Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

fsx_missionguy

Just Flight - and USAir Flight 1549

Recommended Posts

On the front page of AVSIM, there's a story about Just Flight helping the BBC to understand how USAir Flight 1549 was impacted by bird strikes and ended up in the Hudson River.Scott Phillips of Just Flight reports, "BBC News contacted us to assist them with their report on the LaGuardia plane crash and so our team stepped up to the plate to oblige. In a very short space of time we were able to provide them with a simulated reconstruction of the flight, engine failure and subsequent ditching in the Hudson River."You too can experience a recreation of this flight. xWerkz Studio has released a freeware Microsoft Flight Simulator X mission that recreates the flight of USAir Flight 1549 using flight telemetry provided by FlightAware. You can download the mission free here:Free USAir Flight 1549 MissionLook in the Beta Missions download area. The mission is entitled: "USAir Flight 1549 - Bird Strike" and is playable by any version of Microsoft Flight Simulator X.Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hmmm.....Internet Explorer cannot display the page. Website is currently offline it would appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to cut and paste the URL into a new window. It would appear the site does not allow linking from other sites.Thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to cut and paste the URL into a new window. It would appear the site does not allow linking from other sites.Thanks for sharing.
Yes ... the linked site is fine. AVSIM provides linking tools to incorporate links into posts, but when you do that, their software won't allow you to click on the link for some reason.The URL is:http://www.flightsimulatorxmissions.comCheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very interested in this mission. It is a challenge to all of us PC based flight simulator guys! BTW, also make sure you look at the NYC area with GoogleEarth - especially with the 3D buildings! What I don't know is how to set up the Airbus321 so that it actually lands in the water instead of "bouncing" back into the air and restarting the engines. Do I have to set up the aircraft config file so that it is similar to a floatplane like the Beaver? Also, I notice that even with a quick finger on the elevator trim (really should be stabilizer trim), it is hard to set up and maintain the desired glide speed (what should that be anyway - 150 knots or so?) Also, what should the climbout speed be - maybe 220 - did he get the flaps up? They apparently got up to 3200 feet. Did they extend the flaps for the landing? Congratulations to ALL the flight crew (not just the Captain) - Here they are:Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger, III - Age 58, joined US Airways (PSA Airlines) in 1980. He has a total of 19,663 flights hours.First officer Jeffrey B. Skiles - Age 49, joined US Airways (USAir) in 1986. He has a total of 15,643 flight hours.Flight attendant, Shelia Dail - Age 57, joined US Airways (Piedmont Airlines) in 1980 and has more than 28 years experience with the airline.Flight attendant, Doreen Welsh - Age 58, joined US Airways (Allegheny Airlines) in 1970 and has more than 38 years experience with the airline.Flight attendant, Donna Dent - Age 51, joined US Airways (Piedmont Airlines) in 1982 and has more than 26 years experience with the airline.Thank God for their training and professionalism!whitav8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am very interested in this mission. It is a challenge to all of us PC based flight simulator guys! BTW, also make sure you look at the NYC area with GoogleEarth - especially with the 3D buildings! What I don't know is how to set up the Airbus321 so that it actually lands in the water instead of "bouncing" back into the air and restarting the engines. Do I have to set up the aircraft config file so that it is similar to a floatplane like the Beaver? Also, I notice that even with a quick finger on the elevator trim (really should be stabilizer trim), it is hard to set up and maintain the desired glide speed (what should that be anyway - 150 knots or so?) Also, what should the climbout speed be - maybe 220 - did he get the flaps up? They apparently got up to 3200 feet. Did they extend the flaps for the landing? Congratulations to ALL the flight crew (not just the Captain) - Here they are:Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger, III - Age 58, joined US Airways (PSA Airlines) in 1980. He has a total of 19,663 flights hours.First officer Jeffrey B. Skiles - Age 49, joined US Airways (USAir) in 1986. He has a total of 15,643 flight hours.Flight attendant, Shelia Dail - Age 57, joined US Airways (Piedmont Airlines) in 1980 and has more than 28 years experience with the airline.Flight attendant, Doreen Welsh - Age 58, joined US Airways (Allegheny Airlines) in 1970 and has more than 38 years experience with the airline.Flight attendant, Donna Dent - Age 51, joined US Airways (Piedmont Airlines) in 1982 and has more than 26 years experience with the airline.Thank God for their training and professionalism!whitav8
I have the same questions. I'd like to be able to sit in the Hudson as they did without bouncing up in the air. I did note that they had Flight 1529 in place of Flight 1549 in the title but it ran OK anyway. I thank them a lot for making it. I replaced the default A321 with a USAir A321 in the flt file. Best regards, Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have the same questions. I'd like to be able to sit in the Hudson as they did without bouncing up in the air.
