Pre-warned, with a good stick and rudder guy at the controls the simulator exercises show that they could have it make back to terra firma. However every second counted and by the time the gravity (no pun intended) of the situation had sunk in there were absolutely no guarantees of making it.

 

What do you do? Take a punt on making it and then stalling into the middle of New York in a fireball or go into the river which offers a softer landing, a bigger target to land on and a higher chance of survival? Ok the first offers the chance to use the aircraft again but get it wrong and you and others on the ground will all die. The river option doesn't risk anyone on the ground and even if you cartwheeled it in, there'd be survivors.

 

He made the right call, absolutely.

A very wise choice made by an experienced pilot with literally seconds to make a decision. There is an old adage that you never turn back to the departure airport in the event of a total loss of power and the terrain between the Hudson and Teterboro would not be remotely conducive to a safe forced landing if he didn't make it.

 

Like others I reproduced the scenario soon after it happened, but the problem with FSX (unless you are flying a floatplane or amphibian) is that you bounce right back high into the air as soon as you touch the water, which makes completion of the scenario a little difficult!!

 

Bill

Dual engine failure due to birdstrike in the FSL A320X

 

As has already been said -- theoretically, in a simulator (with no jeopardy) and with prior knowledge of what's going to happen and when -- it might be possible to make a runway. In reality, by the time the crew had diagnosed the problem, processed what was happening and the options available, and reached a point where it was possible to make a decision, the Hudson was the only realistic option. A good decision, well executed.

 

 

I have not recorded formal statistics but off the top of my head way more then 50% (I'd say approaching 90%) of fully qualified crews fail to execute the glide checklist correctly reducing the dual engine out range of their aircraft significantly. Part of the problem is the glide checklist in multi-engine aircraft is not a memory item. Thus many pilots have no idea of the correct speeds to fly, configuration and the glide ratio they can expect. All of this information is stuffed away in the AFM. 

 

Nice and easy on the Airbus -- Green Dot (best L/D) is automatically computed and displayed on the PFD! (There's an interesting article here: http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1629&context=jaaer -- that suggests it might be better to fly Vls at low level if a long turn is required, though there are lots of questions about whether a gliding 180 degree turn is a good strategy in any engine failure scenario, whether you're in a C150 or a B747).

 

 

 

But if you are experiencing this IRL, without knowing it's about to happen, not much experience in RW handflying, no gliding experience, no military flying time, coming to commercial aviation through an ab-initio-training, or still collecting flying hours via a pay-to-fly scheme ...

 

Damn, good job Eric Moody was... erm.... oh, from an ab-initio (Hamble) scheme. As far as I know, he never went anywhere near the cockpit of a fast jet, and he seemed to do alright. Quality of training and selection is the most important thing.

 

Without wanting to drag the thread too far off-track -- flying a modern commercial airliner requires a skill set (and mindset) which is not necessarily the same as that of a fighter pilot, and whilst many (including Sully) obviously make the transition very well, that is not true for all, by a long shot.

I wanted to experience the Hudson Miracle as well but I didn't found anything good enough, so I made it by myself. You can check it on http://savetheflight.com/. It allows for water landing with whatever aircraft you prefer, accurate voice recordings based on NTSB report as well as attempt at landing back on LaGuardia airport. Let me know what you think!