Talk:US Airways Flight 1549

Animals on board / pets in cargo hull / deaths

Is there any reliable information regarding the death of animals/pets in the cargo hull on this flight? Safe Air Travel for Animals Act requires that the airlines report pet deaths to the U.S. Goverment pursuant to the Safe Air Travel for Animals Act (2000). Likewise, Section 710 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR-21”; P.L. 106-81) requires U.S. airlines that perform scheduled passenger transportation to file reports with the Department concerning incidents involving the loss, injury or death of animals during air transportation. This requirement was implemented through the issuance of 14 CFR 234.13 (70 FR 7392) as supplemented by a Reporting Directive published at 70 FR 9217. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bundas (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article you'd see that it clearly states the following:

According to the airline, no pets were onboard in the cargo hold, with a spokesperson stating: "We don't carry pets in our cargo". [1]

--Evb-wiki (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos were on Twitter before any traditional media

This is kind of interesting, and a first for a plane crash of this magnitude: the first published photo from the crash appeared on Twitter, rather than on any traditional news media. It was taken by Janis Krum, a passenger on a ferry that got pulled into the immediate rescue operation. Covered in Detroit Free Press [2] and New York Daily News [3]. TJRC (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's interesting; add it if you can find a reference stating it's "the first for a plane crash of this magnitude". Tempshill (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is helpful or not, but I'm pretty sure Fark.com linked a story about this (I think on the main page, not one of the subpages) about this yesterday. I can't remember if it was from a source that we'd consider reliable or not, and can't get to Fark at the moment to verify it. But if anyone wants to go check it out, it might be useful. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the last bit of the lead?

Note:Post refers to this information

No problem with the details of the Japan Airlines flight, but where's the source for its being specifically the "largest previous zero fatality water landing for a commercial airliner"? I imagine such a source would be reasonably easy to find, so it needs to be in there. Equally, with the Ethiopian plane, no problems about the flight details themselves, but we need a source for its being the "last water landing comparable in aircraft size to Flight 1549". 86.132.138.159 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved this to the ditching section as I think it fits there much better than in the lead (which should give the core information of this specific case) Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It was in the lead because Wikipedia considers every crash landing notable, with the move you now have to read the entire article to establish just exactly why this is being considered so newsworthy. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel this needs a reference, I looked at the water landings article and even though the information is in there, it too is unreferenced.Knowledgekid87 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes these other landings are notable, that's why they have their own articles. Is it essential for the reader to know this information to understand the article (I think not), is it interesting background information (definitely yes). Therefore, in my opinion it belongs in the main text, but not in the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand, all crashes are considered notable. People are raving about this crash precisely because of the rarity of surviving a water landing (added:and for an airliner of this size), which is what those two specific links show (subject to sourceing). That is quite different to just saying, 'here is some background info about other crashes'. It's all about context. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It belongs I agree, but just make sure it has a reference to it.Knowledgekid87 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Knowledgekid - Where does it belong? In the lead or in the main text.

Re MickMacNee - Aha, now I understand the intention of the addition better. I tend to agree the lead could do with some emphasis on the rarity of safe ditching. In my view the current text did not convey that message sufficiently.

How about something. "The ditching of flight 1549, is one of the very few cases in history were a large passenger aircraft has succesfully landed on water. Examples of landings on water are Japan Flight 2 and Ethiopian flight ..." More details about water landings can then be explained in detail in the main text. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A reference should go after this: "The largest previous zero fatality water landing for a commercial airliner was Japan Airlines Flight 2, with 96 survivors in 1968." One was added to the Ethiopian flight info.Knowledgekid87 14:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I specifically chose those two examples as relevant reference points, i.e. the largest previous no fatalities result, and the result of the last comparable attempt (by aircraft size). "Examples of ..." is just vagueness, and might as well not be there, as examples are already handled by linking the ditching article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My main argument was that we should be explicitly mentioning that succesful waterlanding is extremely rare, ie more than poviding examples alone, but by making the statement. PS I agree my phrasing of the example is indeed vague, you're right about that, so happy to rephrase. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia (Specifically WP:AVIATION) does not consider every aircrash notable. See WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral compressor stalls

As this keeps showing up in the introduction, let's be clear: the pilot's initial report did not include information about "bilateral compressor stalls and partial or complete loss of thrust in both powerplants." So far, the editors that keep including this in the intro, keep failing to provide a verifiable source for this reporting.

At this point, the bird strikes haven't been proven. It has been reported that the pilot said he'd encountered a bird strike incident, it has been reported that bird strikes will be investigated. But at this point, there is no confirmation that the bird strikes in fact occurred, nor is there a verifiable source that the the engines experienced "bilateral compressor stalls and partial or complete loss of thrust." So leave it out. 842U (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The FAA Preliminary Report of this incident states that this flight "...MADE A FORCED LANDING ON THE HUDSON RIVER AFTER STRIKING BIRDS AND LOSING ENGINE POWER." Several passengers on the flight stated in TV interviews broadcast on many local and national outlets that they heard a series of loud bangs and saw flames shooting out of the engines which rapidly lost power and could also smell fuel fumes in the cabin which is exactly what happens when fanjet engines ingest large birds and undergo a compressor stall. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

Do you have citation which refers to compressor stalls in relation to this incident? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoever used the term compressor stall is probably getting confused with the Air Florida Flight 90 accident 27 years ago. Not all jet engine failures are compressor stalls. A compressor stall is an aerodynamic condition where the jet engine's compressor, in effect, fails to keep biting into the air. (The compressor blades experience an aerodynamic stall.) This was a mechanical failure of the entire engine due to impact with birds. The preliminary NTSB report (synopsys) already concludes it was a multiple bird strike - that's good enough to use as a reference for calling it a bird strike in the article. Ikluft (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As a pilot myself, I am not confused by the aerodynamic (wing) stall suffered by AFL90 owing to ice build up on the airframe which distorted the wing airfoils resulting in their inability to provide sufficient lift to maintain flight and a fatal low altitude stall. Bird strikes are the most common cause of compressor stall (or "surge") in turbojets used in aviation by distorting and/or destroying the compressor blades and thus rendering them ineffective. In this case the damage was clearly so severe as to cause these stalls to be complete and non-recoverable. ([[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr] (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

The disputed, uncited text has been returned. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This text is NOT uncited. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

That this event featured compressor stalls is uncited; WP:SYNTHESIS refers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As the above request has not been answered in two days (Centpacrr has edited both the article and this talk page in that time) I've removed the disputed wording, Please do not re-add it, unless such a citation is provided. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditching

This section has two statements without references comparing this accident to others. If these are not substantiated with verifiable sources, they'll be removed.

• This needs verification: "The largest previous zero fatality water landing for a commercial airliner was Japan Airlines Flight 2, with 96 survivors in 1968."

• The reference for this statement doesn't say this was the last comparable in aircraft size.... : "The last water landing comparable in aircraft size to Flight 1549, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961, resulted in 125 fatalities and 50 survivors, although this was complicated by the presence of hijackers on the flight deck."

842U (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; and removed that section but was reverted. We already have a perfectly good article comparing such landings, to which we can link, thereby avoiding such redundancy and reducing the editing overhead. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you because your rationale of it being unneeded because there is another article about 20 odd other ditchings is not the same as saying this information is presented as is elsewhere, i.e. that these are the two most relevant past examples to this article. On the claims, I suppose there may be some aviation specific sources that might say it in those specific words, rather than general news sources that only print the freedom of the city crap, but I don't hold out any hope. And I guess deduction from reliably sourced air crash databases is out of the question a well, you can't prove something didn't happen can you? The irony being, I bet the pilot, an aviation expert, knows whether these claims are true or not. The other irony being, these facts are deducable from Wikipedia's own information. But that's not the same as saying it I guess. It's sad, because the info is quite pertinent to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User 842U has gone and removed it without further comment. As no reference was found, albeit with undue haste, that's fine, the claims remain above for future reference for anyone with the proper access, But please, as 842U also did, just stop repeating the idea that these two incidents do not have specific relevance to this article, over and above the 10 or 20 in the template. If the claims are true, and I believe they are, just saying they are linked in templates or are in other articles is not sufficient, and does this article a diservice if Wikipedia aims to be anything other than just another news aggregator regurgitating spoon fed information. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Number Of Flight Attendants

Doesn't IATA require four flight attendants for this aircraft? Q43 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's one per 50 passenger seats. Therefore only 3 were required. One extra seat and they would have needed four. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight Path

Is it possible to present a description of the flight path from LGA to ditching? Radzewicz (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone added a sweet map they made that would be the pride of any newspaper's graphic desk. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have a bone to pick with that map. Please see its talk page. --anon. 68.161.194.201 (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The 3D Nature visualization (which I am not afraid to admit I created) was previously removed citing the "accuracy level unknown" caveat posted with it. I'd like to point out that both the FBOWeb flight path Google Earth file AND the [wikipedia flightpath map by S. Bollmann] are created from exactly the same set of data points as the 3D Nature 3d re-creation. However, no one other than 3D Nature bothered to note that the lat/lon coordinates are only recorded with two decimal places, which amounts to roughly only 1100m positional accuracy. So, I would argue that the 3D Nature presentation of the data, by specifically calling attention to the data accuracy issue, is more credible than the others, rather than less. XenonofArcticus 19:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe The 3D Nature visualization made by XenonofArcticus is an inappropriate because of unencyclopedic inaccuracy. Although it is based on a few accurate data points, XenonofArcticus admits (on his website) that he don't have banking and heading information, although the animation depicts both. The sped-up time passage depicted is also misleading. It has a nice 3D picture of the plane, but it swoops around and interacts with flying red lines (which go in and out of the camera frame) that are distracting. The zooming in and out and panning around the plane also make it difficult to tell what's going on. The background terrain is green & yellow as if it were vegetated, and there are mountain-looking things all through Manhattan and New Jersey, but the actual setting of the flight is urban. The green & yellow background makes it difficult to discern where the plane is, how high it is, and which way it's going. – jaksmata 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not putting the 3D Nature link back, but I feel I need to defend the points raised against it. "The site says otherwise. Flight was built using nine datapoints originally reported by flightaware.com. Accuracy level of this data is unknown. Without accurate data, we should not be linking." I know what the site says, I wrote that, because I'm a scientist and I believe in letting people know the credibility of the data. The FOBWeb link and Wikipedia's own map use the exact same data. If you find the data to be unreliable because I mentioned an aspect of it no one else bothered to point out, then you should pull the FBOWeb link and the S. Bollmann map because they're the same data, only they didn't point out the poor accuracy of it. I believe the details provided on the site explain what the red lines and viewpoint changes are. The background terrain coloration is a Landsat satellite image because no other orthophoto was available that had amenable licensing. Google uses proprietary Digital Globe data that can't be used in this fashion. The Landsat image has been brightened, and Landsat sometimes sees green more strongly\, but if you refer to [Google Maps] you'll see that there actually is a large amount of vegetation in places, and it IS green during certain seasons. The "mountain looking things" are the terrain RADAR returns from buildings, a characteristic of the SRTM terrain data. They were left there to give some impression of the city massing, because the aircraft was not flying over bare ground, it flew over a landscape covered with buildings. If you feel the accuracy of the animation would be better served by playing it in real time, it would be a interminably slow 5 minute playback with virtually no impression of movement, and would be very difficult for a viewer to conceptualize the entire route in a reasonable amount of time. If you prefer to have no 3D animation at all, that's fine, but I don't think you'll find a more credible one than this, at least not until the NTSB releases black box data (if they ever do). —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenonofArcticus (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bankers

Do we really care that:

20 [passengers] were employees of Bank of America, headquartered at the plane's initial destination of Charlotte, NC. A further three passengers were employees of another bank, Wells Fargo

yes we do - as NY is a major banking city and Charlotte is Bank of America's WHQ, I'm interested to know how many there were on the flight. I concede that in part this may be because I used to work for that bank. Ringbark (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

and are we going to list all the other passengers' employers and work-places? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to detail any of the passengers names or employers unless the individual passengers are notable in wikipedia terms (which really means they have an article). MilborneOne (talk)

Just FYI: The media have spoken with one passenger whom they identified as Emma Sophina, a pop singer and songwriter from Australia. A search of Wikipedia for that name turns up nothing, so (not surprisingly) the media may be overstating (or imagining, or being misled about) her fame. --anon: 68.160.230.107 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The information regarding where some of the passengers worked has no reason to be in here, especially under "injuries". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.193.102 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that a 20 person contingent is not notable. It was notable in the 9/11 article that Cantor Fitzgerald lost a lot of people, for example. Agree that it isn't needed to be super prominent. Tempshill (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How many people did Cantor Fitzgerald on 9/11? And how many people did Bank of America lose in this incident? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no notability or not for info on this article - the question is whether there are reliable sources and whether even mentioning it is giving undue weight to the facts in the article's context. For the time being, I'm going to put this info in a note. Joshdboz (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

At what point does it become irrelevant to mention the occupations of the passengers? I can see that a group of 20 might be worth mentioning (though in passing I see that the reference is to CNNMoney.com, which would naturally tend to foreground bankers!). The group of 3 from Wells Fargo is again perhaps worth mentioning in light of the WF-US Airways connection revealed in the next section. But why mention the single IBM employee & an anonymous Australian singer? After all, there may well have been 2 German professors -- or even the odd Wikipedian. The list is in danger of sounding like the cast list of Widecombe Fair, with Uncle Tom Cobley and all. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. List of occupations should be deleted. It adds nothing relevant to the article. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

I also agree that the passengers' occupations are irrelevant to this article. I don't think they should be mentioned individually unless they are notable independent of this article (none appear to be). – jaksmata 15:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Another ditching article to be written - Boeing 707-351C ST-APY at Mwanza Airport

Off topic for this page, for which apologies; but there's another ditch & no fatalities article we need, for a 03 FEB 2000 accident of a Boeing 707-351C ST-APY at Mwanza Airport (MWZ) - see B707 Takes a Swim and this google search for more info. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that accident meets WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it probably should be included at Water landing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Qutie clearly he was not planning to land on the water. He was trying to land on the runway, and appears to have crashed into the sea. That's quite different to purposely planning and attempting to land on water. He appears not to have destroyed the pane by luck rather than skill. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Those of us who are Pprune members will know that the accident referred to above was entirely due to pilot error. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it yesterday googling for information on other ditchings. Go ahead and start the article, there's lots of data available out there and templates to use. Tempshill (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Video on youtube

The emergeny landing video is available on youtube. Do a quick search, linking is not allowed. 89.245.244.62 (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason you couldn't post it here for reference. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[4] Official coastguard video. Given the amount of photographs out there (including one of the plane prior to river touchdown) there's probably going to be more in the days/weeks to come. Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• With the video having been uploaded to Commons, and included within this article, there is no reason to add an external link at the bottom of the page in order to direct people to the youtube video. I've removed it again. - auburnpilot talk 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of that specific video, I do have to agree/second the aforementioned decision. Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

I added alt text to the flightpath map yesterday:

The aircraft headed approximately north after takeoff, then wheeled anti-clockwise to follow the Hudson Southwards

only to find it removed today. I've restored it. Please do not remove it again, per WP:ALT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditching

I don't think that how this section is written (especially the first paragraph) complies with wiki standards; however, me being a relatively amateur editor I'm not sure adding a "wikify" tag would be the best thing to do (as this is a current event) and I don't have the guts don't know how I should rewrite it, so could someone edit this, please? Thanks. Cleverfool (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done some rewriting - do you have any remaining concerns? If so, what are they? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Article says: The Airbus A320 has a ditching button that closes all valves and openings underneath the aircraft to slow the rate of flooding,[33] but this was not used.[25]

I am not able to find any reference for this claim: "but this was not used" although I've read and searched "cited" article twice. I will delete this part of the sentence if no one confirms that this *is* in the article or finds some other article. Saigon from europe (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it is confirmed, so I won't delete it. Saigon from europe (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, the current citation external link for the A320 ditching button does not seem to even mention it. Needs repair? Or this one [5] any better? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Original link did mention the button, right at the end, but have now replaced it with one that shows a picture and also discusses use. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Airspeed

I added a reference that the plane was ditched at 125 mph. The plane was ditched shortly after takeoff because it couldn't reach sufficient airspeed - what I'm wondering is, do pilots ditching a plane at full speed have the option to slow down to this speed while ditching, or were the circumstances - ditching right after takeoff - something unique that allowed this to work? Wnt (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For what purpose do you mean it couldn't reach an airspeed that was sufficient? To be able to glide far enough to land at Teterboro Airport? By the way, I heard a figure of 140 mph at impact. --anon. 68.160.230.107 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft speeds are measured in knots, not mph! Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a knot is a mile per hour; it's just measured in nautical miles rather than statute miles. - auburnpilot talk 20:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The air speed at 300 feet was measured at 153 knots. That's probably pretty close to how fast the plane hit the water.