Make sure realism is on 'hard'. I set up a recreation on my own. I just shut down the engines at 3,000 ft, made the turn, avoided the bridge and set her down.Piece of cake! Made me realise just how far removed from reality FS really is... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to be able to sit in the Hudson as they did without bouncing up in the air. I did note that they had Flight 1529 in place of Flight 1549 in the title but it ran OK anyway. I thank them a lot for making it. I replaced the default A321 with a USAir A321 in the flt file. Best regards, Bob.
Unfortunately, this is not possible. There are two scenarios that are possible if you land in the Hudson, depending on how you've set up your realism settings:1) If you have crash detection turned on: When you land out, as soon as the middle of your fuselage (CG) touches the water, the game will register a crash. This is by design (I consider it a bug, but Microsoft considers it by design, most likely because of contractual agreements with manufacturers and the decisions they made with respect to debris scatter animations, etc.)2) If you have crash detection turned off: The plane will "bounce" across the water and go full throttle to try to gain altitude again. Once again, there's nothing that I can do, as the mission designer, about that behavior. It is a bug in the game.This mission is designed as close to reality as I can make it. It will be interesting to me if any pilot is able to make any airport landing in this mission. So far, the only type of "successful" landing I have been able to make is the same one that Captain Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger made. If you are landing out in the Hudson River, and touching the water at 130 knots or slower, wings level, nose up ... you should consider that "Mission Success."Cheers!
Make sure realism is on 'hard'. I set up a recreation on my own. I just shut down the engines at 3,000 ft, made the turn, avoided the bridge and set her down.Piece of cake! Made me realise just how far removed from reality FS really is... :(
Bear,I doubt if you set up the mission correctly, you were able to get to Teterboro. It is 10 nm away from where the bird strike occurred and this aircraft never exceeded 220 knots or 3,200 feet AGL (according to the telemetry I have seen).On the contrary, I find flying this mission that it almost exactly recreates the scenario that this pilot faced, and represents an excellent simulation of the flight characteristics he probably faced in his Airbus A320 (my opinion). No way he makes Teterboro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I notice that even with a quick finger on the elevator trim (really should be stabilizer trim), it is hard to set up and maintain the desired glide speed (what should that be anyway - 150 knots or so?) Also, what should the climbout speed be - maybe 220 - did he get the flaps up? They apparently got up to 3200 feet. Did they extend the flaps for the landing?
