivors, although this was complicated by the presence of hijackers on the flight deck."

842U (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree; and removed that section but was reverted. We already have a perfectly good article comparing such landings, to which we can link, thereby avoiding such redundancy and reducing the editing overhead. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted you because your rationale of it being unneeded because there is another article about 20 odd other ditchings is not the same as saying this information is presented as is elsewhere, i.e. that these are the two most relevant past examples to this article. On the claims, I suppose there may be some aviation specific sources that might say it in those specific words, rather than general news sources that only print the freedom of the city crap, but I don't hold out any hope. And I guess deduction from reliably sourced air crash databases is out of the question a well, you can't prove something didn't happen can you? The irony being, I bet the pilot, an aviation expert, knows whether these claims are true or not. The other irony being, these facts are deducable from Wikipedia's own information. But that's not the same as saying it I guess. It's sad, because the info is quite pertinent to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User 842U has gone and removed it without further comment. As no reference was found, albeit with undue haste, that's fine, the claims remain above for future reference for anyone with the proper access, But please, as 842U also did, just stop repeating the idea that these two incidents do not have specific relevance to this article, over and above the 10 or 20 in the template. If the claims are true, and I believe they are, just saying they are linked in templates or are in other articles is not sufficient, and does this article a diservice if Wikipedia aims to be anything other than just another news aggregator regurgitating spoon fed information. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Number Of Flight Attendants
Doesn't IATA require four flight attendants for this aircraft? Q43 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's one per 50 passenger seats. Therefore only 3 were required. One extra seat and they would have needed four. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight Path
Is it possible to present a description of the flight path from LGA to ditching? Radzewicz (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone added a sweet map they made that would be the pride of any newspaper's graphic desk. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a bone to pick with that map. Please see its talk page. --anon. 68.161.194.201 (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The 3D Nature visualization (which I am not afraid to admit I created) was previously removed citing the "accuracy level unknown" caveat posted with it. I'd like to point out that both the FBOWeb flight path Google Earth file AND the are created from exactly the same set of data points as the 3D Nature 3d re-creation. However, no one other than 3D Nature bothered to note that the lat/lon coordinates are only recorded with two decimal places, which amounts to roughly only 1100m positional accuracy. So, I would argue that the 3D Nature presentation of the data, by specifically calling attention to the data accuracy issue, is more credible than the others, rather than less. XenonofArcticus 19:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe The 3D Nature visualization made by XenonofArcticus is an inappropriate because of unencyclopedic inaccuracy. Although it is based on a few accurate data points, XenonofArcticus admits (on his website) that he don't have banking and heading information, although the animation depicts both. The sped-up time passage depicted is also misleading. It has a nice 3D picture of the plane, but it swoops around and interacts with flying red lines (which go in and out of the camera frame) that are distracting. The zooming in and out and panning around the plane also make it difficult to tell what's going on. The background terrain is green & yellow as if it were vegetated, and there are mountain-looking things all through Manhattan and New Jersey, but the actual setting of the flight is urban. The green & yellow background makes it difficult to discern where the plane is, how high it is, and which way it's going. –  j ak s mata  21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not putting the 3D Nature link back, but I feel I need to defend the points raised against it. "The site says otherwise. Flight was built using nine datapoints originally reported by flightaware.com. Accuracy level of this data is unknown. Without accurate data, we should not be linking." I know what the site says, I wrote that, because I'm a scientist and I believe in letting people know the credibility of the data. The FOBWeb link and Wikipedia's own map use the exact same data. If you find the data to be unreliable because I mentioned an aspect of it no one else bothered to point out, then you should pull the FBOWeb link and the S. Bollmann map because they're the same data, only they didn't point out the poor accuracy of it. I believe the details provided on the site explain what the red lines and viewpoint changes are. The background terrain coloration is a Landsat satellite image because no other orthophoto was available that had amenable licensing. Google uses proprietary Digital Globe data that can't be used in this fashion. The Landsat image has been brightened, and Landsat sometimes sees green more strongly\, but if you refer to [Google Maps] you'll see that there actually is a large amount of vegetation in places, and it IS green during certain seasons. The "mountain looking things" are the terrain RADAR returns from buildings, a characteristic of the SRTM terrain data. They were left there to give some impression of the city massing, because the aircraft was not flying over bare ground, it flew over a landscape covered with buildings. If you feel the accuracy of the animation would be better served by playing it in real time, it would be a interminably slow 5 minute playback with virtually no impression of movement, and would be very difficult for a viewer to conceptualize the entire route in a reasonable amount of time. If you prefer to have no 3D animation at all, that's fine, but I don't think you'll find a more credible one than this, at least not until the NTSB releases black box data (if they ever do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenonofArcticus (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bankers
Do we really care that:

