Film Of Airbus Hudson River ' Splashdown' !

[Blib]

http://www.truveo.com/Newly-released-video-shows-p...

[Nickyboy]

Nothing that wasnt released the day after it happened

[jimmyb]

Interestingly didnt seem to flare that much? Not a pilot or genius but surely you want to kill as much speed as possible before hitting the water and a huge amount of flare a second or two before landing would surely pull a load of speed off?

[jimmyjimjim]

And make it strike tail first and break in half?

That's happenend in a few ditching attmepts, I imagine there's an optimum angle and speed to take.

[eharding]

jimmyb said:

Interestingly didnt seem to flare that much? Not a pilot or genius but surely you want to kill as much speed as possible before hitting the water and a huge amount of flare a second or two before landing would surely pull a load of speed off?

Then you would be faced with a high angle of attack with the speed decaying and your control authority mushing away to nothing, with the front end a few dozen feet in the water, and the tail possibly already in the water - if you drop a wing, even a foot or so, and the engines don't meet the water at exactly the same time, then there is a strong chance of the whole thing tumbling and breaking up. Probably.

Edited: All of the Airbus drivers at the local flying club did seem to be *very* interested to find out the attitude adopted for the ditching, before the pictures were published. I suspect this event may well redefine the SOP for low-slung engine heavy ditching in future.

Edited by eharding on Friday 23 January 21:39

[pokethepope]

Not wishing to downplay the role of the pilots skill, it obviously took a lot to make such a good outcome, but i think it was down to a huge amount of luck, news reports from pilots and experts said the angle and speed needed to land without it breaking up are so slim its nigh on impossible.

[jimmyb]

eharding said:

jimmyb said:

Interestingly didnt seem to flare that much? Not a pilot or genius but surely you want to kill as much speed as possible before hitting the water and a huge amount of flare a second or two before landing would surely pull a load of speed off?

Then you would be faced with a high angle of attack with the speed decaying and your control authority mushing away to nothing, with the front end a few dozen feet in the water, and the tail possibly already in the water - if you drop a wing, even a foot or so, and the engines don't meet the water at exactly the same time, then there is a strong chance of the whole thing tumbling and breaking up. Probably.

Edited: All of the Airbus drivers at the local flying club did seem to be *very* interested to find out the attitude adopted for the ditching, before the pictures were published. I suspect this event may well redefine the SOP for low-slung engine heavy ditching in future.

Edited by eharding on Friday 23 January 21:39

Ok appreciated but do you really lose that much control that you cant drop the nose back down and level out as it were at the last second?

[dougc]

jimmyb said:

eharding said:

jimmyb said:

Interestingly didnt seem to flare that much? Not a pilot or genius but surely you want to kill as much speed as possible before hitting the water and a huge amount of flare a second or two before landing would surely pull a load of speed off?

Then you would be faced with a high angle of attack with the speed decaying and your control authority mushing away to nothing, with the front end a few dozen feet in the water, and the tail possibly already in the water - if you drop a wing, even a foot or so, and the engines don't meet the water at exactly the same time, then there is a strong chance of the whole thing tumbling and breaking up. Probably.

Edited: All of the Airbus drivers at the local flying club did seem to be *very* interested to find out the attitude adopted for the ditching, before the pictures were published. I suspect this event may well redefine the SOP for low-slung engine heavy ditching in future.

Edited by eharding on Friday 23 January 21:39

Ok appreciated but do you really lose that much control that you cant drop the nose back down and level out as it were at the last second?

Have a look on youtube for the video of the 767 that went down off the coast of Africa a few years ago after running out of fuel after a hijack. I think its was Ethiopian though I'm ready to be corrected. Not going to post a link as its in fairly poor taste. A lot of people died. Its a pretty good demonstration of what happens if you catch a motor in the water at speed.

[SS HSV]

Either way, I have not seen the footage until now and I must say that that is nothing short of a miracle.