Sir,The information that I have is this:* Top flight speed on the climbout was 215 knots* Max altitude reached was 3,200 feet AGL* The aircraft was in a left turn when the bird strike probably occurred.* I do not believe he would have had time to get the flaps retracted, but I don't know that for sure.I do not know, but I believe, that as soon as this Captain realized that the second engine was gone, he made the critical decision that saved everyone's lives: he levelled the airplane and extended full flaps. The flap extension is critical, I believe, to enabling him to actually reach the Hudson River. The ideal glide speed that I have found with full flaps is 140 knots. (If you do not extend the flaps, you risk a stall at anything below 150 knots.) This should get you to the river with a slight left turn, with enough altitude to slow the aircraft down on "final" for the water landing. If you turn too abruptly, you may bleed off too much altitude as you slip. If the GPWS warns that you are dropping too quickly, do not pull up. Instead, push the nose down and shallow your turn to regain 140 knots or you risk a stall. Management of your energy is critical for extending this flight (er ... glide).Telemetry I have indicates the aircraft was at 153 knots and 300 feet at the last data point. I attribute the difference to the lighter fuel load this pilot probably had in real life. In FSX, I have given you a full fuel load at this point of the design, because I'm not sure how to calculate how much fuel would have been in the aircraft for this flight. I am awaiting NTSB data on that score.Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fsx_missionguy Thanks for all your help and info - you have taken this seriously and done a fine job! The details will come out slowly - but if as you say, he got the flaps out immediately (is that the emergency procedure? ), it sure made it all possible. These PC based flight simulators really can help answer a lot of questions - sure, the aerodynamics aren't as accurate as full fidelity sims because the aircraft manufacturer (Boeing or Airbus) won't release the data (except for a $million). But, it can be close enough to get a very good idea of the situation. It's pretty clear that the pilots could quickly see that an emergency landing at Teterboro just wasn't going to work - I don't know if the NAV display would still be working which has a range arc that would have showed if, at the current rate of descent, the aircraft could glide that far. Probably, they simply estimated by looking out the windscreen an saw that Teterboro was "too high". Have you seen the video of the actual touchdown on the water? Some security camera caught it - that should really help investigators plus it might be used to help train others for the future. What keeps FSX from allowing us to have the Airbus from touching down like the Beaver?Thanks again!wjitav8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bear,I doubt if you set up the mission correctly, you were able to get to Teterboro. It is 10 nm away from where the bird strike occurred and this aircraft never exceeded 220 knots or 3,200 feet AGL (according to the telemetry I have seen).On the contrary, I find flying this mission that it almost exactly recreates the scenario that this pilot faced, and represents an excellent simulation of the flight characteristics he probably faced in his Airbus A320 (my opinion). No way he makes Teterboro.
You misunderstand. I didn't get to Teterboro. I actually put her down in the Hudson. I didn't use your mission, so I'm sure weights, heights etc weren't accurate. I just wanted to have a quick go with the Wilco A320 after seeing the Just Flight footage on the BBC. In effect I was simulating a simulation!I shall download your mission and try it for 'real'. I've no doubt that I'll be swimming again! :( Thanks for your efforts creating it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I shall download your mission and try it for 'real'. I've no doubt that I'll be swimming again! :( Thanks for your efforts creating it.
Actually,I have uploaded an upgraded version of this mission (version 0.95). It is possible to land this plane normally (er ... as normally as one can with neither jet engine functional). And so, in the mission, if you land normally, you will get the Mission Success banner, and receive a Reward for your Pilot Record.Also in this update:* Actual cockpit commentary spoken by the pilots and tower during the real world emergency (as released by the National Transportation Safety Board via a news conference on 17 January 2009).* Actual ATC designation for this aircraft* Actual 911 recording as released by the New York Police Department 17Jan09 (if you land out in the Hudson, you'll hear this)* Possibility for mission success if you're a good enough pilot!* Mission reward for mission success.* Expanded Mission Briefing pays homage to the real world flight and cabin crew!You can get the mission here:http://www.flightsimulatorxmissions.comLook in the Beta area of the Downloads section. This mission should run fine, but I am leaving it in beta testing, as I'm awaiting the NTSB Preliminary Accident Report for more detailed weather and wind information than I currently have. So far, the NTSB has not released their initial report.Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The manual approach to making this flight.Data From USA Today. (Converted from digital in hundreths)Altitude Latitude Longitude 1800 - 40.48.00 - 73.52.20 In Air2800 - 40.49.80 - 73.52.20 Continuing3200 - 40.51.60 - 73.52.80 Apex Of Turn, Approaching The Hudson*2000 - 40.52.80 - 73.54.00 SW To The River1600 - 40.51.60 - 73.55.80 Over The River Going South1200 - 40.51.60 - 73.57.00 Over The River Going South1300 - 40.49.80 - 73.58.20 Over The River Going South400 --- 40.49.20 - 74.00.00 Near The Splash DownRunway - 40.51.46 - 74.03.25 Nearest End Of Teterboro Runway* Tetersboro was very marginal from apex of turn which was at maximum altitude of 3200 feet. Assuming this is the start of the zero power point, and a negative wind scenario, this was a good call by the pilot even though runway alignment was perfect !Internet based distance and decimal converters can be found with a Google search. Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tetersboro was very marginal from turn apex at maximum altitude of 3200 feet, to say the least, under a zero power and negative wind scenario. Under no power from that point, this was a good call.
