US Airways A320 crashes into Hudson River

For all non-Virgin travel topics, with subforums for popular common themes.
Search
Reply

#704918 by eejp1007
17 Jan 2009, 08:34
That was great footage, and is that Concorde in the background?!?

ETA - Have just discovered the Intrpid Sea Air and Space Museum website. Have a day in New York in two weeks time and now know where I will be going. Looking forward to that.

Has anyone been?

#704919 by Galley Guy
17 Jan 2009, 09:11
I think everyone onboard deserves some form of credit. It sounds to me like the passengers did a fantastic job of helping the crew and helping each other. The Captain did a great job, the passengers did a great job, and I am sure the crew did aswell. I DO hope that this incident will spark an interest in the safety demonstrations. Too often passengers tend to read their books, talk to each other, or totally ignore the video and crew. I am glad people have such confidence in the safety of aircrafts....but you want to know what to do in case things don't go as planned. Anyway I am ranting. A well deserved pat on the back to them all.

#704940 by mike-smashing
17 Jan 2009, 15:53
quote:Originally posted by willd
PPrune members are also asking serious questions about the lack of lifejackets. Looking at pictures more dont have them on than have them on.


I'm guessing there was:

a) Next to no time between the takeoff, the incident that caused the engines to lose power, the decision to ditch being made, and the ditching itself. There may not have been enough time to put lifejackets on.

b) The possibility that the aircraft was not an 'overwater' configured aircraft (i.e. not for flying over oceans and similar large bodies of water), and therefore doesn't have lifejackets, and the seat cushions are used as floatation aids.

Mike

#704946 by Scrooge
17 Jan 2009, 17:44
In regards to B

All US east 320's are equipped for extended flight over water.

#705107 by willd
19 Jan 2009, 11:36
quote:Originally posted by mike-smashing
I'm guessing there was:

a) Next to no time between the takeoff, the incident that caused the engines to lose power, the decision to ditch being made, and the ditching itself. There may not have been enough time to put lifejackets on.



As Dave points out lifejackets were onboard the aircraft. Of course one cannot predict how one will act when faced with something like this but surely putting a lifejacket on would be one of you main concerns? I would have been concerned if I was one of the people waist deep in water, standing on the wing without a lifejacket on! Some correct me if I am wrong but an aircraft is meant to be evacuated in 90 seconds with every passenger wearing a lifejacket. Thus meaning they factor in the putting the lifejacket on.

Plane is now out of the water and will be towed to a secure location. Conflicting reports on a.net about the plane being covered up. Apparently when an aircraft is covered up, its a sign of a write off. Of course US will be hoping its not written off.

#705157 by n/a
19 Jan 2009, 16:51
I read coverage this morning that stated the 'ditch switch' (apologies for not knowing the correct terminology -- Neil, assistance in aisle 5, please) was not flipped. So apparently, if the coverage was correct, the bugger floated long enough anyway.

On another note, if you could get that thing started in the water again, I would totally water ski behind it.

GJ

#705176 by pjh
19 Jan 2009, 18:15
quote:Originally posted by willd
As Dave points out lifejackets were onboard the aircraft. Of course one cannot predict how one will act when faced with something like this but surely putting a lifejacket on would be one of you main concerns? I would have been concerned if I was one of the people waist deep in water, standing on the wing without a lifejacket on! Some correct me if I am wrong but an aircraft is meant to be evacuated in 90 seconds with every passenger wearing a lifejacket. Thus meaning they factor in the putting the lifejacket on.


From the reports I read in the weekend press it sounds like one or two passengers were more concerned about their luggage than their lifejackets.

That said, as to the 90 seconds...mmmm. I watch the whole safety briefing on every flight, and could possibly do that nice little lifejacket twizzle. Have I ever put my hand on a lifejacket ? Nope. Do I know where it is 'under my seat' ? Nope. Perhaps the safety briefing should include that as an exercise...I'll try it on the way home on Friday..

Paul

#705186 by woggledog
19 Jan 2009, 19:17
quote:Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes
I read coverage this morning that stated the 'ditch switch' (apologies for not knowing the correct terminology -- Neil, assistance in aisle 5, please) was not flipped. So apparently, if the coverage was correct, the bugger floated long enough anyway.


What's even more impressive (I know that using the word 'impressive' when talking about an air crash isn't the most sensitive of words) is that it was fueled.... I know that AVGAS is lighter than water, but, even so....

#705308 by willd
20 Jan 2009, 11:30
quote:Originally posted by pjh

That said, as to the 90 seconds...mmmm. I watch the whole safety briefing on every flight, and could possibly do that nice little lifejacket twizzle. Have I ever put my hand on a lifejacket ? Nope. Do I know where it is 'under my seat' ? Nope. Perhaps the safety briefing should include that as an exercise...I'll try it on the way home on Friday..


It is pretty hard to predict how people will act when they are faced by something rather quiet terrifying. I have seen a lifejacket under a seat a couple of times and it is pretty obvious. Rather large yellow thing with red writing on it and a red tab to pull down on. Also have seen one that had fallen out of its pouch and was rolling around on the floor of the aircraft (it was contained in a plastic round container). Now that would be scary, looking under your seat and not finding the lifejacket.

#705347 by Bill S
20 Jan 2009, 17:42
quote:Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes
if you could get that thing started in the water again, I would totally water ski behind it.

Perhaps behind this one GJ? (from 4 mins it gets even more interesting!)

#705367 by n/a
20 Jan 2009, 22:18
quote:Originally posted by Bill S
[quote]Originally posted by GrinningJackanapes
if you could get that thing started in the water again, I would totally water ski behind it.

Perhaps behind this one GJ? (from 4 mins it gets even more interesting!)


I love it!!! Please be sure that mcmbenjamin is the pilot.

Thanks!

GJ

#705385 by pjh
20 Jan 2009, 23:55
quote:Originally posted by willd
It is pretty hard to predict how people will act when they are faced by something rather quiet terrifying. I have seen a lifejacket under a seat a couple of times and it is pretty obvious. Rather large yellow thing with red writing on it and a red tab to pull down on.

True. But I'll bet my RBS shares (and I do have some as I used to work for them) that 90+% of passengers - particularly on a flight mostly over land - have never looked, or felt, where the life jacket is.

Paul

#706615 by Nottingham Nick
30 Jan 2009, 20:02
An even happier ending for the frequent fliers among the passengers. At least, those who are happy to fly again!

All passengers will receive Chairman's Preferred status through March 2010. Chairman's Preferred is US Airways' top frequent-flier status, ....Perks include automatic upgrades on mainland domestic flights, two upgrades on overseas flights, access to a special reservations number and double miles on every flight......

Link to USA Today story.

Nick

#706616 by Scrooge
30 Jan 2009, 20:07
Yeah, chairman's is fantastic [:I][:w]

Just wondering if they got a refund for the baggage fee's they had to pay [:w]

#707324 by locutus
05 Feb 2009, 19:10
The audio from air traffic control and the plane has now been released...

Link

#707344 by iforres1
06 Feb 2009, 08:18
Capt Sully is a pure gem. I listned to the audio conversations last night on the news and the man had ice water running through his veins. Interesting that ATC could not quite grasp the fact that he was going into the Hudson.
My respect for aircrew was always high but after listening to this he deservers to pilot into the stratosphere.

Iain

#707345 by Scrooge
06 Feb 2009, 08:32
quote:Originally posted by iforres1

My respect for aircrew was always high but after listening to this he deservers to pilot into the stratosphere.

Iain


I would prefer an unmanned plane myself, but I like your idea [y]

I think the reason that the ATC couldn't grasp what was going on very quickly was that this is so rare, bird strikes are not, but losing both engines is not a common thing.

Now being the anorak that I am, I have listened to ATC for the NYC area airports and man, these people are good.

Actually I just listened to the tape again, the guy that asks 'which engine' I think is the same one as the kind of famous melt down tape at JFK....I will hunt for it.

#707373 by tontybear
06 Feb 2009, 15:05
Was an amazing landing.

Captain Sully has amlost 550,000+ FB fans too !

In his honour I have named Tonty's new travelling companion (bought on VS040 last November and who has not yet been named)

'Captain Beary B Bearenberger'

Beary will be making his VS debut on my forthcoming NYC trip on VS045 on 5th March and will be available in the CH for people to come and say hello to.

(pic to follow though he looks v distinguished in his pilots uniform !)

#707794 by Howard Long
12 Feb 2009, 10:45
A mate of mine emailed me this last night (apologies if it's done the rounds already):

Image

Cheers, H

#707856 by JAT74L
13 Feb 2009, 00:51
quote:Originally posted by Howard Long
A mate of mine emailed me this last night (apologies if it's done the rounds already):

Image

Cheers, H


Oh dear...[:w]

JT
Virgin Atlantic
Reply
Return to The Baggage Hall

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Itinerary Calendar