|
Actually, I never considered Vanity Fair for my Airline Industry News. I turn to The Hindu for my up-to-date stories.
Take this one for example. Tirupati flight makes emergency landing (Andhra Pradesh) HYDERABAD: An Air India flight to Tirupati with over 135 passengers on board made an emergency landing after being airborne for 14 minutes due to a technical snag on Thursday afternoon. Tension gripped the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport for a few moments as the A-320 landed under emergency conditions at 1.54 p.m. Alert pilot Airport sources said, the Air Bus with 135 passengers, including two infants, developed a snag minutes after taking off at 1.40 p.m. Endowments Minster J. Ratnakar Rao was among the passengers. The pilot of IC-942 aircraft with a seating capacity of 140 detected the technical glitch after warning signals went off and landed it safely at the RGIA around 1.54 p.m. All passengers on board were safe. Officials said that the passengers were flown to Tirupati in another aircraft at 3.44 p.m. Flight engineers were later pressed into service to rectify the problem. Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy appreciated the pilot Kaanga for saving the lives of passengers. Even passengers too praised the pilot’s expertise in ensuring a safe landing. "We were tense and prayed for our life till the flight landed safely ," passengers recalled. Source: http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/08/stories/2009050860070400.htm I looked up "snag" in the FIM. Nothing. I'll try "glitch" next. |
Did they offer their opinion on what kind of job Job Martha Stewart's been doing?
AL |
One thing I have found most interesting in what the crew did that day was not how they landed but the decision to land where they did. I personally think that is where their experience showed, not necessarily being able to hold wings level and nose up at touch down.
I have often thought about that exact same situation out of 100 pilots how many of them would have decided to touch down in the hudson as opposed to doing whatever it takes to make one of the 3 nearby runways. I think they made the right choice (obviously) as an attempt at any runway even if remotely unsuccessful would have been catastrophic with many losses of life. Just food for thought as I am not sure my experience level would have told me in the heat of battle to put it down in the hudson, I may have tried TEB and we can all guess how that would have turned out. |
Eh, guys, read the article. It's well written, as is most of William Langewiesche's stuff. The guy was an airline pilot for many years, and although he self-identifies as a writer much more than as a pilot, he consistently writes about aviation for the general public in a much more accurate manner than almost anything else seen in general interest publications.
US Airways Flight 1549: Anatomy of a Miracle | vanityfair.com |
"Forget the business about fly-by-wire and Normal Law and whatever other technological crap that anyone wants to bring up. Sully made the incredible decision to commit to an off-airport landing with no less than four major airports in about a 10 mile radius. That took guts, smarts, and a level of cool-headedness that no computer will ever attain. "
No less than 4 major airports within 10 miles. Was the best decision to ditch in the Hudson considering this fact? It all ended well so responses will reflect that. But think about it? How many of those airports could he have made? 10 miles is not very much, even at 3000 feet with one engine still producing power. I take nothing away from Sully's heroic decision to ditch, but that doesn't mean the conversation ends there. And you better believe the NTSB feels the same. |
Originally Posted by stratoduck
(Post 607023)
check out this blog entry. thankfully the blogger is looking for input from pilots about the validity of the points.
Vanity Fair: Did Sully Sullenberger Land in the Hudson? Or Did the Plane Land Itself? - The Middle Seat Terminal - WSJ Just how important was Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger’s piloting skill to pulling off the fatality free spashdown of US Airways Flight 1549 Jan. 15? Vanity Fair writer William Langewiesche touches on that topic in his 11,000-word dissection of the Hudson River landing in the latest issue of the magazine. The gargantuan piece ranges broadly over the elements that combined to create that remarkable situation back in January, from the the history of Canada geese in New York City to Sully’s stint in the Air Force, much of it spent traversing the Nevada skies in F-4 Phantoms. Langewiesche also spotlights the development of the Airbus A320, the plane that Sullenberger and co-pilot Jeff Skiles brought down safely on the Hudson. Langewiesche writes that when the plane was first delivered in 1988, “It was without a doubt the most innovative civil airplane since the Wright Flyer—a narrow-bodied, twin-turbofan, medium-range jet with the approximate capacities of a Boeing 737 but with extensive use of composite materials, an integrated flat-screen instrument panel, a side-stick control like that of the F-16, and, most important, a full-on fly-by-wire interface between pilot and aircraft control.” (Just for the record, Journal reporters Andy Pasztor and Susan Carey did report back in January that Sullenberger was able to keep the nose of the plane up while flying at a reduced speed partly because his aircraft’s so-called fly-by-wire system — essentially computer-powered flight controls — prevent the jetliner from stalling, or falling out of the air.) Langewiesche later continues: Sullenberger’s A320 went all the way to the water under fly-by-wire control. That means it handled the constant adjustments