Bob,Thanks for that info. I got similar data from FlightAware at 1 minute intervals but also with speed information.There are alternatives. It is possible to land the plane normally, so the mission will grant you success if you solve the dilemma. :( Cheers,Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin:Even though he comes in closer into Teterboro (after the power loss) by about a mile to the good side (as opposed to just short by a few hundred feet), there are other problems. First, how does he know the ideal point (minimum distance) to make that turn off to Teterboro in this "panic", very limited time, and maximum other duties situation. And resultant glide data used here is after the fact.. So we are "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" this whole thing. Then I understand he was it was into the wind to Teterboro. He had to know that. Based on what I have seen here and calculated, if I'm on that plane and a decision has to be made for my life in these extremely marginal conditions, I'll take the river.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin:So we are "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" this whole thing. Then I understand he was it was into the wind to Teterboro. He had to know that. Based on what I have seen here and calculated, if I'm on that plane and a decision has to be made for my life in these extremely marginal conditions, I'll take the river.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)
Bob,Just so we're clear, when I say there are "alternatives" I'm speaking of the FSX mission that I've created that duplicates this flight (or at least attempts to).In real life, I believe that Capt. Sullenberger did the only thing that was right to do, from both a technical piloting standpoint, but also a moral standpoint. He chose to ditch believing that other alternatives he considered offered too great a chance for catastrophic loss of life (i.e., others not on his aircraft.) Even though it might technically have been possible to put the aircraft back on a runway, doing so presented great risks.Ditching was the the moral thing to do ... which makes his actions of course ... heroic. By his actions, he saved everyone; his crew, his passengers, and innocent people on the ground.Cheers,Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In real life, I believe that Capt. Sullenberger did the only thing that was right to do, from both a technical piloting standpoint, but also a moral standpoint. He chose to ditch believing that other alternatives he considered offered too great a chance for catastrophic loss of life (i.e., others not on his aircraft.) Even though it might technically have been possible to put the aircraft back on a runway, doing so presented great risks.Ditching was the the moral thing to do ... which makes his actions of course ... heroic. By his actions, he saved everyone; his crew, his passengers, and innocent people on the ground.
Kevin, Thanks again for your hard work on this mission - one that I wish many would try! At Boeing, where I worked in the engineering simulator department investigating some of the incidents and accidents, I would fly the 737 simulator for hours and practice landing with the engines cutoff - if you put the speedbrakes out, it's kind of like landing the Shuttle. Captain Sullenberger did a great job - under severe pressure - to estimate where he could get the A320 safely. Like you say, there aren't many emergency landing sites - even freeways don't really work for airliners (looks good in the movies though!). One question on the mission, are the British accents on the voices that I get a function of my setup or is that the only choice? Also, what flap setting and speed do you use to get to the Hudson? I barely make it. I have created a hidef video (1280x720 at 25fps) on vimeo.com - I am still downloading it (it is about 250mbytes for the 4 minutes). Once I know the URL for it, I will reply to this thread again. I wanted you to see it because I have come close to getting the Airbus to float in the water! I combined the "contact points" for the Beaver with the wheel contact points for the Airbus 321 in the "aircraft.cfg" file. Here are my edits:______________________________________________________________________________________________[contact_points]max_number_of_points = 21//remove the original ones or comment them out//The first ones (type 4 and 5) are from the Beaver and the last three (type=1) are from the A321point.0 = 4, 0.00, 4.80, 1.00, 2200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.5, 0.390, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0point.1 = 4, 0.00, -4.80, 1.00, 2200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.891, 0.0, 0.0, 2, 0, 0point.2 = 4, -18.10, 4.80, 1.00, 2200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.891, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0point.3 = 4, -18.10, -4.80, 1.00, 2200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.891, 0.0, 0.0, 2, 0, 0point.4 = 5, -20.10, -4.80, 1.30, 1600, 0, 0, 50.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.000, 1.0, 1.2, 0, 0, 0point.5 = 5, -20.10, 4.80, 1.30, 1600, 0, 0, 50.