In article
,
" wrote:



I HIGHLY RECOMMEND the show AIR EMERGENCY on the national geographic
channel. It tells the story of many crashes in great detail not about
the gory stuff but the technical aspects.

Near all problems are a combination of troubles

The NTSB publishes full accident investigation reports on the web. No
melodramatic editorializing, just the damn facts.

I haven't seen "Air Emergency" but most of those documentary types tend
to cram five minutes of solid information into a one hour show.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:21:53 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
willshak wrote:

on 1/16/2009 5:51 AM (ET) Jimw wrote the following:
Off Topic, but hardware related.

It's been all over the news about the plane that crashed into a river
in (I think) New York.

In the Hudson River by NYC. It is considered a crash, but because of the
expertise of the pilot, it was more of a landing in the water.

It is only "considered a crash" by the media. Pilots call that an
"off-field landing." A plane crashes when structural failure or pilot
error causes the plane to no longer be under the control of the pilot.
This was not the case, here.

As far as the pilot being a hero, sure, he did a nice job. Any pilot
could have easily done the same thing.

So how come other pilots said he was the only one to ever successfully
ditch [in the water]. (Maybe they are only counting airliners and not
military or private planes?)

I'm not surprised he could find the Hudson River. It's landing
without breaking up that is the achievement.

Planes fly perfectly well without
engine power. Only caveat is, they fly a descending course.

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:21:53 -0800, 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.

So how come other pilots said he was the only one to ever successfully
ditch [in the water]. (Maybe they are only counting airliners and not
military or private planes?)

I believe it was said that few ditchings end with no loss of life. Few
ditchings occur in a river in the middle of a huge city, with fifty
boats within spitting distance. If he'd have put that thing down in the
middle of the ocean, every bit as gently, the lot of 'em would have
drowned, or been eaten by sharks as they floated on their seat cushions.



I'm not surprised he could find the Hudson River. It's landing
without breaking up that is the achievement.


Nuts. The pilot himself, at the award ceremony, said "we just did what
we were trained to do." Landing an airplane is duck soup, for a pilot.
All he did, as far as the landing, was land on the water instead of on a
runway. I don't see any particular "achievement" in not breaking up.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:21:41 -0500, wrote:


He needs to trade, very carefully, altitude for speed vs distance.

And related to that, he had to choose where on Hudson to land. From
the GW Bridge to Battery Park is about 11 miles. He chose to land
where the ferries were, so there would be boats to rescue them.

The ferries go, I think, to Hoboken, NJ, which is newly popular to
live for NYC workers, and I think there are a lot of commuter trains
there too. I don't know about parking.

Before the Holland Tunnel, around 1920?, there was nothing but ferries
and boats to get across the river. When my grandmother landed at
Ellis Island, I don't think she even got to NYC at all. There was a
paid or volunteer social worker to put her on the right ferry, from
Ellis Island straight to Hoboken, and another such social worker to
put her on the right train. She was going to Indiana. My grandmother
was embarrassed that she knew almost no English, and was shipped "like
a bundle", with an address label pinned to her sweater, that the
social worker would look at and point her in the right direction.

The fact he was able to get the right combination speaks volumes about
the man's flying knowlege . Apparently he was just above stall when he
dragged the tail in (nose high, likely on full flaps, or very close) -
and dragging the tail reduced the speed to below stall which allowed
the plane to pancake in virtually level at a low enough speed that it
just tore one engine off it's pilon without significantly turning or
flipping the plane.

What needs to be remembered is when the birds hit the fans the
nose was still UP - he was still climbing. Loose

Oh, cripes!

A spelling flame. Gimme a break.

Do you fly?

What's that got to do with the proper spelling of "lose"?

Spelling nazi.

At the risk of being pedantic, "nazi" should be capitalized.

It demeans the lives of the 17 million people murdered or otherwise
killed by the nazis to compare any of these trivial examples to them.

Jerry Seinfeld can be very funny, but often he is a jackass.

"Fascist" is the word that should be used.

(and nazi doesn't deserve to be capitalized.)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:27:22 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:21:53 -0800, 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.

So how come other pilots said he was the only one to ever successfully
ditch [in the water]. (Maybe they are only counting airliners and not
military or private planes?)

I believe it was said that few ditchings end with no loss of life. Few
ditchings occur in a river in the middle of a huge city, with fifty
boats within spitting distance.

That's no coincidence. He aimed to land near the boats.

If he'd have put that thing down in the
middle of the ocean, every bit as gently, the lot of 'em would have
drowned, or been eaten by sharks as they floated on their seat cushions.

I'm not surprised he could find the Hudson River. It's landing
without breaking up that is the achievement.

Nuts. The pilot himself, at the award ceremony, said "we just did what
we were trained to do."

He's being modest for gosh sakes. Don't use his modesty against him.

And sure every pilot is trained about difficult landings but not every
pilot succeeds.

Landing an airplane is duck soup, for a pilot.
All he did, as far as the landing, was land on the water instead of on a
runway. I don't see any particular "achievement" in not breaking up.

Clearly you don't.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:27:14 -0500, mm
wrote:

What needs to be remembered is when the birds hit the fans the
nose was still UP - he was still climbing. Loose

Oh, cripes!

A spelling flame. Gimme a break.

Do you fly?

What's that got to do with the proper spelling of "lose"?

Spelling nazi.

At the risk of being pedantic, "nazi" should be capitalized.

It demeans the lives of the 17 million people murdered or otherwise
killed by the nazis to compare any of these trivial examples to them.

Jerry Seinfeld can be very funny, but often he is a jackass.

"Fascist" is the word that should be used.

(and nazi doesn't deserve to be capitalized.)

THANK YOU! I'm glad there's another one out there who thinks
that promiscuous use of "Nazi" to designate anyone or anything
you don't like is deeply offensive.

Surprisingly, these are not always young people who do not
know the history of Naziism.

Sometimes they are adults who either lived through it or
know the history.

Not always are they Seinfeld fans; sometimes they are
unthinking people who just pick up on a "cute" new expression.

Allow me to endorse this comment by a previous poster:

****It demeans the lives of the 17 million people murdered or
otherwise killed by the nazis to compare any of these trivial examples
to them.****

I wish Seinfeld had spoken out to discourage his fans from this
truly unfortunate "cutesy" expression.

My whole family perished at the hands of the Nazis. I do NOT
appreciate trivializing their infamous deeds, and I hope AHR
members will refrain from using these expressions.

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:27:22 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:21:53 -0800, 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.

So how come other pilots said he was the only one to ever successfully
ditch [in the water]. (Maybe they are only counting airliners and not
military or private planes?)

I believe it was said that few ditchings end with no loss of life. Few
ditchings occur in a river in the middle of a huge city, with fifty
boats within spitting distance.

That's no coincidence. He aimed to land near the boats.

Gosh, all those pilots that ditch in the middle of the ocean, what were
they thinking? If only they'd aimed for some boats...


If he'd have put that thing down in the
middle of the ocean, every bit as gently, the lot of 'em would have
drowned, or been eaten by sharks as they floated on their seat cushions.

I'm not surprised he could find the Hudson River. It's landing
without breaking up that is the achievement.

Nuts. The pilot himself, at the award ceremony, said "we just did what
we were trained to do."

He's being modest for gosh sakes. Don't use his modesty against him.

I'm using his statement to substantiate my own: this was no goddamn
miracle. Every pilot is trained in emergencies, one of the most common
being engine failure. You want to worship him, go ahead.


And sure every pilot is trained about difficult landings but not every
pilot succeeds.

Landing an airplane is duck soup, for a pilot.
All he did, as far as the landing, was land on the water instead of on a
runway. I don't see any particular "achievement" in not breaking up.

Clearly you don't.

OK, s'pose you explain the achievement to me, as you see it. He landed
the plane within 3 knots of the landing speed called out in the POH.
(pilot's operating handbook.) Every pilot does that, every day. He did
*nothing* to "achieve" the intactness of the plane, other than landing
at the correct speed, in the correct attitude. No magic. No miracle. No
exceptional skill. Just an ordinary, every day landing, in the river
instead of on the runway. That's *all* there is to it, and the pilot
isn't being "modest" when he says that, he's telling you the damn truth.

On Jan 26, 7:55*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,





*mm wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:27:22 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:21:53 -0800, 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.

So how come other pilots said he was the only one to ever successfully
ditch [in the water]. *(Maybe they are only counting airliners and not
military or private planes?)

I believe it was said that few ditchings end with no loss of life. Few
ditchings occur in a river in the middle of a huge city, with fifty
boats within spitting distance.

That's no coincidence. *He aimed to land near the boats.

Gosh, all those pilots that ditch in the middle of the ocean, what were
they thinking? If only they'd aimed for some boats...



If he'd have put that thing down in the
middle of the ocean, every bit as gently, the lot of 'em would have
drowned, or been eaten by sharks as they floated on their seat cushions.

I'm not surprised he could find the Hudson River. *It's landing
without breaking up that is the achievement.

Nuts. The pilot himself, at the award ceremony, said "we just did what
we were trained to do."

He's being modest for gosh sakes. Don't use his modesty against him. *

I'm using his statement to substantiate my own: this was no goddamn
miracle. Every pilot is trained in emergencies, one of the most common
being engine failure. You want to worship him, go ahead.



And sure every pilot is trained about difficult landings but not every
pilot succeeds.

Landing an airplane is duck soup, for a pilot.
All he did, as far as the landing, was land on the water instead of on a
runway. I don't see any particular "achievement" in not breaking up.

Clearly you don't.

OK, s'pose you explain the achievement to me, as you see it. He landed
the plane within 3 knots of the landing speed called out in the POH.
(pilot's operating handbook.) Every pilot does that, every day. He did
*nothing* to "achieve" the intactness of the plane, other than landing
at the correct speed, in the correct attitude. No magic. No miracle. No
exceptional skill. Just an ordinary, every day landing, in the river
instead of on the runway. That's *all* there is to it, and the pilot
isn't being "modest" when he says that, he's telling you the damn truth.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So making an emergency landing onwater is an everyday thing? Care to
do a search on just how many big passenger plane "water landings" come
off with an intact airplane and no fatalities? I know of only two.

Harry K

In article ,
wrote:



My whole family perished at the hands of the Nazis. I do NOT
appreciate trivializing their infamous deeds, and I hope AHR
members will refrain from using these expressions.

So you're a usenet nazi. Whole families perished at the hands of George
W. Bush. I wonder if their survivors cringe when I say "whew, I'm
bushed" at the end of a long day.

I don't think it trivializes anything to call someone a "soup nazi."
People are smart enough to know the difference between the holocaust and
an altercation on a street corner.

Lots of words have two meanings. Does it trivialize Jesus that so many
Latinos are walking around using his name?

In article
,
Harry K wrote:

On Jan 26, 7:55*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,





*mm wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:27:22 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:21:53 -0800, 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.

So how come other pilots said he was the only one to ever successfully
ditch [in the water]. *(Maybe they are only counting airliners and not
military or private planes?)

I believe it was said that few ditchings end with no loss of life. Few
ditchings occur in a river in the middle of a huge city, with fifty
boats within spitting distance.

That's no coincidence. *He aimed to land near the boats.

Gosh, all those pilots that ditch in the middle of the ocean, what were
they thinking? If only they'd aimed for some boats...



If he'd have put that thing down in the
middle of the ocean, every bit as gently, the lot of 'em would have
drowned, or been eaten by sharks as they floated on their seat cushions.

I'm not surprised he could find the Hudson River. *It's landing
without breaking up that is the achievement.

Nuts. The pilot himself, at the award ceremony, said "we just did what
we were trained to do."

He's being modest for gosh sakes. Don't use his modesty against him. *

I'm using his statement to substantiate my own: this was no goddamn
miracle. Every pilot is trained in emergencies, one of the most common
being engine failure. You want to worship him, go ahead.



And sure every pilot is trained about difficult landings but not every
pilot succeeds.

Landing an airplane is duck soup, for a pilot.
All he did, as far as the landing, was land on the water instead of on a
runway. I don't see any particular "achievement" in not breaking up.

Clearly you don't.

OK, s'pose you explain the achievement to me, as you see it. He landed
the plane within 3 knots of the landing speed called out in the POH.
(pilot's operating handbook.) Every pilot does that, every day. He did
*nothing* to "achieve" the intactness of the plane, other than landing
at the correct speed, in the correct attitude. No magic. No miracle. No
exceptional skill. Just an ordinary, every day landing, in the river
instead of on the runway. That's *all* there is to it, and the pilot
isn't being "modest" when he says that, he's telling you the damn truth.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So making an emergency landing onwater is an everyday thing? Care to
do a search on just how many big passenger plane "water landings" come
off with an intact airplane and no fatalities? I know of only two.

Harry K

Did you actually read my post, Harry?

On Jan 26, 8:28*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Harry K wrote:





On Jan 26, 7:55*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

*mm wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:27:22 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:21:53 -0800, 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.

So how come other pilots said he was the only one to ever successfully
ditch [in the water]. *(Maybe they are only counting airliners and not
military or private planes?)

I believe it was said that few ditchings end with no loss of life. Few
ditchings occur in a river in the middle of a huge city, with fifty
boats within spitting distance.

That's no coincidence. *He aimed to land near the boats.

Gosh, all those pilots that ditch in the middle of the ocean, what were
they thinking? If only they'd aimed for some boats...

If he'd have put that thing down in the
middle of the ocean, every bit as gently, the lot of 'em would have
drowned, or been eaten by sharks as they floated on their seat cushions.

I'm not surprised he could find the Hudson River. *It's landing
without breaking up that is the achievement.

Nuts. The pilot himself, at the award ceremony, said "we just did what
we were trained to do."

He's being modest for gosh sakes. Don't use his modesty against him.. *

I'm using his statement to substantiate my own: this was no goddamn
miracle. Every pilot is trained in emergencies, one of the most common
being engine failure. You want to worship him, go ahead.

And sure every pilot is trained about difficult landings but not every
pilot succeeds.

Landing an airplane is duck soup, for a pilot.
All he did, as far as the landing, was land on the water instead of on a
runway. I don't see any particular "achievement" in not breaking up.

Clearly you don't.

OK, s'pose you explain the achievement to me, as you see it. He landed
the plane within 3 knots of the landing speed called out in the POH.
(pilot's operating handbook.) Every pilot does that, every day. He did
*nothing* to "achieve" the intactness of the plane, other than landing
at the correct speed, in the correct attitude. No magic. No miracle. No
exceptional skill. Just an ordinary, every day landing, in the river
instead of on the runway. That's *all* there is to it, and the pilot
isn't being "modest" when he says that, he's telling you the damn truth.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So making an emergency landing onwater is an everyday thing? *Care to
do a search on just how many big passenger plane "water landings" come
off with an intact airplane and no fatalities? *I know of only two.

Harry K

Did you actually read my post, Harry?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, you're full of it

Harry K

On Jan 26, 9:55*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,





*mm wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:27:22 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:21:53 -0800, 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.

So how come other pilots said he was the only one to ever successfully
ditch [in the water]. *(Maybe they are only counting airliners and not
military or private planes?)

I believe it was said that few ditchings end with no loss of life. Few
ditchings occur in a river in the middle of a huge city, with fifty
boats within spitting distance.

That's no coincidence. *He aimed to land near the boats.

Gosh, all those pilots that ditch in the middle of the ocean, what were
they thinking? If only they'd aimed for some boats...



If he'd have put that thing down in the
middle of the ocean, every bit as gently, the lot of 'em would have
drowned, or been eaten by sharks as they floated on their seat cushions.

I'm not surprised he could find the Hudson River. *It's landing
without breaking up that is the achievement.

Nuts. The pilot himself, at the award ceremony, said "we just did what
we were trained to do."

He's being modest for gosh sakes. Don't use his modesty against him. *

I'm using his statement to substantiate my own: this was no goddamn
miracle. Every pilot is trained in emergencies, one of the most common
being engine failure. You want to worship him, go ahead.



And sure every pilot is trained about difficult landings but not every
pilot succeeds.

Landing an airplane is duck soup, for a pilot.
All he did, as far as the landing, was land on the water instead of on a
runway. I don't see any particular "achievement" in not breaking up.

Clearly you don't.

OK, s'pose you explain the achievement to me, as you see it. He landed
the plane within 3 knots of the landing speed called out in the POH.
(pilot's operating handbook.) Every pilot does that, every day. He did
*nothing* to "achieve" the intactness of the plane, other than landing
at the correct speed, in the correct attitude. No magic. No miracle. No
exceptional skill. Just an ordinary, every day landing, in the river
instead of on the runway. That's *all* there is to it, and the pilot
isn't being "modest" when he says that, he's telling you the damn truth.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I take it from your comments that you have experienced the same type
of circumstances and responded with the same degree of professionalism
and achieved the same results.

Harry K wrote:


So making an emergency landing onwater is an everyday thing? Care to
do a search on just how many big passenger plane "water landings" come
off with an intact airplane and no fatalities? I know of only two.

No, it is not an everyday thing. I'm really glad. But it is only trivially
different from landing on land. You leave the gear up and you try to keep the
nose up as long as you can.

The captain did a really nice job, don't get me wrong. But as a pilot, I view
the actual aircraft handling as routine.

The airplane was not intact. It lost an engine and some bottom panels. But it
was in pretty good shape.

-- Doug

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:55:30 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:27:22 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
mm wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:21:53 -0800, 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.

So how come other pilots said he was the only one to ever successfully
ditch [in the water]. (Maybe they are only counting airliners and not
military or private planes?)

I believe it was said that few ditchings end with no loss of life. Few
ditchings occur in a river in the middle of a huge city, with fifty
boats within spitting distance.

That's no coincidence. He aimed to land near the boats.

Gosh, all those pilots that ditch in the middle of the ocean, what were
they thinking? If only they'd aimed for some boats...


If he'd have put that thing down in the
middle of the ocean, every bit as gently, the lot of 'em would have
drowned, or been eaten by sharks as they floated on their seat cushions.

I'm not surprised he could find the Hudson River. It's landing
without breaking up that is the achievement.

Nuts. The pilot himself, at the award ceremony, said "we just did what
we were trained to do."

He's being modest for gosh sakes. Don't use his modesty against him.

I'm using his statement to substantiate my own: this was no goddamn
miracle. Every pilot is trained in emergencies, one of the most common
being engine failure. You want to worship him, go ahead.


And sure every pilot is trained about difficult landings but not every
pilot succeeds.

Landing an airplane is duck soup, for a pilot.
All he did, as far as the landing, was land on the water instead of on a
runway. I don't see any particular "achievement" in not breaking up.

Clearly you don't.

OK, s'pose you explain the achievement to me, as you see it. He landed
the plane within 3 knots of the landing speed called out in the POH.
(pilot's operating handbook.) Every pilot does that, every day. He did
*nothing* to "achieve" the intactness of the plane, other than landing
at the correct speed, in the correct attitude. No magic. No miracle. No
exceptional skill. Just an ordinary, every day landing, in the river
instead of on the runway. That's *all* there is to it, and the pilot
isn't being "modest" when he says that, he's telling you the damn truth.

Obviouly spoken by a non-pilot.

That plane is designed to land on WHEELS. LOTS of BIG wheels - and on
HARD surfaces - SOLID hard surfaces, like 2 feet of re-enforced
concrete. The underbelly , made of something like .035" aluminum
sheet, and the protruding engine pods, are NOT designed to land on
water at ANY speed.
The design of a flying boat or float plane is MUCH different than an
A320. And landing without power is NOT standard "short field" or "soft
field" practice.
Nor is a power out 180 degree turn at 3000 feet AGL.

The FACT that only ONE other airliner in history has landed intact on
water with no loss of life says something - and a whole lot more than
what you are spouting.

