Captain Sullenberger: What's Missing in Pilot Training 

Ambe AtrOnc0

In aviation there are lots of hard headed people who are not humble and self centered

And the less they know they more they criticize!!

Agreed. Too often, those who can't criticize those who can.

I am pretty sure he didn't make any mistakes. Those that say he did, to me, obviously don't know what they are talking about.

Yep. Maybe we ask Sully to go into politics. I would love to listen to Sully do a state of the union talk (speech).

He's certainly more qualified than the current guy in charge....

Today, most pilots don’t know how to fly the plane manually. When they say “I HAVE THE 7,000 HOURS FLYING”, they mean I have 7,000 hour pushing buttons.

Great pilot 👨‍✈️........can’t believe the NTSB would cross examine this man after the outstanding job of landing the plane ✈️ in the river......saving 155 lives......it is a cruel world we live in

@@dany6711 That's the NTSB's job, a fact which Sully and Jeff Skiles have both stressed to audiences in the years since. In fact, the final NTSB report included over 30 safety recommendations based on this flight, of which the FAA has mandated only a very few. The NTSB investigations of all accidents involving transportation are comprehensive, thorough, and very necessary to ensure the advancement of safety procedure and protocols. The difference here, of course, is that the pilots survived to tell their story, which is ultimately why the general public is now more aware of the purpose of the NTSB. In many, if not most, accidents, the pilots have not survived.

There are thousands of us out there, superbly trained pilots, flying passengers safely all over the country and the world.

@Benji P True. I started flying in 1958. Flew everything from J-3's, Champs, Cessna -150's, Etc. B727, B757, B767. UH-1, Bell 212, B214, S-76. Retired on the 767.

The “Miracle on the Hudson” was indeed a miracle when you consider the Fact that the Proper Procedures for an Emergency Water Landing (Ditching) of an Airliner were Not Fully Executed! - Two HUGE Mistakes were made in the "Miracle on the Hudson" Ditching: 1. Sully and his First Officer Failed to turn on the Ditch Switch before the ditching, and 2. The Air-Head Flight Attendant Doreen Failed to Speak Up and STOP the Panicked Female Passenger from opening one of the Rear Emergency Escape doors after the ditching (which were both below the water line - and Should Never Be Opened after a landing in water!) As a result of these Two HUGE Mistakes - the passenger cabin began to immediately take on a LOT of water - rapidly flooding the passenger cabin with (Ice Cold) water - making the aircraft sink into the water Much Faster than it should have! And if it wasn't for NY Waterways being right there ASAP - many of the passengers in the Rapidly Sinking Airliner would have Drowned or Died of Exposure in the Ice Cold Water! So in reality - given the Two HUGE Mistakes that were made - it really was a MIRACLE that everyone was able to get away from that situation Alive! A Very Special Thanks is owed to NY Waterways and the Key Role they played in covering for the Blunders of the Flight Crew - The operators of NY Waterways were the Real Saviors of the day!

Bill DeFalco The ditch switch would have made little difference. The plane hit the water so hard that it tore a hole in its belly causing lots of water to flood in. No, I dont believe it was a miracle, just a lot of things that went right.

