MSNBC just reported that the #1 engine from fllight 1549 has been found under 60ft of water in the hudson. they are attempting to pull it up as i type. they are going to look for forensic (hope i spelled that right) evidence of bird debri.
Flt 1549
- Thread starter etops1
- Start date
Not sure if this has been posted in another thread, but here is a link to a surveillance video from the ConEd building that shows the passengers exiting the plane:
Flight 1549 Video
Flight 1549 Video
Passenger interviewed who was on Flight 1549
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2...ng-forward.html
Has good things to say about US Airways
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2...ng-forward.html
Has good things to say about US Airways
USAir provided him with a ticket to Austria to see his wife? That's above and beyond....
Update from Airbus as seen on another site.
A little update from TLS
FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE
ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX
SUBJECT: US AIRWAYS Flight US1549 ACCIDENT IN NEW YORK
OUR REF: USA US1549 AIT N°2 DATED 23rd JANUARY 2009
Previous ref: USA US1549 AIT N°1 DATED 16 JANUARY 2009
SUBJECT: US AIRWAYS Flight US1549 ACCIDENT IN NEW YORK
This is an update to the AIT N°1 issued on 16th January 2009.
The information which follow has been approved for release by the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) and represent the highlights from the initial analysis of the available data: mainly Digital Flight Data Recorder, aircraft components, ATC script and radar.
The A320 aircraft was operating a scheduled flight US1549 from New York, La Guardia airport to Charlotte, Virginia on 15th January 2009, when the aircraft ditched on the Hudson river shortly after take-off at 15:30 local time.
The aircraft performed a normal flex take-off in slats/flaps configuration 2 from La Guardia airport with the co-pilot as Pilot Flying.
At time T0, soon after the aircraft was in clean configuration at an airspeed of about 210kts, both engines suffered a simultaneous and sudden loss of thrust at about 3000ft pressure altitude. The engines N1 decreased abruptly to 35% and 15% on engines 1 & 2 respectively. This sudden and simultaneous loss of engine thrust is consistent with the reported bird strike on both engines and also with the initial observations from the remaining engine 2. (Recovery of engine 1 being still in progress).
The captain took immediately control of the aircraft making smooth nose-down pitch inputs to maintain the airspeed at about 200kts.
At approximately T0+20 sec, the crew changed the aircraft heading towards the Hudson river.
There was no more response from the engine N°2. The engine N°1 continued to deliver a minimum thrust (N1 around 35%) for about 2 minutes and 20 seconds after T0.
At approximately T0+2min20sec, the crew attempted at about 500ft/200kts a quick relight on engine 1 without success.
The crew then selected slat/flap configuration 2 which was achieved.
From then on and until the ditching, the heading remained almost constant. The speed decreased from 200kts to 130kts.
Ditching occurred 3 minutes and 30 seconds after the thrust loss in the following conditions:
- Airspeed was about 130kts (at the Gross Weight, Valpha max is 125kts and Valpha prot is 132kts)
- Pitch attitude was 10 degrees up and bank attitude was at 0 degree.
- Flaps and slats were in configuration 2. Landing gear up
It is to be noted that at all times during the event and up until the ditching, the normal electrical supply (AC and DC buses) and all three hydraulic systems were fully operational and the flight control law remained in Normal law.
In line with ICAO Annex 13 International convention, the US NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) continues the investigation assisted by Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) as State of aircraft manufacturer. Airbus continues to support the NTSB investigation with advisors on-site and in the various investigation working groups.
Airbus has no specific recommendations at this stage. Should there be the need for recommendation as a result of the investigation, operators will be notified accordingly.
VICE PRESIDENT FLIGHT SAFETY
AIRBUS
A little update from TLS
FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE
ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX
SUBJECT: US AIRWAYS Flight US1549 ACCIDENT IN NEW YORK
OUR REF: USA US1549 AIT N°2 DATED 23rd JANUARY 2009
Previous ref: USA US1549 AIT N°1 DATED 16 JANUARY 2009
SUBJECT: US AIRWAYS Flight US1549 ACCIDENT IN NEW YORK
This is an update to the AIT N°1 issued on 16th January 2009.
The information which follow has been approved for release by the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) and represent the highlights from the initial analysis of the available data: mainly Digital Flight Data Recorder, aircraft components, ATC script and radar.
The A320 aircraft was operating a scheduled flight US1549 from New York, La Guardia airport to Charlotte, Virginia on 15th January 2009, when the aircraft ditched on the Hudson river shortly after take-off at 15:30 local time.
The aircraft performed a normal flex take-off in slats/flaps configuration 2 from La Guardia airport with the co-pilot as Pilot Flying.