Actually, 1 knot is 1 nautical mile per hour. There is a difference! Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The conversion factor of going from knots to mph is 1 knot = 1.15078030303 mph I think we should wait until data from the flight Data recorder is available, I don't trust data from the flightaware website that is linked above. For data reference the landing speed of an A320 is about 150kts. since this is reported to be flown into the water vs stalled into the water the plane must have been going at least that fast.Rjhawkin (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Landing speed is not equal to stall speed. You can't assume that the recommended landing speed is the minimum speed that the aircraft can fly without stalling. Stalls depend more on angle of attack rather than airspeed... I see no reason not to trust the flightaware website. – jaksmata 14:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually landing speed varies and can be considerably above stall speed depending on runway length and surface conditions, wind speed and direction, other traffic, etc, especially if wind shear conditions exist when it would be considerably higher then stall speed. Approach and touchdown are made at speeds which permit the pilot can maintain full directional and attitudinal control, as well as to retain the option to execute a missed approach or "go around" even after touch down if necessary. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Some of you sound like you know your stuff, but I'm still left wondering: was this plane ditched at an unusually low speed compared to other planes that have been ditched in the past? And if so, was that the result of the pilots' superior skill, or special circumstances that made it easier (or necessary) for them to go more slowly? Wnt (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight Section

The two subs Crew, and Aircraft are very small, is there any more info to expand them or maybe combine the two? Knowledgekid87 10:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I feel there's now simply too much irrelevant detail in this section: at least some of it should be relegated to footnotes or omitted altogether. Eg:

• which is part of the Star Alliance and operated as a codeshare with United Airlines as United Airlines Flight 1919,

Replace with (also known as United Airlines Flight 1919).

• with direct onward service to Seattle-Tacoma in Washington

Omit.

• After leaving the Air Force, he began a career as a pilot for Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) and later US Airways after PSA was acquired by that airline

Replace with He had worked as a commercial pilot since 1980. (Full details on his career are available to interested readers in the linked article.)

• Jeffrey B. Skiles, 49.

Why is Skiles the only person whose age is mentioned?

• The aircraft, registered N106US,[26] was an Airbus A320-214 with the manufacturer's construction number 1044, powered by two CFM56-5B4/P engines.[27] First flown on June 15, 1999, it was delivered new to US Airways in August 1999,

Replace with The aircraft, an Airbus A320-214 powered by two CFM56-5B4/P engines,[27] was delivered new to US Airways in August 1999, --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing suggested above to be deleted appears to be either inaccurate or irrelevant to the article, and removing it would not materially change the overall length of the entry. Aviation is a highly technical field and much of the detail included is meaningful to an overall understanding of the incident and is also quite helpful in aiding readers in doing further research on their own. Instead of continuingly "dumbing down" the article, I say leave it all in. (Centpacrr (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

I think you may misunderstand the point of an encyclopedia. To make an article succinct & readable is not the same as "dumbing down". Thanks to the wonders of hyperlinking, those who want more detail on the captain's career can click on the link.

As to the other excessive details I mentioned—well, I suppose that may be a matter of taste. For example, is it really relevant to tell the reader that a couple of months elapsed between the aircraft's first (test??) flight & its delivery to US Airways? And if we need to know that the first flight was on June 15, why aren't we told the precise date in August on which it was delivered?

And what conceivable relevance is there in including the scheduled onward leg of the flight from Charlotte to Seattle? Well, that would be worth mentioning if this article were really about Flight 1549 as a scheduled flight—but of course it isn't: the flight is only notable because of the ditching. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading "direct onward service" says to me that the flight won't be delayed for refuelling at Charlotte: it already has a full fuel load for the transcontinental flight. That in turn means it will behave differently on ditching. It's relevant. Is there a direct reference on the point?LeadSongDog (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]OK, I take your point about the full fuel load. If it's relevant, the effect on the ditching procedure should be spelt out explicitly.

BTW If Skiles' age is given as a surrogate for his experience, wouldn't it be better to say how many hours' flying he had? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The full fuel load has importance because the plane was probably close to max weight when it went down. This would have affected how far the pilot would have been able to 'glide' the A320.Rjhawkin (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, is this true? Gliders (sailplanes) often add water ballast in the wings to fly faster cross-country, & this does not affect the "best glide" angle. My guess would be that the main effect of having a full fuel load would be to increase the speed at which the ditching occurred. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The text should explain that Runway 4 is so called because it points in the direction 040° (ie roughly northeast). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre ending lines removed

I removed this bizarre line which concluded the article but seemed dubious and lacked any source:

"With the successful water ditching of Flight 1549, the line of passenger and cargo planes attempting to make a controlled landing on a body of water and resulting in survivors remains unbroken. This is the fourth attempt which has resulted in a 100% survival rate." Nrbelex ^(talk) 17:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No training for ditching ?

It was said, that the pilot did not have any training for ditching. That is surprising. Or wrong. We passengers received training for that during decades. Under every seat is a life vest.I hope some more information will be delivered. --Hans W (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had (minimal) training for ditching as part of my private pilot's certificate, so it seems highly improbable that these pilots wouldn't have had any. -- N2f (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would mark that statement highly {{dubious}} were it in the article. First, I'm sure Sullenberger was trained to ditch when he was in the Air Force. I cannot imagine the Air Force would not train pilots in doing this ... there were many made in both theaters in WWII. Second, commercial airline pilots train in this constantly as well, according to one of the articles we have as a source. Because it is always a remote possibility that this would happen. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pilots are told the theory about how to do it, but for very obvious reasons you cannot train how to do it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

While they obviously wouldn't have trained to ditch an actual aircraft, they very likely ran through several scenarios during their training in a full motion flight simulator. You can see a video of an A320 sim here. - auburnpilot talk 22:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is said that the captain has trained on gliders. (Whether professionally or as a sport?) You have to bring the tail down first on water, and obviously he knew that. - Hordaland (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

But why simulator couldn't dealt with ditching landing? Would it easy to program software dealt with ocean wave texture and they just wrote program to dealt with speed and angle which flip and didn't flip aircraft?  !!! So why they didn't wrote software? Did programmer got too lazy?!!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Open doors

I saw a passenger (or crew?) in TV telling that all doors opened and water came in. He said the water level came inside the airplane where he was, raised to his breast.

How is that organized? --Hans W (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They did not open the doors in the rear. --anon. 68.161.194.201 (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Water could have been coming in from below. Based on the pictures the bottom had to take a large amount of abuse landing at that speed. I have not seen confirmation of this, but the fuel in the wings was more buoyant that the amount of water it displaced. That had to help keep the plane up a bit. There are reports that even when the plane was lifted out that there was still fuel in the wings based on the fuel leak that is mentioned.Rjhawkin (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rafts

Rafts deployed from the front doors but not from the doors over the wing. I'd like the article to mention why, if anybody knwos. Tempshill (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make sense? They're used as evacuation slides normally ... wouldn't work from the wing doors. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The A320 has escape slides for the overwing exits which are triggered by the opening of the overwing exit doors. Theses slides extend from the trailing edge of the wing parallel with the fuselage (detailed in this YouTube video. They did deploy on this occasion, but because of their orientation compared to the fwd slides they are not as prominent. The left hand overwing exit slide is visible in some of the pictures on a FT.com slide show. Feralicious (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dumbing down

Can we please stop trying to dumb down this article? It's not just one editor, but as time goes by, people seem to have a desire to eliminate correct descriptions and terms, simply because they are not every day descriptions and terms. Aviation is a technical field. It has specific terms, descriptions, jargon, and events. Link the uncommon words, provide a brief explanation, but please stop changing every uncommon term to one that would better fit on the Simple Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 23:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

You need to cite examples. Tempshill (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On the theme of using approriate terms, in the 'Aftermath' section, a passage reads "the right engine was initially thought to have detached, but was later found to be still attached to the aircraft, though most of the housing was torn off". Should the word 'housing' be substituted by 'cowling'? 82.15.54.92 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And shouldn't the "left" & "right" engines be port & starboard? The right engine does sound a bit Simple Wikipedia to me. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In the industry, they are referred to as "engine 1" and "engine 2" (I can't remember which is which). "Left" and "right" are for those of us who aren't familiar with the technicalities. – jaksmata 20:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon! Port & starboard are probably more widely known than many of the aeronautical terms used in this article. Link them if necessary. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Port & Starboard are indeed used commonly within aviation, engines however tend to be referred to by number (position). One reason for this is aircraft with more than 1 engine on each wing, saying the 'port' wing can mean 1 of 2 engines, whereas if it is referred to as the number 1 or the number 2 it is clear which one is being referenced. For example saying the left (or port) engine on a B747 will not mean a lot unless the outboard or inboard engine is stated; it is just a lot easier to say number 1 or number 2 rather than 'port outboard' or 'port inboard'.Feralicious (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point; but in this case the aircraft had only 2 engines. Now, you probably know which engine is 1 & which is 2, but most reader's won't. OTOH Port & Starboard ought to be in the vocabulary of most English-speakers, for sailing as well as flying. (As an easy mnemonic, remember that both Left and Port have 4 letters.)

It seems to me that any readers who need to know which specific engine is being referred to will also know their port from their starboard; and I've changed the text accordingly (with the first mentions of port & starboard linked). The fact that one of the newspaper reports refers to the right engine is neither here nor there! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the articles for port (nautical) and starboard? They are nautical terms, not aviation terms. One of them is even called "Port (nautical)", not "Port (aviation)". The correct and specific terms are "engine 1" and "engine 2" - if you want to avoid dumbing down the article, use those terms. Besides, if you want readers to "know which specific engine is being referred to" which term is more common, "Right" or "Starboard?" If you want to ignore the terms used in news reports, use the correct terms "engine 1" and "engine 2" - I'm going to revert for these reasons. – jaksmata 14:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Yes, I have read the articles on port & starboard. Both articles are wrong to imply that the terms are used only in nautical contexts, & should probably be corrected to include aviation. I wonder how many other editors reading this feel, as you do, that port and starboard are unusual terms. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they're unusual in all contexts, just this one - although I recognize that they are sometimes used for aircraft. I just think they're less well known than "left / right" and less correct than "engine 1 / engine 2." In it's most resent press release on Flight 1549, the NTSB uses the terms "left engine" and "right engine" [6]. Searching the NTSB database, I've found that they use "left and right" when describing Flight 1549, and they also use "engine 1 and engine 2" sometimes for 2-engine airplanes example. On 4-engine aircraft such as the 747 they seem to use "engine 1/2/3/4" exclusively example. I can't find any examples of where they use the terms "port / starboard". – jaksmata 19:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A check gives B747 "no. 1 engine" a massive edge over B747 "outboard port engine" but we don't realy care about what google says, do we?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'd better retire gracefully from the fray while I'm still in one piece ... I think part of the disagreement could be due to Britsh vs US usage. If you check what McCain calls "the Google", searching on aaib "port engine" (or aaib "starboard engine": the UK AAIB), you'll find a few hundred hits each (though admittedly fewer than for "no. 1/2 engine").

Incidentally, User:LeadSongDog has confused the issue in the same way as User:Feralicious by limiting the discussion to a 4-engine aircraft. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hydraulics/Flight control

Has anyone seen information about how the flight control surfaces remained operable after the bird strike? In other words, did the engines maintain enough power to turn their hydraulic pumps, or was there some other source of hydraulic power employed (such as the APU)? Probably too early in the investigation to say, but it's something I hope will be clarified. Fletcher (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

From 1549 to Tower: ‘We’re Gonna End Up in the Hudson’ (NYTimes) "...the Airbus A320 has a “ram air turbine,” essentially a little propeller that drops down into the wind automatically in certain conditions and produces electricity; it may have provided the energy to allow the crew to lower the flaps." - auburnpilot talk 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that this morning and was quite disappointed to see the word "may"... since I could have told you it "may" have been used! Just the way it goes I guess. Fletcher (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything that resembled a "ram air turbine" when watching the video of the aircraft be hoisted out. I'm not too knowledgeable when it comes to Airbus (I'll take a Boeing before an Airbus any day), so I'm not sure if I was even looking in the right place. I suppose we'll have to wait for those NTSB guys to do their job... - auburnpilot talk 01:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

They generally deploy out of the lower fuselage or bottom of a wing and are not very large relative to the size of an A320 so it is possible that was visually obstructed or damaged on impact with the water. 209.30.228.224 (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I raised this three days ago, but it was archived while in mid-discussion. See Backup power for the flight controls systems in Archive 3. MickMacNee (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a good question, wasn't it?  :-) To answer your question in that thread, the main engines are the normal source for hydraulic power. The APU is not always running in flight (and I don't know if it was on or not during this incident). Each main engine has a gearbox on the outside of the engine (still inside the nacelle) with a shaft and bevel gear connecting down to one of the shafts that turns the compressor/turbine section. That gearbox is connected to a generator, hydraulic pump, fuel pump, and the air starter motor, IIRC. Fletcher (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Did the passengers leave behind their carryons?

I'm curious what percentage of the passengers obeyed the standing orders and left behind their carry-on baggage. Tempshill (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this article in the Times, some did. Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There was the woman in the fur coat who asked a stranger to go back inside the slowly sinking plane to fetch her purse. The man who carried his garment bag onto the wing with him.

If any of this makes it into the article, please be very careful with interpretation. All sorts of ordinary objects could help a person survive a plunge into lethally cold water for a longer period of time. These passengers don't deserve any uninformed judgmentalism. Wnt (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Engine(s) shut down

A bird strike shutting down both engines simultaneously is very unusual. Room should be left for a finding that only one engine flamed out, and the other engine, the good one, was shut down by mistake. This was the cause of the Kegworth air disaster. The loss of one engine causes assymetrical thrust, which has to be quickly corrected for, and can lead to a wrong decision. Not to take away from the Captain's skilled landing in the Hudson. JohnClarknew (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not until the investigation uncovers something like that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is now a closed question. Both engines were shut down by the birds, preliminary analysis of the black box shows. That's a relief. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's trim that first video clip

File:Flight1549CrashAndRescue.ogg, the topmost video clip in the article, has about 8 seconds of dead time at the beginning of the video. Can someone trim it down to 1 second? Tempshill (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced text

I removed the following, as it was completely unreferenced and not particularly dire that it be included:

In New Jersey, the EMS response was the largest since the 2007 Wildfires in Ocean County. Over 10 Ambulance Strike Teams (50 ambulances) from northern and central New Jersey counties organized and responded to support the rescue operation. 58 passengers from the aircraft were rescued by ferries and brought to the Port Imperial Ferry Terminal in Weehawken, NJ. The NJ Department of Health's EMS Task Force was also activated and deployed - providing an incident management team and specialized EMS resources.

If it can be referenced, feel free to do so and reinclude it within the Rescue efforts section. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Write-off

I have twice removed the statement that "The almost ten year old airplane (N106US, c/n 1044) was written off.", the second time refactoring it thus. Others have also moved or removed it. Two of the three references given do not even say that the plane is written-off, so I removed them. Via a series of intermediate edits (hard to identify, due to missing or misleading edit summaries), that statement has been returned yet again. The age and identity of the aircraft is already in the article, so I think my wording should be restored. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I found one of the restoring edits, edit summary "Please stop 'dumbing down' article by removing sourced technical material". See also next section. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say your edit is reasonable enough, and is better than the current wording. Go for it. - auburnpilot talk 22:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had removed a sentence fragment from the intro section yesterday stating "A hull-loss accident." with "hull-loss" linked to "write-off"; because the two references supplied had only provided speculation. Tempshill (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've restored that. Hopefully, anyone who disagrees will talk here before reverting again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NYTRACON

The text:

The captain radioed to air traffic control that he had experienced a bird strike…

was reverted (in the same edit referred to in the preceding section) to:

The captain radioed to air traffic control (NYTRACON) that he had experienced a bird strike…

with the edit summary "Please stop 'dumbing down' article by removing sourced technical material".

