In article
,
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jan 16, 10:44*am, dpb wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:21*am, Smitty Two wrote:
... As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing. Planes fly perfectly well without
engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.

...

That's utter BS about "any pilot" and "easily". *The descending course
from perhaps 8000-ft over the city that Airbus was "flying perfectly
well" w/o power is mostly flying just a little better than a rock--
they're not gliders.

That one would hope that any commercial pilot would be capable of the
feat is comforting thought if one flies; reality is far different.
Even whether this guy could duplicate the result is probably 50:50 at
best; undoubtedly his chances of getting it to the ditching spot would
be pretty good but the ditching itself would be a crapshoot to come
off that well.

The guy was outstanding (and I suspect, if asked, would say had some
luck on his side to boot)...

--

One of the things mentioned by some of the talking heads, while in no
way diminishing the fantastic job done by the crew, was that pilots
train on flight simulators for just such emergencies.

That got me thinking. Do you think that the folks that wrote the
software for the simulators were able to create the mathematical
models required to simulate the drag of the Hudson River on the
engines of an Airbus A320?

Assuming they practice water landings, how could the pilot adjust for
current, choppiness, etc? I think that at the point that they've opted
for a water landing, there are going to be a huge number of factors
that no simulator practice is going to help them with. The best that
can be hoped for is that the 80% of things covered by the simulator is
enough to cover all the unknowns.

A water landing could be considered a variation of a "soft field"
landing, where additional mechanical drag is anticipated. Procedure for
that calls for carrying some engine power into the landing, as opposed
to engines idling. Obviously that was not an option in this case, and
likely made the landing less gentle than normal.

You land a plane by establishing and maintaining correct airspeed and
"attitude" - generally being wings level and nose increasingly pitched
up. Roll and yaw may be necessary to land with a crosswind, with the
plane straightened out just prior to touchdown.

It doesn't matter whether you land on a runway or a river or a
collection of treetops: Pilots are trained to "keep flying the plane" in
any emergency. That means landing - wherever it is - with correct
airspeed and attitude. Engines are not required to do that.

John Denver, as one well-known example, died not because the engine
quit, but because he stopped flying the plane when the engine quit in
order to try to restart the engine. As a result, the plane "crashed
into" the water rather than "landing on" the water.