La Guardia crash

[hanspetter]

For the last few minutes i've been watching an A320 and a lot of tug boats / passenger ferries on the Hudson river. It seems a bird strike incapacitated both engines. The news say a flight time of 6 minutes. I guess he turned back but was unable to reach the runway. La Guardia has a serious bird problem. We'll get the details soon -- in any event, it's amazing to see a passenger jet make a water landing and everybody walks away from it.

[Tom Goodrick]

Yes, that is about the way it happened. The region around La Guardia does invite large concentrations of water birds. These were reported to be Canadian Geese which are very large birds who migrate only as far south as needed to find open water. The airports in the northeast US are all located near water because fish don't complain about noise. So you have to accept birds that eat fish or eat stuff they find in marshes and protected bays.

It was indeed a very heroic job of flying that brought the aircraft down in one piece on the water right by a bunch of docks where there were many ferries and police boats. Everyone is now accounted for and all are safe - including an infant.

For an interesting challenge, we should try to duplicate that feat. He took off from runway 4 at Laguardia. He lost both engines at about 4000 ft during a climb after making a left turn. He was vectored toward Teterboro. While everything else was going on, imagine the noise in the cockpit as his warning horns were sounding for the gear and ground proximity radar horn were going off.

[Tom Goodrick]

Well, I made it to the Hudson and crash-landed at a likely speed - about 135 KIAS though that is a guess. I landed just short of the George Washington Bridge. He cleared that bridge by a few hundred feet. It would have taken the boats a lot longer (half hour) to get to my crash site. he crashed virtually at the end of the City docks where ferries, police and Coast Guard boats reside. I understand one ferry was already underway across the river and simply diverted to his site.

I used an old RW file that had easterly winds justifying the takeoff from runway 4. I climded straight out retracing gear and some flaps before killing the engines at 3200 ft. Then I turned left to face New Jersey where I could see Teterboro. ATC had given the pilot a vector to Teterboro as the closest airport at which a landing might be possible. The airspeed was pretty good when the power was cut (about 240 KIAS) but the nose was up and by the time the turn was completed the airspeed had dropped to about 200 KIAS. I still had 5 degrees of flaps down. Supposedly the A320 has a glide ratio of 20 according to an A320 pilot on TV. But that has to be under ideal circumstances which do not include what happened here. Before trying this flight, I made a circuit and a landing on the KLGA runway. I landed that time as slowly as I could. That landing was at 129.2 KIAS -602 FPM.

[hanspetter]

According to some aviation authority the aircraft stayed afloat mainly due to air in its wings. I assume that the scheduled flight was short enough for about 50 percent fuel. That leaves a lot of air for positive buoyancy. With full tanks it wouldn't have stayed on the surface.

The plane didn't break up and that's the second thing that makes this incident stand out. I've seen footage of emergency landings on water previously. It tends to look good until one wing dips, catches a wave and the entire aircraft flips and breaks.

[Tom Goodrick]

The pilot pulled a lever that shut the air leads to the cabin. That kept water out until some idiot opened a rear door that was under water. The landing was as smooth as you can do it. But it still tore off one engine, damaged the other and damaged the skin on the bottom of the fuselage. They were very lucky.

[skyknight]

The pilot and crew are certainly to be commended on their efforts for asuccessful water landing.

Although it may be a bit macbre, there is a file at avsim that recreates the setting for the flight along with modified contact points:

search their library for: miracle_on_the_hudson_fs9.zip

Additonally, I believe there is a "flight sim screenshots post" at the same site for an alternative landing at Teterboro.

Skyknight

[Tom Goodrick]

Unfortunately, this is an example where our FS community fails to provide a sufficiently real simulation. If you just grab one of the Airbus 320's available for download, you will get a great-looking plane. But it will not fly with adequate reality to demonstrate the problem faced by this pilot.

I downloaded one and found some obvious problems with it (the CG was very far forward and it had extremely low drag). It took me several days to fix it. In its original form you could have glided to Westchester. In a more realistic form, you would be lucky to cross the GW bridge at 900 ft if you do everything right.

Our community happily accepts aircraft with poor FD as long as they look great. But they do not simulate the real airplane in all the modes of flight. It is very rare to download an aircraft and find good FD. This is why serious pilots generally don't think much of FS. There I go shootin off my mouth again. So be it.

[flaminghotsauce]

Yeah, well that's why we keep you around Tom! ;D

Seriously, we appreciate what you do.

[Tom Goodrick]

I forgot to add that I will email the FD files to anyone who wants them.

The file I downloaded was ifdg_a320-214_amm.zip and it is one of several versions of the 320 by ifdg on avsim.com.

[Allen Peterson]

Amen! to Flame's post, Tom.
Keep a-goin!

[Ed Burke]

I endorse Flaming's and Allen's comments Tom, hang in there, we need you.

Incidentally, if this incident was a 'crash' it is the one I would prefer to be in. I know the driver-airframe was looking after his own butt but what a fine job he did of the approach and landing.

As for the geese, do any of you old fogies remember the Viscount on descent somewhere in the '48' that hit a goose which penetrated the leading edge of the tailplane and smashed the spar. The aircraft bunted and disintegrated. The crash investigation team estimated just a few seconds elapsed between ops normal and everybody trying to fly.

I guess the faster we go, the greater the risks in that scenario so heed Granny's advice and stay low and slow, you have been warned !!!.

Ed

[skyknight]

Chiming in with the rest of the gang......we do appreciate your skills and dedication in providing realistic FD's.

Count me in ......I'd like a copy of your revised FD for the IFDG_a320.

Skyknight

[Tom Goodrick]

Skynight, you'll have to email me (my address is under the icon). I thought I had your address but I don't. I was going to send the FD files tonight but found a slight performance flaw. They should be ready by tomorrow night.

[Ed Burke]

www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/23/321591/hudson-a320-partial-engine-power-aided-textbook-ditching.html

This link will give you the latest info on the A320 ditching. 35% on the left N1 was very handy.

Ed

[Tom Goodrick]

I think it is ridiculous that the checklist for ditching is so long that the "ditch button" is not covered until the third page. Perhaps the airlines need to hire some good writers to shorten up their checklists and engineers have to combine more functions under single buttons.

Now there should be enough data from the flight data recorder so they can make valid simulators for practicing ditching. A small amount of power can be a big help. The 35% N1 on the left and 15% on the right could make the difference between crossing over the GW bridge and hitting it.