The problem with that text is that the linked page does not define "NYTRACON", nor is its meaning clear from the context on the page. Fixing such problems is not "dumbing down", it is making the article readable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How is NYTRACON not clear? It's the New York area Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). - auburnpilot talk 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Terminal Control Center is a better link than TRACON, or NYTRACON. --John (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If it further clarifies, replace it with a piped link: New York Terminal Radar Approach Control. - auburnpilot talk 21:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a case of AIBUAA. I trust that's equally clear. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

TRACON was linked, AIBUAA is not. But I think we all know that AIBUAA = Assuming Intelligence Belittles Us All, Ass. No? ;-) - auburnpilot talk 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No. And though TRACON was linked; it did not define NYTRACON. Perhaps you might now look at the section preceding this one? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rescued

I have more than once removed wording to the effect that passengers were "rescued from the river" from the lede, but one or more editors keep reverting to reinstate it. I would remind people that the Wikipedia process is Boldly edit, if Reverted, Discuss - not keep adding the wording you like, without discussion. In this case, the wording is misleading, because most passengers were not in the river; and unnecessary, because once we've pointed out that they all "survived the incident", the process by which they were restored to land is adequately covered in the body of the article. The latest revert also reintroduces the ungainly repetition of "ditching" in the lede. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A forced "landing" in the water is called a "ditching" which is exactly what happened in this case. All on board survived the ditching, but they were hardly out of danger at this point as the cabin quickly began to fill with very cold water. The plane was still floating in the middle of river several hundred yards from shore and drifting down stream when the occupants climbed out on the wings and the inflated slides to avoid being drowned if it then sank at which time they were then subject to injury or death from exposure to the frigid waters. It is from this second peril that they were most assuredly subsequently "rescued" from by nearby ferry boats and watercraft which promptly came to their aid. Had these impromptu rescuers not been there so quickly many of the survivors of the ditching would have very likely suffered serious injuries or death from exposure. The "incident" (as you call it) was in fact two very distinct and separate incidents -- the disabling of the airplane's engines and subsequent ditching, and the water rescue which followed -- with very different perils and potential outcomes. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

FWIW, "Rescued from the river" is vague enough to be misleading. By the way, I troubled to look up "ditching" on the NTSB site, and their aviation accident coding manual at [7] defines "ditching" as "A planned event in which a flight crew knowingly makes a controlled emergency landing in water. (Excludes float plane landings in normal water landing areas.)" (Just wanted to note that here; I'm not contradicting your statement above.) Tempshill (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

*Now reads "... rescued from the partially submerged plane..." for unambiguous clarity; and...

*As my above response posted at 01:54 (as had been requested by the original poster in this talk section) was not responded to (or apparently read) before unilaterally reverting my edits in the intro on the subject of the water rescue 2:24 later (at 4:18), I repeat it here briefly for his convenience. Acknowledging the water rescue operations separately in the intro is not superfluous as it was every bit as much responsible for the 100% survival rate among the 155 souls on board which occurred after the ditching was completed as the aircrew was for ditching and evacuating the plane before the rescue boats arrive. These were two quite separate events which presented very different perils and requirements for success. (Centpacrr (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

• "Escaped" vs "Rescued": The passengers and crew escaped from the Airbus to the wings and inflated slides on their own and without outside assistance. The were then rescued by others in ferry boats and other watercraft who arrived after their original escape from inside the plane. These were two separate actions -- the first (escaped) being "active" (on their own), and the second (rescued) being "passive" (aided by others). (Centpacrr (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

NTSB preliminary report

FYI - NTSB has posted its preliminary report (synopsys). This may be used as a reference to support a bird strike and simultaneous loss of power in both engines. Ikluft (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Condensing the references.

There are currently 72 references, which take up about one third of the total article size. Some facts are referenced four times, and many facts are covered by other references, but the fact not attributed to them. Now I am all for a properly referenced article, and do like a really good set of reference, but I think that the current set are excessive for the story.
What I suggest is a trimming of the references, with the minor facts being attributed to newer references, or refs. supporting more or major facts. e.g. the second ref. in the Injuries section can be used to support the first ref.ed fact. Martin451 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think it needs to be done, go for it. Just be sure not to remove any reference that is used more than once, unless you replace it with a reference that covers each use. Also be careful when choosing between which references are removed and which references are kept. If choosing between MSNBC and Yahoo News, for example, remove Yahoo News as their links tend to die off quickly. MSNBC links tend to stay alive and well for long periods of time. - auburnpilot talk 01:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right - and the first references cited are going to be the less valuable ones, more full of speculation than the later references. Thanks for tackling a thankless task. Tempshill (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bird Strike

I need clarity, if possible on what altitude the plane was at when the bird strike occured. The article uses the verbage: "While climbing through an altitude of 3,200 feet (980 m) about ninety seconds after takeoff, the crew reported by radio that their twin-jet Airbus A320 had been involved in a bird strike and had lost power to both engines.[7][8]" So at what altitude, did the bird strike occur? Truth4Sale 2009-01-19 06:41 UTC

I'm betting that will come to light when the flight data recorder is analyzed. Tempshill (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jet Fuel

I would like to know if sources have stated whether or not any jet fuel was dumped before the landing, or is the jet fuel still in the airplane, and if so, was it leaking out? Truth4Sale 2009-01-19 06:41 UTC

A few media outlets reported that the fuel was being drained as part of the process to remove the aircraft from the Hudson river, so at least some fuel remained in the tanks. (Besides, dumping fuel for a couple of minutes at most wouldn't have helped much at all.) There's no telling whether all the fuel remained in the wings, though. That's the sort of thing the NTSB states on their investigations' reports. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

the A320 has no fuel dump system WP:Fuel Dump so when the aircraft entered the river it was pretty much filled up with what it had upon take off. What managed to leak out into the river after that is currently unknown, but with one engine being torn off, leading edge flaps breaking away I think there is a reasonable chance that some fuel was able to escape. We'll have to wait and see on that score though. Feralicious (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about if the fuel would have added buoyancy to the downed aircraft. It should be lighter than the water it displaces. could this have helped keep the aircraft afloat and slowed water rushing in through the damaged bottom side of the fuselage? I gather from reports of the route that the A320 could have had nearly a full fuel load (6,300 lbs.) which was not dump-able as noted above. Thoughts or documentation? -- Rjhawkin (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While oil will float on water, I wouldn't count on a "container" of fuel (such as an airplane wing) being kept afloat. However, there's a simple test you could try. Take a gas can, fill it with gas, seal it up, and see if it floats or sinks in a small body of water (such as your filled bathtub or something). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside from being WP:OR, the above addresses the wrong question. The comparison should be between the density of kerosene and the density of entrapped air in a sealed empty tank. The aircraft's MTOW should be well documented, as should it's fuel capacity. No need for experiments. According to the FAA type certificate the A320-200 series can have either 3 or 4 tanks containing 19,274 or 21,594 kg of usable fuel respectively.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original question was whether the full fuel tanks would help the wings stay afloat. I'm looking for an answer to that question somewhere in your response. Meanwhile, the original questioner could still try what I suggested, and get a sense of what the answer could be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. WP:OR applies to article content. This section of the talk page is not an article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope that nobody is foolish enough to take Baseball Bugs seriously and puts gasoline in their bathtub. It's a fire hazard, and gasoline fumes can be dangerous. Even if just a little bit is on the outside of the can it will contaminate the water, tub, drain, etc., and you'll have a persistent smell if nothing else. Besides, jets don't use "gas" they use jet fuel.

Instead of performing dangerous experiments, why don't you use some sort of reference medium... like, I dunno, Wikipedia? the Jet Fuel article says that JET A-1 has a density of 0.8075 kg/L, whereas water is 0.998 kg/L. Since jet fuel would weigh less than the water it displaces (per Archimedes' principle), jet fuel floats in water, and it would therefore increase the buoyancy of an aircraft afloat, since it weighs less than the water it displaces. – jaksmata 17:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There ya go. :) Now, as a followup question, the fuel tanks are in the forward wings, right? Which could explain why the forward wing portion stayed above water longer than the tail wings, right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Beats me. One of the principles of flight is that the center of lift (the wings) is at the center of gravity, but I guess the center of buoyancy is a different question all together. There are probably a lot of factors - damage, leakage, cargo, contents of overhead compartments shifting... – jaksmata 20:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

See the link for the A320 Ditching Button which includes this Federal Aviation Regulation Part 25, Section 801 quote: "If the airplane has fuel tanks (with fuel jettisoning provisions) that can reasonably be expected to withstand a ditching without leakage, the jettisonable volume of fuel may be considered as buoyancy volume." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This has me a bit puzzled: the volume of the wing remains the same whether it is full or empty. Air is less dense than fuel, so jettisoning fuel would seem to improve buoyancy. Is that what is meant by the above? As LeadSongDog noted, the relevant question is the buoyancy of an empty air filled wing vs. a fuel filled wing, as some people seem to believe the fuel in the wing improved buoyancy. The fact that jet fuel is less dense than water seems like it would help it from sinking, but not as much as an empty wing would. Likewise if you take a rowboat and fill it with toy boats, the rowboat will sit a little lower, not higher, in the water. Even though the toy boats are buoyant, the total mass of the rowboat increased while its displaced volume remained the same -- hence less buoyancy. Fletcher (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But, um, furthermore: "... the A320 family and various regional jet ("RJ") aircraft do not have fuel dump systems installed." (see Fuel dumping). Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the original question was more along the lines of whether the fuel tanks help keep the wings afloat. But he raises an interesting point. Suppose you were approaching NYC and the engines conked out and you made a water landing, with nearly empty fuel tanks. It sounds like the wings would float better if the tanks were empty. Either way, they would probably do better than the tail did - although there was a rumor that someone partially opened a rear door, which didn't help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The original question was "... whether or not any jet fuel was dumped before the landing...?" The answer must be no. And so yes, fuel still leaking out. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger. Going back to the gas can test, it's reasonable to assume that a sealed but empty gas can would float higher than a can full of jet fuel would. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Empty things tend to float better than full things. Provided they're sealed. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's where things start to get tricky: I recall a story about a plane that was carrying a priceless cargo of exotic birds in its cargo hold. There was one problem: They could only make one flight, and they were about double their weight limit for cargo. So they had to hire a guy to sit in the cargo hold and bang on the cages to startle the birds off their perches and thus keep at least half of them flying at all times. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They must have been empty birds. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, they were stuffed with bird seed. Hence the need to keep them flying. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the sanitized version of the story. In reality they found it much more effective to jettison the guy they hired out the cargo hatch. Fletcher (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He hung onto the bird cages for dear life, hence the term "clutch cargo". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Teamwork Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I award the Teamwork Barnstar to all editors who have taken part in writing this article so well and so quickly. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Airline schedule fetishists in the intro

US Airways Flight 1549 was a daily scheduled commercial passenger flight from LaGuardia Airport in New York City to Charlotte, NC, and Seattle, WA.

Only airline schedule fetishists talk this way in the intro of a Wikipedia article. To the world at large (including practically all news media organizations), Flight 1549 is now the name of the individual aircraft that ended up in the Hudson. The above sentence is no longer appropriate for the intro. I rephrased the intro accordingly. Tempshill (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead is going to mention the departure and destination anyway, so why not put the flight into its proper context? It can all be done in the same sentence. Joshdboz (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I grudgingly think the lead is OK now. My objections have been that other editors keep adding that "Flight 1549" is the name of a route, and then they describe the route in excess detail; and also adding that after landing in Charlotte the route went to Seatac. I think both of these facts, though true, should be sacrificed for the sake of brevity in the opening paragraph. Tempshill (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It's an introduction, and as such should move from the most general information to the most specific.842U (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what does this actually mean: US Airways Flight 1549 was a daily scheduled commercial passenger flight. Is it really necessary to say that it was a daily AND a scheduled flight. Can a flight be a daily flight without behing scheduled... in fact, isn't it implicit in the Flight number that the flight was "scheduled."842U (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Importance of pilot's glider training?

Has the pilot yet commented on the usefulness of his training as a glider (sailplane) pilot? As a glider pilot myself, I know that an important part of the training is developing the ability to select suitable fields or other landing areas for "out"landings when no more lift (typically thermals) can be found. Since gliders have no engines, they are in a sense in a permanent state of engine failure—so having to make a fairly quick decision to land in an unfamiliar area is perhaps less of a big deal for trained glider pilots than it is for pilots who fly only powered aircraft. This in no way diminishes Sullenberger's superb professional handling of what could so easily have turned into a tragedy.

Another essential aspect of flying a glider is the need to constantly monitor and estimate glide angles to a destination—and this may well have enabled the pilot to rule out immediately the proposed diversion to Teterboro airport. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK's "Sunday Times" 18 January 2009 stressed the criticality of the aircraft's angle of approach to the surface of the water just before touch down - apparently 7 degrees. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sullenberger hasn't spoken with the press at all yet. So far I haven't seen anything mentioned about his glider experience in NTSB's reports of their interviews with the pilots. I agree with the presumption that it must have been useful in that situation. (I recently got my glider rating.) With just some rough info based on news reports, they were about 6 miles from Teterboro at 3000 ft altitude when they briefly considered going there. Just with some quick math, in order to arrive at the airport with 1000 ft to spare to make the almost-90 degree right turn to Runway 1, the A320 would have needed a glide ratio of at least 15:1, which is probably more than an A320 has even without Flight 1549's draggy damaged engines. They probably didn't have time to do such math in their heads - but their years of experience led to the same conclusion that there was no safety margin even if they could make it there. Under the responsibility to make such a decision with as wide a margin of safety as possible, the Hudson River would have appeared as a much more conservative and achievable goal. There was no doubt they could make that. So that's what they chose. Hindsight confirms they made the right decision even under severe time constraints. Ikluft (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Airbus itself recommends 11 degrees of pitch at the time of touchdown [8] (This link also shows where the "Ditching Button' is located). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

While the glider training is probably invaluable for incidents like this (and the Gimli Glider incident), I believe that 'in-head' calculations like this are tested as a standard part of the Commercial Pilot practical test in the US. I was asked to calculate glide distances (and whether I could make a given airport) in the practical tests for both my single and multi commercial ratings. I would assume that it is certainly a component of most type-rating checkrides. Given that one of the uses of an article such as this would likely be to assuage some fearful flyers, if I can find a citation about it (calculating glide distances) being a part of the commercial PTS, would that be a reasonable add? CaptainChrisD (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly would. (BTW I've moved your contribution to its correct chronological position in this thread—though I can understand why you inserted it where you did.)--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting history, archiving unresolved issues etc

I'm not aware of another article in which so much editing of the talk page and archiving of active issues has taken place. Surely there is no compelling need to remove things wholesale until the points raised have been resolved. Perhaps there is a case for dicussion pages being write-only except for admins. Rewriting history is not a hallmark of democratic institutions! --TraceyR (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been erased; check the History tab. I agree that the movement of discussions into archive pages has been premature. Tempshill (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the last archive, this page was 84 kilobytes long, and carried the warning "It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage". All archived material is linked to, from this page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was a great idea to move it yet even if it was 300K, since the page was only a day or two old; I don't like repeating arguments and breaking threads of discussion. Editors who write on discussion pages aren't going to blink at the pages loading a few seconds more slowly (which would only happen for people with 28.8K modems anyway). Tempshill (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar incidents

This extraneous section seems out of place. I think it should be removed. Maybe a List of Airplane ditchings should be created. Then that page would be an appropriate *see also* addition. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a list water landing Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See also the navbox at the bottom. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Test of jet engines for bird strikes

Do we need to cover the test of bird strikes on jet engine? This seems to be a highly relevant topic. Trent370 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How many pigeons have to sacrifice their lives when those tests are conducted? And I'm guessing they're only paid in chicken feed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Incident with same plane two days earlier

Not really certain this is fleshed out enough to go in the article, or where to put it, but this story on CNN reports that the same plane that crashed in the Hudson suffered an apparent issue with the right side engine two days before the accident. Like I said, I don't think this is fleshed out enough for the article, but thought to make a note of it here on the talk page for reference purposes. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard that news report also. It certainly has a good chance to tie in with the big story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait until it is confirmed it was indeed the same plane and not some other Airbus 320 of US Airways. Arnoutf (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight Status: delayed

It is a mark of my dedication as a Wikipedian that I didn't add Flight Status: delayed to the infobox at the top right. :) Alan Canon (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Experimentation?

