http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7826/cbsqe6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3148/cbs2zu4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/6487/cbs3yb6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/7404/nbchp2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Ignore time on graphic....this was repeat of earlier shots when plane was higher in water.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1376/nbc1wg0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/2148/nbc2sm2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Worst coverage - ABC and FOX

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/284/abccb6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7336/foxwf2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

This might be the only time I give them credit for anything, but WNBC Copter was on the scene and showing live video at least 7-10 minutes prior to any other station.

WCBS got there second and WABC and WNYW were very late.

This might be the only time I give them credit for anything, but WNBC Copter was on the scene and showing live video at least 7-10 minutes prior to any other station.

WCBS got there second and WABC and WNYW were very late.

Anybody know where each station's choppers are based out of? If any of them fly out of LaGuardia they could've been delayed because the airport was shut down after the plane went down.

Anybody know where each station's choppers are based out of? If any of them fly out of LaGuardia they could've been delayed because the airport was shut down after the plane went down.
I wouldn't be surprised if they fly out of Jersey or somewhere along the lower West side waterfront. LaGuardia is awfully busy to be dealing with last minute news chopper flight plans. Not only that, you don't need an airport for a helecopter since they don't need a runway.

I wouldn't be surprised if they fly out of Jersey or somewhere along the lower West side waterfront. LaGuardia is awfully busy to be dealing with last minute news chopper flight plans. Not only that, you don't need an airport for a helecopter since they don't need a runway.

May not need a traditional airport, but you still need storage, tie down and fuel.

May not need a traditional airport, but you still need storage, tie down and fuel.
Yes, but most are not at airports. In fact, few privately own helecopters even go near them. The main reason? It's really expensive.

Airports charge major $$$ to park an aircraft on the property - more if it's a plane in need of a gate. In addition, fuel is terribly expensive when you have the ground crews fill up your bird. Not only that, some ground crews at major airports simply aren't equipped to even fuel up something as small as a Bell or Dauphine - the truck can't get close enough with the low clearance of the blades, though a twin blade Bell can be tied down front to back to permit it.

In constrast, leasing a pad from a company that does that sort of thing is much cheaper and you get more personalized attention to your bird. You seldom get any delays due to a backlog of aircraft and making flight arrangements is often more efficient.

Finally, that arrangement keeps low flying choppers out of the flight path of planes that are taking off or landing at the airport, meaning fewer delays for paying passengers. A chopper can head out low over the harbor and manuever into airspace that won't be occupied by passenger and business jets and commuter jumpers.

Anybody know where each station's choppers are based out of? If any of them fly out of LaGuardia they could've been delayed because the airport was shut down after the plane went down.

1) None of the helicopters are based at laguardia - there are pletny of heliports and small airports in and around NYC.

2) LaGuardia wasn't shut down after the plane went down.

Great shots from WNBC copter..NY first responders at their best.. Proud to be a new yorker.. I guess Jay Leno ran out of material that he has to do jokes on this plane ditching 2 nights in a row.. Come on Jay give the people and the airline a break.. I thought you had more class than that..:mad:

Great shots from WNBC copter..NY first responders at their best.. Proud to be a new yorker.. I guess Jay Leno ran out of material that he has to do jokes on this plane ditching 2 nights in a row.. Come on Jay give the people and the airline a break.. I thought you had more class than that..:mad:

I am in Hawaii and when I watched Leno I was very angry with Jay. I was a huge Leno fan but to crack jokes on the worst day of those 150 to 170 individual's lives was horrible. Not to mention that he didn't even say that the pilot was and is a hero for saving those lives.

I am in Hawaii and when I watched Leno I was very angry with Jay. I was a huge Leno fan but to crack jokes on the worst day of those 150 to 170 individual's lives was horrible. Not to mention that he didn't even say that the pilot was and is a hero for saving those lives.

In all due respect, the pilot got lucky.....the plane did fishtale 90 degrees and ripped off the left engine in the process which had the largest arc. It wasn't a straight in landing that pilot made happen....he did get flipped around which could have easily flipped the plane. 1 week later and there would be ice in the River which would have torn the plane apart as well.

Furthermore, the Co-Pilot never is mentioned and he was just as much as a hero.

Bottom line, I used to think that Airbus planes were just felt "cheaper" than Boeing. Thursday has me seriously reconsidering that notion. I believe the Co-Pilot is just as responsible as the pilot - and am just thankful that 155 are alive no matter if you believe it was skill or luck.

In all due respect, the pilot got lucky.....the plane did fishtale 90 degrees and ripped off the left engine in the process which had the largest arc. It wasn't a straight in landing that pilot made happen....he did get flipped around which could have easily flipped the plane. 1 week later and there would be ice in the River which would have torn the plane apart as well.Not that I'm doubting you, but do you have a source for this? I've heard nothing about this.