WRONG! Activating the Ditch Switch would have sealed the air pressure equalization vents in the floor of the passenger compartment, which would have prevented the water in the baggage compartment from flooding into the Passenger Compartment and this would have not only enabled the aircraft to stay afloat much longer, it would have also reduced the Trauma on the passengers by keeping the water out of the passenger compartment during the evacuation. Sully and his First Officer’s failure to turn on the Ditch Switch prior to the ditching was a Big Mistake and another Big Lesson to be learned by all Pilots and Flight Crew who find themselves in a ditching situation. Many of the things that are learned by Pilots should be committed to memory, and not require reading a checklist to know when these things need to be done. The excuse given by the First Officer in this instance for his failure to turn on the Ditch Switch was that it was at the bottom of a long checklist that he did not have the time to get to, prior to the ditching. But that is a Very Poor Excuse! It should have been Second Nature to Both Pilots to reach up and Turn the Ditch Switch ON before the ditching - without having to be prompted to do so by a checklist. Being a Good Pilot means Knowing your Aircraft - and that includes Knowing the Purpose and Function of Every Switch and Button in the Cockpit. The Ditch Switch is Well Labeled and in Plain View of Both Pilots on the overhead panel right above their heads. If Sully and his First Officer were totally on their Game - that switch would have been Turned On before the ditching - and there’s no discussion or debating their Failure to do so - it was a Big Mistake that allowed more water to flood into the passenger cabin. And that along with the panicked and ignorant passenger’s opening one of the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors, causing water to flood into the passenger cabin - made the aircraft sink into the water much faster than it should have. If it wasn’t for the rapid response by New York Waterways in getting right to the rapidly sinking aircraft - there would have been many deaths from drowning, and from exposure to the ice cold water. The ignorance of the panicked female passenger who opened one of the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors is very plain to see here, for she most certainly did not pay full attention to the Flight Attendants’ Passenger Safety Briefing (at the start of each flight after the doors are closed and the aircraft is being pushed back from the terminal) - she apparently did not take a few moments to read the Emergency Procedures Card (in every seat-back and seat-side pocket on every commercial passenger aircraft). Had she looked over that Emergency Procedures Card - as directed by the Flight Attendants in their Passenger Safety Briefing - she would have seen the warning not to use either of the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors after a Water Landing. In the final analysis - it is ultimately the Pilot who is in full command and fully responsible for everything on each airline flight that they are assigned to. A thorough review of Sully’s actions in this instance would not give him an A+ or even an A for the manner I which he handled the situation but rather, he would be given at most a B+ for his performance because everyone on board did survive - despite the mistakes that were made, which caused unnecessary stress and trauma on the passengers and confused the Flight Crew, who were not alerted about the imminent ditching. Having to evacuate an aircraft that landed in water was bad enough on the passengers - but having to deal with and wade through the freezing cold water flooding into the aircraft after the ditching because of Sully’s errors made the situation far more traumatizing on the passengers then it had to be.

The pressure equalization vents for equalizing the pressure in the passenger cabin and the baggage compartment (below the passenger cabin) are located all along the side of the passenger floor. - Source: www.quora.com/Is-the-pressure-in-an-airplane-passenger-cabin-and-cargo-hold-different

You have No Idea of what you are talking about! Please go and READ and LEARN about what you are saying before you say it!!!

Sully is still the best.

@@nillyk5671 Really?

Glad it wasn't at night response time of the passenger boats would have been up to an hour vrs minutes. Their would have been fatalities if it was in the middle of a night. But all of them were needed to pull this off. But Sully was the 🔑 to this rescue proven by the simulators. All 155 could have been fatalities vrs All Alive.

I noticed that too. Jeff seems to have a great and rather sharp sense of humour. He must be fun to fly with.

I think Jeff is flying Boeing 787 Dreamliners now, mostly international flights. I read in one relatively recent interview that he chooses to fly as a First Officer because he's senior in that position and thus able to control his schedule. Since the Hudson River flight, like Sully he's been active on the public speaking circuit and heavily involved with advocating for aviation safety issues in Washington. He's also published dozens of articles in various aviation journals/magazines, some of which are posted on his website. He's an excellent writer and I hope he'll write his own memoir when he retires.

Skiles played a part, but it was all on Sully to place it on the water without destroying the aircraft.

Actually, the movie version, according to both Sully and Jeff, was accurate, especially the flight/rescue sequences. The only issue they took was with how the NTSB was portrayed. Interestingly, Tom Hanks revealed in one interview that the movie was actually less dramatic and emotional than what Sully described to him. Jeff Skiles wrote an insightful and thoughtful review of the film in one of his columns in an aviation journal--you can find it on his website.