There was some discussion about the difficulty of "training" ditching with commercial jets. How about "testing" ditching commercial jets, using commercial jets that are decommissionned due to coming to the end of their useful lives, perhaps by piloting them robotically, just to test the optimal methods to train for in simulator runs? Does that go on? If it does, perhaps it could be mentioned in the article even. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty certain that it doesn't go on. Probably because the anti-pollution nazis would be up in arms in such a test was proposed. Just imaging all that damage a few hundred gallons of kerosene would do in trillions of gallons of seawater! You can bet that if such a test ever got the go-ahead the press would be there and we'd all know about it. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also very expensive. Witness the Controlled Impact Demonstration from 1984 for the most recent example of a full-up free-flight crash test of an aircraft. (There were also two preliminary non-free-flying tests in the 1970s that led up to that, one using a DC-6 and one using a Lockheed Constellation; the DC-6 test footage was famously shown as the in-flight movie in Airplane!, and has been widely used as stock footage since.) The FAA does do crashworthiness experiments with small aircraft (up to about the size of a Learjet) that were either abandoned prototypes or suffered non-structural damage that renders them unsellable--many, many Piper single-engine airframes were used for such tests following the 1974 Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, flood that flooded out Piper's factory--but only to test projects where there's not enough data to run successful computer simulations.

There is plenty of data on landing large aircraft on water, albeit mostly from World War II and earlier, both from ditching damaged military aircraft during the war, and from operating large flying boats in civilian and military service, so the requirements and stresses are well-known, and any experiments to improve them can be carried out in computer simulations at far lower cost than purchasing airworthy aircraft to destroy rather than scrap. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight attendants etc

Is there really any point in naming the 3 flight attendants? I'm sure they behaved professionally & courageously in difficult circumstances, but they don't need to be named here. Does "flight attendant" need a link? If so, it should be given at the first mention of the term, not later on in the article.

Please make it clear that the copilot & first officer were the same person: that certainly won't be obvious to all readers of the article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If the flight attendants aren't worthy of a mention by name, why is the Captain entitle to his own article and why is the FO entitled to be mentioned by name? They were a crew of five, and worked together as a team to ensure a successful outcome (no lives lost). They are all deserving of being named in the article. See also BOAC Flight 712. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If naming the entire crew is standard WP practice, that's fine. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the flight attendants' names. We need to keep it brief. The idea is that this is an encyclopedia, not a thorough catalog of all details of the incident. A reader can completely grasp the entirety of the incident without the names of the flight attendants. Tempshill (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sullenberger injured?

Has there been any report of injuries sustained by Sullenberger or his FO? Sullenberger was just shown at the Obama inauguration, and was being helped (considerably) to his seat by a man in uniform. I can't imagine that he wasn't injured, but I've seen no reports. - auburnpilot talk 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that was the right person? I looked at a recording of CNN's coverage. Sullenberger was shown leaving after the inauguration with no sign of any problem. Ikluft (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see his face, as his head was down, but the news anchor certainly could have been incorrect in his identification. The man he identified as Sullenberger was struggling down the steps, aided by a man holding onto him by his right arm. The NTSB has only identified one injury, likely the flight attendant, so I was rather surprised to see the man identified as Sullenberger suffering from an apparent injury. Personally, I'll take the word of the NTBS before I take the word of a random news anchor. - auburnpilot talk 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Injury by ferryboats and other watercraft?

The danger of run on sentences: take a good look at this intro sentence and tell why every reader shouldn't believe the passengers weren't injured by the watercraft:

"After successfully evacuating the cabin, all were subsequently rescued from the partially submerged Airbus without additional serious injury by nearby ferryboats and other watercraft which arrived within minutes."

There is no need to cram so much information into an introduction. The art here would be to reduce the introduction to the essential facts, with as few words as possible. 842U (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. The fact that everyone survived and was rescued is fine, details about injuries and boats can wait until further down in the prose. – jaksmata 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the aircrew intentionally ditched near the ferry boats was was a key factor in the survival of all the passengers and crew and is thus an essential element for for inclusion in the introduction. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

I couldn't disagree more. That's essential to the story, but not essential the introduction of the story. There's a difference. 842U (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Twenty-two words (or one sentence) hardly seems excessive to cover three major elements (ditching, evacuation, and water rescue) in the introduction. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

See the sectionRescued, above. The earlier wording, "All on board survived the ditching. " is sufficient for the lede. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No actually it isn't. The accident was not over for the 155 occupants of the plane with "surviving the ditching" as they were still in grave peril at that time. It ended only when the plane was subsequently evacuated and it's occupants were rescued from the wings and slides as is made quite clear in Rescued above. You are arguing over a difference of sixteen words (half a sentence) which, if left out, renders the intro both incomplete and misleading by ignoring two of the four major elements of the overall accident. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

What are the four elements again? I think I missed something. In a previous post you mentioned three majors, is there a minor one? (I'm not trying to be facetious, I just don't understand what you're saying).

At any rate, I only see two elements: first, the people survived the ditching, second, they were rescued by boat. (The fact that they left the plane at some point seems obvious.) I think an adequate, but not overly wordy rendition would be: "All passengers and crew survived and were rescued from the floating aircraft by nearby ferries and rescue boats." (This is pretty similar to what's there now.) – jaksmata 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The four elements of the overall accident were: 1) the bird strike and loss of both engines; 2) regaining control of the plane, the descent, selection of a place to bring the down, and then ditching in the river; 3) the evacuation of the planeafter the ditching under the guidance of the aircrew, and; 4) the rescue of the occupants by the ferry boats and other watercraft. The first element was an event (bird strike) that was neither expected nor under the control of anyone, and it disabled the plane. Accomplishment of the second element was the responsibility of the flight deck crew. The third was the primary responsibility of the cabin crew. The fourth was primarily guided and accomplished by the rescuers. While all four elements are inextricably associated with the overall accident, each was also a distinct element which presented separate perils and for which different people were responsible. The difference in the length of the sentence in the intro to do this right (and prevent it from being misleading) is three words which hardly seems excessive. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

This phrase, "they were still in grave peril at that time", is a somewhat emotional interpretation or perception, rather than something we can all call a neutral fact. If that's what's driving inclusion of unnecessary detail in the introduction, please reconsider.

The salient introductory point is: everyone on board survived. This is a true statement that includes survival of the ditching, evacuation and retrieval by watercraft. Fewer words > more words. Less emotion > more emotion.842U (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that surviving the ditching was the same thing as surviving the all elements of the accident. It wasn't. If you were inside the cabin of a full airliner which had just ditched in frigid weather and was filling with water and didn't think you were still in grave peril then your nerves are far better than anyone I have ever come across. As a professional writer (four published books and thousands of articles) it puzzles me that there is all this kerfuffle being made over a difference of three words in the length of a sentence which without them is misleading and incomplete. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Which is why the earlier wording was "survived the incident". Problem solved. (I'm a professional, published writer, too, so you've no special advanatge there). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a single incident but a complex event with four distinct elements. Also inanimate objects (like dog bones) are retrieved; people in peril are rescued -- that's why they are called "rescue" workers as opposed to "retrieval" workers. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

If you believe that this is not suitable for discussion as a single incident, I suggest you RFC subdivision into separate articles, supporting your proposals with verifiable references (such as separate NTSB reviews). Meanwhile, we treat it as one incident; as we do for other air-accident articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your argument seems to be just a circular one now. As I have pointed out several times already, the overall incident is made up of four inextricably connected sequential elements: 1) the bird strike and loss of thrust in both engines; 2) regaining control of the plane, the descent, selection of a place to bring the down, and then ditching in the river; 3) the evacuation of the planeafter the ditching under the guidance of the aircrew, and; 4) the subsequent rescue of the occupants by local ferry boats and other watercraft. The sentence in the intro which covers elements 2, 3, and 4 reads:"All on board survived the ditching, successfully evacuated the cabin, and were rescued from the partially submerged plane by nearby watercraft." You have not contended, as far as I can tell, that this is in any way inaccurate or not adequately sourced. It covers three of the four elements if the "incident" quite efficiently in just 21 words which hardly seems to be excessive. So I just don't see the issue or the point you are trying to make, unless this is a matter of NIH factor. If it is something else, please make your case.

• I will presume that your suggestion that I should make a series of proposals to break this article into four separate articles was intended to be disingenuous and so will take it as such. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Splitting the article into several subarticles is not needed at this point, nor answers the question whether the lede of the article is sufficient as it stands right now. I personally consider "All on board survived the ditching" to be ambiguous, as passengers could have survived the ditching and died of hypothermia during rescue operations. In fact, the whole lede is rather scant on details, and can be significantly lengthened without running afoul of WP:LEDE. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting "All on board survived the ditching". I use the wording "survived the incident" a couple of entries above your comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that the "challenge" made to me to split up the article into multiple parts was made seriously, and I certainly did not take it that way as it would be completely inappropriate to do so. I fully agree with all of your comments as well. (See my comment immediately above) (Centpacrr (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Perfectly serious; if you cannot soundly do so then it is an illustration of why your approach is unhelpful. Your four incidents are arbitrary; we could as easily divide this single incident into 8 or 16. The issue is not one of "NIH", but of unnecessary verbiage in an introductory section. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems the real issue for you is one of the definition of "incident," a term which you apparently feel should be limited only to uncomplicated or monolithic happenings without either notable precursors or associated subsequent consequences, as opposed more complex real world happenings occurring over a generally discernable period of time and composed of a complex sequence of inextricably interconnected elements.

As in the case of US Airways Flight 1549, into which the current article is already divided into six such elements -- Flight; Ditching; Evacuation; Rescue; Injuries; Aftermath -- most "incidents" fall into the later category. My summarizing and including the existence and relationship of three of those major elements in a single sentence composed of 21 words hardly seems excessive. The intro section in the Wikipedia entry about TWA Flight 800, for instance, is 294 words in length spread over four paragraphs. As I last left the intro in the Flight 1549 article it was just 95 words, or less than one third the length of the well established TWA 800 intro. (The unsourced POV bit discussed in Intro material? below is not mine, and I do not advocate its retention.)

Following the approach you appear to advocate to its logical conclusion would reduce the intro in the instant article to something like "US Airways Flight 1549 was a passenger flight that ditched in a river." or 13 words. That would certainly be a far more "concise" and "efficient" use of space, but would hardly make the intro very useful or informative. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Flight renumbering

The current article discusses twice the renumbering of the flight, with different references. Could some astute editor consolidate these somehow? Murray Kucherawy 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Glamorization of the event

There is a tendency to glamorize the event:

The water landing of the aircraft, almost intact and without loss of life, was described as "one of the rarest and most technically challenging feats in commercial aviation", and with few parallels in aviation history.

The statement is peacockery without attribution. In other words, the quote isn't from a notable aeronautical expert... it's the opinion of the reporter.

In the same article, the author goes on the use weasel words to support the claim: "even though pilots go through the motions of learning to ditch a plane in water, the generally held belief is that such landings would almost certainly result in fatalities."

The other part of the intro sentence "few parallels in aviation history" comes from the New York Post, in an article that calls the Sullenburger a "superpilot." Please, this is the reference?

Either way, these are the kind of phrases that are easily tossed off in emotional moments and then used to sell newspapers. They aren't a considered reckoning of history.

The editor who has introduced this to the intro, says it establishes notability. Does anyone here think an article about a plane that landed in the Hudson without casualties needed its notability propped up? ...and by the New York Post and a writer at the WSJ citing "generally held beliefs?"

Let's let the facts speak for themselves, without pseudo-important embellishment.842U (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the POV "Miracle on the Hudson" references as well. This is nothing more than an inaccurate meme-like moniker created by politicians and the commercial media. It has nothing to do with the facts of accident itself. (Centpacrr(talk) 09:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Many, many sources call it that. And your claim it's "inaccurate" is your own POV. I say it is accurate. And the sources agree with me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of "sources" that report that headline writers and politicians have used this expression. However you have cited none whatsoever that indicate that anything associated with this incident is the provable result of the "visible interruption of the laws of nature that can only be explained by divine intervention." You are, of course, welcome tobelieve that if you wish, but by definition such is NOT provable. Discriptions based on religion do not belong in articles about real world, scientifically explainable events. Those belong in pulpits. (Centpacrr(talk) 10:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

I can easily make the case for divine intervention in this incident, but that doesn't really matter. The sources are what matter, and they decided that this is the "Miracle on the Hudson", just as they decided to call the 1980 event the "Miracle on Ice" and the 1969 event the "Miracle Mets". I would be curious to know if you think any event in history qualifies as a "miracle" under the narrow religion-only usage of the term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If, as you claim, you can easily make the case for divine intervention with a factually provable (as opposed to religiously based) argument then I invite you to do so. Religion is founded on belief in the otherwise unexplainable and is therefore, by definition, never provable as fact. You are still confusing the term "Miracle on the Hudson" -- which was invented by headline writers and adopted by politicians and others -- as being a "fact" simply because it has often been repeated. What it actually is is a classic example of the power of "popular culture" and nothing more -- just like the still popularly accepted description of the White Star liner RMS Titanic as being "unsinkable" which it clearly wasn't. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Was the sinking of Titanic an example of a "miracle", then? If not, can you cite even one "miracle" in the history of the human race? In any case, this incident was widely, and justifiably, called the "Miracle on the Hudson". To remove that fact from wikipedia makes wikipedia look stupid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please actually read what I said which is that calling "Titanic" unsinkable was an example being misled by treating popular culture as it it were fact. Its sinking was certainly not a miracle as NO ship is unsinkable. I have also not cited any provable "miracles" here because, as I have observed at great length, there are none as that is a religious concept based on belief, not proof. I take from your failure to make a provable case for divine intervention in this event (or any other event in history) that you do not have one despite you claims to the contrary. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

You seem to be missing the point about Titanic. The only reason anything was made of it being called "unsinkable" is because it sank. Further, you are narrowly constricting what a "miracle" is and then demanding that the term only be used under that definition. Sorry, but the citations win, and "Miracle on the Hudson" is what this was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The White Star Line promoted Titanic and Olympic as being "unsinkable" in a publicity brochure the company published as early as 1910 ("... these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable...") which was two years before the ship was launched. You should also note that "Miracle on the Hudson" almost always appears only as a headline, in quotes, and/or is capitalized because it is only a slogan (A memorable motto or phrase used in a political, commercial, religious and other context as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose), and not intended as a statement of provable fact. Just because this slogan has since been repeated ad nauseam by those who created it (the media) gives it no greater cachet of truth or provability than saying New York City is a "Big Apple" or that Coca-Cola is truly the "Pause That Refreshes." I cannot find (nor have you provided) a single citation that uses this in any context other than as a slogan, headline, or hyperbole, nor have you yet offered any proof of "divine intervention" that you claimed that you could do "easily." I fully agree that this phrase appears in many, many citations, but only as a slogan and not as proof that any real unexplainable "miracle" took place. Any argument to the contrary simply does not hold water. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Again, it's perfectly fine for people to label the event however they wish... just not in an encyclopedia article. This is a place for cogent, reasoned statements — not histrionics, hype and glamorization. Once the FAA does it's report and the experts conclude this was the "rarest" or "most technically challenging" event, so be it. In the mean time, the article doesn't need to be covered in journalistic whipped cream. 842U (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read most of the above (don't care to; sorry), but it isn't our duty to determine which widely used descriptions are worthy and which ones are not. That applies even more so to the description of it being "the miracle on the Hudson". I've had the engine of a C172 fail a couple times, and once had to land in a field 10 miles from the nearest airport. Anyone who has flown a 172 knows this was not a difficult task. My sister called it a miracle. That didn't insult my sensibilities as a pilot, and I didn't take her statement as divine fact. The phrase has been used widely enough that it should be included, and does not require attribution to a specific person (though I would mention NY Gov).

