Just Flight - and USAir Flight 1549

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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!

[sargeski 16]

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

[sargeski 16]

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.

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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!

[whitav8 98]

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

[Bob Familton 14]

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.

[oldbear 33]

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... :(

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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.

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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

[whitav8 98]

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

[oldbear 33]

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.

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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!

[Toys_R_Us 0]

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)

[fsx_missionguy 0]

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

[Toys_R_Us 0]

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)