Thats a total crock! As a pilot you can only control so many things and the water is not one of those! You can train the simple basics- airspeed, AOA, dump fuel or not, pilot-to-cabin communication. The other basics for water landings , such as angle of landing vs wave direction, direction of plane vs possible shore features - all are simple to teach TODAY. You simply have NO idea what you are talking about

simulating a fluid such as water which is affected by currents, air passing over and water displacement by other objects such as ships is very very difficult. Even if you had the hardware to run it, the programming it takes to simulate is not possible at this time as there isn't a way to put an equation to the way a fluid acts. The only way to do it is to create tiny tiny drop size balls and input basic physics such as gravity in and multiply those balls times however many it would take to fill say a lake. At that point.....it comes back to the fact that we as human beings have not invented hardware capable of rendering that quantity of little drops with each being affected by physics on a computer. It is currently impossible to simulate water. Period

I encourage you to indulge in learning about Navier-Stokes equations and how to discretely solve them using finite volume schemes.

Nonsense, any good old super computer can simulate fluid dynamics and from that you take a fluid behavior model that any sim computer can run and train on that. We can simulate the exhaust gas of a rocket engine for prolonged burn times down to the atom. We can do a silly water simulation any time (if we want to)

Please realise that the for mentioned comment was made 4 years ago and technology has improved drastically, yet as a aspiring chemical engineer whom' we study fluids it is yet possible to accurately model a bulk fluid. To this day we still use correlations derived from experimentation and estimate our models with an error of 20%, the enormous factors that must be considered is incomprehensible. Just saying a super computer can do this and that is just false. If you want to study how a aircraft reacts when it hits water you're gonna have to spend millions flying props into water and under different conditions yet that will still not be enough as it just isn't accurate enough. It is impossible to predict the physics to this date.

The “Miracle on the Hudson” was indeed a miracle when you consider the Fact that the Proper Procedures for an Emergency Water Landing (Ditching) of an Airliner were Not Fully Executed! - Two HUGE Mistakes were made in the "Miracle on the Hudson" Ditching: 1. Sully and his First Officer Failed to turn on the Ditch Switch before the ditching, and 2. The Air-Head Flight Attendant Doreen Failed to Speak Up and STOP the Panicked Female Passenger from opening one of the Rear Emergency Escape doors after the ditching (which were both below the water line - and Should Never Be Opened after a landing in water!) As a result of these Two HUGE Mistakes - the passenger cabin began to immediately take on a LOT of water - rapidly flooding the passenger cabin with (Ice Cold) water - making the aircraft sink into the water Much Faster than it should have! And if it wasn't for NY Waterways being right there ASAP - many of the passengers in the Rapidly Sinking Airliner would have Drowned or Died of Exposure in the Ice Cold Water! So in reality - given the Two HUGE Mistakes that were made - it really was a MIRACLE that everyone was able to get away from that situation Alive! A Very Special Thanks is owed to NY Waterways and the Key Role they played in covering for the Blunders of the Flight Crew - The operators of NY Waterways were the Real Saviors of the day!

Your wrong! here is why! HE SAVED EVERYONE AND THAT IS THE BIG WIN! CANT DISPUTE THIS regardless of all the other bull shit, THEY ARE ALL STILL HERE SO IT WAS DONE RIGHT, PERIOD! LET IT GO!

For you to say it was done right when in fact there were Serious Errors made - including Sully and his First Officer’s complete failure to inform all of the passengers and the Flight Attendants (via the PA system) that they had to make an emergency landing in the Hudson River - clearly shows your lack of knowledge about flight operations. The only announcement from the Pilots was Sully’s announcement before the ditching to “Brace”. You are missing some very important points here because you are obviously not a Pilot and you've probably never been a member of a flight crew as a First Officer (Co-Pilot) or as a Flight Attendant. People in these capacities, such as myself (an FAA Licensed Pilot) are trained to identify and study the mistakes of others, and to apply what we learn from their mistakes to make our own flight operations safer, by not repeating the same mistakes. In this instance, there is also a Very Important Lesson to be learned by everyone who flies as passengers on board commercial airliners. The panicked female passenger who opened one of the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors after the water landing put everyone on board that aircraft in jeopardy, and made the situation far more serious and dangerous than it had to be, because her actions allowed the cabin to rapidly start flooding with (ice cold) water. After a water landing the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors Should Never Be Opened by any passenger on the aircraft - unless instructed to do so by a member of the Flight Crew. If the ditching (water landing) itself is properly executed (as it was in this case) where the airliner does not break up on impact but instead it remains intact, then after it comes to a stop in the water the tail of the aircraft will quickly settle into the water, putting the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors below the water line. Opening either one of these doors will allow water to rush in and flood the passenger cabin. The flight attendant (Doreen) seated in the rear of the plane should have warned the passengers seated beside the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors - Not to open those doors but instead - to move towards the front of the aircraft to evacuate. But Flight Attendant Doreen state that she did not even know that the aircraft landed in the water and she said that’s why she took no action and did nothing and said nothing as a panicked female passenger rushed by her and opened one of the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors. An announcement over the PA System by the Pilots prior to the ditching - informing everyone that they had to make an emergency landing in the Hudson River due to the loss of power on both engines - would have made Doreen well aware of the imminent ditching, which should have made her Loudly Warn the passengers seated by the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors - Not to open either one of those doors after the ditching. Furthermore - Sully or the First Officer should have also said prior to the ditching: “Do Not Open the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors after the water landing - Use only the middle and forward Emergency Escape Doors to evacuate the aircraft”. Sully and his First Officer’s failure to turn on the Ditch Switch prior to the ditching was another Big Mistake and another Big Lesson to be learned by all Pilots and Flight Crew who find themselves in a ditching situation. Many of the things that are learned by Pilots should be committed to memory, and not require reading a checklist to know when these things need to be done. The excuse given by the First Officer in this instance for his failure to turn on the Ditch Switch was that it was at the bottom of a long checklist that he did not have the time to get to, prior to the ditching. But that is a Very Poor Excuse! It should have been Second Nature to Both Pilots to reach up and Turn the Ditch Switch ON before the ditching - without having to be prompted to do so by a checklist. Being a Good Pilot means Knowing your Aircraft - and that includes Knowing the Purpose and Function of Every Switch and Button in the Cockpit. The Ditch Switch is Well Labeled and in Plain View of Both Pilots on the overhead panel right above their heads. If Sully and his First Officer were totally on their Game - that switch would have been Turned On before the ditching - and there’s no discussion or debating their Failure to do so - it was a Big Mistake that allowed more water to flood into the passenger cabin. And that along with the panicked and ignorant passenger’s opening one of the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors, causing water to flood into the passenger cabin - made the aircraft sink into the water much faster than it should have. If it wasn’t for the rapid response by New York Waterways in getting right to the rapidly sinking aircraft - there would have been many deaths from drowning, and from exposure to the ice cold water. The ignorance of the panicked female passenger who opened one of the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors is very plain to see here, for she most certainly did not pay full attention to the Flight Attendants’ Passenger Safety Briefing (at the start of each flight after the doors are closed and the aircraft is being pushed back from the terminal) - she apparently did not take a few moments to read the Emergency Procedures Card (in every seat-back and seat-side pocket on every commercial passenger aircraft). Had she looked over that Emergency Procedures Card - as directed by the Flight Attendants in their Passenger Safety Briefing - she would have seen the warning not to use either of the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors after a Water Landing. In the final analysis - it is ultimately the Pilot who is in full command and fully responsible for everything on each airline flight that they are assigned to. A thorough review of Sully’s actions in this instance would not give him an A+ or even an A for the manner I which he handled the situation but rather, he would be given at most a B+ for his performance because everyone on board did survive - despite the mistakes that were made, which caused unnecessary stress and trauma on the passengers and confused the Flight Crew, who were not alerted about the imminent ditching. Having to evacuate an aircraft that landed in water was bad enough on the passengers - but having to deal with and wade through the freezing cold water flooding into the aircraft after the ditching because of Sully’s errors made the situation far more traumatizing on the passengers then it had to be. For you to say - Let it Go - is a totally inappropriate statement, in the review of this event. It is Imperative that the lessons learned from the mistakes that were made (as detailed above) be imprinted in the minds of the Pilots, the Flight Attendants - and indeed even in the minds of Every Passenger who steps on board an airliner!

