Passengers on the US Airways flight that crash-landed into the Hudson River Thursday afternoon praised the actions and courage of the pilot, a safety consultant with 40 years of experience in the aviation industry.
Sources tell CNN that Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger was piloting US Airways flight 1549 from New York’s LaGuardia airport to Charlotte, North Carolina, when at least one of the plane’s engines failed…
Sullenberger’s wife told CNN that she was stunned to hear the news from her husband after it was all over.
“When he called me he said, ‘There’s been an accident.’ At first I thought it was something minor, but then he told me the circumstances and my body started shaking and I rushed to get our daughters out of school…”
The crash-landing has…earned the former fighter pilot and private safety consultant accolades from state and government officials.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg commended the pilot for not leaving the plane without checking to make sure every passenger had been evacuated.
He has been a pilot with US Airways since 1980, following seven years in the U.S. Air Force.
His resume — posted on the Web site for his safety consulting firm, Safety Reliability Methods — lists piloting procedures, technical safety strategies, emergency management and operations improvement, as areas of industry expertise.
He served as an instructor and Air Line Pilots Association safety chairman, accident investigator and national technical committee member, according to a biography on the site. He participated in several USAF and National Transportation Safety Board accident investigations, and worked with NASA scientists on a paper on error and aviation, his site says.
For the passengers on flight 1549, Sullenberger’s skill and expertise were apparent.
Not an important point; but – this wasn’t a “crash” landing. It was an emergency landing; but, Sullenberger’s skill and cool kept it from being a crash landing. The important point being – everyone walked away.
#18–Macguy==what gibberish. What is this need to manufacture HEROES on a weekly basis? Give them cake and theater and the sheeple can be lead by the nose.
In fact gang the FACTS are worse than we all assumed. While still early enough that everything we have been told can be reversed later==here’s a glaring act of PILOT ERROR:
“But what makes the outcome such a miracle was that the jet was travelling at 260 kph when it smashed into the water, and could easily have broken up”
SO!! It was a miracle. Guy landed way too hot and should be fired for not following water landing protocols. He tried to kill everyone with that speed not bled off to lower than normal landing speed.
I guess by definition he is unskilled and a coward.
Hah, I say Hah!!!!!!
((PS–by the way, if everything happened just as we all suppose, but the plane had flipped on contact with the water killing everyone on board==what would the verdict be? If that is the case, what role does “luck” have to do with these judgments? Hello????))
http://bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/01/16/plane-crash-in-new-york/sullenberger-miracle-landing-helps-jet-stay-afloat.html
Can’t wait for the smoking gun to reveal he’s a “performer” for this site
http://www.older4me.com/
Bobo said, “But what makes the outcome such a miracle was that the jet was travelling at 260 kph when it smashed into the water”
Umm, 140 knots is about the stall speed for that plane. Have you ever flown a plane and practiced dead stick landings?
Looking up the landing speed of the Airbus A320 I came across this excellent short read of another successful water landing in 2002 AND more interestingly a review of why that plane did crash whose video has been posted several times ((as I surmised–lack of controls==not skill or courage))
http://theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090115.wcrash_landing16/BNStory/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
The landing speed of the Airbus A320 is 250kph–unfair I think to say 10kph over made the safe landing a miracle. Still–a better landing would have been at 240kph. Made me think of another PILOT ERROR though–he should have turned to the right and landed WITH THE WIND–assuming the takeoff in the same general direction was into the wind.
Details. Assumptions. Mindless Hero Worship. Has Joe the Plumber gotten back from Israel yet?
#23–Paddy==you might be thinking mph rather than knots?
http://airnewzealand.co.nz/aboutus/fleet/aircraft_statistics.htm
My posts triumph on their own merit. No appeal to my massive authority is needed.
# 24 bobbo said, “The landing speed of the Airbus A320 is 250kph–unfair I think to say 10kph over made the safe landing a miracle. Still–a better landing would have been at 240kph.”
Since you are obviously not a pilot you wouldn’t have a clue as to the variables that effect stall speed. But, keep posting nonsense. It is entertaining.
#26–OK PaDDy-Zero==you made me do it. Stall speed is how fast you ever provide a link to any BS you post==like any link to the stall speed of the Airbus. Why not just claim there is “a consensus” the stall speed is whatever you want and then say that was the speed used by the pilot.