"20 [passengers] were employees of Bank of America, headquartered at the plane's initial destination of Charlotte, NC. A further three passengers were employees of another bank, Wells Fargo"


 * yes we do - as NY is a major banking city and Charlotte is Bank of America's WHQ, I'm interested to know how many there were on the flight. I concede that in part this may be because I used to work for that bank. Ringbark (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

and are we going to list all the other passengers' employers and work-places? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to detail any of the passengers names or employers unless the individual passengers are notable in wikipedia terms (which really means they have an article). MilborneOne (talk)
 * Just FYI: The media have spoken with one passenger whom they identified as Emma Sophina, a pop singer and songwriter from Australia. A search of Wikipedia for that name turns up nothing, so (not surprisingly) the media may be overstating (or imagining, or being misled about) her fame. --anon: 68.160.230.107 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The information regarding where some of the passengers worked has no reason to be in here, especially under "injuries". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.193.102 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that a 20 person contingent is not notable. It was notable in the 9/11 article that Cantor Fitzgerald lost a lot of people, for example.  Agree that it isn't needed to be super prominent.  Tempshill (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How many people did Cantor Fitzgerald on 9/11? And how many people did Bank of America lose in this incident? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no notability or not for info on this article - the question is whether there are reliable sources and whether even mentioning it is giving undue weight to the facts in the article's context. For the time being, I'm going to put this info in a note. Joshdboz (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At what point does it become irrelevant to mention the occupations of the passengers? I can see that a group of 20 might be worth mentioning (though in passing I see that the reference is to CNNMoney.com, which would naturally tend to foreground bankers!).  The group of 3 from Wells Fargo is again perhaps worth mentioning in light of the WF-US Airways connection revealed in the next section.  But why mention the single IBM employee & an anonymous Australian singer?  After all, there may well have been 2 German professors -- or even the odd Wikipedian.  The list is in danger of sounding like the cast list of Widecombe Fair, with Uncle Tom Cobley and all. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. List of occupations should be deleted. It adds nothing relevant to the article. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
 * I also agree that the passengers' occupations are irrelevant to this article. I don't think they should be mentioned individually unless they are notable independent of this article (none appear to be). –  j ak s mata  15:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Another ditching article to be written - Boeing 707-351C ST-APY at Mwanza Airport
Off topic for this page, for which apologies; but there's another ditch & no fatalities article we need, for a 03 FEB 2000 accident of a Boeing 707-351C ST-APY at Mwanza Airport (MWZ) - see B707 Takes a Swim and this google search for more info. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that accident meets WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but it probably should be included at Water landing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Qutie clearly he was not planning to land on the water. He was trying to land on the runway, and appears to have crashed into the sea. That's quite different to purposely planning and attempting to land on water. He appears not to have destroyed the pane by luck rather than skill. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Those of us who are Pprune members will know that the accident referred to above was entirely due to pilot error. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed it yesterday googling for information on other ditchings. Go ahead and start the article, there's lots of data available out there and templates to use.  Tempshill (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Video on youtube
The emergeny landing video is available on youtube. Do a quick search, linking is not allowed. 89.245.244.62 (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no reason you couldn't post it here for reference. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Official coastguard video. Given the amount of photographs out there (including one of the plane prior to river touchdown) there's probably going to be more in the days/weeks to come. Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * With the video having been uploaded to Commons, and included within this article, there is no reason to add an external link at the bottom of the page in order to direct people to the youtube video. I've removed it again. - auburn pilot   talk  18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm not a fan of that specific video, I do have to agree/second the aforementioned decision. Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alt text
I added alt text to the flightpath map yesterday:

"The aircraft headed approximately north after takeoff, then wheeled anti-clockwise to follow the Hudson Southwards"

only to find it removed today. I've restored it. Please do not remove it again, per WP:ALT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditching
I don't think that how this section is written (especially the first paragraph) complies with wiki standards; however, me being a relatively amateur editor I'm not sure adding a "wikify" tag would be the best thing to do (as this is a current event) and I don't have the guts don't know how I should rewrite it, so could someone edit this, please? Thanks. Cleverfool (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done some rewriting - do you have any remaining concerns? If so, what are they? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Article says: The Airbus A320 has a ditching button that closes all valves and openings underneath the aircraft to slow the rate of flooding,[33] but this was not used.[25]

I am not able to find any reference for this claim: "but this was not used" although I've read and searched "cited" article twice. I will delete this part of the sentence if no one confirms that this *is* in the article or finds some other article. Saigon from europe (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it is confirmed, so I won't delete it. Saigon from europe (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, the current citation external link for the A320 ditching button does not seem to even mention it. Needs repair? Or this one any better? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Original link did mention the button, right at the end, but have now replaced it with one that shows a picture and also discusses use. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)