Just Flight - and USAir Flight 1549

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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

[whitav8 98]

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

[whitav8 98]

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

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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

[whitav8 98]

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

[Manny 1,293]

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

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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.)

[Guest dswo]

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.

[whitav8 98]

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

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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

Dave,I thought the video was a terrific tribute to the courage of the crew. Excellent job!And to David Wilson-Okamura ... I'm glad you took the time to express your appreciation, and wanted to let you know that I am still working on the final version of this mission (the final version will require Acceleration). I am waiting on word back from several beta testers before releasing the final version of this mission.Cheers,Kevin

[maximus92 0]

I skimmed through the messages and didn't see this pointed out. Just noticed an extra "L" in the link in the original post, which is why it didn't work.

[protzler 0]

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.

I think you'll find that he didn't dump out the flaps...at least, not right away. I don't know what the procedures are on the bus, but I don't know of any aircraft that you would do that on. I'm not sure how it will respond in the sim, but try keeping them in until you really really need them, then extend them. I think you'll find that you're able to glide much further and touch down smoother.

[fsx_missionguy 0]

I think you'll find that he didn't dump out the flaps...at least, not right away.

I'll be on the edge of my seat waiting for the NTSB report to find out how this pilot approached this problem in the cockpit. My guess is just that ... a pure guess. My theory, and for the record I am not a pilot, is that I would want as much lift as possible at as slow an airspeed as possible for as long as possible so that I could:* give my copilot the maximum amount of time to attempt to restart the engines* give the cabin crew the maximum amount of time to begin their preparations* give the tower the maximum amount of time to provide me the benefit of their local knowledge* give myself the maximum amount of time to consider options* hit the ground (or water) with the slowest amount of airspeed possibleThat's why, in the sim, as soon as I discover that I have lost the second engine, I extend full flaps and begin heavily managing my airspeed to maximize flight time at slow airspeed.Like I said, I'm not a pilot, so I have no idea if this is the correct approach to the problem. I'd be very interested to hear how others might approach this dilemma.I mentioned before that there were alternatives (in the mission). Here is one alternative approach to the problem:http://blip.tv/file/1679026Cheers,Kevin

[Guest PPSFA]

The very last thing you would do in this scenario is dump full flaps, as it would cause way too much drag. Normal procedures would be to slow to best glide speed to extend your range and give you more time for options. Once you decide on where you are going to put it down, then its just a matter of controlling speed and descent.As I'm typing this, my phone just rang! You may or may not have seen the reports that 2 days before the Hudson incident, that same plane had another engine problem, the #2 had a compressor stall. It turns out that my friend who flys for US Air was the Capt on that flight and he just filled me in on what he thinks he would have done in the same situation.Back when I was flying commercial, we didnt have computers, we had just one, our brains, so we had to make all the calculations ourselves. Turns out, the Scarebus has a little thing called the 'green dot' on the PFD. It computes the best glide speed for you. His answer is, fly the 'dot', get around 3 degrees flaps if hydrolics are available, and stabilize the approach so that you have 5-7 degrees 'noseup'. Hold that attitude until just before touchdown, slow to just above stall speed (Vls,also computed on the PFD for you), and aim to hit the tail first and contact the water with the engines at about 1/4 back from the front. Basicly turning the plane into a hydrofoil for a few seconds, which seems to be exactly what the crew did.One other thing the bus has is a thing called a 'ditch switch'. This closes all external openings in the plane to allow it to float longer. Whether or not it was activated isnt clear, and won't be, until the NTSB is done with their interviews and the information is released. Right now everyone involved is under a 'gag' order.