Sorry to disappoint you numb nuts but! YES I AM A PILOT, air cargo and instructor, have been for 40 years and yes I have ditched and yes there are always those in the butt position ready to tell you your wrong when you and all your people are still walking and yes that happened to me! SUCCESS IS MEASURED BY YOUR SURVIVAL NOT A MANUAL! GOD GET A LIFE MAN!!

BOY YOU SAID THAT ONE RIGHT ALL THE WAY!

this is one of two things that Sully complaints about A320 - first is fly-by-wire making sidestick less precise and Airbus'es QRH where losing both engines is prepared for cruizing altitude, not 2800 ft agl (this flaw in fly-by-wire also added a lot in AFR447 A330 crash)

Did you actually listen to the video - to the end? Airlines cut training sessions due to probability and costs.

Could you elaborate? Gliding specifications of passenger planes should we incorporated in all good flight simulators.

> If there were no regulation, would airlines tend to do less? Or even more? Ok, there are two options. A) They would do more. Well, they can do it already, right? B) They would do less to cut costs. What Sully is saying that they are start doing only as much as is mandatory by the FAA, and this is not as much as he would call optimal. Now you pick your answer what would happen if it there was no regulation.

Probably a good point. But on the other hand, manual flying is excellent at emergencies, but probable less safe in normal circumstances.

Its an essential skill to have, you never know when the A/P could fail or disengages due to conflicts

All I can do is to agree. FYI, captain Sullenberger was at that time a certified glider pilot: www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a6309/4299754/ The plane had probably one of the best crews possible at that moment.

don't forget that Skiles had just completed his training for the aircraft

Automation is another layer of flight control on top of old-fashion stick and rudder skills. A good pilot will practice hand flying the aircraft periodically to keep his/her manual abilities up to date, even to the extent of flying it raw-data (without the FD, AP, and A/T engaged). This the training departments didn't use to think of as a good idea, they wanted automation on most of the time.

They do. They also revised the procedure to follow in case of all-engine failure at low-speed and low-altitude.

2 reasons mainly: 1) Because as Flight 370 clearly showed even without training it is still pretty much something that can be accomplished and even when they are not as successful as this one (for example Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961) there is still a high enough percentage of survivors to justify the benefit of having them. Just remember to inflate your jacket AFTER you exit the plane. 2) In the still very unlikely but more common than a water landing event, of a runway overrun into water (specially in the land-reclamation happy times we live in today) those jackets will be very useful.

Because in the case of a crash in the ocean all those yellow life jackets do a good job in marking the crash site...

You don't know what you're talking about.

Wouldn't have mattered, the landing tore even bigger holes in the undercarriage than the existing ones that would have sealed with that button.

I guess he answered your question. He said the budget cuts have reduced the annual training time so rare situations like landing on water can not be included in the training; the airlines just stick to the minimum federal requirements to get by......

What's missing is more money in your bank account.

Well, because if you "land" on water in many cases not all of the people in the plane die.

there is plenty of all-survivors water landings.. and many more with high percent of survivors. the problem is .. its extremely hard to simulate that because there is a LOT of highly unpredictibly stuff and tons and tons oh physics.. details like water temperature, waves high, type of sea (calm, crispy, harsh) and what that particular plane will do once it hits water.. structural integrity.. weight.. an Airbus or a 737 may dip the engines and they might rip off (port engine on N106US was ripped off its mount while the starboard one wasnt).. tail engine planes might be better (MD-80s, CRJs, Fokers) or maybe not as the tail hits first and bein heavier the tail might rip away its that transition into the water surface whats a mayhem to simulate.. its utterly unpredictible and complex..

Misteeq64 he's a pilot, not a politician. He has too much integrity and passion to be a politician.

Misteeq64 flying a plane well is not running an economy...

Had he ran for office, I think it's likely he would have been elected or given his opponent a serious, severe scare. But he didn't run for office. Why not? He's a pilot. He knew what he was good at and chose to do that. But had he ran, I would have voted for him. Don't see how he could do worse than the professional politicians.

I'd vote for him. But he wouldn't want that lousy job.

Because the Democrats wouldn't vote for him. Most pilots are conservative. (Because they are smart )

wow!

