BS: Plane Ditches In Hudson River (15 Jan 2009)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 08:30 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:30 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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
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
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: 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: 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