Sully is a VERY modest pilot.
I know numerous airline pilots who fly A320 planes - and without
exception, they ALL say they are sure glad it wasn't them. They are
all high time pilots - very skilled, and in one case a long-time
INSTRUCTOR on Airbus planes. NONE of them would expect to be able to
pull off that kind of a landing under those conditions.

wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:55:30 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

OK, s'pose you explain the achievement to me, as you see it. He landed
the plane within 3 knots of the landing speed called out in the POH.
(pilot's operating handbook.) Every pilot does that, every day. He did
*nothing* to "achieve" the intactness of the plane, other than landing
at the correct speed, in the correct attitude. No magic. No miracle. No
exceptional skill. Just an ordinary, every day landing, in the river
instead of on the runway. That's *all* there is to it, and the pilot
isn't being "modest" when he says that, he's telling you the damn truth.

Obviouly spoken by a non-pilot.

He sounds like a pilot to this pilot.

That plane is designed to land on WHEELS. LOTS of BIG wheels - and on
HARD surfaces - SOLID hard surfaces, like 2 feet of re-enforced
concrete.

This stuff is really important if you want the plane to take off again after the
landing. Not so important otherwise.

The underbelly , made of something like .035" aluminum
sheet, and the protruding engine pods, are NOT designed to land on
water at ANY speed.

As the loss of one engine and some panels from the bottom demonstrates.

The design of a flying boat or float plane is MUCH different than an
A320. And landing without power is NOT standard "short field" or "soft
field" practice.

Oh, really. Please quote the relevant section of the operating handbook. He
certainly didn't need a short field landing. He had the longest "runway" he was
ever going to see. He did appear to do a nice soft field landing. Power is
often used, but not essential

Nor is a power out 180 degree turn at 3000 feet AGL.

This is basic flight school stuff. I don't recall whether it was before my
first solo or after, but it was somewhere around there. Why do you think a
power off 180 from 3000 feet AGL is hard? It is just like any other 180, except
you lose some altitude.

The FACT that only ONE other airliner in history has landed intact on
water with no loss of life says something - and a whole lot more than
what you are spouting.

Not true. JAL 2, Pan Am 943, a deHaviland DHA-2, and an Aeroflot Tu-124. But
beyond that, just what does it say? Exactly what did the captain do in handling
the aircraft that is outside normal practice? As Smitty Two said, he landed at
the correct speed and the correct attitude. That is more nose up than a
conventional landing, but my God, where is the magic?


I know numerous airline pilots who fly A320 planes - and without
exception, they ALL say they are sure glad it wasn't them.

Every pilot in the world is glad it isn't him?

They are
all high time pilots - very skilled, and in one case a long-time
INSTRUCTOR on Airbus planes. NONE of them would expect to be able to
pull off that kind of a landing under those conditions.

Did they actually say that? All of them? What did they say the difficulties
are?

Thanks,
Doug

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:29:24 -0600, Douglas Johnson
wrote:

wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:55:30 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

OK, s'pose you explain the achievement to me, as you see it. He landed
the plane within 3 knots of the landing speed called out in the POH.
(pilot's operating handbook.) Every pilot does that, every day. He did
*nothing* to "achieve" the intactness of the plane, other than landing
at the correct speed, in the correct attitude. No magic. No miracle. No
exceptional skill. Just an ordinary, every day landing, in the river
instead of on the runway. That's *all* there is to it, and the pilot
isn't being "modest" when he says that, he's telling you the damn truth.

Obviouly spoken by a non-pilot.

He sounds like a pilot to this pilot.

That plane is designed to land on WHEELS. LOTS of BIG wheels - and on
HARD surfaces - SOLID hard surfaces, like 2 feet of re-enforced
concrete.

This stuff is really important if you want the plane to take off again after the
landing. Not so important otherwise.

The underbelly , made of something like .035" aluminum
sheet, and the protruding engine pods, are NOT designed to land on
water at ANY speed.

As the loss of one engine and some panels from the bottom demonstrates.