Don’t let facts get in the way of hero worship.
#22–Angel==I’ve looked twice and still can’t tell if our pilot is the guy on the right.
Spooky.
A320
Take off speed:
170 mph
275 km/h
150 kts
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0088.shtml
There ya go booboo.
And no. I meant knots… Let me know when you pass you licensing tests…
Paddy-Zero===heh, heh, heh. What are you doing, pulling a “named” on me? So far in every link provided TO ME, by named or yourself, the proffered proof goes directly AGAINST your argument.
As a hint, my link and your link are in agreement and you have misread both.
Post back when you give up and I’ll give you more grief.
Yes, bobbo, what these mere mortals can’t possibly understand is that performance like that is nothing special; it’s in the blood for pilots like you and me, eh?
Okay, maybe ‘cepting this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DAsrbtR4wY
RBG
#31–RBG–Roger That. That video is the Indonesian crash that was not due to pilot error as explained by my post above and here ((short and worth the read)):
http://theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090115.wcrash_landing16/BNStory/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
The problem with selecting ONE hero out of the herd is it makes the rest of us look like Paddy. Its just not right.
Shoot, we used to do water landings all the time in the Caribbean…of course it was in a seaplane Har!!! (slapping knee……)
making news out of no news
I think Capt. Sullenberger has certainly earned his graduation from “Pilot” to “Aviator”.
Well done, Sully.
32 bobbo.
Capt. Abate’s job was complicated by the fact that he had lost hydraulic power and was fending off the hijackers as he attempted to ditch.
And your point was…?
RBG
#36–RBG==my point, as usual, is just what I posted. You left out: “Because he was unable to lower the flaps, the 767 hit the water at nearly 320 kilometres an hour.” That with no hydraulic pressure (see note) means that your repetitive posting of that video clip under the notion that pilots without skill can’t land an aircraft in water is in error.
Note: each airplane is different but most jet engines with windmilling turbine blades (ie–engines that have lost fuel rather than being blown by multiple bird strikes) will develop oil pressure sufficient for flight controls until near the flare maneuver–others don’t. I would think that even a terrorist would let a pilot land a dead stick a/c, so I don’t know what that data point means. In short, I don’t know if the Indonesian crash pilot showed a lack of skill or not but MY ASSUMPTION is he was qualified which means absent something else going on, be should have been going slower on impact and his wings should have been parallel.
EVERY FIRST PILOT you see on a commercial aircraft should in fact have all the skill and judgment that Sully displayed. He is the STANDARD, not the exception. Simple point really, lost in the rah, rah of mindless emotions being manipulated.
bobbo, just think of what they would be saying about Sully if he had crashed the plane given his credentials.
I would’ve considered it to be a miracle if he had landed on a sandbar that was not there before he hit the water. An “attaboy” is well deserved but the ticker tape parade is a little much.
#38–guy==given our mindless stenography pool that passes for our national media and the lapdogs of consumer culture that laps it up, I’m sure that Sully would have been a HERO no matter what he did, absent pulling a DB Cooper out the First Class Door (yes, I know.).
Normally reliable Jim Lehrer on Newshour has raised the bar another notch: Sully is now a “SUPERHERO.” You see the secular mindrot working its way. Rather than being a competent well trained pilot performing his assigned duties according to printed check lists and after dozens of simulated practice runs, the ‘EXPERTS’ on News Hour reported the events that took place were “beyond contemplation.”
Everywhere I look, its: crap, crap, crap!
They also interviewed his trophy wife. Nice lady. Very respectful of the families source of income. LANDING her, absent his income, does make him a HERO in my book.
I agree an “atta boy” is well deserved==and maybe a dunking in a swimming pool. No time off to reflect though as he probably only flies 7 days a month.
Its true, I’m just nothing but jealous on 5-6 levels. Can’t wait for the movie of the weak.
Short read about bird strikes. I would think a real thin real strong wire mesh bird guard would not be “horribly” inefficient. Again with conclusions rather than the facts so that readers can apply their own values.
In any case, mesh over the engine would incur only the cost of increased fuel consumption==so how much money/pollution are 288 lives worth over a 10 year period?
Geese are seasonal and locational. I wonder if a change in flight path would increase the odds of avoiding birds. Work “with” the bird threat rather than force our views on them a la BushtheRetard.