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.000, 1.1, 1.5, 0, 0, 0point.6 = 2, -6.90, -25.0, 4.50, 1800, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 5point.7 = 2, -6.90 25.0, 4.50, 1800, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 6point.8= 2, -30.23, 0.0, -0.00, 1800, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 9point.9= 2, 0.48, 0.0, -2.17, 1800, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 4point.10= 2, -27.50, 0.0, 7.50, 1800, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 7point.11=1, 43.00, 0.00, -9.70, 1600, 0, 1.442, 55.92, 0.6, 2.5, 0.9, 4.0, 4.0, 0, 220.0, 250.0point.12=1, -11.20, -12.45, -10.30, 1600, 1, 1.442, 0.00, 1.0, 2.5, 0.9, 6.9, 6.9, 2, 220.0, 250.0point.13=1, -11.20, 12.45, -10.30, 1600, 2, 1.442, 0.00, 1.0, 2.5, 0.9, 7.1, 7.1, 3, 220.0, 250.0gear_system_type=1static_pitch=3.6 //degrees, pitch when at rest on the ground (+=Up, -=Dn)static_cg_height=7.4 //feet, altitude of CG when at rest on the ground_____________________________________________________________________I realize that the values don't make much sense for the A321 but it works and when I try changing them much, I get a severe shudder effect. Anyway, you might want to try it - make sure you backup the original aircraft.cfg.Best Wishes and Thanks AgainDave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned in my last post that I would mention the URL for the HiDef vimeo.com video that I made of this mission. It is as follows:http://www.vimeo.com/2885049After we upload our WMV file, they take a while to convert for streaming so give it a few minutes (Monday the 19th at 3:30pm EST)Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One question on the mission, are the British accents on the voices that I get a function of my setup or is that the only choice? Also, what flap setting and speed do you use to get to the Hudson? I barely make it.
Dave,Actually, the accent is Australian, and it was the only choice I had (meaning that it is not your system causing that). I'm fairly limited in the voices I have available at the moment. They're quite expensive, actually.I barely make it to the Hudson sometimes, other times, depending on my altitude, I make it with some room to spare. I try to fly it as if I was Capt. Sullenberger ... pausing briefly to consider my options (even though it's hard to do that, since I know what my options are, and I know the bird strike is going to occur, and where it's going to occur.)I believe that the first officer had the plane in his departure turn when the bird strike occurred. According to media reports, Capt. Sullenberger took control of the aircraft at that point, and the first officer began engine failure checklist procedures. If that did occur, then I'm quite certain that the first thing we'll see from the flight data recorders is the levelling out of the aircraft and the extension of the flaps to full. Airspeed drops so fast once the engines stop, that I'm certain Capt. Sullenberger would have taken those immediate actions to keep from stalling.Based on the telemetry provided by FlightAware, it's obvious to me that Capt. Sullenberger then continued his left turn to about a heading of 300, and pointed his aircraft at the only airport he could see ... Teterboro in New Jersey. He must have quickly realized he couldn't make it, though, as he was at about 3,000 feet and slowing with zero thrust. By then, though, he would have been pointing right at the Hudson River, which just so happens to resemble a very wide runway at that point in its meandering course to the sea, and I'm sure it seemed to him to be the best place to go.So, he merely continued a lazy left turn to line up over the centerline of the Hudson and then the rest of the flight consisted of alerting the crew to the impending crash landing, and bleeding off his remaining airspeed.So, before the bird strike, begin your departure turn. Continue climbing at 220 knots 97% N1 and 13-15 degrees. After the bird strike, wait a moment for both engines to die, then level out, extend flaps, and maintain 150 knots until full flap extension, at which point you can reduce to 140 to save some altitude. You will have topped out at 3,200 AGL - or thereabouts - exactly where FlightAware says Flight 1549 topped out.Continue a very shallow left turn. Too much turn, and you'll accelerate the loss of altitude. If the GPWS cautions you about sinking ... don't pull up. Instead, push the nose down a bit, shallow your turn a little, and increase airspeed to 145. You should make the river with plenty of time to spare. Use that time to burn off any remaining unnecessary airspeed. Hit the water about 135 knots or better or you risk stalling.That's the approach I use when I ditch this aircraft in this situation (and when I'm attempting to recreate Capt. Sullenberger's frame of mind). However ... there's an alternative that works well in FSX. A real pilot would never attempt it, because it puts innocent people at risk, but this is FSX, so we have the opportunity to experiment! And if you figure out what it is, the mission will give you a Mission Success banner and Reward.Happy flying,Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have come close to getting the Airbus to float in the water! I combined the "contact points" for the Beaver with the wheel contact points for the Airbus 321 in the "aircraft.cfg" file.