So you say the passengers who recall bird strikes were full of shit too? and, the Airbus engineers in Toulouse confirmed the presence of Canada goose remains in both engines upon inspection and the NTSB investigation concluded the same.

20PhantomRegiment09 That's correct, any passenger who claimed to recall a bird strike is inaccurate (I can only recall one, a US Marine flying 1st class, that hammed it up for self-recognition on a US radio station), and couldn't ever observe, anticipate or sense any such event. The 1st class windows were closed. Airbus made the aircraft. CFM, Intl made the engines. These engines, after river landing, were minimally inspected by NTSB, before hauled away to Cincinnati by CFM. When any bird flies into a turbo fan jet engine, the result is snarge. A bird is super sliced by the fan blade, then numerous turbine stages, ultra compressed and bbq'd. The end result are red splotches. There was no snarge in these engines that landed in the Hudson observable by NTSB. A purported feather was found. Feathers don't survive or remain in turbofans after ingested by jet engine traveling 180kts. Not in any recognizable morphological form. They would be shredded and jettisoned in milliseconds. This flight took off from KLGA at ~88% N1 from Emergency Airworthiness Directive warning after a failed series of solutions to resolve engine compressor stall, reported by numerous operators, during TO and initial climbout N1 setting. This very aircraft lost its #2 engine, as reported on CNN, to compressor stall two days before the Hudson incident on the same route. Two days later the #1, then #2 went, and in came the bird story. Canada Goose never fly at 3000' unless migrating. These birds were said to be flying a westward route in January. Would never happen. Even if did, two totally professional experienced pilots would always see and take evasive action to avoid.

Jason Bell said "The 1st class windows were closed." You were on board? Also, there is no "requirement" for the birds to have gone through the turbine section for this to be a bird strike. If they took out the composite fan blades- that is enough. And, in fact, I think that is what happened because I seem to remember Sully saying that the engines were running but were not producing any thrust.

StratMatt777 The engines on Sullenberger's A320 were named in an EAD for inflight compressor stall at high N1 during initial climbout. The same #2 engine on the plane Sullenberger commanded, compressor stalled 2 days before his lost thrust. Sullenberger's plane was mechanically defective. Numerous A320 operators with the CFM engine experienced and reported inflight compressor stall soon after takeoff. CFM was ordered by the FAA to re-engineer their engine, already in service, to withstand a 6lb waterfowl strike, which they did. But after so many thousands of flight hours, the redesigned engines began to stall at initial climbout N1%, causing a storm of complaints. The EAD ordered all operators to test each unit with strict criteria and, if any failed, to replace the entire hydromechanical unit (HMU) with brand new. After the #2 engine stalled 2 days before Sullenberger's flight, the airline only replaced a temperature sensor instead of a new HMU. 2 days later, with Sullenberger now captain, the #1 crapped out this time, followed by the #2 for twice in two days. The bird strike story is outranked by EAD and America Southwest's operational flight and maintenance log. Sullenberger's aircraft was non-airworthy. Americans want heroes, and Sullenberger really and truly was one. What he pulled off took incredible airmanship. But there's another story behind the heroics.

Birds were found in BOTH engines. www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/ntsb_confirms_birds_in_engines.html I'm a pilot, I live in north TX, we have lots of Canadian Geese that migrate to our part of the country in the winter and spring. And yes, I've seen individual and multiple birds at 3000 feet plenty of times. They're big enough to show up on most modern radars even, when you're within an airport's radar range. You don't know shit about geese, and you don't know shit about flying airplanes, and wherever you pull your BS conspiracies from doesn't know anything about either one of them either. In summary: fuck you, idiot.

