Talk:US Airways Flight 1549

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I award the Teamwork Barnstar to all editors who have taken part in writing this article so well and so quickly. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Importance of pilot's glider training?

Has the pilot yet commented on the usefulness of his training as a glider (sailplane) pilot? As a glider pilot myself, I know that an important part of the training is developing the ability to select suitable fields or other landing areas for "out"landings when no more lift (typically thermals) can be found. Since gliders have no engines, they are in a sense in a permanent state of engine failure—so having to make a fairly quick decision to land in an unfamiliar area is perhaps less of a big deal for trained glider pilots than it is for pilots who fly only powered aircraft. This in no way diminishes Sullenberger's superb professional handling of what could so easily have turned into a tragedy.

Another essential aspect of flying a glider is the need to constantly monitor and estimate glide angles to a destination—and this may well have enabled the pilot to rule out immediately the proposed diversion to Teterboro airport. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK's "Sunday Times" 18 January 2009 stressed the criticality of the aircraft's angle of approach to the surface of the water just before touch down - apparently 7 degrees. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sullenberger hasn't spoken with the press at all yet. So far I haven't seen anything mentioned about his glider experience in NTSB's reports of their interviews with the pilots. I agree with the presumption that it must have been useful in that situation. (I recently got my glider rating.) With just some rough info based on news reports, they were about 6 miles from Teterboro at 3000 ft altitude when they briefly considered going there. Just with some quick math, in order to arrive at the airport with 1000 ft to spare to make the almost-90 degree right turn to Runway 1, the A320 would have needed a glide ratio of at least 15:1, which is probably more than an A320 has even without Flight 1549's draggy damaged engines. They probably didn't have time to do such math in their heads - but their years of experience led to the same conclusion that there was no safety margin even if they could make it there. Under the responsibility to make such a decision with as wide a margin of safety as possible, the Hudson River would have appeared as a much more conservative and achievable goal. There was no doubt they could make that. So that's what they chose. Hindsight confirms they made the right decision even under severe time constraints. Ikluft (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Airbus itself recommends 11 degrees of pitch at the time of touchdown [1] (This link also shows where the "Ditching Button' is located). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

While the glider training is probably invaluable for incidents like this (and the Gimli Glider incident), I believe that 'in-head' calculations like this are tested as a standard part of the Commercial Pilot practical test in the US. I was asked to calculate glide distances (and whether I could make a given airport) in the practical tests for both my single and multi commercial ratings. I would assume that it is certainly a component of most type-rating checkrides. Given that one of the uses of an article such as this would likely be to assuage some fearful flyers, if I can find a citation about it (calculating glide distances) being a part of the commercial PTS, would that be a reasonable add? CaptainChrisD (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly would. (BTW I've moved your contribution to its correct chronological position in this thread—though I can understand why you inserted it where you did.)--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The criticality of the 11 degree glideslope was stressed again in Channel 4's The Miracle of the Hudson Plane Crash.[2]. Any greater and it would have gone in tail-first, any less and it would have gone in engines-first - both probably catastrophic. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the AIRBUS Accident Information Telex, the actual pitch attitude was 10 degrees (which is extremely close to AIRBUS recommended 11 degrees pitch attitude in a ditching). Very good job. IlkkaP (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you don't actually mean "glide slope" which is the overall angle of descent over distance of the aircraft during the approach, but you are talking about the "flare" which is when the pilot changes the pitch attitude of the aircraft by pulling up the nose just before touchdown. This slows the descent to virtually zero by both bleeding off airspeed and by taking advantage of ground effect. In this case the flare was to an attitude of +11º above the horizon. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes you're qute right: "Airbus recommends 11 degrees of pitch at the time of touchdown... " - this is flare not glidesplope. Thanks for the clarification Centpacrr.

Rewriting history, archiving unresolved issues etc

I'm not aware of another article in which so much editing of the talk page and archiving of active issues has taken place. Surely there is no compelling need to remove things wholesale until the points raised have been resolved. Perhaps there is a case for dicussion pages being write-only except for admins. Rewriting history is not a hallmark of democratic institutions! --TraceyR (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been erased; check the History tab. I agree that the movement of discussions into archive pages has been premature. Tempshill (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the last archive, this page was 84 kilobytes long, and carried the warning "It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage". All archived material is linked to, from this page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was a great idea to move it yet even if it was 300K, since the page was only a day or two old; I don't like repeating arguments and breaking threads of discussion. Editors who write on discussion pages aren't going to blink at the pages loading a few seconds more slowly (which would only happen for people with 28.8K modems anyway). Tempshill (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar incidents

This extraneous section seems out of place. I think it should be removed. Maybe a List of Airplane ditchings should be created. Then that page would be an appropriate *see also* addition. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a list water landing Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See also the navbox at the bottom. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is more info on flight 1549.

1) Remember that jet aircraft are subject to “compressor stalls. When these occur it is very noisy because of the explosions and flames come out of the engine. The passengers are usually terrified.

2) A dual engine compressor stall occurred on December 15, 2008 and led the FAA to demand that all Air Bus planes using that engine be inspected and if necessary repaired before January 13, 2009.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/B13C349078EBEE5086257530004EC0A4?OpenDocument

http://www.mzp.gov.si/fileadmin/mzp.gov.si/pageuploads/DL_AD_NOTE2008/EASA_EAD_2008-0228-E.pdf

3) After the accident of flight 1549 the captain was not available to the press for 24 hours.

4) When he was available on his 60 minutes appearance he stated that the crash was due to birds hitting the aircraft.

5) The passengers seemed to have a different experience from the pilot. They reported that the landing was preceded by a large explosion with the plane filling with fuel fumes. The explosions were even observed from the ground.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nynyplan206005334jan20,0,5076269.story

6) A second pilot was aboard that flight and she was treated to a royal “ wine and dine” experience after the crash.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/01/american-pilot-talks-about-her.html

7) It seems that there were different experiences between those of the captain and those of the passengers. In the light of the recent Air Worthiness Directive it is prudent to ask if the mandated inspections required by the FAA were made before the January 15 flight of US Air flight 1549.

8) Two days before flight 1549 that same aircraft was known to suffer from compressor stalls and almost returned to LaGuardia.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nynyplan206005334jan20,0,5076269.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.171.75 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How did we get all the way to 2 March without a conspiracy theory - is 46 days a record? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We didn't. On the first day this version was ready to blame the seagulls before Washington decided to Blame Canada.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Within a few days of the incident, I received a forwarded e-mail from a friend who advanced this and other conspiracy theories, as well as a number of true, half-true, and outright falshoods about Airbus aircraft. The tagline on the e-mail was "If ain't Boeing, I ain't going". The gist of the e-mail was that "fly by wire" was inheriently unsafe and somehow responsible for the crash, which would have otherwise be recoverable. The e-mail implied that the fly-by-wire system prevented the engines from restarting, claiming that the accident was somehow similar manner to the Air France Flight 296 incident. The irony, of course, is that Boeing uses "fly by wire" in its newer aircraft as well.

I believe the e-mail is based on this blog:

http://blog.booneairport.com/2009/02/interesting-comments-on-sullenberger.html

I am not sure whether the blog (and e-mail) is just knee-jerk American jingoism or a planted viral story to defuse any publicity gain airbus received from the incident.

Joe Patent (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Test of jet engines for bird strikes

Do we need to cover the test of bird strikes on jet engine? This seems to be a highly relevant topic. Trent370 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How many pigeons have to sacrifice their lives when those tests are conducted? And I'm guessing they're only paid in chicken feed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Incident with same plane two days earlier

Not really certain this is fleshed out enough to go in the article, or where to put it, but this story on CNN reports that the same plane that crashed in the Hudson suffered an apparent issue with the right side engine two days before the accident. Like I said, I don't think this is fleshed out enough for the article, but thought to make a note of it here on the talk page for reference purposes. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard that news report also. It certainly has a good chance to tie in with the big story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait until it is confirmed it was indeed the same plane and not some other Airbus 320 of US Airways. Arnoutf (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight Status: delayed

It is a mark of my dedication as a Wikipedian that I didn't add Flight Status: delayed to the infobox at the top right. :) Alan Canon (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Experimentation?

There was some discussion about the difficulty of "training" ditching with commercial jets. How about "testing" ditching commercial jets, using commercial jets that are decommissionned due to coming to the end of their useful lives, perhaps by piloting them robotically, just to test the optimal methods to train for in simulator runs? Does that go on? If it does, perhaps it could be mentioned in the article even. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty certain that it doesn't go on. Probably because the anti-pollution nazis would be up in arms in such a test was proposed. Just imaging all that damage a few hundred gallons of kerosene would do in trillions of gallons of seawater! You can bet that if such a test ever got the go-ahead the press would be there and we'd all know about it. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also very expensive. Witness the Controlled Impact Demonstration from 1984 for the most recent example of a full-up free-flight crash test of an aircraft. (There were also two preliminary non-free-flying tests in the 1970s that led up to that, one using a DC-6 and one using a Lockheed Constellation; the DC-6 test footage was famously shown as the in-flight movie in Airplane!, and has been widely used as stock footage since.) The FAA does do crashworthiness experiments with small aircraft (up to about the size of a Learjet) that were either abandoned prototypes or suffered non-structural damage that renders them unsellable--many, many Piper single-engine airframes were used for such tests following the 1974 Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, flood that flooded out Piper's factory--but only to test projects where there's not enough data to run successful computer simulations.

There is plenty of data on landing large aircraft on water, albeit mostly from World War II and earlier, both from ditching damaged military aircraft during the war, and from operating large flying boats in civilian and military service, so the requirements and stresses are well-known, and any experiments to improve them can be carried out in computer simulations at far lower cost than purchasing airworthy aircraft to destroy rather than scrap. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight attendants etc

Is there really any point in naming the 3 flight attendants? I'm sure they behaved professionally & courageously in difficult circumstances, but they don't need to be named here. Does "flight attendant" need a link? If so, it should be given at the first mention of the term, not later on in the article.

Please make it clear that the copilot & first officer were the same person: that certainly won't be obvious to all readers of the article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If the flight attendants aren't worthy of a mention by name, why is the Captain entitle to his own article and why is the FO entitled to be mentioned by name? They were a crew of five, and worked together as a team to ensure a successful outcome (no lives lost). They are all deserving of being named in the article. See also BOAC Flight 712. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If naming the entire crew is standard WP practice, that's fine. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the flight attendants' names. We need to keep it brief. The idea is that this is an encyclopedia, not a thorough catalog of all details of the incident. A reader can completely grasp the entirety of the incident without the names of the flight attendants. Tempshill (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sullenberger injured?

Has there been any report of injuries sustained by Sullenberger or his FO? Sullenberger was just shown at the Obama inauguration, and was being helped (considerably) to his seat by a man in uniform. I can't imagine that he wasn't injured, but I've seen no reports. - auburnpilot talk 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that was the right person? I looked at a recording of CNN's coverage. Sullenberger was shown leaving after the inauguration with no sign of any problem. Ikluft (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see his face, as his head was down, but the news anchor certainly could have been incorrect in his identification. The man he identified as Sullenberger was struggling down the steps, aided by a man holding onto him by his right arm. The NTSB has only identified one injury, likely the flight attendant, so I was rather surprised to see the man identified as Sullenberger suffering from an apparent injury. Personally, I'll take the word of the NTBS before I take the word of a random news anchor. - auburnpilot talk 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Injury by ferryboats and other watercraft?

The danger of run on sentences: take a good look at this intro sentence and tell why every reader shouldn't believe the passengers weren't injured by the watercraft:

"After successfully evacuating the cabin, all were subsequently rescued from the partially submerged Airbus without additional serious injury by nearby ferryboats and other watercraft which arrived within minutes."

There is no need to cram so much information into an introduction. The art here would be to reduce the introduction to the essential facts, with as few words as possible. 842U (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. The fact that everyone survived and was rescued is fine, details about injuries and boats can wait until further down in the prose. – jaksmata 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the aircrew intentionally ditched near the ferry boats was was a key factor in the survival of all the passengers and crew and is thus an essential element for for inclusion in the introduction. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

I couldn't disagree more. That's essential to the story, but not essential the introduction of the story. There's a difference. 842U (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Twenty-two words (or one sentence) hardly seems excessive to cover three major elements (ditching, evacuation, and water rescue) in the introduction. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

See the sectionRescued, above. The earlier wording, "All on board survived the ditching. " is sufficient for the lede. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No actually it isn't. The accident was not over for the 155 occupants of the plane with "surviving the ditching" as they were still in grave peril at that time. It ended only when the plane was subsequently evacuated and it's occupants were rescued from the wings and slides as is made quite clear in Rescued above. You are arguing over a difference of sixteen words (half a sentence) which, if left out, renders the intro both incomplete and misleading by ignoring two of the four major elements of the overall accident. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

What are the four elements again? I think I missed something. In a previous post you mentioned three majors, is there a minor one? (I'm not trying to be facetious, I just don't understand what you're saying).

At any rate, I only see two elements: first, the people survived the ditching, second, they were rescued by boat. (The fact that they left the plane at some point seems obvious.) I think an adequate, but not overly wordy rendition would be: "All passengers and crew survived and were rescued from the floating aircraft by nearby ferries and rescue boats." (This is pretty similar to what's there now.) – jaksmata 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The four elements of the overall accident were: 1) the bird strike and loss of both engines; 2) regaining control of the plane, the descent, selection of a place to bring the down, and then ditching in the river; 3) the evacuation of the planeafter the ditching under the guidance of the aircrew, and; 4) the rescue of the occupants by the ferry boats and other watercraft. The first element was an event (bird strike) that was neither expected nor under the control of anyone, and it disabled the plane. Accomplishment of the second element was the responsibility of the flight deck crew. The third was the primary responsibility of the cabin crew. The fourth was primarily guided and accomplished by the rescuers. While all four elements are inextricably associated with the overall accident, each was also a distinct element which presented separate perils and for which different people were responsible. The difference in the length of the sentence in the intro to do this right (and prevent it from being misleading) is three words which hardly seems excessive. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

This phrase, "they were still in grave peril at that time", is a somewhat emotional interpretation or perception, rather than something we can all call a neutral fact. If that's what's driving inclusion of unnecessary detail in the introduction, please reconsider.

The salient introductory point is: everyone on board survived. This is a true statement that includes survival of the ditching, evacuation and retrieval by watercraft. Fewer words > more words. Less emotion > more emotion.842U (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that surviving the ditching was the same thing as surviving the all elements of the accident. It wasn't. If you were inside the cabin of a full airliner which had just ditched in frigid weather and was filling with water and didn't think you were still in grave peril then your nerves are far better than anyone I have ever come across. As a professional writer (four published books and thousands of articles) it puzzles me that there is all this kerfuffle being made over a difference of three words in the length of a sentence which without them is misleading and incomplete. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Which is why the earlier wording was "survived the incident". Problem solved. (I'm a professional, published writer, too, so you've no special advanatge there). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a single incident but a complex event with four distinct elements. Also inanimate objects (like dog bones) are retrieved; people in peril are rescued -- that's why they are called "rescue" workers as opposed to "retrieval" workers. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

If you believe that this is not suitable for discussion as a single incident, I suggest you RFC subdivision into separate articles, supporting your proposals with verifiable references (such as separate NTSB reviews). Meanwhile, we treat it as one incident; as we do for other air-accident articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your argument seems to be just a circular one now. As I have pointed out several times already, the overall incident is made up of four inextricably connected sequential elements: 1) the bird strike and loss of thrust in both engines; 2) regaining control of the plane, the descent, selection of a place to bring the down, and then ditching in the river; 3) the evacuation of the planeafter the ditching under the guidance of the aircrew, and; 4) the subsequent rescue of the occupants by local ferry boats and other watercraft. The sentence in the intro which covers elements 2, 3, and 4 reads:"All on board survived the ditching, successfully evacuated the cabin, and were rescued from the partially submerged plane by nearby watercraft." You have not contended, as far as I can tell, that this is in any way inaccurate or not adequately sourced. It covers three of the four elements if the "incident" quite efficiently in just 21 words which hardly seems to be excessive. So I just don't see the issue or the point you are trying to make, unless this is a matter of NIH factor. If it is something else, please make your case.

• I will presume that your suggestion that I should make a series of proposals to break this article into four separate articles was intended to be disingenuous and so will take it as such. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Splitting the article into several subarticles is not needed at this point, nor answers the question whether the lede of the article is sufficient as it stands right now. I personally consider "All on board survived the ditching" to be ambiguous, as passengers could have survived the ditching and died of hypothermia during rescue operations. In fact, the whole lede is rather scant on details, and can be significantly lengthened without running afoul of WP:LEDE. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting "All on board survived the ditching". I use the wording "survived the incident" a couple of entries above your comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that the "challenge" made to me to split up the article into multiple parts was made seriously, and I certainly did not take it that way as it would be completely inappropriate to do so. I fully agree with all of your comments as well. (See my comment immediately above) (Centpacrr (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Perfectly serious; if you cannot soundly do so then it is an illustration of why your approach is unhelpful. Your four incidents are arbitrary; we could as easily divide this single incident into 8 or 16. The issue is not one of "NIH", but of unnecessary verbiage in an introductory section. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems the real issue for you is one of the definition of "incident," a term which you apparently feel should be limited only to uncomplicated or monolithic happenings without either notable precursors or associated subsequent consequences, as opposed more complex real world happenings occurring over a generally discernable period of time and composed of a complex sequence of inextricably interconnected elements.

As in the case of US Airways Flight 1549, into which the current article is already divided into six such elements -- Flight; Ditching; Evacuation; Rescue; Injuries; Aftermath -- most "incidents" fall into the later category. My summarizing and including the existence and relationship of three of those major elements in a single sentence composed of 21 words hardly seems excessive. The intro section in the Wikipedia entry about TWA Flight 800, for instance, is 294 words in length spread over four paragraphs. As I last left the intro in the Flight 1549 article it was just 95 words, or less than one third the length of the well established TWA 800 intro. (The unsourced POV bit discussed in Intro material? below is not mine, and I do not advocate its retention.)

Following the approach you appear to advocate to its logical conclusion would reduce the intro in the instant article to something like "US Airways Flight 1549 was a passenger flight that ditched in a river." or 13 words. That would certainly be a far more "concise" and "efficient" use of space, but would hardly make the intro very useful or informative. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Flight renumbering

The current article discusses twice the renumbering of the flight, with different references. Could some astute editor consolidate these somehow? Murray Kucherawy 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Glamorization of the event

There is a tendency to glamorize the event:

The water landing of the aircraft, almost intact and without loss of life, was described as "one of the rarest and most technically challenging feats in commercial aviation", and with few parallels in aviation history.

The statement is peacockery without attribution. In other words, the quote isn't from a notable aeronautical expert... it's the opinion of the reporter.

In the same article, the author goes on the use weasel words to support the claim: "even though pilots go through the motions of learning to ditch a plane in water, the generally held belief is that such landings would almost certainly result in fatalities."

The other part of the intro sentence "few parallels in aviation history" comes from the New York Post, in an article that calls the Sullenburger a "superpilot." Please, this is the reference?

Either way, these are the kind of phrases that are easily tossed off in emotional moments and then used to sell newspapers. They aren't a considered reckoning of history.

The editor who has introduced this to the intro, says it establishes notability. Does anyone here think an article about a plane that landed in the Hudson without casualties needed its notability propped up? ...and by the New York Post and a writer at the WSJ citing "generally held beliefs?"

Let's let the facts speak for themselves, without pseudo-important embellishment.842U (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the POV "Miracle on the Hudson" references as well. This is nothing more than an inaccurate meme-like moniker created by politicians and the commercial media. It has nothing to do with the facts of accident itself. (Centpacrr(talk) 09:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Many, many sources call it that. And your claim it's "inaccurate" is your own POV. I say it is accurate. And the sources agree with me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of "sources" that report that headline writers and politicians have used this expression. However you have cited none whatsoever that indicate that anything associated with this incident is the provable result of the "visible interruption of the laws of nature that can only be explained by divine intervention." You are, of course, welcome tobelieve that if you wish, but by definition such is NOT provable. Discriptions based on religion do not belong in articles about real world, scientifically explainable events. Those belong in pulpits. (Centpacrr(talk) 10:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

I can easily make the case for divine intervention in this incident, but that doesn't really matter. The sources are what matter, and they decided that this is the "Miracle on the Hudson", just as they decided to call the 1980 event the "Miracle on Ice" and the 1969 event the "Miracle Mets". I would be curious to know if you think any event in history qualifies as a "miracle" under the narrow religion-only usage of the term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If, as you claim, you can easily make the case for divine intervention with a factually provable (as opposed to religiously based) argument then I invite you to do so. Religion is founded on belief in the otherwise unexplainable and is therefore, by definition, never provable as fact. You are still confusing the term "Miracle on the Hudson" -- which was invented by headline writers and adopted by politicians and others -- as being a "fact" simply because it has often been repeated. What it actually is is a classic example of the power of "popular culture" and nothing more -- just like the still popularly accepted description of the White Star liner RMS Titanic as being "unsinkable" which it clearly wasn't. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Was the sinking of Titanic an example of a "miracle", then? If not, can you cite even one "miracle" in the history of the human race? In any case, this incident was widely, and justifiably, called the "Miracle on the Hudson". To remove that fact from wikipedia makes wikipedia look stupid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please actually read what I said which is that calling "Titanic" unsinkable was an example being misled by treating popular culture as it it were fact. Its sinking was certainly not a miracle as NO ship is unsinkable. I have also not cited any provable "miracles" here because, as I have observed at great length, there are none as that is a religious concept based on belief, not proof. I take from your failure to make a provable case for divine intervention in this event (or any other event in history) that you do not have one despite you claims to the contrary. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

You seem to be missing the point about Titanic. The only reason anything was made of it being called "unsinkable" is because it sank. Further, you are narrowly constricting what a "miracle" is and then demanding that the term only be used under that definition. Sorry, but the citations win, and "Miracle on the Hudson" is what this was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The White Star Line promoted Titanic and Olympic as being "unsinkable" in a publicity brochure the company published as early as 1910 ("... these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable...") which was two years before the ship was launched. You should also note that "Miracle on the Hudson" almost always appears only as a headline, in quotes, and/or is capitalized because it is only a slogan (A memorable motto or phrase used in a political, commercial, religious and other context as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose), and not intended as a statement of provable fact. Just because this slogan has since been repeated ad nauseam by those who created it (the media) gives it no greater cachet of truth or provability than saying New York City is a "Big Apple" or that Coca-Cola is truly the "Pause That Refreshes." I cannot find (nor have you provided) a single citation that uses this in any context other than as a slogan, headline, or hyperbole, nor have you yet offered any proof of "divine intervention" that you claimed that you could do "easily." I fully agree that this phrase appears in many, many citations, but only as a slogan and not as proof that any real unexplainable "miracle" took place. Any argument to the contrary simply does not hold water. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Again, it's perfectly fine for people to label the event however they wish... just not in an encyclopedia article. This is a place for cogent, reasoned statements — not histrionics, hype and glamorization. Once the FAA does it's report and the experts conclude this was the "rarest" or "most technically challenging" event, so be it. In the mean time, the article doesn't need to be covered in journalistic whipped cream. 842U (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read most of the above (don't care to; sorry), but it isn't our duty to determine which widely used descriptions are worthy and which ones are not. That applies even more so to the description of it being "the miracle on the Hudson". I've had the engine of a C172 fail a couple times, and once had to land in a field 10 miles from the nearest airport. Anyone who has flown a 172 knows this was not a difficult task. My sister called it a miracle. That didn't insult my sensibilities as a pilot, and I didn't take her statement as divine fact. The phrase has been used widely enough that it should be included, and does not require attribution to a specific person (though I would mention NY Gov).

As for the info 842U initially complained about, I agree it doesn't merit inclusion at this time. The conjecture of one journalist isn't sufficient and likely represents a minority view point. The only way to present that info is to say "New York Post journalist John Doe described the incident as '...'". Even then, I wouldn't support its inclusion. - auburnpilot talk 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just can't agree that it is appropriate to adopt media created slogans in an encyclopedic context for the very reason that this tends to mislead the less sophisticated readers who may not understand that's what it is (see comments above) and denigrates (no matter how slightly) the skill and training of the aircrew and rescuers. I've had close calls myself as well (both weather related) while flying a Beech Bonanza and certainly did not call on anyone other than myself (i.e. no request for "divine intervention") to get out of them. The term appears in the footnotes as part of the headlines of several of the articles cited as sources. I don't see compelling any reason, however, to promote the slogan in the text of the article. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Mislead the less sophisticated readers? I highly doubt even the dumbest of our readers will see that phrase and believe God himself was aboard the plane, threw up his hands, shouted "Miracle!" and then conducted an interview with various media outlets after coining the phrase "miracle on the Hudson" himself. Seriously. Every applicable policy supports its inclusion, while none support its exclusion. Other than your apparent distaste for something being attributed to anything other than man's will, what reason is there to exclude it? The phrase (in quotes) draws nearly 330,000 results on a google search and 3,500 ghits on the news search. It's a widely used descriptor of the event, and not just some once used "slogan". - auburnpilot talk 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just think it is best to leave the consideration of "miracles" to the philosophers, theologists, and/or the the doyens whatever brand of religion each reader choses to subscribe to. The very intensity of views espoused in this discussion seems to me to be reason enough to leave out this contentious phrase from the body of the article. I don't see that it adds anything substantive to the account of the events, and provides nothing factual that advances the understanding of what happened. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

The assumption that people do know exactly why this event is notable in the history of aviation is just that, an assumption, something that absolutely should not be inherent in an encyclopoedic article. Your incredulity that anyone needs this explained to them is matched by my incredulity that you won't accept basic facts until the NTSB spoon feeds them to you. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, the NTSB narrative inexplicably fails to mention miracles, rarity, technical challenge, nor — notably — the considered opinion of one special WSJ reporter. It also soberly fails to mention the evacuation, the ferry boats, the partially submerged plane, and most especially, the "rescue from peril." What's wrong with these people?

On January 15, 2009, at approximately 1530 eastern standard time, USAirways flight 1549, an Airbus Industrie A320-214, N106US, equipped with CFM engines, incurred multiple bird strikes during initial climb, lost thrust to its engines, and ditched in the Hudson River. The flight was a Title 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled domestic passenger flight from New York's La Guardia Airport (LGA) to Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT) in Charlotte, North Carolina. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. To date, of the 5 crewmembers, and 150 passengers on board, one serious injury has been reported. A final injury count is still to be determined. 842U (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So basing whether you can include/exclude information in the article based on whether the NTSB has commented on it would seem to be a rather pointles measure for determining what is or isn't appropriate content wouldn't it? I am not arguing for inclusion of the mircale crap, that has been innappropriately tacked onto this section, which is about a separate issue. As a general idea about my thinking: Reasonable claim - This is the most succesfull ditching in history. Tabloid crap - This was a mircale on the Hudson. MickMacNee (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Realizing unfortunately that no independent, impartial source actually ranks plane crashes like football teams, wouldn't it be more accurate, if we were going to glamorize, to say "Flight 1549 was the most successful ditching in history by a small margin, see Japan Airlines Flight 2." Of course, given that there was so little sensationalism in 1968, no one recorded how Japan Airlines Flight 2 ranked on the "miracle scale" either. Oh well. 842U (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, its been a busy few days so I won't blame you for not remembering that it was me that added that exact historical fact to the article, which you later gave people a few hours to source, before removing it entirely. So please just make up your mind what is good enough for you. Or not. Whatever. And as an aside, I am quite sure there are plenty of independant impartial sources that rank air accidents on various metrics, but to use them would require some complex explanation to satisfy you quite probably, so the approach of simply not bothering to go to such efforts, or waiting for a word for word one click spoon feed, just seems easier. Oh, and on a point of order, your definition of a "by a small margin" is not exactly accurate either. MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What, you can't tell sarcasm when you see it? Oh well. 842U (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why sarcasm is so helpful. - auburnpilot talk 19:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Injuries