At time T0, soon after the aircraft was in clean configuration at an airspeed of about 210kts, both engines suffered a simultaneous and sudden loss of thrust at about 3000ft pressure altitude. The engines N1 decreased abruptly to 35% and 15% on engines 1 & 2 respectively. This sudden and simultaneous loss of engine thrust is consistent with the reported bird strike on both engines and also with the initial observations from the remaining engine 2. (Recovery of engine 1 being still in progress).
The captain took immediately control of the aircraft making smooth nose-down pitch inputs to maintain the airspeed at about 200kts.
At approximately T0+20 sec, the crew changed the aircraft heading towards the Hudson river.
There was no more response from the engine N°2. The engine N°1 continued to deliver a minimum thrust (N1 around 35%) for about 2 minutes and 20 seconds after T0.
At approximately T0+2min20sec, the crew attempted at about 500ft/200kts a quick relight on engine 1 without success.
The crew then selected slat/flap configuration 2 which was achieved.
From then on and until the ditching, the heading remained almost constant. The speed decreased from 200kts to 130kts.
Ditching occurred 3 minutes and 30 seconds after the thrust loss in the following conditions:
- Airspeed was about 130kts (at the Gross Weight, Valpha max is 125kts and Valpha prot is 132kts)
- Pitch attitude was 10 degrees up and bank attitude was at 0 degree.
- Flaps and slats were in configuration 2. Landing gear up
It is to be noted that at all times during the event and up until the ditching, the normal electrical supply (AC and DC buses) and all three hydraulic systems were fully operational and the flight control law remained in Normal law.
In line with ICAO Annex 13 International convention, the US NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) continues the investigation assisted by Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) as State of aircraft manufacturer. Airbus continues to support the NTSB investigation with advisors on-site and in the various investigation working groups.
Airbus has no specific recommendations at this stage. Should there be the need for recommendation as a result of the investigation, operators will be notified accordingly.
VICE PRESIDENT FLIGHT SAFETY
AIRBUS
N965VJ
Veteran
Must be something lost in translation, but if Airbus is still using Telex machines they really ought to at least upgrade to the 1980s and get a FAX.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
If Charlotte is in Virginia, Toulouse must be in Belgium.
And I see the RAT was of no consequence.
And I see the RAT was of no consequence.
FlightChic
Veteran
- Feb 18, 2007
- 954
- 0
Bill O'reilly was just accusing US Airways of hiding information regarding the engine and saying they didn't check and fix the engine from a problem from two days ago. Argh! I want to write and tell him to shut up! Now people really aren't going to want to fly US. There was a pilot on there defending US but he did most of the talking. Everytime the pilot said something he would say "yeah but..."
FlightChic
Veteran
- Feb 18, 2007
- 954
- 0
I know that, you know that, but apparently he does not know that. He totally discounted the NTSB investigation too. He thinks US is hiding important facts from everyone and that the reason Sully hasn't been in the public eye is b/c of the alleged hiding of facts. :down: :down: :down:
Yeah, it must be a slow day in the news room!
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Birds will now be required to submit flight plans when flying in the vicinity of all major airports.
Violations will result in wing clipping.
Just curious- if the plane had problems 2 days before, yet continued on to CLT, how did it make it back to LGA to take the flight in question? Did it sit in CLT for 2 days or was it on other flights? If it didnt go right back to LGA and sit there until this flight, then something was done/looked at in order for it to continue on its routing.
People freak out when you say there is a maint issue (that can be anything from a seat belt replacement to engine overhaul) and dont want to travel on that plane, but get a plane out of the hangar, bring it to the terminal and dont tell people it was just in the hangar being repaired for a week and no one says a word.
People freak out when you say there is a maint issue (that can be anything from a seat belt replacement to engine overhaul) and dont want to travel on that plane, but get a plane out of the hangar, bring it to the terminal and dont tell people it was just in the hangar being repaired for a week and no one says a word.
Tadd, 106 was in CLT for I think around 20 hours after the LGA-CLT flight on the 13th. Otherwise it would have probably continued onto SEA and been somewhere else on the 15th. It ended up on 1549 again on the 15th probably as a result of the changes in routing after being out of service in CLT. If not for that another 320 would have probably operated the flight. Many aircraft around the world have been lost over the years only as a result of being assigned to a particuliar fligth on a particuliar day but was lost due to nothing to do with the actual aircraft. The two week old GOL 738 in Brazil that had the mid-air with the Legacy was a perfect example, wrong place at the wrong time, nothing more.
LGA777
LGA777
Besides, Sully, being the man that he is, he would NOT take the A/C if the the issues weren't resolved...The plane did fly problem-free CLT/LGA.
Similar threads