Furthermore, the Co-Pilot never is mentioned and he was just as much as a hero.How so?

This article seems to contradict the things you're saying: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090118/ap_on_re_us/plane_splashdown_cockpit_drama;_ylt=Aqy253KDQbPbfsoLg90nmFRe W7oF


Bottom line, I used to think that Airbus planes were just felt "cheaper" than Boeing. Thursday has me seriously reconsidering that notion. I believe the Co-Pilot is just as responsible as the pilot - and am just thankful that 155 are alive no matter if you believe it was skill or luck.What does the manufacturer of the plane have to do with this? It's the engines that clogged, which have nothing to do with Airbus or Boeing.

Forgive me for sounding crass, but you seem to be very uninformed about the accident.

Beachcomer: here is a link to the Coast Guard video of the plane landing..It was a straight landing seen about the 3:30 mark in the video.. no fishtaling.. Co-Pilot had just taken off and handed the stick to the pilot.. After hitting the birds, co-pilots job was to try and start both engines..

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Stunning__Video_of_Hudson_Plane_Landing_Washington_DC.html

What does the manufacturer of the plane have to do with this? It's the engines that clogged, which have nothing to do with Airbus or Boeing.He was saying he thought an Airbus aircraft, not the engines, seemed less structurally sound than a Boeing, but after how the Airbus survived he will have to reconsider his opinion.

The point being with such stress on the aircraft losing an engine and splash landing, it must have been built pretty good to have survived intact.

It's a very good point.

In all due respect, the pilot got lucky.....the plane did fishtale 90 degrees and ripped off the left engine in the process which had the largest arc. It wasn't a straight in landing that pilot made happen....he did get flipped around which could have easily flipped the plane. 1 week later and there would be ice in the River which would have torn the plane apart as well.

Furthermore, the Co-Pilot never is mentioned and he was just as much as a hero.

Bottom line, I used to think that Airbus planes were just felt "cheaper" than Boeing. Thursday has me seriously reconsidering that notion. I believe the Co-Pilot is just as responsible as the pilot - and am just thankful that 155 are alive no matter if you believe it was skill or luck.

Luck or not, if you were on that plane you would take that landing in those circumstances every day of the week. No one died, the plane never flipped and everyone gets to go home and enjoy their life even more.

Why the bitterness towards the pilot "supposedly" getting lucky? By the way, the plane NEVER flipped. Here in NY we got the entire story detailed to us between the newspapers and local news and there was NO mention anywhere of the plane flipping.

The "HD" in the Chopper 2 HD logo is just awful.

From Fredfa's "Hot Off The Press" thread: "Today" interview with "Sully" pilot postponed.

http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/blog/2009/01/sully_today_interview_postpone.html

He was saying he thought an Airbus aircraft, not the engines, seemed less structurally sound than a Boeing, but after how the Airbus survived he will have to reconsider his opinion.

The point being with such stress on the aircraft losing an engine and splash landing, it must have been built pretty good to have survived intact.

It's a very good point.

Thankfully some people get it.... unfortunately some never will as witnessed below. One of the additional reasons might be that the 320 Avionics has a single ditch switch which basically make sure everything is buttoned up as much as possible during an emergency impact when you do not have time to go through an emergency checklist, which made sure the bottom of the plane was a secured as it could have been so that water would take longer to fill the lower cargo area and wings. And besides that, even as the engine was ripped from the left wing during the landing as it fishtailed 90 degrees, the wing stayed attached, something that has not happened in Boeing water landings. The fact the right engine is attached as is the wing is pretty amazing in and of itself.

Beachcomer: here is a link to the Coast Guard video of the plane landing..It was a straight landing seen about the 3:30 mark in the video.. no fishtaling.. Co-Pilot had just taken off and handed the stick to the pilot.. After hitting the birds, co-pilots job was to try and start both engines..

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Stunning__Video_of_Hudson_Plane_Landing_Washington_DC.html

Dude, if you cannot see the plane turn 90 degrees in the water, i suggest an eye exam. There is a reason why the nose is pointed at Manhattan and not South in the river.

Not that I'm doubting you, but do you have a source for this? I've heard nothing about this.

Forgive me for sounding crass, but you seem to be very uninformed about the accident.

Suggest you go look in the mirror. My source is the NTSB, passenger interviews and the video.

Luck or not, if you were on that plane you would take that landing in those circumstances every day of the week. No one died, the plane never flipped and everyone gets to go home and enjoy their life even more.

Why the bitterness towards the pilot "supposedly" getting lucky? By the way, the plane NEVER flipped. Here in NY we got the entire story detailed to us between the newspapers and local news and there was NO mention anywhere of the plane flipping.

The plane never flipped because the plane did not get ripped apart as the past Boeing crashes have.

as for my "bitterness", suggest you re-read my post, especially:and am just thankful that 155 are alive no matter if you believe it was skill or luck.

"In all due respect, the pilot got lucky"

Well,yeah,that it wasn't choppy,but the NTSB will take months to issue a report.
If you think it was "lucky" to dead stick a "heavy" jet into the Hudson(probably downwind)from a decision height of about 3000 feet,and not cart wheel it,all due respect,you know nothing about aviation.

NB

One of the additional reasons might be that the 320 Avionics has a single ditch switch
I thought FAA regulations required this on all commercial airliners?

Also, the reports I've seen have said that the ditch switch was never thrown in this instance.

So when are they going to put screens in front of the engines? Ok, so mankind as usual may think he is the be all and master inventer and better than nature with his inventions, until a flock of seagulls comes along. :eek: I would think they could rig up some kind of screening system that would not let birds in yet let enough airflow so the engines don't die. I already researched and know from what I read this "can't" be done, but I never buy the word can't when it really hasn't been tried or when it is based on current knowledge and limitations. This has been a problem for decades and nothing has been done about it? :rolleyes: Then again we have the same gasoline combustion engine in cars for 100 years. :rolleyes:

It is interesting how one can be a hero in one case, but had things gone differently he maybe the scapegoat or get the brunt of the blame. Somewhere in between a person simply doing their job and performing over and above in a time of crisis is the truth of what they really are, hero or good pilot. :)

I would think they could rig up some kind of screening system that would not let birds in yet let enough airflow so the engines don't die. This has been a problem for decades and nothing has been done about it?
Wouldn't you think there's a reason for that? Do you think the people who design jet engines never thought about this?

Wouldn't you think there's a reason for that? Do you think the people who design jet engines never thought about this?


Maybe what I typed in my post above wasn't clear enough:

I already researched and know from what I read this "can't" be done

and I think most with common sense would think those in the industry thought of it as I have.


What we have then is an inherent limitation in the working of the engine due to a design flaw that makes it susceptible to birds causing its failure. Really it is no different than a virus getting into a pc and causing its failure. Of course one is hardware related and one software, but in reality pc failures cost loss of lives too.

"In all due respect, the pilot got lucky"

Well,yeah,that it wasn't choppy,but the NTSB will take months to issue a report.
If you think it was "lucky" to dead stick a "heavy" jet into the Hudson(probably downwind)from a decision height of about 3000 feet,and not cart wheel it,all due respect,you know nothing about aviation.


Interesting as I have had a license for decades, flown millions of miles and have been involved in an emergency go around at La Guardia and an aborted takeoff at Charlotte.

Have you?

Even the pilot stated to his wife via telephone he believed too much of has been made of this and attributed much of it to luck. Bottom line, the economy sucks and people are looking for a feel good story.

Again, I'm happy 155 souls are alive, but luck played more into this than anything else.

But to answer you question completely, even the most basic private pilot single engine rating training requires you to dead stick a real airplane to an emergency landing site you must choose on the spur of the moment, applying power and pulling up right before landing. This is also true as you advance in ratings and are certified for heavier aircraft (not to mention countless hours in simulators besides the actual drill).

So who is it, in your words, that knows nothing about aviation?

I thought FAA regulations required this on all commercial airliners?

Nope


Also, the reports I've seen have said that the ditch switch was never thrown in this instance.

I have not followed it today, which may have been in reports of the black box results, but I doubt they would have released that information from the black boxes this early, just that both engines failed at the same time, not settings of certain controls.

If it was not thrown, then luck even comes more into play.

Wouldn't you think there's a reason for that? Do you think the people who design jet engines never thought about this?

1) You need clean airflow entering the jets. If you put a screen on, it disrupts the airflow so it does not work. This can be seen in things as simple as the air intake in sports cars, where a solid versus a flexible hose is put in place. One of the oldest tricks in the Dodge Viper to getting 5% more horsepower was to replace the flexible pipe with rigid pipe going into the engine. The flexible pipe caused issues with clean airflow.

2) The bird would cause the screen to collapse into an engine and cause more damage than the bird alone. You can cut a turkey with an electric knife, but not a very stiff wire mesh. The turbines can cut up a 7lb bird, but metal would cause even more catostrophic failure.

As has been shown from the STS program, even foam at a high enough speed can put a hole in metal. Anyone in hurricane country has seen the demos where a piece of lumber shot at 125 MPH can go through concrete block. Even a piece of straw can be embedded in a tree like a bullet at 125 MPH.

Considering an Airbus 320 needs 170 MPH for takeoff (and V2 at 35ft is 10% higher than this), any type of screen (heavy metal mesh) would not stand a chance of holding against a large bird in this instance and you would have bird AND screen in the engine.