My experience with these experimental contact points were about the same as yours:* With crash detection off: kind of bounces along the water* With crash detection on: still registers as a hard crash with total simulation suspensionLet me know if you get this part solid. I'd love to try it, and looking foward to the video. I also have some video, that I'll show after a while. It contains some mission spoilers, so I'm holding off.Cheers,Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin, The video is ready (

) and the water landing looks fair (crash detection is off) - not enough water spray - and it doesn't settle in the water deep enough. When I try to lower it a little more, I get the "shudder". If you have any ideas on improving the video, let me know at whitav8r@hotmail.com Thanks much for the inside info and pilot insight - I think both you and I know (from flying the mission) that fortune(blessing?) was smiling on them that day - a turn to the right - even just a little - or the flock of geese at a lower altitude - and he wouldn't have made it to the river - what then? Did you hear that The Today Show Matt Lauer's interview with the captain was postponed by the Pilot's Union? What's up with that?Anyway, thanks again Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to make sure that when landing sucessfully, the engines don't contact the water first. and If it does, then the mission is a failure (crash).BTW..the video is nice, the landing with a tail strike on the water is very well done and demonstrates how he did it with out spinning out and breaking the aircraft.Manny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you hear that The Today Show Matt Lauer's interview with the captain was postponed by the Pilot's Union? What's up with that?
The reason is a regulatory one ... the union (and by extension, the captain) is an "interested party" to the NTSB investigation. As such, the NTSB will give the union information, so long as the union and its members maintain complete radio silence and allow only the NTSB to make statements to the press. If the captain gives interview, the union fears being cut off from information that the NTSB develops in its investigation.(That is my reading of the situation. I admit to not having enough information to be certain, but I believe this is the reason.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 20 years of simming, I have never tried to fly anything heavier than the Bombardier CRJ. But the video and the discussion here were engrossing. Thanks to all who took part, and glory be to the experienced pilot who saved his passengers and crew without endangering any landlubbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too enjoyed the collaboration from folks around the world. My career has been flight simulation(Boeing and the US Navy) and there is much interesting investigating work in trying to understand each accident or incident that occurs. Never before FSX and X-Plane really has there been enough momentum in the numbers of folks who have home flight simulators that are accurate enough to try to recreate (in some measure) the accident/incident scenario. I'm not saying that the NTSB needs us (they have all the inside data which they will not share except for a public debrief of highlights) but there are many issues of interest about what was going through the minds of the crew that have to deal with the situation - and we can refly those scenarios as evidenced by Kevin's effort on this effort for Flight 1549. I have found that the crew can have the "right stuff" (like Captain Sullenberger and Captain Al Haynes at the United 232 Sioux City accident) or they can get into task overload and make some critical mistakes. I don't blame them at all because training may not cover all the situations at hand - flight control failures, engine failures, microbursts, terrain in bad weather, structural failure, mental stress, and more. It is the study of the sequence of good and bad decisions that need review and can augment the future training of flight crews. Some of this review could be done unofficially by our folks at least for their own edification (and shared in the forums) - maybe some of you all are real pilots (I fly Cessnas) and can learn something that might save your life and others with you. Our simulator world is mainly for enjoyment but it can also enlighten our understanding of the business of flight crews during emergencies. It may take some modifications to the flight model or in this case, the ability to land in the water, to come closer to the real situation. We have some REALLY smart folks in our group to make those changes. Kevin, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the video and let me know what you think! I would be glad to make some changes. I made the video because you provided the incentive - the hard work to get the voices, engine flames, and the engine cutoff. Thanks!!!!Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites