It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Airways Plane down in the Hudson river

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Now why would a successful consultant and CEO of Safetyreliability,Inc., who lives in Danville, CA be piloting a regular commuter flight from NY to Charlotte? Sure, he's a pilot, still, however, I do find it interesting that a one-in-a-million crash that doesn't break apart the plane,from a one-in-a- million strike that takes out both engines ("flock" that doesn't hit windshield, tail, or any other part of the plane) is accomplished by the one pilot who has a business that gives lectures and expert consultations for flight emergencies. Oh, and the passengers- Bank of America, Merrill-Lynch etc., on the financial news all day already haggling over more TARP money. Hmmmm. I'm sure it's purely coincidental.




posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
The difficulty in the rescue had to be how do we get the
people in to the rescue boats.
Not a normal operation.

Once on the ferry boats they might have some heat.

Standing on the wing for rescue was amazing.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
great by the pilot indeed, but most of geese are still here due to the usa owning the weather by 2025, we live in a totally obscured place so the geese being unable to see the sky to navigate are just sitting in the water, thinking to themselves WTF, but still here as of today, so perhaps you are correct bin laden sent them from his hideout in afganistan as a pay back!



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Kudos to the air crew, the passengers, and rescue parties.. This was a textbook case of how it should be done.


Though I am really concerned about the pets.. Can we confirm if there were any animal losses due to drowning?

Finally.. Anyone on ATS a passenger on this flight? Sure would make for an awesome first person narration!

EDIT: Some info on pets aboard us airways flights:



Pets in cargo compartment
Our hub cities of Phoenix and Las Vegas have extreme temperatures that regularly exceed 100 degrees. For the safety of your pet, US Airways does not accept any animals in its cargo compartments.

Exception cities
US Airways accepts dogs, domestic cats and birds as checked baggage on nonstop US Airways Shuttle flights in the BOS/DCA/LGA markets only. Connections are not permitted. The customer must travel on the same flight. Customers should advise US Airways when they wish to transport a pet as checked baggage on a US Airways Shuttle flight.


Source

So pets could have been in the cargo hold for this flight?



[edit on 16-1-2009 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Well, I must say this is probably as good as any plane crash can get. No fatalities? That's so good to hear.


I hope any injured only got scratches and bruises. It would be great to see everyone involved make a full recovery. But I bet the trauma will be severe.

Imagine going down in a plane convinced everyone was going to die. It will take a while for them to get over it, if they ever do.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
lucky,how very lucky....guess the matrix is in a good mood.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3Can we confirm if there were any animal losses due to drowning?



As most animals are placed in the cargo hold downstairs there are no way one can evacuate them in case of a water landing.

That said a water landing is a highly non standard way to land an airliner, and few if any airlines have procedures beside evacuating the passenger cabin.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


yea well.. that's all fine n' dandy.. I'm not pointing fingers at rescue procedures or structural design issues here.. I was just eager to know if there were any animal casualties.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Strictly a guess, but the instant they cracked open the doors, cabin pressure would have normalized and the plane would have lowered in the water enough to start taking on water at the base of the open doors. Notice the doors on an Airbus 320 is pretty low. Also, I doubt they even had the landing gear up and locked yet, let alone the cargo holds presurized.
farm3.static.flickr.com...

At sea level, the plane should never be pressurised. The doors are bigger than the door frame, they have to be turned sideways to fit through. If it were pressurised, they would not be abled to open the doors, as in Saudia Flight 163. Dense, pressurised is far heavier than unpressurised air, try lifting a full SCUBA tank compared to an empty one.


Good lord, that's such a sad thought. I hope that there weren't any animals on board.

Come on guys, it was a plane crash and everyone survived. Atleast it wasn't like Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961.


I'm not saying it wasn't amazing - but this is a conspiracy site - aren't we supposed to at least question the amazing?

Question that people didn't grab seat lifejackets? Oh no? A conspiracy about life jackets in aircraft.... right...



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
It couldn`t land on a runway - it didn`t have enough time to dump the fuel to land vaguely near MLW



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
It couldn`t land on a runway - it didn`t have enough time to dump the fuel to land vaguely near MLW


Landing above MLOW is fine, overweight landing inspection with less than 360 fpm consists simply of a visual inspection of the tires. A320 cannot dump fuel. It didn't have enough time to reach a runway.

