Flight 1549 in the Simulator

[ReadyNow]

When they fly this mishap in the sims, they will certainly try all 3 options: Return to LGA, divert to TEB or ditch in the Hudson. What do you thing they will learn?

My guess, once they lowered the landing gear, the aircraft would not make the fields and validate Sullys decision, even with the benefit of hindsight etc....

 

[ReadyNow]

Here is a video by the BBC that shows a simulation from the cockpit. Interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7834499.stm

 

[Fixed Wing]

They will learn that return to LGA or to TEB was impossible, just as the captain stated. The landing gear was retracted prior to the bird strikes and never lowered.

 

[wings396]

Agreed, the Crew made the best possible choice in a VERY short amount of time. The risk of trying to return to LGA, or shoot for TEB was far too great. Coming up just a little bit short, would have been a disaster.

 

[GuntherA320]

Piney,

Don't take too much you read or hear in the media to be 100% accurate. On the A320, we don't do ditching simulations that make it all the way to the water. The software for the simulator would still read what you're doing as a crash. The screen would turn red and the simulator would jerk around on the hydraulics. We do (briefly) cover what should be done in a ditching senario and go thru the motions. But I never did any training that required us to go into a ditching senario from 35,000 feet. It would take way too much time to cover in it's entirety and there are about 20 other more likely senarios that you need to cover in order to get thru training. We do simulations that deal with a dual flameout of the engines at 35,000 feet. But we are always able to get one of the engines re-started in the simulator. Knowing this, the crew used common sense and made split second decisions (covered as much of the checklist as they could in less than 3 minutes), and improvised. He turned it into a power off landing into the water. It was a fantastic maneuver and a great decision, but i would like to think that any of our pilots would have been able to do this. Everyone should be thankful that the weather was good and that there was not a 1000 foot overcast layer. I do have some questions for the training guys when i get back in there. With only the RAT (ram air turbine) powering the aircraft, did GPWS still work? Did TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) still work? There was VFR traffic that he encountered at about 900 feet. I'd love to know what that guy in the little airplane thought when he saw the A320. It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out in the simulator.

My understanding is that Simulator exercises start at 35,000 feet fo ditching simulations, Sully had 3,000 feet.

 

[Justme]

With only the RAT (ram air turbine) powering the aircraft, did GPWS still work? Did TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) still work? There was VFR traffic that he encountered at about 900 feet. I'd love to know what that guy in the little airplane thought when he saw the A320. It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out in the simulator.

TCAS and GPWS aren't listed on the emergency electrical configuration chart in the QRH, however, a quick perusal of the little blue ECAM book under AC Bus 1 Failure lists both as INOP (and showing up on ECAM). So with only the Emergency Generator powering the electrical system AC Bus 1 is not powered, ergo no GPWS or TCAS.

Emergency electrical configuration powered busses are the AC and DC essential busses and their related shed busses with the emergency generator, without sheds on battery only.

My question is this: is there any difference in aircraft handling/sidestick effectiveness (bad way to phrase that I know) with only the blue hyd system operating?

jm

 

[CaptBud330]

Now don't get me wrong, I think Sully did a masterful job under unbelievable circumstances but I was just wondering...

About a zillion years ago with the old sims at Allegheny that did not have panoramic side views, we did a maneuver which involved a 90-270 turn. If Sully had departed runway 4 and made a left 90 to 310 then rolled immediately right to 220, he would have been lined up with 22. It was basically a light wind day I think so downwind would not have been a problem. I would think 3200 ft in the left turn he took on the departure would have been sufficient to make the right 270 and he'de be close enough in to make LGA with maybe altitude to spare.
Now I wasn't flying it and I've had a few days to think about it so it's easy for me to write this. That being said, I give Sully a lot of credit for his decisions. I seriously doubt I would have thought about using the old 90-270 maneuver.

 

[YVINTERN]

Now don't get me wrong, I think Sully did a masterful job under unbelievable circumstances but I was just wondering...

About a zillion years ago with the old sims at Allegheny that did not have panoramic side views, we did a maneuver which involved a 90-270 turn. If Sully had departed runway 4 and made a left 90 to 310 then rolled immediately right to 220, he would have been lined up with 22. It was basically a light wind day I think so downwind would not have been a problem. I would think 3200 ft in the left turn he took on the departure would have been sufficient to make the right 270 and he'de be close enough in to make LGA with maybe altitude to spare.
Now I wasn't flying it and I've had a few days to think about it so it's easy for me to write this. That being said, I give Sully a lot of credit for his decisions. I seriously doubt I would have thought about using the old 90-270 maneuver.

Okay according to what you said...I went into Flight Simulator, actually had to look for the CD since it's been a while but...

Taking off Runway 040, then executing a left 90 degree turn would put me at a heading of 310 at 3,000 250KTs. Losing Both Engines right at the Bridge then executing that hard LEFT would have got me back into LGA with Full Flaps and Gear down at the last possible minute. I'd like to see that tried in an actual simulator.

I think what you meant if Sully made a hard left turn he would have been lined up with Runway 13 into LGA not 22.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I think what you meant if Sully made a hard left turn he would have been lined up with Runway 13 into LGA not 22.

The old 90-270 would in theory line you up with the departure runway going the opposite direction (or lined up with the reciprocal of the departure runway).

However, considering that the bird strikes occured after they had made at least one, and possibly two of the ATC directed turns on the departure the 90-270 wouldn't have resulted in lining up with any of LGA's runways. The shortest flying distance to LGA would have probably been to rwy 13, which would have resulted in a tailwind landing to a relatively short runway.

As has been mentioned several times, miscalculating a return to LGA or heading for TEB only to end up landing short would have had much worse consequences than heading for the river. In effect, it's tough to tell someone they should have answered question 10 differently when they scored 100 on the test.

Jim