Well done to the pilot and the rapidly responding boats in the area

[XB70]

Did not see that either!

Wow

Reckon he took tips from the "Could a PH'er land a plane" epic thread of 2008?

Just incredible

[jimmyb]

Tell you what we should enlist the pilot onto ph and get him to do test all our aircraft theories like airplane and conveyor belts.

[loafer123]

My view is that the best indication that the pilot of the Hudson River splashdown was qualified was his glider experience.

Slow speed gentle landings must be a very delicate affair...

[Muze ST]

jimmyb said:

Interestingly didnt seem to flare that much? Not a pilot or genius but surely you want to kill as much speed as possible before hitting the water and a huge amount of flare a second or two before landing would surely pull a load of speed off?

Actually, to land on water you want to do what a glider does. Doesn't flare but flys level and loses speed to fall that extra few feet just before it hits the ground. A glider uses its speed brake at half open normally and its land that way. Having hitting the tail on the water would have broke the tail off and thats not what you want to happen. Also landing on the water takes away the engine losing vital weight, making the plane float for that extra few mins.

[MonkeyBusiness]

Turns out terrorists were involved all along

[mybrainhurts]

[gazza_3]

[dougc]

Uh-oh - Al Quanida Geese!

[jimmyb]

Muze ST said:

jimmyb said:

Interestingly didnt seem to flare that much? Not a pilot or genius but surely you want to kill as much speed as possible before hitting the water and a huge amount of flare a second or two before landing would surely pull a load of speed off?

Actually, to land on water you want to do what a glider does. Doesn't flare but flys level and loses speed to fall that extra few feet just before it hits the ground. A glider uses its speed brake at half open normally and its land that way. Having hitting the tail on the water would have broke the tail off and thats not what you want to happen. Also landing on the water takes away the engine losing vital weight, making the plane float for that extra few mins.

Ok maybe i havent explained or am not getting it but what i was suggesting was putting nose up high to bleed speed very quickly then dropping the nose to land just moderately nose up so as to pull the engines off without hitting tail first.

[eccles]

jimmyb said:

Muze ST said:

jimmyb said:

Interestingly didnt seem to flare that much? Not a pilot or genius but surely you want to kill as much speed as possible before hitting the water and a huge amount of flare a second or two before landing would surely pull a load of speed off?

Actually, to land on water you want to do what a glider does. Doesn't flare but flys level and loses speed to fall that extra few feet just before it hits the ground. A glider uses its speed brake at half open normally and its land that way. Having hitting the tail on the water would have broke the tail off and thats not what you want to happen. Also landing on the water takes away the engine losing vital weight, making the plane float for that extra few mins.

Ok maybe i havent explained or am not getting it but what i was suggesting was putting nose up high to bleed speed very quickly then dropping the nose to land just moderately nose up so as to pull the engines off without hitting tail first.

It's an airliner and it's real life. It's not a fighter in a film.

[fathomfive]

eccles said:

jimmyb said:

Muze ST said:

jimmyb said:

Interestingly didnt seem to flare that much? Not a pilot or genius but surely you want to kill as much speed as possible before hitting the water and a huge amount of flare a second or two before landing would surely pull a load of speed off?

Actually, to land on water you want to do what a glider does. Doesn't flare but flys level and loses speed to fall that extra few feet just before it hits the ground. A glider uses its speed brake at half open normally and its land that way. Having hitting the tail on the water would have broke the tail off and thats not what you want to happen. Also landing on the water takes away the engine losing vital weight, making the plane float for that extra few mins.

Ok maybe i havent explained or am not getting it but what i was suggesting was putting nose up high to bleed speed very quickly then dropping the nose to land just moderately nose up so as to pull the engines off without hitting tail first.

It's an airliner and it's real life. It's not a fighter in a film.

Agreed.

Can't understand the conjecture on here. The pilot managed to save everyone on board, so surely he must have done something right, wouldn't you say? He didn't just close his eyes and effectively pin the tail on the donkey now, did he?