and repetitive chores of flight by itself, and responded to Sullenberger’s larger inputs according to a regime that is known as Normal Law … A full description of its arcane logic is beyond the scope of an article. Suffice it to say that if Sullenberger had done nothing after the loss of thrust the airplane would have smoothly slowed until reaching a certain angle with the airflow, at which point it would have lowered its nose to keep the wings from stalling, and would have done this even if for some reason Sullenberger had resisted. In a story published back in 2000, Journal reporter Dan Michaels explains fly-by-wire this way: “With the fly-by-wire system, a pilot’s adjustment of the controls sends an electronic message, which operates a small motor off in some other part of the plane. It’s as different from flying a traditional jet as tapping a computer keyboard is from using a manual typewriter.” Langewiesche, a pilot himself, is not trying to take anything away from Sullenberger’s ability as a pilot, alternately writing throughout the piece that the aviator “was justly celebrated for his skill and courage,” “showing his excellence as a pilot,” and “a quintessential pilot.” Still, the piece highlights in detail the role of the plane itself in the successful, fatality-free splashdown that we haven’t seen before. Pilots, what do you make of the piece? Does it ring true to you? As Kevin Malone from The Office would say: "ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!?????" http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n...vin_malone.jpg |
'Normal Law' may keep the aircraft from stalling but it does not steer the aircraft. It does not stop accidents. It may aid the pilot in controlling the AOA, preventing a stall but that only gives him more time to make 'decisions'.
For this scumbag to implicate that the 'plane would have safely landed on its own' is ludicrous. |
The one thing that sticks out from this whole story is that people were able to WALK AWAY and in the end that is all that really matters is it not ?
The article is meant to give insight as to what was going on at that moment in time . Perhaps those of you who flamed the writer can offer him your insight ? Fred |
Originally Posted by JungleBus
(Post 607383)
The guy was an airline pilot for many years, and although he self-identifies as a writer much more than as a pilot, he consistently writes about aviation for the general public in a much more accurate manner than almost anything else seen in general interest publications.
Originally Posted by effsharp
(Post 607412)
No less than 4 major airports within 10 miles. Was the best decision to ditch in the Hudson considering this fact? It all ended well so responses will reflect that. But think about it? How many of those airports could he have made? 10 miles is not very much, even at 3000 feet with one engine still producing power. I take nothing away from Sully's heroic decision to ditch, but that doesn't mean the conversation ends there. And you better believe the NTSB feels the same.
Originally Posted by Langewiesche
Over the months after he [Sullenberger] made the decision not to try for the runway, multiple simulations of it have been run, and not a single pilot has been able to stretch the glide to La Guardia—an outcome that would seem to justify Sullenberger’s decision to go for the Hudson instead. But that misses the point. Even if it had been shown in simulation that Sullenberger could in theory have glided to La Guardia, in practice the approach would have been a very close thing, a crapshoot in a place where undershooting the runway by 20 feet would be like undershooting it by a mile. Once you committed toward La Guardia, you either had luck on your side or you died.
Originally Posted by Spanky189
(Post 607459)
For this scumbag to implicate that the 'plane would have safely landed on its own' is ludicrous.
Originally Posted by Langewiesche
Suffice it to say that if Sullenberger had done nothing after the loss of thrust the airplane would have smoothly slowed until reaching a certain angle with the airflow, at which point it would have lowered its nose to keep the wings from stalling, and would have done this even if for some reason Sullenberger had resisted.
I just read the article (it takes awhile, its long). Other than when Langewiesche writes: Care was taken to mimic the old mechanical systems and provide familiar feedback to the pilots—for instance, by artificially stiffening the flight controls in response to increases in airspeed. It was felt that this was necessary to keep pilots from overstressing the airplanes. We now know that this was wrong. There is, for instance, no control-stick feedback in the Airbus A320 that Sullenberger was flying, and, even in conditions of degraded control, no history in that design of excessive loads’ being applied in flight. Other than that, the article seemed better than the average aviation article to me. The WSJ post that is linked to this thread doesn't seem to do the article justice, and takes some liberties with interpreting what the article says. Read the full Vanity Fair article, don't judge it based on the WSJ blog. |
Originally Posted by JungleBus
(Post 607383)
Eh, guys, read the article. It's well written, as is most of William Langewiesche's stuff. The guy was an airline pilot for many years, and although he self-identifies as a writer much more than as a pilot, he consistently writes about aviation for the general public in a much more accurate manner than almost anything else seen in general interest publications.
US Airways Flight 1549: Anatomy of a Miracle | vanityfair.com |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:43 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands