Post Number: 2352
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Friday, January 16, 2009 - 08:59 pm: ||
Recently, Graham said:
"Being a superior pilot doesn't just require possessing superior flying skills. It requires superior judgment to keep you out of those situations that would require you to exercise your superior flying skills."
Graham, I just want to say out loud how much everyone appreciates all the hard work, dedication, and training you pilots and flight crews put in. Yesterday's forced water-landing brought out the best in Captain Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger. Here's to hoping you never have to exercise YOUR superior flying skills.
Post Number: 1236
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Friday, January 16, 2009 - 10:29 pm: ||
Post Number: 9850
Posted From: 18.104.22.168
|Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 12:14 am: ||
Yes, here was a case where the systems, both human and machine, worked together as they were designed to ensure safety and prevent the loss of life.
I'll drink to that any time!
Post Number: 2052
Posted From: 22.214.171.124
|Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 01:07 am: ||
Thanks for that, Bob - "uneventful" is my favorite word when it comes to flying.
I'm flying a trip now, and several people have asked me what I thought of the whole incident. My answer: "I'm glad it wasn't me!"
Regarding the reporting, don't forget, there were two pilots in that cockpit. Sullenberger's getting well-deserved kudos for his actions, but he wasn't alone in getting that thing down safely. It seems like everybody has forgotten that there was a first officer there, who could have been flying the plane for some or all of the incident - I haven't seen anything definitive that says he wasn't. Regardless, he most assuredly was assisting the captain through the event - whoever was flying surely had their hands full.
At any rate, it was a heroic action by the crew and the controllers who tried to help, the rescue personnel that responded so rapidly, and the passengers themselves for not panicking and creating a stampede that would have most certainly resulted in more injury or even death. "Divine intervention" is a phrase that comes to my mind. It truly is a miracle that no one was killed.
Post Number: 1603
Posted From: 126.96.36.199
|Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 02:04 am: ||
I don't know what surprises me more . . the actual number of bird strikes that occur, or just how vulnerable the fan blades on modern jets are. It was reported that the US Airways A320 hit a flock of geese. I know the manufacturers test them for water and ice ingestion, and a flock of geese pack a pretty healthy wad of mass, but ABC news dot com had a bird strike video from You Tube showing a single bird causing a catastrophic engine failure on a plane departing from Manchester England.
When you consider how many flight hours are logged each day, and how many "foreign" objects there are floating around, especially during takeoff when the engine is spooled to max, seems like it would be sucking all sorts of debris into the intake and the number of engine incidents would be substantially more.
Post Number: 6438
Posted From: 188.8.131.52
|Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 03:53 am: ||
General Electric has a test facility near Cincy at Peebles, Ohio. They shoot dead chickens at the engines. Maybe they need to switch to geese.
Post Number: 2353
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 05:59 am: ||
On T.V. I've seen the slow-mo clips of them doing what Dan just said. It's pretty cool to watch in a clinical environment, but Canada geese have the body mass of a small dog. Not a toy dog, but more like a Benji, or Toto. Throw a couple of those in the intake and you're gonna have serious issues.
Post Number: 7129
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 04:35 pm: ||
Graham, you'll be happy to know that on NPR this morning they acknowledged the entire crew by name.