Neal Clayton Which part of "Emergency Airworthiness Directive" that this very aircraft suffered two days before and the airline failed to comply with the EAD required actions in the event of, are you having trouble with? Bird remains were not found in both engines. A near intact feather was found, allegedly, in one engine and sent to the Smithsonian, ruling out any chance of it being ingested by a functioning turbofan, which would chop any feather to pieces. You didn't read any of the posts or reports. Sullenberger's plane suffered, twice in 48 hours, the very event outlined in the two EADs. His airline took away his pension and cut his pay before all this. Sullenberger didn't have any choice but to go along with US Airways bullshit bird story to avoid scaring customers away from the booking counter. Hoping they'd all accept two highly experienced ATPs flying straight into a huge flock of geese, making no effort to avoid, as good airmanship. Quarantined he and the FO for 72 hours in a motel to learn and rehearse the media and congressional committee answers. A big flock of geese in that flight path would've hit that plane in many places. Wasn't a scratch on that plane until the Hudson boats pushed it ashore.

Wow….now you're an expert on the flying habits of geese. Planes have mechanical failures all the time. What's the reason for the coverup? The fact remains that this airplane ingested large birds into it's engines which caused a (very rare) double engine failure. (btw….I have flown into a flock of geese in a 737 at 4,000' at night. Luckily, they hit the fuselage and wing and we were able to land safely. It did get our attention since one bird hit right above my cockpit window. Ramming a goose at 250 knots makes quite a loud "bang").

quinnjim No, I'm no geese expert. "Snarge" Google it. When a live goose, consisting of blood, tissue, bone, is ingested into a turbofan the fan blades tear it to pieces, spraying and depositing a strip of blood against the lining around the blade circumference. Blood is the only organic substance that sticks to the metal surface and isn't washed away by water landing. Try power spraying lake slime off a boat hull with 3000psi sprayer. Doesn't work. There was no blood ring found around the fan blades in either engine, that would be there had a goose gone through. The NTSB were given 45 minutes to boroscope the engines before the manufacturer trucked them off to Ohio. One partial goose feather was recovered, by undetermined source, which could've come, and probably did, from the river as the airframe was dragged to shore.

Jason Bell Why is the FAA, NTSB and Sully lying? What possible reason do they all have to collaborate on such a lie? If it was a mechanical failure, it still would have been the "Miracle on the Hudson". Answer that one. (btw….I think it's funny that you actually admit that they found bird parts in the engine!)