As for the info 842U initially complained about, I agree it doesn't merit inclusion at this time. The conjecture of one journalist isn't sufficient and likely represents a minority view point. The only way to present that info is to say "New York Post journalist John Doe described the incident as '...'". Even then, I wouldn't support its inclusion. - auburnpilot talk 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just can't agree that it is appropriate to adopt media created slogans in an encyclopedic context for the very reason that this tends to mislead the less sophisticated readers who may not understand that's what it is (see comments above) and denigrates (no matter how slightly) the skill and training of the aircrew and rescuers. I've had close calls myself as well (both weather related) while flying a Beech Bonanza and certainly did not call on anyone other than myself (i.e. no request for "divine intervention") to get out of them. The term appears in the footnotes as part of the headlines of several of the articles cited as sources. I don't see compelling any reason, however, to promote the slogan in the text of the article. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Mislead the less sophisticated readers? I highly doubt even the dumbest of our readers will see that phrase and believe God himself was aboard the plane, threw up his hands, shouted "Miracle!" and then conducted an interview with various media outlets after coining the phrase "miracle on the Hudson" himself. Seriously. Every applicable policy supports its inclusion, while none support its exclusion. Other than your apparent distaste for something being attributed to anything other than man's will, what reason is there to exclude it? The phrase (in quotes) draws nearly 330,000 results on a google search and 3,500 ghits on the news search. It's a widely used descriptor of the event, and not just some once used "slogan". - auburnpilot talk 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just think it is best to leave the consideration of "miracles" to the philosophers, theologists, and/or the the doyens whatever brand of religion each reader choses to subscribe to. The very intensity of views espoused in this discussion seems to me to be reason enough to leave out this contentious phrase from the body of the article. I don't see that it adds anything substantive to the account of the events, and provides nothing factual that advances the understanding of what happened. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

The assumption that people do know exactly why this event is notable in the history of aviation is just that, an assumption, something that absolutely should not be inherent in an encyclopoedic article. Your incredulity that anyone needs this explained to them is matched by my incredulity that you won't accept basic facts until the NTSB spoon feeds them to you. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, the NTSB narrative inexplicably fails to mention miracles, rarity, technical challenge, nor — notably — the considered opinion of one special WSJ reporter. It also soberly fails to mention the evacuation, the ferry boats, the partially submerged plane, and most especially, the "rescue from peril." What's wrong with these people?

On January 15, 2009, at approximately 1530 eastern standard time, USAirways flight 1549, an Airbus Industrie A320-214, N106US, equipped with CFM engines, incurred multiple bird strikes during initial climb, lost thrust to its engines, and ditched in the Hudson River. The flight was a Title 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled domestic passenger flight from New York's La Guardia Airport (LGA) to Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT) in Charlotte, North Carolina. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. To date, of the 5 crewmembers, and 150 passengers on board, one serious injury has been reported. A final injury count is still to be determined. 842U (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So basing whether you can include/exclude information in the article based on whether the NTSB has commented on it would seem to be a rather pointles measure for determining what is or isn't appropriate content wouldn't it? I am not arguing for inclusion of the mircale crap, that has been innappropriately tacked onto this section, which is about a separate issue. As a general idea about my thinking: Reasonable claim - This is the most succesfull ditching in history. Tabloid crap - This was a mircale on the Hudson. MickMacNee (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Realizing unfortunately that no independent, impartial source actually ranks plane crashes like football teams, wouldn't it be more accurate, if we were going to glamorize, to say "Flight 1549 was the most successful ditching in history by a small margin, see Japan Airlines Flight 2." Of course, given that there was so little sensationalism in 1968, no one recorded how Japan Airlines Flight 2 ranked on the "miracle scale" either. Oh well. 842U (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, its been a busy few days so I won't blame you for not remembering that it was me that added that exact historical fact to the article, which you later gave people a few hours to source, before removing it entirely. So please just make up your mind what is good enough for you. Or not. Whatever. And as an aside, I am quite sure there are plenty of independant impartial sources that rank air accidents on various metrics, but to use them would require some complex explanation to satisfy you quite probably, so the approach of simply not bothering to go to such efforts, or waiting for a word for word one click spoon feed, just seems easier. Oh, and on a point of order, your definition of a "by a small margin" is not exactly accurate either. MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What, you can't tell sarcasm when you see it? Oh well. 842U (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why sarcasm is so helpful. - auburnpilot talk 19:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Injuries

At the moment there are two references for the claim that a flight attendant broke both legs. As far as I can see, neither of those pages now says anything of the sort. Elsewhere I recall having read that one flight attendant suffered a laceration to one leg. Is there an official statement on injuries out there, and does it support the claims in the article? //Carl T (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call - I've reworded accordingly, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See the press conference at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blNwjC1CLqA, a deep laceration and not a fracture - xedaf (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the numerous reports about two broken legs suffered by a woman? (Search)

Here are just two examples:

• "Helen Rodriguez, a paramedic who was among the first to arrive at the scene, said she saw one woman with two broken legs." [9]

• "One passenger was hospitalized with two broken legs, but no other serious injuries were reported." [10]

I'm well aware that initial news reports can be inaccurate, so if official reports don't confirm this, okay, but the news has reported this. If it's true, we should correct what's written in the article. If it's not correct, we should still note this fact (that "It was first widely reported that a passenger broke both legs, but subsequent reports failed to confirm the initial reports.") -- Fyslee (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The NTSB's preliminary report (PDF) only indicates one injury. Unless the reporting of injuries was widely over exaggerated in the beginning, I honestly don't see the point in saying "initial reports were contradicted by subsequent reports". - auburnpilot talk 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideally we should be able to report the actual extent of injuries. Right now we are using a reference that isn't very strong. Many other references mention one woman with both legs broken, which could (a bit of OR here...) be the "one serious injury has been reported" mentioned on the NTSB site. We need to get this confirmed or denied, and find out what really happened. I strongly suspect that our current content is incorrect. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the flight attendant mentioned in the YouTube report above, there is no inconsistency between this and the reports of a woman with two broken legs, since this can be two different persons. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So far I can't locate any certain confirmation about the woman with two broken legs, but I can find a very good source for the flight attendant, Doreen Welsh, who suffered an injury. Problem solved. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring article

Swissair Flight 111, a Good Article, uses the following structure that we might adopt:

0 Lede
1 History
1.1 The aircraft and its crew
1.2 The flight
1.2.1 Nationalities of passengers
2 Recovery and investigation
2.1 Examination
2.1.1 Cockpit and recordings
2.2 Findings
2.3 Recommendations
3 Legacy
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links

Perhaps we can learn some lessons?LeadSongDog (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Impact Point

This part of the thread seems to have been removed. With the location of the left engine, is there any hard facts about the impact point of the plane? This would go a long way to cleaning up the flight path graphic included with the text. It would also help define more accurately the placings of the events. Looking at TRACON Data of other flights in the area, there was a near miss by the GWB with a general aviation craft, that may have been a helicopter, and a second possible helicopter that shows on the track north of the Lincoln Tunnel after the incident. I haven't seen any reporting on this but I don't live in front of a TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjhawkin (talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the short answer to your question is "no." Although the NTSB might figure it out eventually, there's currently no information about whether the engine fell off immediately upon impact or if it held on until the airplane slowed down. Nobody new for sure that it was gone until it was moored, so it could have come off during towing (that might be a long shot). On top of that, strong currents could have moved it from the point where it fell. I think the fact that divers took 6 days to find it leads me to believe that it wasn't where officials initially thought it might be.

Although I'm not familiar enough with the Hudson River/Manhattan areas to do this myself, I think the best way to discover the impact point would be to study videos of the impact and extrapolate from known landmarks, using a bit of trigonometry... – jaksmata 14:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have it on tape from several fixed locations on both sides of the river. I know that the point of impact was just off frame in the Coast Guard clip, while another clip taken from the other side of the river via security cameras at a warehouse shows the plane come down right in front of the warehouse. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at videos here, I think it was directly across from the pier on 50th street. They had cameras on both sides of a pier (and one from the pier to the south), where the camera on the north side just caught the impact point before the plane went out of view. Looking at Google Maps, it's hard to be 100% sure, but I think that was the pier on 50th St. The only other option is the pier on 52nd street, but looking at the video which shows the next pier to the north, I think that is showing the 52nd meaning the camera is on the 50th street one. That would make the impact point between 50th and 51st streets. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Slang?

Is ditching a technical term for a water landing? Just wondering because it sounds rather unprofessional Fruckert (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. According to the Water landing article:

The National Transportation Safety Board of the United States government defines "ditching" in its aviation accident coding manual as "a planned event in which a flight crew knowingly makes a controlled emergency landing in water. (Excludes float plane landings in normal water landing areas.)"[11] Such water landings are extremely rare for commercial passenger airlines.

Hiberniantears (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a picture of the ditching button here, as well. I don't think it was actually used in this incident. Fletcher (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly labelled "DITCHING", and so, yes, that's what it's called, NTSB or no NTSB. Fortunately this time the crew were too busy ditching safely to have time to use it. But a sea ditching might have been a very different story. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

They were "too busy ditching safely" to push the "Ditching button????" Have any sources criticized this failure amongst the hoopla of the "perfect ditching?" Would the failure to operate the button be noted as an error in a training exercise on the simulator? One newspaper gave him praise for pressing the button, before it turned out no one pressed it. Various news sources stated early on that the ditch switch closing the openings was important in the non-sinking of the plane. So it turns out to be irrelevant? I'm not sure what if any of the commentary about this would be considered "reliable" but it implies the ditch switch is at the end of a 3 page ditching procedure that they did not have time to go through. The article could note how far they actually did get. Were they following the ditching checklist or the "engine restarting checklist?" Seems like they could not have been doing both. Did they abandon attempts to restart the engine and start on the ditching procedure? Edison (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it would be noted. And noted very signficantly. I don't think anything has "turned out", certainly not from my ironic/ flippant suggestion I'm sure. Your suggested sequence of events sounds extremely plausible. Perhaps the eventual report will tell us. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting question - I thought that maybe in the heat of the moment they just forgot or missed that step. The thought that they might only have seconds left to live might have contributed to procedural errors, but that's what makes it so incredible that they kept control and ditched without any loss of life. – jaksmata 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the article may eventually be able to "... note how far they actually did get" if and when that detail becomes public via the accident investigation report. And unsure whether ir not they "... could not have been doing both". Guessing also that Skiles may have been working thorough the checklist(s) while Sullenberger was putting his efforts into safely flying the aircaft. Teamwork will have been critical factor with or without the switch. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Engines designed to detach?

I read in the press that the engines on this aircraft are designed to come apart from the wings when subjected to the stresses of a ditching. Is this true? And if so, shouldn't it be mentioned? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The pylon shear bolts are intended to shear off at a known range of forces. If they didn't the drag of the engines on the water or ground would cause a plane to flip tail-over-nose, which is definitely not desired behaviour in a crash. The rather surprising thing is that one engine remained attached. The equivalent feature on Boeing products is called an engine "fuse pin". In some aircraft designs they are also intended to protect the aircraft from excessive torque when an engine suddenly siezes.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Additionally, that known range of forces includes the forces that would be acting on the engine if any one of the shear bolts failed in flight, so that the engine, rather than hanging loosely by some of the bolts and possibly bouncing around and damaging the aircraft, would simply break free and fall away, giving the pilot a better chance of successfully landing. A rare case where a design that seemingly makes the situation worse is actually a deliberate choice made to improve safety. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's the exact scenario of American Airlines Flight 191, although that one did not turn out very well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There were fatigue and corrosion-related similar problems with Boeing designed aircraft that turned out badly. See El Al Flight 1862. Any such component that is designed for critical "failure" behaviour needs to be very carefully considered and monitored.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Duplication of Sullenberger bio

The article seems to repeat too much of the Captain's bio, which is now available in the separate Chesley Sullenberger article. I suspect that this reflects an earlier stage in the evolution of the two articles. I would suggest something along these lines for the Flight section:

The captain was Chesley Sullenberger, 57, a former fighter pilot who has been a commercial pilot since leaving the Air Force in 1980. He is also a safety expert and a glider pilot.

Incidentally, it can't be standard WP practice to give people's ages, can it? As luck would have it, Sullenberger celebrated his 58th birthday yesterday! If we must give his age here, there's probably a suitable template that will auto-update: anyone? ... anyone? ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed such an age related template, though I personally wouldn't list his age here, as its non-relevant to the story. That said, I don't think his bio should even exist, per WP:NOT#NEWS, though I'm not one to take it to AfD... --Izno (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is even more notability for Sullenberger now that GAPAN have awarded him a Masters Medal. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On 2nd thoughts, I can see some point in mentioning the ages of the pilots as a rough surrogate for their experience. As I mentioned above, though, it would be more meaningful to give their flying hours. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Awards

I've added a section for the awards and honours given to the crew. GAPAN have awarded the entire crew a Masters Medal each, which is sufficiently rare enought to warrent an entry. No doubt there will be more to come. For precedent see BOAC Flight 712. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Evacuation

This section states that:

During the evacuation, some passengers directed that women and children evacuate the aircraft first instead of all passengers exiting according to proximity to the exits.

What is the point of adding this detail, even if it is true? Were these (no doubt chivalrous) instructions obeyed by anyone? As it stands, this just sounds like a quaint anecdote. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to have taken this up; but this stillborn anecdote really can't be left as it stands. Either add some clarification or—and I think preferably—delete it. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree it's a bit lame. And uncited. One wants to know what cabin-crew did or said in response. But such (maybe any) evacuation detail may useful to show at least (a) no panic (b) not in line with proper procedure. One suspects that in such situations there may be some preference shown to women and children on a seat-by-seat basis. But if some gallant "hero" had made the passengers disembark strictly on this basis, there could have been utter choas. An aircraft cabin is simply not as spacious as the deck of a slowly sinking ship. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Seems to have roots in this NYTimes story, though the blogosphere has bounced it around some.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Delete it. - auburnpilot talk 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My word, from that NYTimes story, it WAS utter chaos. Apparently there was a "stampede" and plenty of sceaming. Maybe other parts of the story are more worthy of a mention? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is still an embarrassment in what has become a factual & useful article. We'd expect chaos, screaming & a bit of a stampede (which the cabin crew must have done their best to mitigate & control). So the question remains: why mention only this story of "some" passengers trying (presumably unsuccessfully) to hijack the evac? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Women and children first" really applies more to abandoning a ship on which passengers assemble at lifeboat stations where they are then organized and loaded into the boats over time. It would seem that in the confines of the cabin of a crowded airliner with relatively limited exits, trying to first organize passengers into groups of women, children, and others would greatly slow the the evacuation, not speed it up. While somebody may well have yelled "Women and children first!" during the evacuation, I very much doubt that this would have had any real consequences in how it actually transpired. There simply would not have been the time or space to organize the passengers into groups in the congestion and chaos existing in the packed cabin. As most of the occupants were already out on the wings and inflated slides by the time that the first rescue boat arrived about four minutes after the ditching, this would seem to indicate that the order of evacuation was based on how close people were sitting to the exits, not their gender and/or age. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Per this (rare) consensus, I've removed the misleading and silly sentence. – jaksmata 17:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some additional research indicates that there is no mention of "women and children first" in either the FAA FLIGHT ATTENDANT GENERAL EMERGENCY TRAINING CURRICULUM or in this paper on aircraft evacuation published by the Association of Flight Attendants which points out that the key factor in an evacuation is for the cabin crew to establish effective "passenger flow control" without any reference being made in it to their gender or age. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Sorry about joke about birdstrike similar to laborstrike and tailstrike

I wrote joke last time: [12]

This which make upset other editors, which I felt sorry about it:

• User:Baseball Bugs
• User:Centpacrr

I try to learn about how to became a good editor: [13]. My English is still learning, so I didn't understood everythings. So sorry, I didn't want to became conflict. --B767-500 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

So I try contributing other things which should became better. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

regular flight schedule

"(The Charlotte-to-Seattle leg was not operated on the day of the accident.)" Does this mean the continuing leg was not scheduled on the day of the accident? Or that it didn't fly because of the accident? If it's the second, this is a pretty silly statement. 140.247.248.121 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not silly at all. It is clear from the preceding text that both legs were scheduled to operate as normal. There were very likely passengers awaiting to board the continuation of Flight 1549 in Charlotte who could have been flown on to Seattle by another crew in a substitute aircraft, if available, which often happens when an earlier portion of a multi-leg flight is cancelled because of equipment problems, weather, or (or as in this case) accident. If the Charlotte to Seattle segment had been so operated on January 15, then it would have been equally appropriate to state that as well. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

So airline load factor became issue for next leg! But, sometimes, airline wouldn't reject next leg because they have to admit told last leg became crashed! So some superstitions, they have to dealt with it and maybe best to cancelled next leg. So basically, how to explain CLT-SEA passenger, about 'substitute' aircraft! Maybe they cancelled, but need citation to explain to other editor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead quote

Is Lynn Lunsford, aerospace industry reporter for The Wall Street Journal, so uniquely authoritative that she needs to be singled out & named in the Lead section? The quote itself is a good statement of what makes the ditching so remarkable; but the source details are already given in the reference, so why repeat them in the text—& in such a prominent position? The link to the WSJ is irrelevant & out of place in the text. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I can express my misgivings about this sentence in a different way. As it stands, it seems to be about LL & the WSJ. But will a reader—however un-"dumb"—coming to this article in 6 months' or 2 years' time really be interested in the fact that it was none other than Lynn Lunsford who wrote these words, or the fact that the vehicle for her opinion was the WSJ? I very much doubt it. It would be much more appropriate to quote (or allude to) the actual words of the GAPAN citation given in the Awards section. I suggest replacing the final sentence of the Lead with something like the following:

The entire crew of Flight 1549 were later awarded the GAPAN Masters Medal. According to the citation for that award, "[T]his emergency ditching and evacuation, with the loss of no lives, is a heroic and unique aviation achievement."

It is only worded that way due to the total paranoia of some editors who refuse to accept the notability of the incident, even when it was previously explained in neutral, non-sensational terms. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only worded what way? Please explain what you mean. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous US airways accidents section

This section seems over the top to me, mainly because these accidents (of a large airline company, near huge airports) are not of any direct relevance to the current accident. As such; the provided information is nothing more the trivia.

I would suggest to replace this section by a brief list in the -See Also- section. Something like

Previous US Airways accidents involving LaGuardia or Charlotte Airports

• USAir Flight 5050
• USAir Flight 405
• USAir Flight 1016

Alternatively the current section requires a strong argument WHY the information about these unrelated accidents is relevant to the casual reader. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete this entire section. 842U (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous USAir accidents at LGA & CLT

This section looks almost—but not quite—like Trivia. What is the point of it? If there is a point (eg to compare & contrast with Flight 1549) it should be made explicit. If accidents at CLT are to be discussed, why not go the whole hog & mention those at the eventual scheduled destination SEA as well, for good measure?

I don't mean to be unreasonably negative about this: I just don't understand the rationale for the section. Wouldn't it be more relevant to discuss previous (USAir) accidents caused by bird strikes? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I hadn't seen the previous comment when I wrote this: it seems I'm not alone in finding this section unnecessary. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section is not sufficiently relevant to the subject of the article. IMO, it does not belong. BTW, it was already removed once, but re-added by the original contributer without comment. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re second section - No problem, happy I am not alone in this. I removed it again, asking for discussion before re-adding. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is highly unusual that a single carrier has had three take off aircraft write-off accidents at the same airport. I might be willing to leave out the Charlotte accident, but the other two are relevant simply because of the unusually high number involving the same carrier, airport, and phase of flight. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Unless the accidents in question occurred AT the airports in question, I don't see any logical rationale, apart from to show some factual basis for some superstition. Other accidents from bird-strike and other ditchings far more justifiable and useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You state it is highly unusual, however I have no idea this is true, or just your personal perception. This has to be referred to accident stats for all airlines and airports; currently no reference is given.

And even if you provided stats these would need to be adjusted for the fact that USAirways is big (hence more likely to have accidents); LaGuardia is big (hence more likely to have accidents) and LaGuardia is a focus airport of USAirways and has more than average flights (and hence is more likely to have accidents).

If with all these corrections you still find that it is higly unusual (i.e. statistically different from a chance event), even then it would still be trivia (see Martinevans123), but at least interesting trivia. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW there are now 5 editors (counting user:Izno who made the original removal) who question this section altogether. At least 2 of these explicitly disagree with the given argument. I think it is clear consensus is the whole section has to go; untill the view on this talk page has turned to favour the idea. Arnoutf (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the Charlotte crash and restored the LGA take-off accidents which I find relevant to the operations of this carrier as the same airport. I do not see how this is "trivia" at all. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I think I'd want to see (at least) percentage of all flights which were USAir over the time frame to be even slightly convinced. The other accident detail may be interesting to show how different they were to this last dichting, but that is not justification. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia because it is what looks like a random list. It is also original research on your part to make the link. This information belongs at the airport article, not this article about a crash. --John (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain "I find relevant" in an objective (ie ot personally or subjectively coloured) way. You could turn to statistics as I suggested. Without such explanation I cannot agree; as "I find this irrelevant untill proven otherwise".

Alternatively we could add other relevant sections such as several about ornithology; although such sections are likely to have more causal relations to the accident compared to this one..... Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A list of accidents at all airport articles might be useful. But I really don't think here and now is correct at all.Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This section does not belong in this article. This artificially conflates these incidents. What's next, a section on "incidents with the Ferry boats," "incidents near the Statue of Liberty," "incidents that happened on the Hudson River?" Please. 842U (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the entry to "previous take-off phase accidents at LGA" since it opened in 1939 (there have only been five). Flight 1539 is the third of these to involve the same carrier, and that the same carrier would be involved in 60% of these incidents (even if they had different causes) seems to me to be highly relevant and not just "trivia." It is impossible, however, to get any positive feedback and achieve consensus on this if it keeps getting unilaterally deleted before anyone else gets a chance to see and comment on it. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

60% means very little without knowing what proportion of all flights were USAir flights over this time. But I would encourage you to add this interesting material to the airport article (if you can convince others there). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it here so that anyone who cares to can actually see what is being discussed. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Previous take-off accidents at LaGuardia

Prior to Flight 1549, there have only been four other "write off" commercial carrier take-off accidents at LaGuardia Airport since the field opened in 1939. Two of these also involved US Airways flights while it was operating under its previous name, USAir).

• USAir Flight 5050: On September 20, 1989, a year-old Boeing 737-401 (N416US) operated as a unscheduled late night "equipment repositioning" flight from LaGuardia to Charlotte with only a crew and USAir employees and members of their families on board. These non-paying passengers, who were added to the flight at the last minute, had been waiting to travel as "stand-bys" on earlier scheduled flights that had been cancelled or delayed due to thunderstorms in the vicinity of the airport. The plane overran the end of runway 31 during an aborted takeoff and dropped onto a wooden approach light pier which collapsed causing the aircraft to break into three pieces and drop into fifteen feet of water in the East River. Two of the 63 people on board were killed.

• USAir Flight 405: On March 22, 1992, a Fokker F-28 (N485US) being operated as a scheduled flight from LaGuardia to Cleveland, Ohio, crashed on take off from runway 13 into Flushing Bay killing 27 of the 51 people on board. The cause was determined to be pilot error and a large amount of ice and snow that had collected on the airframe when the flight was delayed after earlier deicing.

US Airways/USAir take off accidents involving write offs at LGA

The documented fact the 60% (three of the five) of the only take off/departure phase commercial carrier accidents at this airport that resulted in the aircraft being written off in the seventy years since the field opened in 1939 involving the same carrier is both well documented and statistically significant. It is not just "trivia." I agreed to remove the larger section I had created earlier and reduced the central facts to a single sentence. There has certainly been no "consensus" reached (or even been discussed) about the documented fact that this one carrier has been involved in such a high percentage of the small number of serious takeoff accidents at this airport over such a long period of time. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Comment' JMHO, but these accidents are correct to the LGA article - unless it can be proved that there is a direct causal link between them. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail?

Over the last day or so, a lot of indisputable facts have been added to this article which I think also qualify as too much detail:

• Runway numbers
• Codeshare agreements
• Aircraft manufacturing details (location, date)
• Leaser, Insurer
• Number of flights (cycles) for the aircraft
• Engine installation dates
• Number of engine flight hours
• Date of last A Check
• Date of last C Check
• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT
• Time of day that fire crews began to stand down

While all true facts, I think these reduce the readability of the article. Some of these things might be relevant if the crash was caused by engine failure due to poor maintenance or something, but this plane was brought down by a flock of birds. Even if this flight were a brand-new, never-been-flown-before aircraft, sucking a flock of geese into both engines would have brought it down. I think it would be better to provide a link to the maintenance details rather than list them all here. (I missed the discussion above about Previous US airways accidents, but I agree that it was inappropriate, for reasons already pointed out.) – jaksmata 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of knowing our audience. Are we only aiming at people who consider USA Today a plentiful news source? Or do we aim at a broader audience? - Denimadept (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aviation is a highly technical field in which facts and details are important, especially in the case of an aviation accident. Dumbing down an article to the lowest common denominator might be fine for Reader's Digest, but not so in an encyclopedia in which specifics should always be favored over generalities. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I know that maintenance dates are important in the field of aviation, but why are they important in the field of encyclopedia writing? Specifically, what relevance do maintenance dates have for this particular article? – jaksmata 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess only insofar as less maintained engines might fail more easily on birdstrike. But possibly not what the "target audience" is really interested in. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "target audience" is, be definition, meant to be a broad one and not just the "lowest common denominator." If there is some technical or specific portion of an article that does not interest a particular reader then he/she is, of course, free to skip over it. Just because some relevant detail does not interest everybody does not mean that it does not interest anybody. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Those are straw man arguments. I'm not asserting that the article needs to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, nor am I talking about the target audience. My assertion is that the items I listed above are irrelevant. So, I'll ask my question again: Specifically, what relevance do maintenance dates have for this particular article? – jaksmata 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If there were a causal relationship between the maintenance and the failure, they would be relevant, but . . . . --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These technical details are absolutely relevant to pilots such as myself and other people with a serious interest in aviation, and are exactly the kind of detail that makes the article so valuable. I can see a possible case for eliminating some technical detail in a physical "hard copy" encyclopedia where printing and production costs are an important consideration. Fortunately, however, this is a website where the additional information only requires a few more digital "ones and zeros" transmitted at the speed of light. And as for relationship between maintenance and failure, you can be absolutely sure that this will all be of very great interest to the NTSB investigators charged with learning whatever lessons they can from this accident. As I said earlier, if you are not interested in this information just skip over it -- but don't deny it to many others who find it central to the event. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Another excellent example of a straw man! Did I say that the facts were uninteresting to aviation aficionados? Did I say we were short on space? Did I say that the NTSB was ignoring inspections in their investigation? Did I say that I was uninterested? Provide diffs, please. – jaksmata 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of dates of the A and C Checks and other technical details about N106US is that they are the key "vital statistics" of the aircraft which is the topic of the section of the article in which they are found, and were, in fact, the very first details that US Airways released (on January 16) after the accident. As you apparently do not disagree with any of my other positions if you describe them as being "straw men," then I don't see what other issue you are having with the inclusion of any of the technical details currently in the article.(Centpacrr (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Now we're getting somewhere. If these are "the key 'vital statistics'" and not original research (synthesis), please add that statement, along with the source of the quote to the article. As a professional author, you should understand the need for context, and, as a wikipedian, you should understand the need for verifiability. Please provide both for each of the items you say are "central to the event" - that will convince me that these are not just random facts, but actually relevant. Let me be clear: I don't doubt the factual accuracy of any of these items - I doubt that they are "key 'vital statistics'." Don't just reference some website that has the facts, but doesn't say why they are important relative to this crash. – jaksmata 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See NTSB Major Investigations Manual Appendix H (pp H-32 to H-37). (Centpacrr (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

I could not agree more Jaksmata; it's humorous watching the microscopic data filter in an out of the article... especially the introduction. At some point someone will wish to relate the GPS coordinates of the splashdown right in the introduction... mark my word. 842U (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Also, the exact height of the mini-tsunami produced by the splashdown. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding:

• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT

Let's be absolutely clear here, these are not mere consequentials that could do with being left out. The presence of a system to provide electrical and hyrdraulic power in the event of a loss of engines and being without any mechanical backup system, and possibly a system of auto-stabilisation, is most likely exactly why the pilot, skilled as he no doubt is, was able to land this plane so well without loss of life. It is of course primary to the article, and in no way can be considered superfluous detail better left elsewhere. I personally also don't give a rat's ass about code share agreements or who insured the aricraft, but in this section you have lumped trivia in with essential detail. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Enquiring minds also want to know just what species fowled up the engines. Specifically, they want to know if the plane got "goosed". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be serious. This article has enough problems with well meaning but mis-placed ideas about what is and isn't valid information, confusing that with poor humour will just fowl up the situation. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(good one) J. Van Meter (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Honk. The article says a single feather was found. What kind of feather? And do we know it was just an accident? Maybe the goose was depressed over having lost its nest egg. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Partly agree... some of the info is overkill, some is not. My opinions:

• Runway numbers
  • LaGuardia runway very relevant; that would have a significant effect on the plane's flight path
• Codeshare agreements
  • Slightly interesting; reference is just part of a sentence which is probably the maximum it needs
• Aircraft manufacturing details (location, date)
  • In any air crash, definitely required info (date anyways)
• Leaser, Insurer
  • Can't see a reason
• Number of flights (cycles) for the aircraft
• Engine installation dates
• Number of engine flight hours
• Date of last A Check
• Date of last C Check
  • For these few... normally highly relevant for an airliner crash, but if the cause turns out to be entirely due to the birds and not mechanical issues, maybe not. I'd leave them at least until the NTSB issues a final report probably.
• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT
  • Highly essential; systems like that are why the pilot was even able to land the plane as well as he did.
• Time of day that fire crews began to stand down
  • Can't see any relevance.

Just my opinions. And yes, the NTSB sent the organic material for DNA testing, so yes I'm sure we will eventually know the exact species of bird -- which would be interesting too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not knowing what "details" are now considered too many by the community, I have deleted all the information that I contributed to this article. You are free to restore those you don't consider to be spurious. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Eh, that's a bit much ;-) I see someone reverted it, thankfully. Too much detail can always be edited down; much better to have it to begin with. I was also trying to point out that much of that list is in fact highly relevant, and nowhere near random trivia. Even stuff like the insurer can become relevant if a dispute between them and US Airways occurs... you never know. Sometimes relevancy can only be seen in retrospect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to make a point as reasoned discussion seems to fall completely on the deaf ears of those who feel that the article should be constantly dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

I am both a pilot as well as a professional writer, historian, and researcher with more than forty years experience and the author of four published books. I did not, to my knowledge, delete anything here that I had not personally researched and added to this article -- only to be told that detail and technical perspective were unwelcome by those who seemed to be intimidated by "too much information." Aviation is an extremely technical field, and should be treated that way.

I think I will just leave this article alone for awhile and come back to it later after the frenzy among the "doyens of relevance" has died down. In the meantime it's all yours and I will go on to other things. (Centpacrr(talk) 02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Since Centpacrr is taking some time to chill out, I'll state the blindingly obvious on his behalf. Maintenance history speaks to the question of assuring that the engines were in the required state of readiness at takeoff. Hypothetically speaking, overly fatigued or worn or even dirty engines would be to some extent less able to survive insults such as bird strikes. The species of bird involved speaks to just what mass of meat was impacted by the engines. A great deal of subsequent analysis will determine if the failure occured within or outside the expected survival envelope and whether there is a way to avoid repeating the accident. While no engine is expected to survive hitting two adult geese, we expect that it should normally survive a single duck or gull. One goose is a marginal condition. If (again hypothetically) gulls stopped or destroyed both the engines then there would be some seriously surprised engine designers. If a single goose stopped or destroyed an engine, there are limited possibilities for making the engines more able to survive it, but there are potential ways to better detect and warn of such bird strikes and so to improve the capability of aircraft to avoid hitting the flock with both engines. Given time, the investigation will sort out what matters. We can keep the content for now and trim it later. Let us instead address the question of which details deserve a spot in the lede.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the key phrase in LeadSongDog's comments is the investigation will sort out what matters. It isn't the job of a WP article to conduct that investigation.

CLindberg's list is useful. Just a couple of comments:

• Runway numbers. I've pointed out before that if they're relevant (both the takeoff r/w & the proposed r/w for landing back at LGA, which Sullenberger rejected), then readers (who aren't dumb: they just happen not to be aviation experts) should be helped by translating the numbers into directions (north-east & south-east respectively).

Yes wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Aircraft manufacturing details. Of course something is needed; I just happen to think that the details are a bit verbose. Why not simply say built by Airbus Industrie in June, 1999 at Toulouse? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Struggling to see how location of manufacture is relevant. And the fact that an Airbus A320 was built by Airbus Industrie is not really a great surprise, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is significant because since N106US was built the assembly facility for the A320 has been moved from Toulouse, France, to Tianjin, China. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

It may be significant to an understanding of A320s, but how is that in any way relevant to this accident? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a significant element in the description for the plane which is what the section of the article (The aircraft and its safety systems) in which it appears is about. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Why is it significant? Did its manufacturing location have any impact, positive or negative, on the events connected with this flight? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the point I've been trying to make all along. This article is about a crash, and should contain relevant details. We don't need to know everything about an A320. If the information doesn't relate directly to a crash, or has no context to the crash, put it in Airbus A320 family. We don't need to copy a 315 page manual about how the NTSB investigates crashes, just put in relevant details (with non-synthesized context). All the rest can go into Air safety or NTSB or General procedures that the NTSB uses in all accident investigations. – jaksmata 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The section of the article in which this background information appears (The aircraft and its safety systems) describes the aircraft involved in the accident, not the accident itself. It is basic to the background of the plane and therefore is appropriate in this section. If any particular readers are not interested in that aspect of the flight, then they can just skip to the next section, but there are also those who are interested in these details. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Does Death of Diana, Princess of Wales tell us that the Mercedes-Benz S280 W140 was built by Mercedes-Benz in Germany? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not a section in Death of Diana article about the vehicle involved in the accident, and commercial airliners are very much different than passenger cars. Apples and oranges there. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

I believe that whole section can be moved to Airbus A320 family, with only a few relevant facts incorporated into other sections of this article. There is a link in the article to the Airbus A320 article (second sentence) for people who are interested in details about the airplane that have no relevance to the crash, which is the subject of this whole article. Links to other articles allow interested readers to follow their specific interests. – jaksmata 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The information included here relates to a) this specific A320 (c/n1044) which is the one involved in the accident, and b) technical aspects of its systems which were compromised by the bird strike (engines, flight control system, internal power, hydraulics) which are integral to understanding the rest of the accident. Again if you are not interested in or don't understand the import of the technical information contained in the section of the article then just move on to the next section. There are plenty of others who are interested and for whom this section adds perspective and substance. As has been previously observed here, Wikipedia is not meant to be USA TODAY nor is it designed to appeal only to the lowest common denominator. If that were the case then the article could logically be reduced to only the introductory paragraph and everything else eliminated as constituting "too much detail." (Centpacrr (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Cease the condescending lectures and answer the question: "Why does the plane's manufacturing location matter?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

*...Seufzer...* (Centpacrr (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

(For those who don't know German, Centpacrr is sighing or moaning.) Centpacrr, what you fail to realize is that this is not an article about the A320, it is not about crash investigations, it is not even about the specific aircraft with the tail number N106US. It is about what happened to US Airways Flight 1549‎‎ on January 15, 2009. I think one of two things is happening: either you don't understand the concepts of scope and context, or your résumé of professional writing and aviation interests makes it difficult for you to realize that these disjointed facts don't fit into this article. – jaksmata 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of this detail needs to be ditched! Let's hope it floats, wherever it comes down? (apologies) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason the country of manufacture matters is that it determines which countries are officially entitled to representation in the investigation. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly LeadSongDog. And I was "sighing" in response to the presumptuousness of a 13-year old who had made no meaningful contribution to the contents of the article eldering me for making good faith and reasoned arguments -- which he apparently does not understand -- with an inappropriate importunement to "cease the condescending lectures." (Centpacrr (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Even if no fatalities? Is that under US Law? I wonder do have a supporting ref? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert but I have heard somewhere that it is actually about the country that (hosts the institute which) issued the certificate of airworthiness of the aircraft type. Which I think makes much more sense. (and anyway Airbus planes tend to be manufactured in at least 3 different European countries...) Arnoutf (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, something resembling some answers. P.S. It's 13 and a half. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The NTSB Major investigations manual para 5.1 points to the Chicago Convention, that is, "Annex 13 to the Convention on International Aviation", to which the US is a signatory.

The Safety Board represents the United States in accident investigations involving overseas interests under the provisions of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Aviation. This will typically occur in one of two situations: 1) an overseas manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the United States or its possessions, or 2) a U.S.-manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the territories of another country.
Annex 13 outlines the entitlements and participation of an Accredited Representative. The ICAO Manual of Aircraft Accident Investigation outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Accredited Representative. These duties and responsibilities are contained in Appendix S.

LeadSongDog (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

5.1 International Investigations

The Safety Board represents the United States in accident investigations involving overseas interests, under the provisions of ICAO Annex 13. This will typically occur in one of two situations: 1) an overseas manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the United States or its possessions, or 2) a U. S. manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the territories of another country.

5.1.1 Domestic Accident

If a foreign manufactured, operated, or registered aircraft is involved in an accident in the United States, the state (country) of manufacture, operations, or registry may send an Accredited Representative and advisors to participate in the investigation. The Accredited Representative is the leader of any officials from another country, such as airline and manufacturer advisors. Usually, the investigation will have already begun by the time the Accredited Representative arrives. On occasion, an advisor to the Accredited Representative, such as a representative of the airline or the aircraft manufacturer, will arrive before the Accredited Representative. Regardless, provide the Accredited Representative with all information given to party coordinators and thoroughly brief him or her on the progress of the investigation.

In the case of this accident, France will be represented by the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyse, the French counterprt of the NTSB.

(Centpacrr (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

LeadSongDog, that's an excellent bit of information that nobody has brought up before.

Centpacrr, if it is true (about representation in the investigation) - and I believe it is - then that fact needs to be added to the article to create context. It's not enough just to say "The aircraft was manufactured in the US and France." That, by itself as it is now, has no demonstrated relationship to the subject of the article. Add context by writing: "Since the aircraft was manufactured in the US and France, French authorities are participating in the crash investigation." and give a reference. I've been going on about context assuming that you knew what it meant. As a professional writer, you need to know these things.

Just for the record, you are being condescending, and a 13-year-old is being accurate. You are ignoring my good-faith and reasoned arguments and instead attacking straw men, exasperating yourself by talking about people who are not interested, going on about USA Today, and making up criteria to describe "key vital statistics." By the way, I read that NTSB document (fascinating), and found no mention of "key vital statistics." Baseball Bugs may be 13, but at least he's not making up expressions and pretending they came from the US government. – jaksmata 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So we have "may" and "usually". Any evidence of French involvement? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the following statement from Airbus, a six person Airbus Technical "Go Team" team was dispatched on January 16, to assist the NTSB and the Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) who will join the investigation representing France as the State of aircraft manufacturer:

Toulouse, 16 January 2009

"Airbus confirms that an Airbus A320 operated by US Airways was involved in an accident shortly after 15:30 East Coast local time yesterday 15th of January. The aircraft was operating a scheduled service, Flight US 1549 from New York - La Guardia (New York State) to Charlotte (North Carolina).

"The aircraft was MSN (Manufacturer Serial Number) 1044, registered under the number N106US and delivered on 02. August 1999 to US Airways. It was powered by CFM 56-5B4/P engines.

"Initial reports indicate that all 155 persons on board, including 5 crew members, evacuated the aircraft and were successfully rescued. No fatality is reported.

"In line with ICAO Annex 13 International convention, the US NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) will lead the investigation assisted by Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) as State of aircraft manufacturer. A go-team of 6 Airbus Technical Advisors has been dispatched to New York to assist the Investigation Authorities." (Centpacrr (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Certainly convinced me on place of manufacture. Well done. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also satisfied on that point. Now we need to come up with reasons to keep the other dozen-odd facts. Carl Lindberg had a few good points that were ignored earlier in this discussion... – jaksmata 20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Restating the original long list:

• Runway numbers
• Codeshare agreements
• Aircraft manufacturing details (location, date)
• Leaser, Insurer
• Number of flights (cycles) for the aircraft
• Engine installation dates
• Number of engine flight hours
• Date of last A Check
• Date of last C Check
• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT
• Time of day that fire crews began to stand down

I believe we've dispensed with all except the codeshare and the fire crew discussions. Because codeshares have cashflow associated there are schedule pressures too. It's a factor for the investigators to look at, although it seems highly unlikely to have been a factor here. The time of day speaks to how long the rescue process took. Anyone who's ever had to swim in very cold water will grasp the significance. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, although I'd suggest adding the direction of runway 13 for the reasons given by NigelG. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The flight did not use runway 13, it took off from runway 4 and its direction is 044º which I have already added to the first sentence of the "Ditching" section along with a detail of the FAA Departure plate. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Suggested only as thought angle/ proximity of that runway may have been a factor in the pilot's decision to ditch. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed most of these things, but their relevance is still unsupported in the text of the article right now (with the exception of manufacturing location). I think we've established that most of these things probably are not worthy of exclusion from the article, but the way the article is written, they lack context.

I haven't seen a good reason (here on the talk page) to keep number of cycles, engine installation dates, engine flight hours or the maintenance check dates.

As for the time of day that fire crews began to stand down: Nobody was in the water until 4:55. If you want to put in how long they were in the water, that's fine, but until 4:55 isn't it.

The issue I have with context is this: I could add to the article "The aircraft's flaps were in good working order at the time of ditching." Assuming that I had a good source and it wasn't OR, there's no way of knowing, short of prior knowledge of aircraft, why that interesting factoid might be relevant. It is relevant because flaps provide increased lift when moving at slower speeds, such as would be the case when both of your engines fail. Without that context the relevant fact becomes disjointed.

So, right now, we have this in the article: "Its last A Check ...(routine maintenance inspection performed every 550 flight hours) was completed on December 6, 2008." There's no context for such a statement. That's why I called it "too much information" yesterday. I can see how it's loosely related to the article now (it's a standard item the NTSB checks), but there are thousands of standard checks the NTSB does, why is this one important enough to keep here? They probably interviewed the pilot to make sure he wasn't suicidal, standard procedure of course, but that isn't relevant. My hypothetical statement about the flaps isn't relevant, but you can bet they'll check that too. So, what's so special about the A Check and C Check? Why is it essential to put those specific items here rather than directing interested readers to an article that lists all the things the NTSB does in major investigations? – jaksmata 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are always going to be facts which could be added to an article about a recent event, but not all verifiable facts are encyclopedic. It seems like too far much detail to include in an encyclopedia article the hours each engine had operated down to the hundredth of an hour, when there has been no reliable source attributing the crash to the number of hours the engines had operated. If James Dean is killed in a car wreck, do we need to know the odometer reading down to the tenth of a mile, and how many miles since his last oil change? Excess detail hides important information. We are not accident investigators, needing to carefully search for clues. They are the ones who should review every excruciating detail. If they say the engine hours was important, then we should note the numbers or other relevant details.But we are not preparing a file for their use in the investigation. Edison (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This argument is kind of amusing, If the information in sourced, it doesn't hurt to include (so long as written in such a way that a general audience could understand it, with occasional click-thrus for definitions). If it's too technical for intext, it could be moved into a note. If it's OR, it doesn't belong. Joshdboz (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, these numbers -- cycles, flight hours (or "Total Time") on the airframe and engines, last A and C Checks, etc -- are the most basic and universally understood "vital statistics" (my term as an analogy) as the standard criteria used to describe and/or evaluate the "health" and/or status, and suitability for operation of any aircraft, just as one's age, height, weight, blood pressure, pulse rate, etc, are the "vital statistics" for a person which provide the similar basic information to a physician as a basis upon which to evaluate an individual's baseline physical condition. These are the first and most basic numbers that any accident investigator, mechanic, pilot, or any other aviation professional want to know about any aircraft in question, and they are always among the first things to be considered in any aviation accident investigation. (See, for instance page 6 of the NTSB Accident Report for USAir Flight 5050 at LGA, September 20, 1989). This is not an esoteric concept in aviation, and their significance and context are well understood without further explanation in the aviation community at all levels. As such they should most assuredly be retained as fundamental information. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not the aviation community at any level. Context is required here. Do you really expect Wikipedia readers to have an aviation-community knowledge level? See WP:MTAA - if you want to call that "dumbing down," so be it - it's an established Wikipedia guideline. – jaksmata 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No objection to adding the context to explain what these things are, but of course WP:NOT#PAPER means it doesn't all need to be in the article. We can link to Aircraft maintenance checks and let the reader follow the link if interested. If we can find a wp:reliable source that simply states "all routine scheduled maintenance had been done" then we could do without the detail, but to draw that conclusion ourselves would be unusable as WP:original research. Instead we state the things which we can reference and allow the reader to draw the conclusion. LeadSongDog (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also added link to CFR 121.380.2. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

That addition will satisfy me...

I'm going to stop pushing this issue now, although I don't think we've resolved everything, and I think other editors will continue to question out-of-context facts. I never meant this to turn into such a big deal, but I am happy that after a very long discussion some improvement has been made to the article. It's been amusing, but I don't usually have this much "wikenergy", as I usually contribute in a more gnomish fashion. Thanks, everyone, for an intellectually stimulating debate, especially you, Centpacrr. – jaksmata 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Appparently what needs to be pointed out here is that we, Wikipedia, are not conducting an accident investigation. The details that would be critical to the NTSB's investigation are not necessarily details that are critical to an encyclopedia article about a plane crash. General details are certainly important: birdstrike, mechanical failure, lapses in maintenance, pilot error (or competence), and so on. A lot of those details we don't really know yet -- but we will know the salient factors when the NTSB prints its final report, and we will summarize the what the report finds. We will not end up mentioning things like the A and C checks unless they are singled out as a contributing factor to the accident by the NTSB.

Pretending that we should approach our encyclopedia article about this event the same way the NTSB would approach its investigation into the accident is inappropriate.--Father Goose (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here is pretending to "conduct an investigation" but just stating a few of the very most basic fundamental details ("vital statistics") about the known status of N106US at take off which were released and widely published immediately after the accident. These are fully sourced and are stated without offering interpretation in two sections -- "The aircraft and its safety systems" and "Accident investigation" -- for those who are interested in them. Just because not everybody might be interested in this basic information does not mean that nobody is. Those who are not are, of course, free to skip these sections.

We have now expended almost 6,000 words discussing this issue in just this one section of the US Airways Flight 1549 talk page which is more than twice as many as the roughly 2,900 words in the whole article itself. Let's just leave it at that and move on to something else. (Centpacrr (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Does "Let's stop the discussion and move on" mean "Let's leave all the minutia in the article so it is the way I want it to be?" The number of words of discussion shows that many editors want the compulsive listing of details of unproven significance removed. How about go with consensus and not include the hours on each engine down to the hundredth of an hour, for starters, since no reliable source has attributed the accident to the hours on the engines. It would be more encyclopedic to state that all maintenance was current, or other general statements, referenced to reliable sources. Note general normality, report exceptions that have been noted by reliable sources as important. Edison (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What this shows is that these were both high time engines at the time of the accident which would tend to make them more susceptible failure when ingesting birds (although even new engines probably would not have survived this event). The high engine time will certainly be considered closely by the investigators, however. I have considerably tightened the language relating this information, however, without compromising the basic information. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Notes

(adding to avoid cite ref warnings 84user (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Life vests

On a photography forum there are some pics and discussion about passengers not wearing life vests. Was there any discussion in US media on this?

(unsigned?) Yes, very interesting pictures, including one of (apparently) ice hanging from the attending ferry boat. There is also some speculative discussion as to why so few passengers are wearing a life-vest. But for the blog source, I'd suggest adding a comment in the Evacuation section (which may, in any case, need improvement wrt actual sequence of events, one suspects). I can find no other "media" source/discussion about the life-vests, although I don't see why such would be much more reliable. Again, however, any comment might be pre-judging the findings of the accident investigation report. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I’d suggest, though, that the weather conditions at the time of the incident certainly deserve some mention, particularly river water temp. The temperature in New York was apparently about 20 degrees about the time of the crash [14] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(Fahrenheit: ie -6 or -7 C.) --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recap

I hope no one will mind too much if I repeat a few points I've made in various sections above, just in case they've been overlooked in the sometimes heated Too much detail? debate:

• Choice of the most appropriate final lead quote.

• Relevance/reliability of the evacuation anecdote

• Runway numbers/directions. I see that the text now reads Runway 4 (heading 044º)—but that seems only to be duplicating the heading already embodied in the r/w number. Yes, I suppose readers could take a few seconds to work out that it means north-east; but why not help them a bit? The same goes for the proposed landing back on runway 13: if it's worth mentioning the number at all, it's worth explaining that it means landing in a south-easterly direction. Changing the text to Runway 13 (heading 130º) would again be uninformative.

Could we please have some degree of consensus on these points &, if agreed, modify the text? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Northeast (045.4º) and Southeast (135.5º) headings for Runways 4 and 13 added to text. I have no particular preference one way or the other on the final lead quote ("rare success of ditching") or evacuation ("women and children first") anecdote. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Runways are always referred to by two digit numbers - 04 and 13 in this case. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Headings are given in three digits (such as 044º), but runway 4 at LGA is only designated by the single digit "4" which is how it appears on the direction signs on the airfield, on all the FAA plates, and how its number is painted on the runway threshold. (You can confirm this for yourself by navigating to LGA on Google Earth or on Google Maps.) (Centpacrr (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

I've now changed the text per the first 2 points above. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the evacuation anecdote has been promptly restored. My quarrel with this anecdote/report is not with its content but with its pointlessness. The reader is left in suspense, wondering "Well, did anyone obey the injunction? Did a fight break out? Were the Ladies Firsters voted down? Did the flight attendants overrule the injunction?" As it stands, it tells us nothing worth knowing. It's a story without a punchline. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PS The phrase some passengers directed ... is particularly comical in this context. Who were they: natural born leaders? If you must retain this story, I suggest you inject a note of realism by saying instead some passengers screamed ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Reword it to distill the references. Identify the actions and perpetrators, attributing the identification. That's not the same as deleting it.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No: I'm sorry, but life's too short. I did the only merciful thing—but since you think it's worth including, it's up to you to fix it.--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?

Its clear that this article has been taken over by a few editors, bent on turning the encyclopedia article into a set of overly precise and excruciatingly aeronautic minutiae — all etched in stone tablet form lest we "dumb down" the article. Whole sections of the article are a complete joke now, myopic to a degree that is completely laughable, missing only the GPS breadcrumb trails of the passengers as they left to resume their lives. 842U (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Feel free to improve the article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Aviation is by nature a highly technical field in which accuracy and unambiguity is essential to safety. I find nothing in here, however, that is either esoteric cannot be easily understood from the context. I really don't see how accuracy and precision are in anyway antithetical to, or inconsistent with, being encyclopedic. Commercial aviation accidents are by their very nature complex, multifaceted occurrences. Treating them as if they are nothing more than simplistic or monolithic events does a disservice to both those who were involved in them at all levels, as well as to those who chose to come to Wikipedia to learn the facts about what happened. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

This isn't Aviation, Centpacrr, this is Wikipedia. We don't see any of this technical jargon and over-embellishment of detail in articles by the Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, or New York Times because — it's unnecessary, completely unnecessary -- and destructive to comprehension. Despite one editors perceived "need" to bring their version of "accuracy of precision" to the article and the "unwashed masses," the information is over-specialized. Wikipedia is for birds... rather than for Long-billed California Curlews... at the exclusion of all birds. 842U (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Give the article time to develop. It is still relatively "new" at the moment, and there are many edits per day. The British Airways Flight 38 article went through a similar development last year. For now, the main thing is to keep everything referenced, and linked as necessary to explain technical terms. With an article such as this, they have to be included to give a full picture. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said. If in fact the aircraft were brought down by Long-billed California Curlews that would be of very considerable interest. Gather ye breadcrumbs. There is lots of time for digestion later. For now, we've only got a few high quality sources to work from, but that will certainly change.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in not aviation, and nobody ever said it was. But the subject of the instant article is an aviation accident for which precise terms and language exists to describe what happened. The Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, and New York Times are in no way analogous to Wikipedia as they are daily newspapers, not encyclopedias or permanent reference works. Newspapers are meant to be timely only on the day they are published because the next day they will just as likely be used to "wrap fish" or line birdcages as they are to ever be read again for informational purposes. You are really talking apples and oranges there.

Encyclopedias are designed to be enduring reference works which provide far greater detail, depth, and perspective. Information is compiled over time and from many sources which are then cited and/or footnoted. Again you seem to be advocating that Wikipedia should be aimed at only to the "lowest common denominator." I think you are vastly underestimating its audience, however. How are people supposed to ever broaden their perception and understanding of the world if they are only presented with things they already know about? Again if you are not interested in the more technical aspects contained in this or any other particular Wikipedia entry then you should feel free to ignore them. But don't deny others who are interested free access to that material just because it does not interest you. There is really room for everybody. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Still struggling with the rigid aeronautic stone tablets (for the fahrenheit challenged). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All units of measurement should be converted anyway. Mjroots (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

At a more meta-level. Many new articles rapidly pick up a lot of details. Only in hindsight the relevance of all these details will be proven to be high or low. This articles will at first probably suffer from the same, but once the investigation has closed I am pretty sure it will be gradually edited towards a more accessible article... the Wikipedia way. The relevant technical details (to be determined by the investigation) will then of course be maintained, while others will go. So a slightly over technical article at this stage would only facilitate future clean up and focussing; while at this moment many people may be interested in these details as the crash is hot now, and people want all information one mouse click away.
In summary, I would not worry about loading the article with potentially relevant details (we have to be careful about trivia) as the article will evolve to a less technical, more stable and final version after the initial fuss has died down. Arnoutf (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wise words, at last. They're still tablets, 842U. I'll just have to keep taking them, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan in opening sentence

There is no need for the part in bold in the lead senence. It is over-specific, and jars the flow of the sentence breaking it into too many pieces. I removed it once, and it has been reinserted.

US Airways Flight 1549 was a commercial passenger flight that ditched in the Hudson River adjacent to midtown Manhattan about five minutes after takeoff on January 15, 2009

MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hudson River is 315 miles long. The fact that the plane ditched in the very short section of the river adjacent to midtown Manhattan is extremely significant because it is probably the major reason that all 155 occupants of the aircraft survived the ditching. The plane came to a stop in the water at 3:31 pm very close to the Midtown Ferry Terminal at West 39th Street and the West Side Highway from which many NY Waterway ferry boats operate. The first of those boats to reach the plane did so at 3:35 pm -- just four minutes later! This key factor in making it possible for all 155 people involved in the ditching of a commercial jet airplane certainly seems worth four words ("...adjacent to midtown Manhattan...") in the introductory paragraph. It is a central part of the what happened to US Airways Flight 1549.

Say, for instance, that a A320 took off from Sydney Airport, struck a flock of large birds on climb out, and ended up ditching in Sydney Harbour. If the aircrew were able to bring it down so that it stopped within a few hundred yards of the Sydney Opera House and everyone was promptly rescued by local ferry boats as opposed to somewhere near the mouth of the harbour, would that not be a significant part of the story?

If you think the intro is too long, why not advocate removing the 45-word, two sentence long second paragraph which relates to a prize awarded some days later by a private organization located in London, England. This had nothing whatever to do with the accident, its cause, or its outcome. Exactly where the plane came down, on the the other hand, most assuredly did. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

It's one of a hundred 'extremely important' facts about the incident. They are not all going to fit in the very first sentence. It's too long, and doesn't read correctly, either that is just clear to you by quickly reading it, or it isn't. I would of thought it was obvious I was not suggesting it wasn't important by removing it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with demoting those two sentences, however I must take issue with characterization of GAPAN as "a private organization". In fact it is the relevant Livery Company, which is a rather different thing. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with LeadSongDog about GAPAN. The G stands for "Guild", GAPAN is one of the London Guilds. It is an important aviation organisation that is respected worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

By "private organization" I meant that it is not a Government organization, body, or agency, and there is no indication that I am aware of that it is involved with this accident in an official capacity. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

I get the point. But who better than their peers to assess how significant an accomplishment it was? These are British commercial pilots, many flying the same very same type of aircraft, offering acknowledgement of the feat through their professional body. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating taking it out, I was only pointing out that for the intro, the fact that the plane ditched adjacent to midtown Manhattan was far more important and directly relevant to the outcome of the accident then an award made made some days later. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

It won't be long before the GPS coordinates of the splashdown move into the intro... I can just feel it... along with the GPS breadcrumb trails of the passengers as they left to return to their regularly scheduled lives. Can't wait. Then again, none of us should be surprised by any of this: at least one editor keeps arguing that each piece of minutiae is "extremely important." But in life, not all things can be "extremely important:" when everything is of the same importance, there's no longer an extreme. Forget that it treats the reader as a complete idiot to suggest that a plane that takes off leaving Laguardia could after five minutes then ditch in the Hudson... 315 miles away: this is a form of "dumbing down" that "we" approve of. I don't have to be sarcastic anymore... I can now be ironic. Oh well. Gather yee breadcrumbs. 842U (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the upper right corner of the page you will find that User:Pigsonthewing added the GPS coordinates to this article at 17:13 on January 15 which was just an hour and twenty minutes after the page was originally created. You will also find that similar GPS coordinates also exist in many many thousands of other Wikipedia pages that relate to a geographical place. (Wikipedia has long supplied a "coordinates template" for that purpose.)

Had the aircrew decided to continue to fly north after the bird strike as opposed to turning south at the Spuyten Duyvil, the plane would have most likely touched down in the Hudson River somewhere between Dobbs Ferry and the Tappen Zee Bridge or about twelve to fourteen miles north of where it did. The river in this area is very different in width and character than it is adjacent to midtown Manhattan, and there would have been no nearby watercraft there capable to rescuing the passengers quickly. (Remember that the air temperature was in the 20's and the water temperature in the 40's so any delay in rescue would have no doubt resulted in many deaths or injuries due to exposure.)

The fact that the plane came to a stop in the river in the midst of an area of heavy ferry traffic adjacent to midtown Manhattan was indeed the key factor (i.e. "extremely important") in making possible the successful and rapid rescue of the occupants without any fatalities or serious injury after they they survived the ditching. That being the case, I just can't see how including four words ("...adjacent to midtown Manhattan...") in the intro to acknowledge that fact could in any way be considered excessive. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm going to agree with Centpacrr on this one. In addition to what he said, "adjacent to midtown Manhattan" is a phrase that really sets the scene for the article. I would call it just as important as the first-sentence mention of the 14th Street Bridge in the article on Air Florida Flight 90. It specifies the location of the accident in terms that most people can visualize. While the addition of that phrase does increase the grammatical complexity of the first sentence, I don't think it raises it to a level that is unreasonable. – jaksmata 21:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tightened and simplified the language of the intro while retaining all the relevant information. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Air Florida Flight 90 actually crashed into the 14th Street Bridge, so it would be ridiculous not to mention it. But in each of American Airlines Flight 587, Swissair Flight 111, TWA Flight 800, and similar articles, the nearest identifiable geographic entity is mentioned in the lede. In this case, that entity is Manhattan, and it doesn't hurt to further specify midtown Manhattan, since Manhattan is about 15 miles long.--Father Goose (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for a more concise intro: US Airways Flight 1549 was a commercial passenger flight that ditched in the Hudson River adjacent to midtown Manhattan on the afternoon of January 15, 2009. The Airbus A320 was bound for Charlotte, North Carolina when it struck a flock of birds about 90 seconds after take off. The plane lost power in both engines and went down in the river three-and-a-half minutes later, at 3:31 pm. All 155 people on board survived the ditching, safely evacuated the cabin, and were rescued from the partially submerged plane by nearby commercial and rescue watercraft. J. Van Meter (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (ie, move altitude to ditching section and master medal to aftermath section.) J. Van Meter (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No mention of LaGuardia there, and the middle two sentences also seem to sightly muddle the relationship of the events. The altitude of the bird strike is not as essential, but it is not unimportant either because it is the most valuable "asset" any airman has to husband in an in-flight emergency. (The more altitude a pilot has, the more time he or she has to deal with and try to mitigate the problem.) Upon reflection, I also think the award bit is ok because it provides a "hook" to mention the extreme rarity of a successful ditching. I think my last (16:44) version of the first paragraph better covers all those bases in three concise and uncomplicated declarative sentences. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

[Deleted Posts]

Wait, are saying the article is shit because a particular bit of information is in its second sentence instead of its first? Calm down, dude.--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've been WP:BOLD and rewritten the lede para, mainly for flow. I believe that I've kept the content unchanged. Fire away.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed my posts, on reflection they weren't all that helpfull. MickMacNee (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked and tightened second sentence for clarity of sequencing. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Temperature

Since the Fahrenheit temperature given in the Evacuation section (about 20° F) is itself an approximation, wouldn't it make more sense to give the conversion as another simple approximation (about -7° C) rather than an approximate range (about -6° to -7° C)? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I now have Scriptural authority for changing this, since the Convert template generates the solution I was suggesting all along! Note that one about is sufficient. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro (again)

sorry, i just don't think the addition of "unable to return to the field" (here) does anything to tighten or clarify the opening paragraph. J. Van Meter (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

These six short words concisely provide the reason why the flight ditched into the river as opposed to attempting to land at either of the two nearby airfields (LaGuardia and Teterboro) which were both offered to the aircrew by TRACON as options. The aircrew quickly determined that the plane was "unable" to reach either one, however, and therefore advised ATC that "We're gonna be in the Hudson." Even including the extra "award" paragraph, the US Airway 1549 intro is still just 179 words which, for instance, is 115 fewer then the 294 words in the intro for the the Wikipedia article on TWA Flight 800. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

a landing at teterboro would not have been a "return"; hence the lack of clarity. i would suggest "unable to reach the nearest airports" instead. J. Van Meter (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote to include rejection of all airfield options and related that to the decision to ditch in the river. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Re: Word selection:

• "Land" vs "set down": Airplanes can only "land" on land, not water (which is not land)

• "in water" vs "on water": The NTSB Aviation Accident Coding Manual describes a ditching by a land plane as being "in water." (Float planes and flying boats would set down on water, however, as they are expected to float.)

• "successfully": "successful" ditchings are rare, therefore "successfully" is significant

• "nevertheless": implies an outcome contrary to what would be expected under the circumstances which is what happened in this case (the expected result of a ditching would be the breakup of the airframe and many casualties) (Centpacrr (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

• Clearly the general press usage has agreed roughly 4:1 with the NTSB's sloppy choice of "in" over Oxford's choice of "on", but they are wrong. A ship operates on the water. A submarine operates in it. US1549 was not submerged in the river until well after the last person was off. All that said, neither choice should be excessively jarring to a reader. We have better points to focus on.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree this is not a big issue, but the length of time it took for the Airbus to "sink" should really be irrelevant in this case as it is a land plane which is not intended to float or ever be put down in water. It certainly was partially submerged immediately after touch down, and the only reason it did not go under completely much faster was that fortunately the hull of the aircraft was not significantly compromised during the ditching. Float planes and flying boats are, of course, different in that they are intended to float and operate on water.(Centpacrr (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Just as a matter of interest, why "encountered and struck"? Wouldn't "struck" on its own be enough? Or even "flew into", still linked to Bird strike.--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not absolutely essential so I deleted it. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, that was my thinking when I first encountered it. It struck me as redundant.--Father Goose (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to put too much emphasis on gliding, but I think that the term is fairly widely understood, whereas "in unpowered flight" may puzzle some readers. Yes, it's perfectly correct as a technical term; but not all terms used in WP need to be technical. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

While I suppose that "unpowered flight" is a less widely used term than "gliding" is at some level, it would not really mean the same thing in the context in which it would be used here. Gliding as applied to flight is, in my experience, generally used to describe flight that is intended to be unpowered and is done for sport. That is not the case here.

I really don't see how there can be any serious confusion caused by the usage of the more appropriate technical term "unpowered flight" here:

" ... resulting in the immediate loss of thrust in both engines. Although unable to either

return to LGA or reach any other airfield from that altitude in unpowered flight, ... "

Any "gliding" this plane did was obviously not its intended mode of flight as an A320 is a plane that can only be successfully operated under power. The text above says that both engines lost power, and as a result of suddenly being in this unintended unpowered condition, the plane did not have sufficient altitude to reach any airport and therefore ended up having to ditch in the North River. That being the case, I think "unpowered flight" is the far more accurate and appropriate term to use. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, there is the precedent of the Gimli Glider. According to the intro to the WP article, The crew was able to glide the aircraft safely to an emergency landing at Gimli Industrial Park Airport .... But I'm not going to labour the point. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume the term "glide" was used in this case because the flight had been dubbed "Gimli Glider" in popular culture. (If the flight had made its emergency landing at Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport, for instance, I'm not sure how likely it would have been called the "Richardson International Glider.") What AIr Canada 143 was technically doing, however, was unplanned, unpowered flight owing to fuel exhaustion.(Centpacrr (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

... Well, perhaps I will labour the point just a little bit!

• What about the following: The aircraft was beyond gliding range of any airfield including LGA; however the aircrew succeeded in ...?
• I'm beginning to wonder about this now: ... the immediate loss of thrust in both engines. Wouldn't it be clearer, & less open to misinterpretation, to say instead ... the total loss of power in both engines? "Loss of thrust" might be construed as "reduced thrust". --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

similar incident in Denver

On Feb. 3, a similar incident like this one happened in Denver but the pilot landed back at the airport not a body of water. Would it be relevant to mention this here briefly?Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that bird strikes are quite common, and this is probably only being reported because bird strikes are "in the news" after US Air 1549. This birdstrike doesn't seem to have disabled one engine, much less two, and the aircraft did not have to make a forced landing. In that sense it's not a "similar incident". It wouldn't be necessarily wrong to add it, but it's the kind of thing I can see getting trimmed before long. Fletcher (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Status of plane

Was the plane salvagable?