[edit on 16/1/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
What do you think about the fuel being lighter than water
and helping to keep the plane afloat.

Duping the fuel all over Manhattan skies would have been
too much of a change in the flight characteristics.

And the water puts out the engine fires.

Very fortunate set of events.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequinit didn`t have enough time to dump the fuel to land vaguely near MLW


Like most of the B737's the A320 family can't dump fuel, however an overweight landing is perfectly ok as long as you don't put it down too hard.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen


As most animals are placed in the cargo hold downstairs there are no way one can evacuate them in case of a water landing.


US Airways lets you take your pet in the cabin with you on that particular flight.

"Pets in cabin count toward the carry-on baggage allowance. Pets must remain inside their approved container under the seat directly in front of you."



Mikey

[edit on 16/1/2009 by Mikey84]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


It is very unlikely the engines were truely on fire; some small flames out the back end is really no big deal. The engines would of probably sheared off the moment it hit the water.


Duping the fuel all over Manhattan skies would have been
too much of a change in the flight characteristics.

A320 cannot dump fuel. A320 at maximum takeoff weight, which it was probably not at, is only 14% above Maximum landing weight. New York to Charlotte is only 500 miles so it's not like it would be above max landing weight anyway. Max landing weight is usually for climb out requirements, which the A320 can meet anyway.


The pertinent articles are FAR 25.1001 and the required performance in 25.119 and 25.121.
25.1001 states :
Sec. 25.1001 Fuel jettisoning system.

(a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed on each airplane unless it is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of Secs. 25.119 and 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, go-around, and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane configuration, speed, power, and thrust the same as that used in meeting the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance requirements of this part.


Dumping fuel makes the plane lighter so it can meet climb out requirements. A320 doesn't need it. Many planes don't need it. Doesn't change flying characteristics dramatically, although you need more airspeed to fly, when heavy.


What do you think about the fuel being lighter than water
and helping to keep the plane afloat.

Possible I guess. Tanks were probably full of air too. And the fuselage is not completely air tight, so it would of probably filled up slowly.

[edit on 16/1/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mikey84In my airline we're allowed to let cats, small dogs, rats and so on to travel in the cabin as long as they are in a company approved container



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


thanks to both you and ivar - i actually thought the 320 had a fuel dump , although i know the older boeings dont (737 and 757) all the new stuff does.

top show


this video is of a boeing 757 at manchester airport ingesting 1 (possibly 2) geese into an engine - you can see what happens when it happens




posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I have to say I didn't know an airliner could actually survive a water landing that intact. Although I would like to know if the engines are still on the wings though, since they would make a large force on contact with the water, and they are designed to be able to come off.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
and from a pilot's perspective, the best way to ditch is to try to put the tail in first....so it is a nose-high attitude when you impact the water....because, the engines, being under the wings, might cause much drag if they hit first.

Of course, engine mounts are designed to shear under great stresses, and the wings are mostly bouyant, since a lot of the wing structure is hollow


How far into the ditching procedure would the pilot have to pull up the nose though? I'd have thought that would slow it down quite a lot, as well as at slow speed stalling it considering the angle of attack to get the rear to touch the water first.

Anyway, it's a damn good pilot to land like that.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Leto
 


maybe it was a planned diversion to take attention off recent un bombings
in gaza



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Exhile
 


Exhile......your post is so abhorrent, that I lack the ability to say any more.

Except.....you are a MORON!!!!

(unless you can direct a flock of geese to take down an airplane, then in that mode, you are God.....)


Do you really believe geese or birds can take down the engine of a plane? Especially, a turbofan of an airline jet? Pilots nowadays can safely and securely land planes with no landing gear. This plane was downed intentionally 5 days before Obama is sworn in. Bush is demonstrating the power of the White House to the president-elect.

Bush is known to shock & awe people by surprising them and he has done so with the downed flight of US Airways. Even other countries such as Russia, Spain, France and the UK have done similar actions but it's not in the perception of the public's eye.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join