The design of a flying boat or float plane is MUCH different than an
A320. And landing without power is NOT standard "short field" or "soft
field" practice.

Oh, really. Please quote the relevant section of the operating handbook. He
certainly didn't need a short field landing. He had the longest "runway" he was
ever going to see. He did appear to do a nice soft field landing. Power is
often used, but not essential

He also had an obstruction in his glide path - the bridge - which
required some attention. And there were barges and boats he had to
MISS as well as landing close to an area with lots of boats to help
innthe rescue.

Nor is a power out 180 degree turn at 3000 feet AGL.

This is basic flight school stuff. I don't recall whether it was before my
first solo or after, but it was somewhere around there. Why do you think a
power off 180 from 3000 feet AGL is hard? It is just like any other 180, except
you lose some altitude.

The first thing you are taught in flight training is NOT to try to
return to the feild if you lose power on takeoff, because a hard 180
is very likely to cause the inside wing to stall, spinning you in. You
are taught to pick an open spot and land the plane.
The FACT that only ONE other airliner in history has landed intact on
water with no loss of life says something - and a whole lot more than
what you are spouting.

Not true. JAL 2, Pan Am 943, a deHaviland DHA-2, and an Aeroflot Tu-124. But
beyond that, just what does it say? Exactly what did the captain do in handling
the aircraft that is outside normal practice? As Smitty Two said, he landed at
the correct speed and the correct attitude. That is more nose up than a
conventional landing, but my God, where is the magic?

Nobody said anything about magic - but a minor miscalculation could
have taken out the GWB along with the plane, or stalled the plane in
on approach, or hit one or more of the barges, etc etc.


I know numerous airline pilots who fly A320 planes - and without
exception, they ALL say they are sure glad it wasn't them.

Every pilot in the world is glad it isn't him?

They are
all high time pilots - very skilled, and in one case a long-time
INSTRUCTOR on Airbus planes. NONE of them would expect to be able to
pull off that kind of a landing under those conditions.

Did they actually say that? All of them? What did they say the difficulties
are?

Exactly what I said - landing the plane without power with a low
altitude, low speed 180 towards a bridge, which he had to go UP to
get past without losing too much air speed - then to get the plane
down, with the nose up, and again maintaining adequate air speed, then
dragging the tail in to slow the plane and drop it relatively sqarely
into the water so the plane did not loop and break up on contact with
the water.

Not all that difficult to do if you are planning ahead for it
perhaps, but the split second decision making, the communication with
the co-pilot/flight engineer, and then getting the turn, glideslope,
airspeed and angle of attack all co-ordinated perfectly took some
doing.

I'd like to see you manage it, even in something like a twin comanche.

Thanks,
Doug

wrote:

Exactly what I said - landing the plane without power with a low
altitude, low speed 180 towards a bridge, which he had to go UP to
get past without losing too much air speed

He crossed the GWB at 1400 ft AGL. That is more than enough to clear the 604 ft
towers. He did not have to go up to do it.

Look, he did a first rate job. I'll fly with him anytime, anyplace. But, like
he said, he was just doing what he was trained and paid to do.

-- Doug

In article ,
Douglas Johnson wrote:

wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:55:30 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

OK, s'pose you explain the achievement to me, as you see it. He landed
the plane within 3 knots of the landing speed called out in the POH.
(pilot's operating handbook.) Every pilot does that, every day. He did
*nothing* to "achieve" the intactness of the plane, other than landing
at the correct speed, in the correct attitude. No magic. No miracle. No
exceptional skill. Just an ordinary, every day landing, in the river
instead of on the runway. That's *all* there is to it, and the pilot
isn't being "modest" when he says that, he's telling you the damn truth.

Obviouly spoken by a non-pilot.

He sounds like a pilot to this pilot.


Thanks Doug. I confessed earlier in the thread to being a pilot. I
thought we were done with this thread but mm came in late and stirred it
up again. My patience with ignorance on this topic is used up. Not the
ignorance so much as the posturing of a few ignorant people, who somehow
love to brag about their misconceptions, and cling to them like a life
raft.