 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009)
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: bobad Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:06 PM An Airbus A320 has ditched into the Hudson River this afternoon. News and video CLICK |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: bobad Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:14 PM The report says it is an A380 which is the huge double decker, this looks like a much smaller regional jet. Amazingly it is floating and intact so the passengers should be mostly OK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:16 PM Plane crashes in NYC river after bird cut engines U.S. Airways plane crashes into Hudson River AP – This video frame grab image taken from WNBC-TV shows a US Airways aircraft that has gone down in the … NEW YORK – A US Airways plane crashed into the Hudson River on Thursday afternoon after striking a bird that disabled two engines, sending passengers fleeing for safety in the frigid waters, a government official says. Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown says the US Airways Flight 1549 had just taken off from LaGuardia Airport enroute to Charlotte, N.C., when the crash occurred in the river near 48th Street in midtown Manhattan. Brown says the plane, an Airbus 320, appears to have hit one or more birds. The plane was submerged in the icy waters up to the windows. Rescue crews had opened the door and were pulling passengers in yellow life vests from the plane. Several boats surrounded the plane, which appeared to be slowly sinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: Rasener Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:18 PM I hope they make it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:22 PM So far, so good! The plane held together when the pilot ditched in the water (damn fine piloting!). It's slowly sinking, but it's surrounded by boats, and people are getting out okay. Wolf Blitzer (CNN) is currently talking via cell-phone (I think) to one of the passengers who got off. The passenger said that some people were able to step right out the door into a boat. Some passengers standing on the wing and getting into boats. I think they just said that everyone got off okay. They had just taken off from LaGuardia, and the theory is that they sucked a bird into one of the engines. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: MMario Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:26 PM NBC says unofficially crew reports all passengers off safely - official headcount hasn't been released yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: heric Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:33 PM >a bird that disabled two engines< I'm betting on the two bird theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: Don Firth Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:33 PM Here's a good shot of an Airbus A320. The word at this point is that they went through a whole flock of birds. Everybody off, apparently. The plane is sinking faster. Also, drifting downriver with the current. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: John MacKenzie Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:45 PM Just been watching it live on MSNBC, amazing shots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Jan 09 - 05:06 PM Sounds as though the pilots (and the cabin folks too) did an unbelievable job! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River From: frogprince Date: 15 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM If those commie pinko environmentalists hadn't gotten DDT banned, this would never have happened... How many birds does it take to gum up a jet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: GUEST,Mark-s (on the road) Date: 15 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM Just one - if it gets pulled into the engine intake. The birds in question here were apparantly wild geese. These are largish critters and pose more danger than the average city tweety. LaGuardia is built along a swampish (right word??) area, which is a great habitat for geese. Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: John MacKenzie Date: 15 Jan 09 - 06:15 PM Mayor Bloomberg said, "This is not the way people normally arrive in New Yorl" :) But they got plenty of good NY hospitality ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009 From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz Date: 15 Jan 09 - 06:32 PM Hey bobad: What kinda clickies you doin' Bro? I click on your thing, and I see the plane thing, but then a bit to the right I see, "Natalie Dylan auctions virginity for $3.7 million!" Then, I look at her pictures thinking she's related to DYLAN and think to myself, "she don't look that VIRGINAL to me..." And besides, I'm sure there are Mudcatters that are willing to lose their virginity for a lot less... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/12/natalie-dylan-auctions-of_n_157329.html bob :0) And, uh, bobad...Thank You! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Ebbie Date: 15 Jan 09 - 07:12 PM "The student who has a degree in Women's Studies insisted she was not demeaning herself." from the link She may not be "demeaning" herself, but she certainly is prostituting herself! lol I just hope she likes the stranger, whoever he is. Presumably a man? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: bobad Date: 15 Jan 09 - 07:20 PM Makes you wonder what's being taught in "women's studies" these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009 From: Alice Date: 15 Jan 09 - 07:26 PM I saw the scene of it on CNN right after it happened, then had to drive somewhere to work, when I got back, heard amazing stories from the passengers on what happened to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: katlaughing Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:44 PM The pilot did an incredible job. Walked up and down the aisle twice after everyone had been taken off, safely, just to make sure that no one was left behind. They lucked out with him as the pilot; he has 40 years experience, was a fighter pilot, and also an airline accident investigator, so he knew all the "right moves." I watched a lot of coverage on MSNBC with telephone interviews of survivors. Thank goodness for clear heads and busy waters...so many ferry boats out and to the rescue asap. I've been on some NYC ferries...bless them all for being there so quickly and helping to save lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: bobad Date: 15 Jan 09 - 10:06 PM "Senior Australian pilots have described in detail how a US pilot pulled off an emergency landing in the Hudson River this morning, believed to be the first successful "ditching" of a commercial passenger plane. Former fighter pilot Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III, 57, safely guided Flight 1549 into the freezing waters of New York's Hudson River after a flock of birds reportedly cut the jet's engines. Pilots have already posted hundreds of messages on online forums hailing Mr Sullenberger and his crew as heroes, and describing his effort as one of the greatest shows of "airmanship" ever. Australian & International Pilots' Association president Barry Jackson said Captain Sullenberger had just minutes to perform a delicate operation that, had it not been executed perfectly, could have resulted in the plane cartwheeling on impact with the water and potentially killing those on board." More on this amazing feat HERE |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: EBarnacle Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:48 PM He made a great decision and executed perfectly. While looking at the pix of the event, I noted that the "retired" FDNY fireboat was at the scene almost immediately from her pier a mile away. This boat and her crew have been on the scene in almost every maritime disaster since her launching, including providing major assistance during the aftermath of 9/11. She is operated by a private non-profit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009 From: JJ Date: 17 Jan 09 - 07:33 AM Ferries had disappeared from the Hudson River until 1986, when NY Waterways revived them. (The gentrification of the New Jersey bank of the Hudson in the area from roughly Jersey City to Hoboken created a demand for such a service.) Had the plane gone down back then, there would have been no ferries arriving shortly after the splashdown, and there would most definitely have been casualties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 09 - 08:30 AM The news media has all but proclaimed the pilot as the 2nd coming... And to hear them spin the story you'd think that this guy was the only pilot who could have pulled this off... That is baloney... Anyone who has ever flown knows that a plane will continue to fly without power for some distance... This is why you hear of single engine planes landing on highways several time a year... I mean, let's get real here... All these commercial pilots are trained in similarors and had this occured with a different pilot in the left seat the results would have been the same... Yeah, I'm glad the situation was such that the plane had a glide pattern that allowed for the water landing but, geeze Loise, this guy ain't God... Now, can I have my "I Love Lucy" reruns back??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: bobad Date: 17 Jan 09 - 08:40 AM Bobert, it wasn't the fact that he was able to glide the plane, it was the landing on water without engine brakes to slow it down. Apparently bringing a plane down on water is much more difficult than on land and had never before been accomplished by a commercial airplane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 09 - 08:55 AM Well, b-badster, his hydrolics were apparently workin' it ain't rocket surgery that the only way to scruff off speed would be to drag the tail... Pilots are taught to keep the nose up in any crash landin'... (This from a guy who crashed his first plane at a ripe age age of 16, Boberdz???) B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: peregrina Date: 17 Jan 09 - 08:57 AM I would really like to believe that any pilot could do it, but everything I read suggests otherwise: getting the right landing angle was difficult and fundamental. Another pilot on one news clip said that there was no way to completely simulate this. A belly flop could have caused the plane to break apart or cartwheel.--And then there is the speed of response of the various boats: safely out of the way while it came down, then right in there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009 From: Charley Noble Date: 17 Jan 09 - 10:13 AM It certainly was the right combination of skill, training, experience, weather, location, and luck. Here's to the captain, his intrepid crew, and all those who rushed to the rescue without muddling things up. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: SINSULL Date: 17 Jan 09 - 11:55 AM Fascinating - even the foreign news webpages featured this story. It seems that everyone was thrilled to see good news for a change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: bfdk Date: 17 Jan 09 - 12:57 PM Oh yes, it's on our news, too. Matter of fact my online paper wrote a couple of hours ago that they were just about to lift the entire plane out of the water. I've been trying to find any live coverage online but without luck. Anybody have a link? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: MartinRyan Date: 17 Jan 09 - 02:52 PM Great flying, obviously. Lucky to have a clear run, too - I heard some mention that navigation was suspended due to ice, with the ferries waiting for clearance. Regards p.s. frogprince: DDT not to blame. Its main effect was to cause a thinning of the eggshells of birds of prey - which are often used to keep down bird numbers at airports! Must have been their lunchbreak. ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 17 Jan 09 - 04:46 PM I heard a pretty fair description of the landing, although the witness misinterpreted what the pilot was trying to do. He said that as the plane neared the water, he saw the nose tilt up, and assumed that "the pilot was trying to gain altitude." Nope. Without engines and enough air speed, that wasn't going to happen, and the pilot knew it. What he was trying to do, and did successfully (according to an experienced airline pilot, interviewed later) was to make certain that the tail hit the water first. If the engines (slung under the wings) had hit the water first, the plane would have either nosed over and headed for the bottom of the river, ripping apart in the process, or cartwheeled, with a similar result. A knowledgeable witness said that, as the plane skimmed close to the water, the pilot ran the spoilers out (flaps) to kill the plane's lift, then tilted the nose up to both to both lower the tail and stall out. The timing was tricky and it took a combination of luck and the skill to take advantage of it. The tail hit the water first and the plane did a fairly gently (compared to what could have happened) belly-flop into the river. Damned fine flying!! My sister's husband flew for the Montana Air National Guard back in the 1960s and then became a pilot for Northwest Airlines, now retired. He and my sis are in Colorada right now, but when they get back, I'll be pelting John with a lot of questions about the Hudson River landing. Don Firth P. S. One thing I would like to know: why is it not possible to cover the engine intakes with a fairly stout screen to stop birds from being sucked into the engines' innards? It certainly wouldn't impair the functioning of the engines. You may have a dead bird sitting on the front of the engine blocking a minuscule amount of air to the engine, but that would be a helluva lot better than having the thing sucked into the works and blowing the engine apart. Is there a good reason, or is it just that no one ever thought of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: bobad Date: 17 Jan 09 - 04:53 PM Don, I've often wondered the same thing about the screen, and if it were conical or bullet shaped there would be less likelihood of stuff sticking on to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Ebbie Date: 17 Jan 09 - 05:15 PM A wonderful combination of skill, training, conditions and availability! They said that Sullenberg is also a certified glider pilot, which only added to the 'lucky' facets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: bobad Date: 17 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_9_58/ai_92035719 Interesting article on the identification of birds responsible for strikes on airplanes by the Air Force's Bird Strike Remains Identification Laboratory housed at the Smithsonian Museum. One of the chief investigators is the fittingly named Dr. Carla Dove. They work to identify more than 1500 USAF strikes per year by several techniques including comparing feathers against a collection of 620,000 specimens and DNA analysis of "snarge" - the residue left on an airplane after a bird strike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: MartinRyan Date: 17 Jan 09 - 05:25 PM Yeah - saw the video of the landing to day and he definitely pulled up the nose alright. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Ebbie Date: 17 Jan 09 - 05:31 PM One pilot is quoted as saying that flying into a flock of geese is like flying 'into bowling balls'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 09 - 05:38 PM Screens would gwet sucked right into the turbine unless, of course, it was so thick and webbed to prevent that and then there wouldn't be sufficient intake... A better option would be to reduce the number of them nasty geese... They don't need to be protected anymore... There are plenty of 'um and most of them like to live, like pigeons, around people... If you reduced the flock by 75% then that would reduce the "hits" by the same percentage... Yeah, geese are to planes what deer are to cars... (But, Boberdz... That sounds mean and cruel... I thought you were a goose-lovin' tree hugger???) Just a tree hugger, thank you... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 17 Jan 09 - 06:08 PM "Screens would get sucked right into the turbine unless, of course, it was so thick and webbed to prevent that and then there wouldn't be sufficient intake..." Not really the case, Bobert. The screen could be made stout enough that it would do the job without blocking that much air going into the engine intake. I worked for several years at Boeing, first in Renton, WA, doing design drawings for the whole run of Boeing airliners at the time (the 727-200 number 2 engine firewall is mine!), and then in Everett, WA, working on the original production design illustrations for the 747. I've been around those big engines a lot, and I don't see any reason that a screen couldn't be designed that would keep birds out of the engines without diminishing engine efficiency by more that a fraction of a percent. But it might not look all that pretty! Don Firth P. S. It might not be a total solution. For example, an egret, a whooping crane, or a California condor (12 foot wingspan) might be pretty messy, but most of the birds sucked into engines, at least around the Seattle-Tacoma International airport, tend to be seagulls, along with the occasional pigeon or duck. A stout screen (conical or bullet-shaped, as bodad suggests) should cut down a large percentage of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Ebbie Date: 17 Jan 09 - 06:18 PM Boberdz, thou art ignoring the truism that when Nature finds its existence threatened its instinct is to boost its fecundity. Thus, when wolves, say, are decimated, they have more frequent and larger litters; geese will do the same. Two years later you have the same problem and probably a bigger one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 09 - 06:37 PM Well, Don... I can't say thet you are correct or incorrect but will say that with the number of bird hits every year and the subsequent deaths that if screens could work the engineers would have had 'um on the engines by now... Ain't a matter of looks but safety... As fir the geese, Eb, I donno... I do know that as of today no wolves have been sucked into no jet engines... Now here's one even better... According to the news tonight the NTSW has had it's first discussions with the pilot??? Hmmmmmmm??? What is wrong with this piccure??? Why is it that this guy's wife has been in constant contact with him??? Why isn't he home with her??? Where the heck is he, anyway??? Why does it take so long for the folks who want to know what happened to get to talk with him??? Lastly, how do you spell "Miricle-on-the-Hudson-Gate"??? Somehting stinky goin' on here and ya'll can take that to the bank... 'Er river... 'Er yer favorite goose pond... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 17 Jan 09 - 07:26 PM Yeah, Bobert, re: screens, if they haven't already done it, I presume there must be a good reason. But I can't really see it. I mean, dumber things have happened. . . . I'll put the question to my brother-in-law (the retired airline pilot) when he and my sis get back from Colorado. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 09 - 07:57 PM Well, it can't be an aesthetics issue, Don, 'cause face it, jet engines ain't nuthin' compared to Ford 427 V-8...lol... But, hey, my brother is a pilot and I'll ask him seein' as he thinks he knows everything in the world... lol... Yeah, bro, then why you on yer 4th wife??? Nevermind...lol... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Donuel Date: 17 Jan 09 - 08:23 PM Now that I have seen the actual splash down I would guess his airspeed was at or below 100 knots due to the airbraking manuvers of stalling the plane perfectly like a space shuttle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 17 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM uh, he didn't stall nothin', that would've killed everyone. There's footage from a security video showing the splashdown. The pilot exhibited split second decision making and in addition he made the correct decisions. He showed great skill and timing and saved a great many people from death and/ or severe injury. All hail sully! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 09 - 09:50 PM Oh, bull... That's what flyin' is all about... You spend enough time in a small plane and you get yerself tuned up purdy good... Heck, the thermals in flyin' over mountains are enough to tighten up yer pucker string... Hey, I think that everyone whop has ever flown knew that if you were going to land on the water that you were gonna have to use the rear of the plane as an anchor and to use it to scuff off airspeed... I mean, lets get real here... I've spent many an hour in a single engine plane and one thing that all pilots have in common is that they are always thinkin' "Where would I lay this puppy down if I lost power"... That goes with flyin' planes... It is like "Piloting 101"... 99 pilots outta a 99 would have done just what this guy did... Drag the tail... Ain't rocket surgery... But if folks wanta turn this guy into some folk hero, you know maybe the next Daniel Boone, then fine... I have no problems with that... But lets get real here... There weren't alot of choices here and he did what he, as a pilot, knew to do... Drag the friggin' tail... Sorry, folks, but if we're gonna create this legend, leave me out... And why isn't he home with his wife??? (Well, BOberdz... He had to stick around to talk with the NTSW folks...) Why'd it take 3 days??? Awww, never-the-heck-mind... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Donuel Date: 17 Jan 09 - 10:11 PM Robo you ol asole, Where you been? I've seen planes do air braking with my own eyes, and yes it is a controled stall that puts the belly of the plane into the wind without nosing down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 18 Jan 09 - 03:30 AM donuel, i been readin' moro yo' stupid posts! as far as flyin' goes- you don'no nothin' 'bout birthin' no babies! uh, bobo, you be absolutely rite, it's easy to land on water, when yore airplane got dem papoons and you land by flyin' onto the water. Only thing, it's easy but when you do it wrong, you dead! And, uh, guys, this ol' plane done landed without no pontoons and dem big guppy engines on dem wings, which is a big no no. Sully be yo' daddy!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 07:51 AM Let me explainerate this one more time, robz... This guy did have a pontoon... Yeah on big one called the body of the plane and it did it's job... Break it up...Nothin' to see here folks... And for gosh sakes, Sully, go on home... Yer wife wants to see you, too... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: peregrina Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:15 AM Bobert, did you see the video footage of the plane doing just that, breaking up, in the water? Catastrophic. (It was a hijacked plane that had to force land in water more than a decade ago and the link was on yahoo when you followed the Hudson river story.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:30 AM I wouldn't doubt it, pere-g... I don't know exactly what is stinky about this but somethin' is... Maybe I'm just tired of the 24/7 media pushing the story??? Maybe I wonder why the pilot won't go home??? I alsop wonder why ot took so long for the NTSB to talk with him??? I wonder why everyone thinks that this guy was the only pilot in the universe that could have done this??? Shoot, I could have done the same thing with a tail dragger Piper Cib with a joy stick??? Now I know that folks are looking for a "feel good" story and this one was for a couple hours... Now it's time for everyone to go home... Including the pilot... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:46 AM Bobo maybe you can help them search for the engined. They be fishin' fo' those puppies. . . nighty night! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:52 AM They got one engine, robz, 'cause it was still attached... The other one won't be too hard to find seein' as it's most likely in the bottom of the channel and they can send down one of those un-manned subs with a camera... One thing fir sure is that it hasn't wnadered off...lol... As fir me joinin' the search party.... I'll take a pass... If they want someone to come "give the gun" to them geeses then they got the right guy... I'll load up all my buddies here in the holler and we'll take care of that situation in short order... How do you spell "goose jerky"??? Ummmmmmm, good... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:56 AM "I know that folks are looking for a "feel good" story and this one was for a couple hours... " You say that like it is some sort of crime. Of course people are looking for a "feel good" story. What sort of idiot spends time only on stories that make them feel bad. You say that any pilot could have done that? Well, there was only one person who piloted that particiular plane so if he deserves it, let him be the hero. It is one thing to have the knowledge of what to do, it is another actually do it. When you do it in your Piper Cub, let us know how it turns out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:11 AM I didn't say I was gonna do it, Ron... What I have been sayin' is that it wasn't rocket eurgery to do what he did... And part of what he did was motivated by his own survival instincts.... Keeping the nose high was not only the correct thing to do but also saved his life... Now, as fir "feel good" stories... We have a great one with the Innaguartion of Barack Obama and for the last three days here Obama has had to alternately play 2nd fiddle to the plane crash... I mean, I've seen Obama stories pre-empted by "news breaks" that contain no real news about the crash but yet another interview of one of the passengers thoughts about the crash... Hey, I ain't saying the guy didn't do a fine job but ain't that why airline pilots have to have so much training??? I mean, I'd like to think that if I was taking off from Reagan National and a couple kamakzi geese killed off the engines that the pilot would know to land the plane nose-up in the water... Now back to crashin' a Piper Cub... No thanks... Allready done that in my life and got it out of my system, thank you... lol... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: GUEST,Edthefolkie Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:50 AM The Guardian (UK) got hold of the pilot's CV, see below. Looks like the passengers were very lucky to have Mr Sullenberger in the hot seat. The right stuff indeed. Chesley Sullenberger, from Danville, California, is a 29-year veteran of US Airways with 40 years' aviation experience and about 20,000 flight hours in jets, propeller planes and gliders. He flew F-4 jets in the US air force before beginning his civilian career, and now gives speeches on aviation safety. Among his interests are studying the psychology of how teams cope in an emergency, Sullenberger is a graduate of the USAF academy, Purdue University and the University of Northern Colorado. He was a speaker on two panels at the High Reliability Organisations (HRO) international conference in Deauville, France, in 2007 and has just been named a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. He served as an instructor and Airline Pilots Association safety chairman, accident investigator and national technical committee member, local media said. He has participated in several USAF and National Transportation Safety Board accident investigations. His safety work led to the development of a Federal Aviation Administration advisory circular. Working with Nasa scientists, he co-authored a paper on error-inducing contexts in aviation. He was instrumental in the development and implementation of the crew resource management course used at his airline and has taught the course to hundreds of colleagues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Rapparee Date: 18 Jan 09 - 10:53 AM This is all part of a plot by the Canadians. They want Ft. Ticonderoga and parts of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine back, so they are sending suicide Canada geese to crash our aircraft. This is a new level of Canada geese violence against the US, raising the bar from the biological and chemical attacks you can find in many US fields and ponds to direct action. TO ARMS! I say. Deport all Canada geese! Send 'em back to Canada where they belong! And let's build a fence to keep 'em out, too! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 11:26 AM Terrorists everywhere... Wonder if Chnogo had a hand in this??? B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:48 PM "I'd like to think that if I was taking off from Reagan National and a couple kamakzi geese killed off the engines that the pilot would know to land the plane nose-up in the water..." We would all like to think that, but the reality is we do not know - and pilot error has lead to disaster. Of course he was "doing his job", just as the rescue workers on 9/11, school teachers, doctors and volunteers who give their time and energy. It goes without saying that EACH of these people receive training and are supposed to know what to do when the time come. You can sit in front of as many simulators and take all the tests you wish, but when it comes down to a real life emergency you have to put up. This guy IS a real hero and deserving of all the accolades, and attempts to even slightly explain it away as "matter of course" is simply ignorance of the situation. Plain and simple, the news cut ins were well deserved as this incident set an example of how people depend on each other and come through in times of strife - something we often ignore. Give the man his due unless proven otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: EBarnacle Date: 18 Jan 09 - 12:59 PM Spoke with Larry/Lorcan/InOBU yesterday and today. He has been down at the World Financial Center and has gotten several photos of the submerged plane and of it sitting on its barge. He has posted these to the web but I do not remember the link he gave me. The plane will be taken and studied by the NTSB. The reason Sully is not available for comment is that NTSB is a bureaucracy and they build their cases sequentially. In other words, they look at the physical evidence, then ask the participants questions relating to the evidence. This way, they can ask the questions fewer times than if they interview, look at the evidence, discuss the questions raised by the evidence, etc. This system is a pain in the butt for the public but it makes sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 01:19 PM Hell's Bells, Ron... I don't know if you you have ever flown either right ot left seat in a plane but one thing that all pilots have to do is learn about landin' the things under very difficult curcumstances... Crosswinds can be extremely tricky where you have to "crab" yer way down and then once your down ya' crab yer way down the runway, too as the wind is pushing so hard against the side of the plane that it wants to push you off the runway or "ground loop" you... In order to get a basic pilots license you are required to complete one heck of alot of foul weather landings... Not in a similator but in a real airplane... After an afternoon of touch-n-gos with 30 knots blowin' at yer side you get a feel for what to do and its that repetition, like playin' geetar, that imprints this stuff in yer brain... Now with the number of hours in both the similator and in real airplanes that are requird to become a commerical pilot these guys (and gals) all have that stuff imprinted... The fact that this plane was landing on water, as opposed to a runway, doesn't change the ones imprints and feel to do what they have to do... Ask any commercal pilot other than the retired ones who Big Media is paying to say that this guy was some kind super-natural pilopt and they'll tell ya' the same thing... I mean, if we're gonna make this guy a hero then why not report the stories of every pilot who has had to literally fight a plane onto the runway with 30, 40 and 50 knots crosswinds... Yeah, the onboard computers can handle some of that but there have been thousands of landings where the pilots had to dig deep and depend on the imprinting that training played on their abilities... That ain't "ignorant" on my part... Yeah, the story involves a spectacular landing but not because this guy was some super-hero but because he was in the left seat at the time... But I do agree 100% that alot of people did stuff right... The pilot included... But I don't agree, as the mdia would have you believe, that just about every other pilot would have done the same thing with the same results... That is my point... I think by making this guy, former jet fighter pilot, glider pilot, etc., etc... an exception rather than the rule is a dis-service to commercial pilots everywhere... That's as plain (pun intended) as I can state my opinion... If you want to think that makes me ignorant, Ron, have at it... It's a free country... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 18 Jan 09 - 01:29 PM It is a free country, and you were not in the cockpit - so yes, your comments speak from an ignorance of the facts of the situation. Of course you are allowed to make your opinion,but we have the right to disagree with that opinion and you have to expect that. You are not speaking with all the facts. This was NOT making a landing with crosswinds - which is a difficult manuever but it is not the same scenario. The emergency procedures started at 3000 feet, not 35,000 and while I would suspect he had numerous landings with crosswinds, this was probably his first time ditching a plane in the Hudson River in one of the most populated regions of the country. No one is making him an exception - except perhaps yourself - but they are making him a hero. The man is a hero, regardless of your opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 18 Jan 09 - 01:34 PM http://www.flickr.com/photos/lorcanotway/ Hi folks, here is the web address (thanks Eric) and it is the first page today, after a few days, use flight 1549 as a search term. Cheers lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 18 Jan 09 - 02:20 PM Bobert: It is quite true the media have made the most of it. That's something they do theses days. But it's also a fact that the pilot and the co-pilot and the flight attendants did their company proud, and were well served by Lady Luck into the bargain. 100% of passengers alive and very few injuries. That is indeed a "Miracle On The Hudson". I think you are 'peatin yoresel' bro', cuz' you gave such a outlandis' reply on 'count o' yo missin' yore lucy luv show. Me, I'm waiting for the first lawsuit ro roll in! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 03:13 PM Listen, ron... I didn't say that the guy landed the plane with corss winds.... I said that pilots have to land planes in all kinds of foul weather conditions... This is where they imprint and hone the feel of what is occuring during various difficult landing situations... If you think that is nt a fact then talk with some real pilots... So in order to become a license commercial pilot one has to have gone thru these exercises... It's kinda like playing geetar... The more you have done it the more imprinting.... Then when you are in a situation where someone in yer band is messin' up you have things that you have imprinted that take over and save the song... Nevermind, Ron... Go back to yer hero worshipin'... Now, as fir you, roboskie... That "I Love Lucy" was a little joke... I haven't seen one of them shows in the last 30 years... Okay, I fot some bootlegged "Amos and Andy" shows on VCR but I don't wacth 'um either... CNN and sports is about it fior me... Opps, Eagles and Cardinals on.... Gotta go... Go Cards... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 18 Jan 09 - 03:22 PM Is Sullenberger a "hero?" I think that depends on what one's definition of "hero" is. But he is certainly worthy of high praise indeed. I just had a chat on the phone with my brother-in-law, John, the retired airline pilot. He and my sister are on their way home from Colorado, where they were visiting my nephew, David, and his wife. David is also an airline pilot, following in his father's footsteps, but flying in a slightly different direction—John flew for Northwest, David flies for Southwest. Pat (my sister) and John are stopping off for a week at their place on Flathead Lake in Montana before coming home to Seattle, and they gave Barbara and me a call. John and I talked a bit about the Hudson River landing, and John's comment was that the pilot did a fine job, doing exactly what he was supposed to do and doing it well—a combination of luck and the skill to take advantage of it. Many pilots would have tried to make it back to the airport, but when a big jet has suddenly turned into a glider (not to mention that some reports said that at least one engine was on fire), that could be a real crap shoot. Sullenberger quickly assessed his options in relation to the geography beneath him and made the judgment call that the best chance to save the passengers and crew was to try to set down in the river—but gently. Once the decision was made, he executed the landing with great skill, which required a cool head a in potentially disastrous situation. Is Sullenberger a hero? He acted coolly and with good judgment in extraordinary circumstances. That makes the cut in my book. John and I talked about bird strikes a bit, and John described how, about twenty-five or thirty years ago, he was flying a 747 out of Glasgow, Scotland when they went through a flock of birds. They were small birds, but there were a lot of them (someone told John they were ringed plovers), and they were vacuumed in by all four engines. The engines still worked, but they were acting up and John knew they'd never make it across the North Atlantic to Boston, so he dumped fuel and headed back to Glasgow, where he set down safely. The airline put John and the rest of the crew up in a nice hotel in Glasgow and apparently forgot about them, so they had about a week's vacation complete with flight pay until the company remembered they were there and brought them back. Regarding the screen or grid over the engines, John said that The Powers That Be don't seem to regard the ingestion of birds to be that much of a problem. They have bench-tested various engines, basically firing frozen turkeys into a running engine, and most of the time, it simply fricassees the bird without doing any damage. At the speed of impact, he wondered if even a stout screen would do any good. But the Hudson River incident may bring about a reassessment of the problem. John did say that the Northrup F-89 Scorpions that he flew when he was in the Montana Air National Guard did have "engine shields." By the way, when John was showing me around Malmstrom AFB in Montana back in 1961, I saw a couple of these F-89s sitting in a hangar. They're much bigger than they appear in the photo. The fuselage is about the size of a bus! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009 From: Amos Date: 18 Jan 09 - 03:46 PM The pilot hasn't been allowed to just go home, Bobeaire, because the NTSB is taking evidence. Nothing more strange than that. As for his performance, the thing about it that is noteworthy is that he had the cool presence of mind to make a very tough judgement call in almost no time, and execute it correctly. Sure it was partly his training in play, of course; but he had the spine to do it right, and he was the last man off the plane making sure his poeple were all away and clear. That's good piloting, you ask me. There are hundreds of airline pilots who could have done a much worse job, training or no. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 03:55 PM I'd hate to think that, Amos... I think by the time that a pilot has the ten gazillion hours it takes to get a commerical license that that pilot is purdy welled skilled... Draggin' one tail ain't difficult... Just pull back on the yoke (or joy stick) and the nose will lift fir ya... Purdy elementary proceure... Thanks, Don, for yer report... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 18 Jan 09 - 05:00 PM Bobort: you remind me of the story of the guy who was bitchin' about a mechanic'bill. He happened to see that the replacement part was $1 American. The bill was fer $100 (that's "a hunnert" in Bo-talk). He demanded the bill be broke down in terms he could unnerstan', sorta like you're askin' for by beein' so condesendin' as to the skills of Mr. Sully. The bill came: Replacement part- $1 Knowin' which part to replace: $ 99 Sorta like that. the pilot flew, or more properly, glided, a hundered ton behemoth of metal and flesh, into a soft landin' on a material yon plane was not designed to impact - water. Moreover, he got EVERYONE out alive. I'm pretty sure it ain't been done before. Actual-wize, it was a dead-stick water landing you be down talkin' yon Sully but yore just expositing on yore ignance, You 'mind me of yon actor who was butcherin' the graveyard scene of Hammlet, he had all the words, but he was off'n everthing else. Yon crowed was vexed and began peltin' 'im with pnces and playbill. Yon actor finlly got upset enuff t'brake charcter and yelled: "whut you mad at me for? I didn't write this crap!" so bobo take a peaceful dump and try to get it outer yer sysem, bro. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 18 Jan 09 - 05:13 PM It's not exactly as if he could try it again if he screwed it up the first time. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 18 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM Also he was goin a hunnert knots, racin' boat speed. At least. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 05:26 PM First of all, the weight of the plane is a red herring... Don't much matter if it weighs 1000 pounds or a gazillion pounds, roboz... What matters is stall speed, yer air speed and yer glide path... Now I ain't all that ceratin what the stall speed was but once you get there it gets tough to get the nose of the plane up 'cause you ain't gotta nuff momentum fir that but I'd guess that the stall speed on that plane to be 'bout a hunnert knots... Maybe a little more... but if you is coming down you can get yer knots way the heck up... Plenty fir the big finale'... Shoot, I no longer care about this... The Cardinals are up on the Eagles late in the 3rd quarter... As for the $1 part??? Man, that's a bummer... That ain't never happened to me but then again my junk is so old that I understand it and know which $1 part it needs... Now back to the game... BTW, I gotta a call into Sully... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 06:24 PM Cardinals Win!!! Good God, Hallaluah!!! Now thems is some heros... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 06:45 PM "Miracles happen because of years and years of training" (NTSB statement made a short time ago)... I rest my case... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 18 Jan 09 - 07:19 PM what case? you make it apparent you don't unnerstan' yore physical limitations bringin yon honkin' big rig jet to rest with the innards still livin'. don' let the dore hityassend on yer wayout bobo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 07:47 PM I never was challenged to land a jet witrh 155 people on board on the3 Hudson River, robz... I was challenged to land a Piper Cun in the river... Problem is that I don't have one to crash 'er I'd consider it... Back a few years ago I challenged George Bush to a carrier landing after the "Mission Accomplished" faked landing on the carries by the Shrub... I said that if he would land on the sumabich I'd do it with a tail dragger Piper Cub... He never got back to me on that one... No matter, i knew if I could have gotten Bush to agree to the "land-off" then I could get someone to lend me their Cub... I mean, who wouldn't wnat to see this ol' hillbilly land a Cub on an aircraft carrier but I know I coulda done it with a hunnert feet to spare... Shoot, give me a Kit Fox and I'd make it two hunert feet to spare seein' as it has a stall speed of like, ahhhhh, 40 knots... Gotta tie that baby down 'er it's goin' flyin' by itself... Sho nuff... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:16 PM "I never was challenged to land a jet witrh 155 people on board on the3 Hudson River, robz... I was challenged to land a Piper Cun in the river... Problem is that I don't have one to crash 'er I'd consider it..." Prolly a good thing, thar, bert. After all, with the power off, you know you're gonna be on the surface shortly. Question is, whut shape you and yer souls aboard are gonna be in. Early returns from the black boxes are that both powerplants terminated at the same time. About ten years ago, a four engine jet was takin' off Elmendorf, other end of town from me. Ran into a flock of Canada geese and went down, big fiery wreck, loss of all aboard. What happened on the Hudson was a combination of everything good, and if that ain't what makes a miracle I dunno what is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 18 Jan 09 - 08:36 PM Well, yeah.... I do consider it a miracle is many ways... It was a miracle that the plane got enough altitude for the pilot to have some options.... It was a miracle that there weren't no boats blocking his runway... It was a miracle that there were ferries close by to pick everyone up... I think that's about all the miracles... But, as fir the landin', that was all trainin'... I would like to think that if I had had more discipline and become a "licensed" pilot that I could have pulled off the same river landing... I think I could pull it off in a Piper of Cesna right now but the Piper but the landing gear would prolly flip the plane... Now a Piper Cherkee??? Different story... I think I could land it just the way that Sully did it... Okay, it wouldn't float as long... Maybe a minute or two... There wouldn't be any standin' on the wings waiting for the ferries... But I'm glad that ther NTSB has validated my arguements by suggestin' that most trained pilots, if not all, would have done the same thing with the same results... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 18 Jan 09 - 09:52 PM Bobo: If wishes were horses. . . maybe if you were superman you could fly around the world backwards and prevent the whole thang from hapnin'... I thought your argument was that it was no special thing and interrupted your valuable television watching. You've actually shifted your argument to technique as opposed to success. Before you were arguing that the pilot's success was no special thing and now you're graning that it was a miracle in many ways. You hint you know enough about planes to crash one and that sounds believable enough. I think the most helpful thing most of us could do would be to shift to a diet with more goose in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 19 Jan 09 - 11:02 AM Photo page flight 1549 in hudson river Hey guys... stop arguing and go look at the photos!!! I froze my butt off to take em! Cheers lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 19 Jan 09 - 11:15 AM Bobert, I know this "southern hick" personna that you have created through your postings on Mudcat is probably entering into the tone of the current posts you are making in this thread, but I think your complaints about this pilot being called a "hero" are a bit odd. I don't think you realize how you are coming across - and usually you are one of the brightest posters on these boards, once the reader sorts through the slang and humor. This isn't some crop-duster being set down in the creek next to the old fishing hole - this was a very large jet with 155 people on board experiencing a catasrophic emergency over one of the most populated areas on the globe - an area that is still jittery after witnessing 9/11 first hand. Everyone agrees with you that pilots receive training on this type of emergency. I would bet good money that even with all that training, the first reaction would be to crap in your pants and pray and then recall procedures. We want to believe that we are in safe hands and that all pilots will react the same, but I think we all realize - and even you probably admit it - that human nature enters into the circumstance. This pilot DID HIS JOB under difficult circumstances, and while your ego might prevent you from admitting it, he IS a hero. By logically following your complaint that he cannot be considered a hero because he simply followed the training that every pilot learns, then the same "rule" would be applied to everyone who serves in the Armed Forces, works in law enforcement, fire departments, school teachers, etc. These individuals are trained to handle all sorts of emergencies and situations, so by your thought process we should not be considering them heros if they are simply doing their job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jan 09 - 01:34 PM What Ron just said! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bonzo3legs Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:29 PM I almost believe that some folks just do not like good news, because they can't weep and wail about it!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:41 PM Grumble grumble grumble, mutter mutter, jeeze, grumble, ya freeze yer butt off... grumble mutter... and all yer mates wanna do is go at each other... grumble mutter (gulp a big chug of whiskey) grumbutterwazzagromph... and they don't even check out the photos... just slag each other... humph... lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bonzo3legs Date: 19 Jan 09 - 04:42 PM "I almost believe that some folks just do not like good news, because they can't weep and wail about it for years afterwards!!!" ....particularly some USAians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bill D Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM I looked, Lorcan..I really did! *grin* now whatever you think about 'heros' or how many pilots could have done that landing, I'd guess that Sullenberger would not bet that he could pull it off perfectly again...or even 7 out of 10! He was skilled, he made the right choice, and he got it right the first time...that's all we know, or need to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: bfdk Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:36 PM Lorcan, I looked through your pictures, and they're excellent. Thanks for posting the link. I'd be interested to know if you use a tripod for the night shots, or do you have extremely steady hands? What settings do you use for shots like that (speed/aperture/ISO..)? Best wishes, Bente |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: dick greenhaus Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:37 PM It's enough to reflect that this was a situation where everyone did the right thing. And it worked! That's a miracle! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:39 PM Have a look at this shot in InOBU's set with another skein of geese flying past the salvage crane. I see the pilot's been invited along to Obama's inaugauration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 19 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM Hi McGrath... thanks, yes, they seem to be flying the lost man (goose?) formation! Dear Bente: As to night shots, I use a mono-pod, tucked under my arm, like a rifle stock, and often steady my arm on a parapet, or other object. With the counter ballence of the monopod one can get a very steady shot. I seldom extend it to the ground, as it makes framing a shot quickly, a problem. The ISO was 1600, and the shots into the OEM van were a floresent setting on the white ballence, and the others a tungston setting. Thanks to all, and what a wonderful story. Cheers lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 09 - 06:07 PM Well, well, well... Maybe it's a matter of how one defines hero... Martin Luther King was a hero... When the plane when down in the Potomac 20 years ago in subfreezing temperatures there was as man who dove in the water to save a woman... He, IMHO, was a hero... The guy who jumps on a hand grenade is a hero... I mean, heros willingly put their lives on the line by choice... Sully did what he had to do... He had no other "choice" but to land ther plane in the water... But at 3000 feet he had time to collect his thoughts and run thru the physics part of ther landing... That was a good thing... Maybe a miracle??? (lol)... Had this occured at 500 feet things would have been a lot tougher because he'd have less time and less of a glide path which would have cut down on his choices or time to evaluate them... I guess that was a miracle (lol)... Yeah, okay... The guy did a fine job... No, make that a superb job... No, make that text-book perfect job... Operative word here is "job"... It his his job... That is why we have pilots on commercial airliners, folks... To do a fine job when they have to do a fine job... If it weren't for things like geese attacks there would really be no need for pilots since the planes purdy much fly themselves... (Huh, BOberdz...) That's right... Computers takes the sumabiches off, fly them from point A to Point B and then land them... The pilot tapes the brake at the end of the flight and unless something bad happens that's about it... (But, Boberdz... That's not the way it is in the movies...) No, but that's the way it is with commercial airplanes... But now with Obama coming into office I reckon folks just want some heros so I tell ya' what I'm gonna do... Seein' as tomorrow is innaguration day and I'm feeling good I'll just give in if it'll make everyone all warm and fuzzy and give Sully a "Boberdz Hero Badge"... Yes, sir 'er Ma-am... Yer a hero, Sully... Now go home to yer wife 'n kids, will ya... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 19 Jan 09 - 06:24 PM Shucks pardner, that is mighty nice of you all. Iz sure that Sully will be sleppin purdy good tonight knowing that youse in his corner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 19 Jan 09 - 06:28 PM Well... Bobert... I think the fellow who brings a hip flask to freezing photogs is a hero. There was a hero Sat. A nice Swiss fellow named Jan. He didn't have a hip flask, but he did have a bit of a candy bar for a freezing photog. So, he gets a silver star, if he had a hip flask, I would give him a gold star. Frankly, whenever I get off a plane in one piece, I consider everyone from the bagage handlers up, a hero... especially the cabin staff who keep me well hydrated - lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 09 - 06:54 PM Anyone with a flask is a hero... I mean, I reckon that makes me a hero, too, 'casue I been known to "carry"... Which remonds me... I used to perform with a feller who made the best moonshine and would show up at various gigs with his flask... Man, geeze o' pete, that stuff was good... As fir landin' in one piece my brother, who is a pilot, says that "any landing you walk away from is a good one"... Lol... Reminds me of my first landing.... I must have enjoyed the crap out of 'cause I musta bounced and relanded half a dozen times but I finally got the sumabich on the ground... I was still shakin' an hour later but I guess the ol' guy who was talkin' me thru it wasn't concerned 'cause he never took the plane back over... (He was drunk, Boberdz...) Well, yeah... Funny thing about the way things used to be.... We had a dirt field 'bout 1/2 mile from where I gre up and it had a "club house" where these old WW II pilots would hang out and drenk... I loved flyin' so my dad would take me over there and give one of 'um a few bucks to take me up... None ever made much of a deal (or any deal, for that matter) about them drinkin'??? So I learned to fly by going up with half-drunk pilots in old tail draggers... See, that's what I don't understand... Hey, what'sa couple of drenks??? I mean, it calms yer nerves if you get attacked by a bunch of stupid birds but no, you can't do that... I ain't talking fallin' down .025 drunk... Just a couple of Iron Cities... I prolly shouldn't say this but I used to have a little mini-stocker.... We do ten lap'ers 'tween the main events... On an 3/8 miles oval that means the speeds might get to 70 or so on the back and front strethes but not much more but, hey, 70 with hald a dozen cars all around bangin' on ya' is fast enough... So before the race there were a couple of us who'd suck down a couple chilly ones... Hey, calmed the nerves... Never did have a serious wreck, you know drivin' on the roof of the car... Nevermind... Congrates, Captain Sully... Yer award is on the way... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jan 09 - 07:24 PM Computers do it all? A lot of it, yeah. But I'm quite sure the crew is there for more than just decoration. I'll be seeing my brother-in-law, the airline pilot, in a couple of weeks. I'll check with him. Scenario: Large airliner takes off from a major airport on an international flight. The intercom comes on with the captain's voice making the usual announcements—weather, altitude, airspeed, estimated time of arrival at the destination—then continues with "Ladies and gentlemen, this is a historic flight. Although there are flight attendants to serve your needs, the operation of this aircraft is completely automated. There is neither pilot nor second officer. The aircraft is being flown by a sophisticated and thoroughly tested computer. Be assured that you are perfectly safe and that absolutely nothing can go wrong (tic) go wrong (tic) go wrong (tic) go wrong (tic) go wrong. . . ." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jan 09 - 07:31 PM By the way, when I commented in an above post that I have worked a Boeing as a production illustrator and that "the 727-200 number 2 engine firewall is mine!" be it also noted that on the early 747s, the brackets for the lights in the ladies' john are mine also. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 09 - 07:40 PM LOL, Don-o... Commercial pilots all cover their backs and so yer brother will tell ya' that he's buzier than a one-leg-man-in-a-butt-whup contest... Yeah, maybe catchin' up on the sports page, 'er listening to that new "Matallica" CD (lol)... But really, Don-o... The pilots don't do much once they are taxied and ready for take-off... But, in their defense, they are stone sober... Well, most of 'um.... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jan 09 - 08:44 PM Okay. But I'm sure I can get the straight scoop from John. He's that kinda guy. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 19 Jan 09 - 09:06 PM Get him drunk... He'll tell all... lol... Actually, I've got 2 friends who are commercial pilots and one who does soemthing on AirForceOne... Had a few chi8lly ones with all of them... Then there is my brother... Ahhhhh, not commercial but, ahhhhhhh, wierd... Has time in military similators (Don't ask me)... Has taken aerobatics training... Yeah, he knows stuff... Not sure why, but he does??? Yeah, Don-o... Get bro drunk and "he'll tell everything he knows"... Guarenteed... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 19 Jan 09 - 09:26 PM Lessee bobo: you may not know whut yo're a talkin' about, but you know or are close to a bunch a guys that does . . . sounds like a winer. gitalong now lil hiporamus! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Jan 09 - 02:16 AM For your reading pleasure. SRS Commuter ferries to rescue in NYC crash landing Newsday.com January 18, 2009 NEW YORK - When a crippled jetliner pancaked into the Hudson River last Thursday, the first rescuers on the scene were not police or the U.S. Coast Guard, but a handful of ferries that offer visitor tours and shuttle commuters between New Jersey and Manhattan. Within minutes, even before the first police divers dropped into the frigid river and emergency-equipped watercraft got there, the sightseeing and commuter ferries were close enough to begin plucking passengers off the wings of the wallowing A320 Airbus. It wasn't the first time these ferries _ the ugly ducklings of New York's harbor waters _ had responded to an emergency that happened right outside their wheelhouse windows. When two hijacked jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, commuter ferries bringing morning rush-hour workers from Jersey City, Weehawken and Hoboken, N.J., abruptly turned themselves into evacuation craft, transporting thousands of dazed and frightened people from the scene to safety across the Hudson. Some ferries were pressed into service again to evacuate people stranded by a massive power blackout in the summer of 2003. Homely and utilitarian, river ferries have been a fixture in Gotham for well over 100 years, before bridges connected Manhattan to Brooklyn and New Jersey. One of the oldest and most famous ferry craft are the Staten Island ferries that ply the harbor between the lower tip of Manhattan and the city's outermost borough, five miles away. These orange boats provide not only free, 24-hour commuter service but also quick round-trip tours for visitors. Other ferries take tourists to three historic spots in the harbor _ Ellis Island, the former reception hall for millions of immigrants to the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries, the nearby Statue of Liberty, and Governors Island, a former military base. The commercial ferry business, once moribund, underwent a resurgence right after Sept. 11, when crippled subway service in downtown Manhattan nearly doubled ridership on private ferry operations. The main role in the air crash was taken by New York Waterway, whose Weehawken, N.J.-based ferry fleet shuttles tens of thousands of commuters from northern New Jersey to Manhattan's west side. Three of its ferries rescued 142 of the 156 people on US Airways flight 1549, according to company CEO and president Arthur Imperatore Sr. The blue and white jetliner, its twin engines disabled by a flock of geese on takeoff from LaGuardia Airport, splashed down in mid-river with all the grace of an aquaplane _ just as the New York Waterway ferry Thomas Jefferson was backing away from the company terminal at West 39th Street for a pre-rush hour run to Weehawken. Captain Vincent Lombardi, 32, saw what he first thought was "an odd-looking boat," but quickly realized it was an aircraft. Notifying the Coast Guard by radio, he was first at the scene and within five minutes his crew was pulling the first of 56 passengers aboard. The pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, had looked for boats nearby in deciding where to ditch his aircraft, the NTSB said. Within minutes of the plane's crash landing, at least six ferries and a number of smaller craft, including police and fire department boats, converged on the plane, which was drifting southward at about 3 miles an hour. "It was hard to stay with it," said Brittany Catanzaro, the 20-year-old captain of the New York Waterway ferry Governor Thomas H. Kean, who picked up 24 survivors. A sister ferry, the Yogi Berra, commanded by Vincent Lucante, retrieved an infant and a toddler, and when they started to cry it was "the best sound that we could hear," he said. Others who rushed to the scene included two high-speed catamaran ferries, the Athenia and the Admiral Richard E. Bennis, which were docked in Weehawken, and the ferry Moira Smith. There was also one private craft, a former Coast Guard work boat whose owner, Scott Koen, 50, of Rutherford, N.J., was cleaning up when he heard a radio call and raced to the site a mile away. "When you can pull 150 people out of the water and nobody dies, there's nothing to compare it with _ this is the one," said Koen, who retrieved about six survivors. "There were a lot of brave people in the water that day and they were all worried about each other, not themselves." Flight attendants get high praise in Hudson River rescue USA Today WASHINGTON — Pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger has garnered most of the headlines for safely piloting a crippled jet onto the Hudson River, but investigators and aviation workers say there is an unsung group that also deserves praise: the three flight attendants on board. Sheila Dail, 57, Doreen Welsh, 58, and Donna Dent, 51 — with a combined 92 years of experience on the job — were the ones who opened emergency exits, ordered passengers to don life jackets and directed them out of the plane. All 150 passengers escaped. "They did everything right," said Mike Flores, who heads the wing of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA) union, which represents the three. "Had they made one mistake, we would be talking about a completely different outcome than we saw on Thursday." Including the co-pilot, all five members of the crew were invited to attend today's presidential inauguration. According to information from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the airline, Dail and Dent were seated at the front of the cabin. They told investigators they shouted "Brace!" just before landing and then directed passengers to life rafts on the left and right side. Welsh was seated at the rear, where the landing was more violent, the NTSB said. She waded in chest-high frigid water, directing passengers to exit over the wings, she told investigators. Only after all the passengers had escaped did she realize she had suffered a deep cut on her leg, NTSB member Kitty Higgins said. Higgins grew emotional Sunday describing the crew's performance. "This is a testament to experienced women doing their jobs," she said. Sullenberger, 58, and co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles, 49, who themselves have a total of 50 years at the airline, deserve plenty of credit for steering Flight 1549 into the Hudson after hitting a flock of birds, said several attendants, including AFA-CWA leaders. But after enduring years of pay cuts, layoffs and what they see as decreasing respect from the public, it's time to give the attendants their due, they said. "Knowing what it entailed to get those people out safely just gives you chills," said retired flight attendant Jeannie Cox, 51, of St. Petersburg, Fla., who flew for 19 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: bfdk Date: 20 Jan 09 - 04:48 AM Lorcan, thanks for explaining. A friend of mine also uses a monopod and swears by its efficiency. I'd consider getting one once I get a decent camera again. I'm amazed you can get it steady enough with the monopod merely acting as counter balance, though. I have come across the difficulty of framing a shot when using a tripod, suppose it's the same with a mono. I think those shots are very clear for ISO 1600, what camera do you use? Best wishes, Bente Terry, if you haven't posted while I typed this, you're malingering! (100) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 20 Jan 09 - 12:37 PM Hi Bente: Canon EOS Rebel XTi with a Canon 100 to 400mm telephoto lens with image stablization... One from the scene was taken with a 35 - 350mm lens... but, em... on a roof in the dark... I... em... slipped and fell on it.. dented it like a tin can (amazing the force of an aged fat man falling on one...). They don't make that lens anymore, it was a lovely lens and a good friend... bought me drinks and told jokes. So, I've a brused elbow and knee... but it was a good night, I did not fall off the roof, just on the roof. =) lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 20 Jan 09 - 01:17 PM My newspaper had an article about the daughter-in-law of a local family. The D-I-L was on that flight. She said she really wished she hadn't worn 3-inch high heels, even though 'They were really cute.' She was the woman that went into the water. It must have been awful. Intelligent shoes might have prevented that. When I fly, I see people wearing the stupidest stuff. When you fly, you should dress as if you are going on a hike, because you just might be. My husband commented on the people who were on the wing of the plane with no coats. It was winter; they should have had coats with them. A pet peeve of mine is the family with the teenager wearing flip-flops. Duh! Another is the family that takes little girls into airports wearing cheap, flimsy sandals. What is going to happen if a 200-pound businessman who's had 3 martinis plants his huge, clumsy brogue on that dainty little foot? Despite all that, I feel very proud of the passengers and everyone else involved in the crash of Flight 1549. ======== Tech folks, why can't they put a 2-inch screen over the engine intakes and keep the bigger birds out? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: bfdk Date: 20 Jan 09 - 01:35 PM Thread drift alert! Hi Lorcan, Commiserations on the loss of your trusted lens, glad you didn't slip *off* the roof but merely on it. Hope your elbow and knee heal swiftly. Seems we have more or less the same camera, mine's a Rebel, too (EOS 300). But it's a replacement Rebel purchased second hand last year and for some reason or other no match whatsoever for my original one that died on me the day my mother was buried. I wasn't too alert to much that day, and so managed to pack a tinfoil wrapped open box of coffee cream on top of the camera when packing the left-overs from the wake (thinking it was a piece of cheese..!!). My Tamron 28-300mm lens survived, but the electronics of the camera died and could not be revived. A memory stick and my Olympus voice recorder both survived being briefly soaked, which seems rather surprising. I got a replacement on E-bay, but the previous owner has fiddled with the firmware, and not even an attempt to fully restore it to the original setup has turned it into a camera I'm happy with. Guess I'll get a D450 sometime.. Best wishes, Bente |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 09 - 03:05 PM Lorcan, Thems is some fine photographs... Thankee for gettin' 'um and thankee fir sharin' 'um with us... Sorry about yer spill... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Joe_F Date: 20 Jan 09 - 09:19 PM These days especially, to say that the man knew his business is no small compliment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 20 Jan 09 - 09:51 PM The Co-pilot should come in for his share of credit, as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: open mike Date: 21 Jan 09 - 03:20 AM this is not applicable in this situation but i just heard of a term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_Useful_Consciousness a terms used for pilots....in situations of lack of oxygen there is a radio show named after this phenomenon www.tucradio.org |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: robomatic Date: 21 Jan 09 - 05:53 AM Open mike: That sounds applicable to a LOT of situations! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 24 Jan 09 - 10:07 AM Villager artcal about Flight 1549 with photo by Lorcan Otway Here is another view of the actions of the plane crew, from a passinger as told to Lincoln Anderson. I did not write the piece, but it is my photo... Bobert should enjoy this... Cheers Lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 09 - 04:50 PM Capt'n "Sully"'s own words: "We just did what we are trained to do..." From CNN a few minutes ago... B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:02 PM He is a hero. Nuff said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 09 - 05:37 PM Great, Ron... Guess that means yer done sayin' stuff...lol... Works fir me... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 24 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM Nah... I wouldn't deny you the pleasure of hearing the truth! I'll keep it up as long as you continue to deny. Tell me, did you really expect him to say anything else??? Get a grip, the man is a frickin hero! Even your backwoods ethics should be able to acknowledge that fact!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 09 - 08:03 PM Listen, Ron ol' bud... The guy doesn't consider himself such, said that he was trained to do what he did and I learnt up a long time ago that proclamations don't add up to fact... And as fir backwoods ethics??? What is a "backwoods ethics"??? I never heard of the stuff... Does this mean that if I'm up in the mountain huntin' mushrooms an' I have an impure thought about, ahhhhhh, well, you know, that I'm going straight to Hell??? (No, Bobz... That would be backwwods "unethics"...) Okay, maybe it's like if I have a good thought for mankind... You know, like I'd like to find a cure fir cancer up there in the woods that I'd get to ride the espress bus to Heaven as opposed to the one that stops at every corner... (That's prolly it, Boberdz...) But as fir yer hero, backwoods ethics or not, 99 outta 99 pilots would done the same thing... Okay, maybe a couple woulda initially tried to make it back to the airport only to find that their wasn't enough glide space to pull it off and then done the same thing... Airplanes is alot like cars in that way... The problem with car accidents is that most occur with less than a second to assess the situation and make a decison... Airplanes is more forgiving... Well, unless yer wing falls off and then, inspite of the thread about the guy landin' the one winged plane (which was bogus) you have some time... Especially if you have control of it, minus the engines... (But, Boberdz... Didn't you wreck one when you were 16???) Well, technically, I was in the right seat... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 24 Jan 09 - 08:25 PM taint workin dude. THe man is a hero, just give it up! 99 outta 99 is just an assumption on your part and you know it. The man is a bonafide hero, no ifs ands or buts about no matter how much fuss you raise. Join the parade dude! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 09 - 08:26 AM Sully for President!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 09 - 12:49 PM Bobert, I had a friend many years ago who was a really fine artist. When people asked him what he did, he'd say, "I'm a painter." He wouldn't call himself an artist because he felt it would be blowing his own horn. "I paint pictures," he said. "Whether or not I am an 'artist' is not for me to say, it is for others to judge." I think the same principle applies here. If Sullenberger were to refer to himself as a "hero" or even agree that he is a hero, how would that sound? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:21 AM After reading the Villager artical (link above) I do find myself wondering, why,if there are passingers on the wing, in the water, should any crew who are uninjured, ESPCIALLY the captain, get into rafts. The reason a captain went down with the ship is the idea that he should not take the place of anyone else in a rescue. I think Sully did a great job, but, if I were writing the manual for proper behavior of flight crew in future, I would add, crew should give their place in the raft to passingers. Sully should have been the last fellow off the wing, not out of the raft, after the passingers, and then after the uninjured members of the crew. I assume the caib attendant who broke her legs, was helping get folks ready for the crash up to the splash down. She is the likely hero. I met a fellow who was among the first rescue boats to the Morro Castle. He and his mates did not stop to help a single lifeboat, as they did not have a single passinger in them, they were full of crew alone. All the passingers who lived, were taken by rescue boats off the burning ship. I think passingers must come first in a disaster. All the best Lorcan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Ebbie Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:39 AM Last night on Dateline NBC a program depicted the '10 Most Amazing Rescues' or something like that, that were caught on film. #2 was of a cruise ship, the Oceanos, that went down. Two of the entertainment aboard - a musician and a magician - allegedly got the 600 passengers off with no loss of life. The Oceanos crew and captain - allegedly - left the ship when they saw the ship was going to sink. (i'm going to google the Oceanos for more information.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Art Thieme Date: 26 Jan 09 - 02:02 PM WORLD ENDS! BUT FIRST, THIS! I have it on very good authority that it was known since the beginning of the plane-in-the-Hudson landing that there was a very large aircraft filled with TERRORISTS (or possibly tourists) flying very close to this airliner---and ALL were giving this flight the bird!. That is where the engine-fouling (pun intended) birds came from!!! Oh, the humanity! Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jan 09 - 03:36 PM Terrorist geese!? My God, where will it end!??? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:25 PM Hmmmmmmmm??? According to the above linked article in "The Villager", Sullu not only had very limited hours (30) flyin' this plane but also when it came to loading survivors into rafts after the crash, the ol' rule of "women and children first" wasn't enforced... Also, I heard recently that these engines are deisgned so that if a frozen turkey is thorwn into the engine that it won't damage the engine... In the words of Paul Harvey, "And now for the rest of the story"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: bobad Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:04 PM Here you go Brobert - the conspiracy you're looking for - terrorist goose |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:21 PM You are right Bobert, the limited hours makes him even more of a hero. Naturally the article doesn't mention our hero getting on board a raft first because he walked the plane twice to insure everyone got out. Thanks for finally coming around to the side of reason. Your previous posts were unbecoming. I was beginning to think your case of penis envy was clouding your ability to comprehend! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:33 PM Hey, wait just a danged minute here, Rono... Penises ain't got nuthin' to do with none of this... (But, Boberdz... Word on the street is that it wasn't a flock of wild geese that brougth down the plane... It was a flock of wild penises...) Oh??? I hadn't heard that one... I didn't realize that penises could fly??? Learn somethin' new every day... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:35 PM Just giving ya grief dude. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:50 PM Like I don't need any more, Rono??? I done spent 8 hours today on my belly under a 200 year old hotel in 30 degree temps runnin' new water line... You can take it to the bank that I don't need no more grief.... Shoot, how long did it take Sully to crash the plane??? 3 or 4 minutes??? Hey, next time he's thinkin' of crashin' a plane in the river tell him I'd be more than happy to do it for him and he can spend the 8 hours in the cold-ass crawl space... Hey, far as I is concerned, I'm a hero and so is anyone who does what I did today... Okay, there won't be no news stories... NO homecomings... No cheering crowds but.... Nevermind... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:55 PM So I guess that you would never call anyone who is in the military a hero because that is what they are trained to do. I assume that doctors and surgeons who save lives are only doing their jobs and are not heros. The emergency personnel who ran up the Twin Towers on 9/11 were getting paid by the hour, so they aren't heros either? I assume that is what you believe Bobert since you feel that routine training eliminates you from becoming a hero? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Jan 09 - 11:34 PM Why not just have Sully crash into your 200 year old hotel joint and put all out their misery here???? Do birds who live at airports have "Fuselage Envy?" This could explain a lot.......... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:44 AM Kamikaze goose! (Whoa! That has all kinds of possible connotations. . . .) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 09 - 08:03 AM Nah, Ron... I've allready said on this thread that the guy who jumps on a live grenade is a hero... And that was just an example... As fir Sully crashin' his plane into the hotel??? Bring it on, Big Guy!!! B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 27 Jan 09 - 09:25 AM But Bobert, the guy who jumps on the grenade is trained to save people and put their own lives at risk. What about a surgeon who saves a life? Face it Bobert, the man is a hero as are all of these individuals. You may add something to your definition that the rest of the world doesn't, but that is the choice you force yourself to live with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 27 Jan 09 - 10:13 AM Well to be accurate, the proper analogy would be Sully LANDING his airplane on top of Bobert's hotel, helping everyone out of the plane, then, checking into the best rooms with the first class passengers and leaving the coach passengers, baby and all, to wait in the pool for buses to come to take them to the airport... some job well dones and a bit of... could have done better. =) lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 09 - 10:54 AM What lor said.... A hero woulda made sure that the "woman and children first" rule be followed... I mean, Sully was still the Captain of the airplane/ship and that rule was not observed... And as for being trained to jump on the grenade, I can't say that during my MST days in ROTC that we were trained to do that... Yeah, everyone kinda knows that by doing it one reduces the chances of one's buddies gettin' killed or injured but I'm not too sure that that is part of the "training" per se... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 27 Jan 09 - 11:54 AM So what about doctors? Teachers? EMTS? Do you not consider them heros? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:10 PM When they do heroic stuff, yeah... But just doing their jobs, however important, ain't, IMO, heroism... In other words, I think we should rethink the term as it seems that it's overused... I think stuff like "beyond the call of duty" and "extreme courage in the face of personal danger" need to be factored in... Face it, Sully was making decsions that also were in his best survival interests by keeping the nose of the plane up... Yeah, that was also the correct way to land a plane on water but had the situation be reversed and the best way to land a plane in water would have been to take it in nose first and thereby killing the pilot and co-pilot to save the passangers and Sully had done that, yeah, I think that passes the "extreme courage in the face of personal danger" test... Okay, it was asmirable for Sully to walk the plane twice to be sure everyone was out but once out there with the passengers I don't understand how the "women and children first" test was bungled??? I donno, Ron... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:21 PM I do have trouble with the way the word "hero" is sometimes tossed around indiscriminately. Such as the little girl some years back who managed to fall into a well. All kinds of people rallied to rescue her and, thank God, got her out safely. Some newspapers and broadcast news reports hailed the little girl as a "hero." What for? She was playing where she had been told not to, almost got herself killed, managed to scare the hell out of herself, her parents, and a whole lot of other people, and cost the emergency services that rescued her a lot of taxpayers' money. Hero? Not the way I see it. And the football player who pulls his team out of the Dumpster a few seconds before the final gun by snagging a pass and running it sixty yards down the field for a last second touchdown. Sportscasters and fans go nuts, calling the guy a "hero." No risk to his life, it is his job, and it's a game, fer heck's sake!! He's a hero? But Sullenberger, because of his cool head, skill, and attention to the safety and well-being of his passengers? Yeah, I think he qualifies. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:32 PM Well, that's what makes for a horse race... Differing opinions... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:37 PM Hi Don: Do read the Villager artical linked above. I agree, he did a great job of landing the plane, but may have not met the standard which maritime captains set, when it comes to the well being of his passingers. I don't think it is proper for a captain of a vessel to get into a life boat or raft, when passingers are still on the vessel, and in this case, on a sinking plane, and in the water. Walking the plane is proper and fine, but he should have then gotten out on the wing with those for whom he was responsible. That's just the standard set by generations of mariners. I don't know if I could have done that, but that is what it is to be a captain, not a hero. It is the responcibility of comand. Cheers lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:40 PM PS... If Sully ever reads this... my hat is off to him and I think he did a great job, and it all worked out for the best. But, what would have happened if he got into the raft, and the plane filled and sank killing those on the wings? It is not something that should haunt him... but I think we need to keep in mind, that which true heroism at sea refers... lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:52 PM "I don't understand how the "women and children first" test was bungled???" That proves the point I've been trying to make to you. Earlier you said that 99 out of 99 pilots would have landed the plane safely. We just don't know. According to this report, members of the crew jumped into a life raft - it should be noted that they do not say that Sully was one who was in the raft. Obviously some people do not follow their training. Sully appears to have kept a level head in a time of crisis and followed procedure. 155 people got out safely. The man is a hero, no ifs ands or buts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 09 - 01:04 PM Well, Ron... Like I said, that is your opinion and you can get up on the roof and yell it as loud and long as you wish but in doing so it won't change the fact that that is your opinion... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Big Mick Date: 27 Jan 09 - 01:06 PM Sometimes I just sit and shake my head at what people debate here.... Incredible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 27 Jan 09 - 01:07 PM More than opinion here Bobert. Facts are facts in this case. Your definition differs from the one that most people use. Your opinion is your own, but it doesn't make it fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 27 Jan 09 - 01:07 PM Mick, sometimes there needs to be such debates |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Big Mick Date: 27 Jan 09 - 01:11 PM To argue that the man is not a hero, or whether he acted as a mariner would have...... It just seems that folks love to argue over such a small partof the whole that it all gets taken out of context. I hope Sully is behind the controls of my next flight. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 27 Jan 09 - 01:18 PM Agreed Mick. The only reason I keep taking part in this "discussion" is because the world needs more people like Sully. Many of the folks who participate in these discussions on Mudcat often can be found moaning about the state of the world, the losss of respect in our leaders, failure for contemporary artists or atheletes to be role models, etc. Here comes a story that shows you the value of hard work, cool head, and helping each other - and yet there are people like Bobert who try to deflate it and even accuse others of "hero worship". Goddamn it, let there be hero worship in this case! It sickens me to see muckrackers try to destroy something that is good. The article does NOT even say that Sully abandoned ship, yet there are people who are walking away from this discussion believeing that. Of course we should always uncover the truth, but in this case it comes across as trying to find something that isn't there - or simply some people speaking out of their ass in hopes that others will believe them. Read the stories, listen to the reports. The man is a hero. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 27 Jan 09 - 01:47 PM I did not say he abonded the ship. However, it is a fact, he entered a raft while he had passingers in danger on the wings. Mick, I have been an officer on ships which carried passingers. No one can say what he or she would do in the worst case ... but, we all know what is expected of us. I know, I would not have felt it proper to take my place in one of our boats when passingers were on the sinking ship, if that happened. Everyone who has ever been on the water has taken risks, and most have risked life. We've taken risks for our passingers. What we would do when the water is rising fast around us... that is something else. I just know passingers should be taken off the ship first. lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:08 PM "However, it is a fact, he entered a raft while he had passingers in danger on the wings. " Lorcan - could you point out where that is confirmed? Your article did not mention him being in the raft, it mentioned two "crew members" were on the raft - Sully's name is not given as being one of the crew on the raft. Also, the article is written by one of the survivors. I have not seen other stories of this type. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:34 PM Hey, Rono... I ain't never said that what Sully did was done well... Even admirable... I ain't even tryin' to deflate anyone's opinion that differs from mine... What I have problems with are folks who have apoointed themselves as exclusive members of the "Hero Committee" and that their, and only their, opinions are now elevated to facts not to be questioned by the non member of the exclusive committe... Kinda Bush "Yer either with us or against us" kinda thinking... That kinda dogma isn't about discussion... It's about control... Hey, I couldn't give a rat's ass if 90% of the people in the world think that the guy is a hero... That's fine... That is their right... What I object to is when those 90% think because they are in the majority that that makes their opinions facts... It does not... It just makes for a majority opinion... I mean, look at the mad-dash-to-Iraq.... The majority opinion was that Saddam had WMDs... Problem is that time proved ther majority opinion to be false... I mean, it's fine with me, Rono, if you want to view Sully as a hero... Really... Just please don't go throwing your opinion out as fact and please allow me the same respect to have a differing opinion that I have shown you... Por favor! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Big Mick Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:46 PM I have yet to see it confirmed that he was in the lifeboat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 27 Jan 09 - 02:46 PM Bobert - I have always respected your RIGHT to have an opinion, but I do NOT have to respect that opinion. I am attacking the statements you have made and countering them. If you cannot accept that, I really do not give a rats ass. It becomes evident that your"opinion" cannot hold up to scrutiny. Don't try to hide this as a being a Bush "with us or against us", surely if you read the posts that I have made your realize that is not the case. Everyone has an opinion, it does not make them right. Bush had an opinon. Saddam had an opinion. You have one, it just is not popular nor is it healthy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 09 - 03:24 PM Oh, so now you have demoted yer fact to opinion... That's a good start, Ron... A good start indeed... And I can accept that my opinion may not be the "popular" opinion but I do not accept that my opinion is unhealthy of yours is more healthy... Frankly, I don't even know what health has to do with it one way or another since my opinion isn't really hurting anyone or making them sick... And, conversely, yer's ain't curing anyone of theis illnesses??? But attacking my statements??? Great, just so long as we stay outta that area where one side or the other "proclaims" their opinions to be chizzeled-in-stone facts... That's were the discussion is no longer a discussion... Know what I mean??? That's really what this thread is about... People tend to look at things differently... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 27 Jan 09 - 03:30 PM No, my facts are what they always were. The man is a hero. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Jan 09 - 03:56 PM BOBERTZ MIRACULOUSLY LANDS PIPER CUB FAR UP HIS ASS---OLESKO PROCLAIMS HIM HERO!!! FIRTH AND OTHERS APPLAUD WHILE BOBERTZ INSPECTS SIGMOID COLON!!!Bobertz takes no credit; say he does it all the time.FILM AT 11 Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 09 - 04:01 PM Nah, I'm no hero... I was trained to land Piper Cubs up my own ass.... That's why they call them planes "tail draggers"... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009) From: InOBU Date: 27 Jan 09 - 05:31 PM I hate to disrupt all the opinion with fact... Well... here is a transcript from MSNBC. cite included... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28683246/ As the cabin took on water, Sullenberger climbed out of the jet only after the four other crew members and 150 passengers made their orderly exit. When he reached a raft, someone on a ferry tossed him a knife, and he cut away the tether to the jet. One by one, the passengers were plucked to safety from the rafts, Hood and Sullenberger the last ones left. The passenger insisted the pilot get off first, but Sullenberger refused. He had been the last off the plane, and he would be the last off the raft. _____________ Now, to really cut through the opinion, you have to go to the origional stories, and see what witnesses said. In the Villager interview with the Sosa family, you will see that not all the passingers had access to rafts. The coach passingers had to climb out onto the wings - where, by luck, the plane stayed afloat until they were rescued. There is still a question about why the plane floated as long as it did... it fully sank next to the sea wall at Battery Park, where I photographed it. As you see above, he was the last one out of the rafts. However, armed with the Sosa interview, you realize that the statement above fails to take into account the people still in danger on the wings while he is in the raft. Mr. Sosa fell off the wing into the water at one point, as did several others, who were pulled back onto the wing by fellow passingers. There was an element of luck in the fact that no one died. All the best lor |
