Comments on: Yet Another Post on US Airways Crash in the Hudson

By: CF

CF — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:32:50 +0000

Adam – I’m not sure how you jumped to that conclusion from my third point. I haven’t blamed the pilots for anything here. I simply suggest waiting to see what happened. There’s no question that the pilots did a fantastic job of landing the plane and they certainly deserve praise for that, but we still don’t know what led up to the landing, and we won’t know until the final NTSB report is issued. The point is, we should wait to see what actually happened.

I also have to strongly disagree with your assumption that the NTSB will blame the pilots becasue they would never blame anyone else. That’s an incredibly absurd statement. There is no love lost between the NTSB and the FAA nor any other entity. The NTSB does a very good job of getting to the bottom of things and if that involves blaming the FAA, it will certainly happen. You should give the NTSB some credit.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:44:02 +0000

Hey, lets not jump on the “When we can’t figure out what happened, lets just blame the pilots” bandwagon. Your #3 comment sounded a lot like that. The NTSB has to blame someone and the because its a government agency there is now way they would ever blame the FAA, the airport, themselves, or ATC. So when all else fails, blame the pilots. Lame.

By: The End of the Flight 1549 Saga for Now | Flight Wisdom

The End of the Flight 1549 Saga for Now | Flight Wisdom — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:25:20 +0000

[...] Cranky Flier has some good points on his post on the subject. It was the first jet since 1968 to ditch in the water and maintain full structural [...]

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:17:01 +0000

Sulley, despite the seniority and experience, was probably on a narrowbody A320, the minibus as they are called by pilots, for one of two reasons. First, USAirways doesn’t have that many widebodies, 10 767-200′s, and 9 A330-300′s. This means he would be very senior flying domestic and far more junior flying international. Second is probably a lifestyle choice. Being more senior domestic, he got to pick and choose his flights rather than being on reserve internationally or at the bottom of the pile. He still has 7 more years left in his career if he retires at 65, a big if given all his options at the moment. He has a business on the side and two young daughters, so he probably wants to stick closer to home and have more time with for those two priorities. While bigger jets have bigger pay and more glamorous routes, pilots have many reasons why they wouldn’t try to transition to the biggest planes as soon as they could.

By: CF

CF — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:02:44 +0000

Optimist – Well why don’t we split the difference? Now that they pulled the plane out of the water, they found that the #2 (right) engine was still attached. One outta two ain’t bad!

Peter – It will be very interesting to follow the progress of all of these investigations. Thanks for forwarding.

By: Peter Harris

Peter Harris — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:42:10 +0000

CF – Thanks for the clarification. That is correct. USAir and AirFrance both had CFM56 Engines and the Air NZ was IAE. The Airbus safety directive re possible engine stall issues related to the CFM56 engines. (see link below)

The Air NZ crash was Nov 28 and there is still no inidcation of the cause.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/B13C349078EBEE5086257530004EC0A4?OpenDocument

By: CF

CF — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:32:13 +0000

Optimist – I would disagree, but I think the point is that the aircraft remained intact here from a passenger perspective. I’m not going to get further into semantics.

BTW, the US Airways and Air France aircraft had CFM engines but the Air New Zealand bird had IAE engines.

Gary – Good question. I’m hearing that he was Charlotte-based, so I would think the last place you’d want to fly is congested NYC. But maybe it was a tiny piece of a much longer, better trip or maybe he traded with a friend.

And for those who are interested, we have our first video:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/01/17/coast.guard.crash.landing.coastguard

By: The Traveling Optimist

The Traveling Optimist — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:46:22 +0000

Gary – I was talking with some Lufthansa pilots one day. There is/was a tradition at that airline that, for the most part, the most junior pilots fly the long-haul intercontinental trips. The senior pilots like to stay closer to home – go out, do the day job, home in time for dinner. The young bucks with no families or have oats to sew roam the world at will.

Fear not for seniority related safety at Lufthansa. The training they get is the envy of some air forces.

That plus pay, of course. Jr. pilots earn more on longer flights. Sr. pilots who don’t necessarily need the money can earn what they need off the shuttle flights within Germany and quick hops to London.

Some of that is probably true here in the US. The US pilot, I reason, has nothing to prove, loves his job, has a gig on the side and a family at home he’d like to spend time with.

By: The Traveling Optimist

The Traveling Optimist — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:28:37 +0000

Mr. Barnard is not far off in federal driving standards. Such a system is in place in Germany, for one country. There are no mom&pop driving schools or “learning from Dad” situations. Everyone wanting to drive is required to take the ADAC course before getting behind the wheel. Regardless of stripe or background, every German citizen receives the exact same standardized training. Considering the autobahn, it’s nice to know most of the people on the roads know what to expect from their fellow drivers.

Of course, Germany is also a country with extensive public transport such that not everyone, even the farthest suburbs of Munich, has to drive to get to work.

There was a time when only 4-engine planes dared to cross the oceans. Then “3-holers” with the DC-10 and L-1011. The first ETOPS twin-engines were only given 120 minutes from land as their overwater limit. The airlines pushed for and got 180 minutes thru the arguements of advanced technology, engine reliability and, of course, fuel economy.

All human life is precious, I agree. Looking at some of those neck-choking life vests the passengers had on, however, I don’t know if they could a 300-pound man above water for long!

By: Nicholas Barnard

Nicholas Barnard — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:31:15 +0000

Mark, Yes I did say that.

Re: “benefit analysis be done on carrying life-jackets vs. the amount of human life that will potentially be lost” The FAA has done this analysis, and they require different flotation devices depending on how many nautical miles from shore the plane is going to fly. There are three different standards that I know of, the minimum requiring just seat cushion flotation devices, the middle standard requiring life vests, and the maxumum requiring life vests and rafts.

Air travel is the safest way to travel, and in some ways is a luxury. Lets consider automobile travel for a comparison. We could require that the safety standards of say-Volvos be included in all vehicles, and that every driver on the road be required to have the safety training and safety equipment of NASCAR drivers. The tradeoff would be that driving would become so expensive that very few people could do so, and the less economically well off would be unable to drive to their jobs, or would have to accept a job of less mobility which would ultimately reduce the quality of their life. That would be cold and heartless.

The same analysis in accessability versus safety has been made in airline travel, and given the airline travel is the safest form of travel, I think we’re doing quite well.