Here's the Bottom Line Mr. Total Ignorance with Absolutely No Knowledge of the Proper Procedures that Must Be Followed in an Emergency Water Landing (Ditching) of an Airliner: As an FAA Licensed Pilot, I can factually state (in the interest of prevention and education) there were actually three mistakes made in this incident: 1. The Captain Failed to inform the passengers and the Flight Attendants prior to the ditching as follows: "Attention everyone this is your Captain Speaking - Due to the total failure of both of our engines we have to make an Emergency Landing in the Hudson River. Please brace for the Water Landing and if everyone remains calm - we can all make a safe evacuation. DO NOT OPEN either one of the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors as they will both be below the water line after the water landing! Follow the Crews' Instructions after the landing and move towards the front of the aircraft to evacuate into the life rafts". NOTE: Sully had plenty of glide time to make this announcement as the aircraft was passing over the George Washington Bridge - and his failure to do so caused confusion and left the Flight Crew totally uninformed of the imminent ditching, which inhibited their ability to properly respond to the emergency. For example - one of the flight attendants (Doreen) seated in the rear of the aircraft was so dazed by having no idea that the aircraft had made a water landing, that had she been properly informed, she could have stopped the panicked female passenger who pushed by her, heading to the rear of the cabin yelling - Open the Doors! By Flight Attendant Doreen's failure to immediately intervene and stop that panicked woman, - one of the two Rear Emergency Escape Doors was opened, which allowed massive amounts of ice cold water to start flooding the Passenger Cabin and making a bad situation Far Worse than it ever had to be! 2. Sully and his First Officer's failure to reach up and flip on the Ditch Switch (right there in Plain View on the overhead console and Clearly Labeled) prior to the ditching. When activated prior to an emergency water landing (ditching) - the Ditch Switch seals the Pressure Equalization Vents in the floor of the Passenger Cabin to prevent water in the Baggage Compartment (which would enter from any breaks in the underbelly of the aircraft from water landing impact) from flooding into the Passenger Cabin. The reason given for why the Ditch Switch was not turned on before the ditching is a very poor and totally unacceptable reason - it was an item at the end of a long checklist that the flight crew did not have enough time to get to. The Bottom Line is that if Sully and his First Officer were 100% on top of their game - they wouldn't have forgotten to turn this vitally important switch on prior to the water landing. But neither one of them thought to perform this important action, which is something that should have been so well ingrained into their minds as pilots Type-Rated on the A-320, that it should not have required reading it on a checklist to prompt them to do it. Pilots receive specific and intensive "Type-Rating" training on each aircraft that they are certified to fly, and through this special training, they are familiarized with every aspect of the aircraft in which they earn a Type-Rating on. The Type-Rating training on the Airbus A-320 covers the purpose and functionality of the Ditch Switch - and this is something that every pilot trained on the A-320 should have "burned into their minds" to the point where they would "automatically" know to flip this switch on prior to an emergency water landing - without having to be reminded to do it by reading a checklist. Pilot Proficiency is all about thoroughly learning, knowing and mastering every operational feature and aspect of each and every aircraft that a pilot is certified to fly and in this particular instance, there was an ominous lacking in proficiency on behalf of both pilots in their failure to turn on the Ditch Switch before landing their A-320 in the Hudson River. And their failure to turn this switch on allowed (ice cold) water to flood into the Passenger Cabin - which made a bad situation Far Worse on the passengers than it had to be! 3. Because of Sully's failure to inform the passengers and the Flight Crew of the emergency water landing before it happened (along with his failure to warn everyone to NOT open either one of the Two Rear Emergency Escape Doors after the water landing) - a panicked and totally misinformed female passenger went unchecked in her rush to the rear of the aircraft after the ditching yelling Open the Doors! - and as a result, one of the two Rear Emergency Escape Doors (both of which are below the water line after a water landing) was opened, allowing massive amounts of ice cold water to pour into the Passenger Cabin - making a bad situation Far Worse for everyone on board! This is an Important Lesson for Everyone who flies on a commercial airliner: In the event of a Water Landing - NEVER OPEN the Rear Emergency Escape Doors because the tail of the aircraft will quickly sink into the water after a water landing, and this will put the Rear Emergency Escape Doors below the water line - meaning that opening either one of them will allow massive amounts of water to flood into the passenger cabin. This warning is clearly indicated on the Emergency Procedures Cards in every seat back and seat side pocket on every airliner. Prior to every flight - after the doors are closed and the aircraft is being pushed back from the terminal - the Flight Attendants perform a Passenger Safety Briefing during which one of the Emergency Procedures Cards is held up for everyone to see - and at which time all passengers are asked to locate these cards and to read through them to become familiar with the emergency procedures. On these cards one of the things that is clearly shown is the location of all the Emergency Exits - and the warning Not to use the Rear Emergency Escape Doors after a water landing.

Turning on the ditch switch would have been the last step according to the manual. The co-pilot followed the manual's instructions step-by-step. Getting the engines back on was priority. You have to factor in the altitude was not 30,000 but 3,200 feet with only 208 secs to land the plane. There was not enough time to get to the ditch switch step. The pilot had to focus without distraction on landing the plane. The co-pilot had to follow the manual instructions. They did everything correct.

Oh, for crying out loud. The outcome was the best possible outcome and that one silly little oversight can be relegated to irrelevant because of that outcome.

Bills a D bag

Bill - your cleared to land your armchair on MS Flight Simulator. Whilst accepting your stated opinion is technically factual, factor in flight level, time left AND the human factor theory is never aligned with practical reality. You further dilute your argument with silly name calling of the flight crew. The issue here is as described by Capt Sully, is a lack of water landing training simulation for pilots . Even with that there is no guarantees. You cannot replicate genuine AND realistic extreme stress scenarios in the training classroom. Taking everything into account, they done an exceptional job given the circumstances. Update- Bill, if you genuinely have a pilots licence, please hand it back. I have grave concerns as to your mental suitably for such a job. Whilst not doubting you are the greatest pilot that ever lived, you need to give it up and maybe sign up for anger management course and acquire some prescribed medication to curb your anxieties. Getting a life might help you.