At the moment there are two references for the claim that a flight attendant broke both legs. As far as I can see, neither of those pages now says anything of the sort. Elsewhere I recall having read that one flight attendant suffered a laceration to one leg. Is there an official statement on injuries out there, and does it support the claims in the article? //Carl T (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call - I've reworded accordingly, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See the press conference at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blNwjC1CLqA, a deep laceration and not a fracture - xedaf (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the numerous reports about two broken legs suffered by a woman? (Search)

Here are just two examples:

• "Helen Rodriguez, a paramedic who was among the first to arrive at the scene, said she saw one woman with two broken legs." [3]

• "One passenger was hospitalized with two broken legs, but no other serious injuries were reported." [4]

I'm well aware that initial news reports can be inaccurate, so if official reports don't confirm this, okay, but the news has reported this. If it's true, we should correct what's written in the article. If it's not correct, we should still note this fact (that "It was first widely reported that a passenger broke both legs, but subsequent reports failed to confirm the initial reports.") -- Fyslee (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The NTSB's preliminary report (PDF) only indicates one injury. Unless the reporting of injuries was widely over exaggerated in the beginning, I honestly don't see the point in saying "initial reports were contradicted by subsequent reports". - auburnpilot talk 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideally we should be able to report the actual extent of injuries. Right now we are using a reference that isn't very strong. Many other references mention one woman with both legs broken, which could (a bit of OR here...) be the "one serious injury has been reported" mentioned on the NTSB site. We need to get this confirmed or denied, and find out what really happened. I strongly suspect that our current content is incorrect. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the flight attendant mentioned in the YouTube report above, there is no inconsistency between this and the reports of a woman with two broken legs, since this can be two different persons. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So far I can't locate any certain confirmation about the woman with two broken legs, but I can find a very good source for the flight attendant, Doreen Welsh, who suffered an injury. Problem solved. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring article

Swissair Flight 111, a Good Article, uses the following structure that we might adopt:

0 Lede
1 History
1.1 The aircraft and its crew
1.2 The flight
1.2.1 Nationalities of passengers
2 Recovery and investigation
2.1 Examination
2.1.1 Cockpit and recordings
2.2 Findings
2.3 Recommendations
3 Legacy
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links

Perhaps we can learn some lessons?LeadSongDog (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Impact Point

This part of the thread seems to have been removed. With the location of the left engine, is there any hard facts about the impact point of the plane? This would go a long way to cleaning up the flight path graphic included with the text. It would also help define more accurately the placings of the events. Looking at TRACON Data of other flights in the area, there was a near miss by the GWB with a general aviation craft, that may have been a helicopter, and a second possible helicopter that shows on the track north of the Lincoln Tunnel after the incident. I haven't seen any reporting on this but I don't live in front of a TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjhawkin (talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the short answer to your question is "no." Although the NTSB might figure it out eventually, there's currently no information about whether the engine fell off immediately upon impact or if it held on until the airplane slowed down. Nobody new for sure that it was gone until it was moored, so it could have come off during towing (that might be a long shot). On top of that, strong currents could have moved it from the point where it fell. I think the fact that divers took 6 days to find it leads me to believe that it wasn't where officials initially thought it might be.

Although I'm not familiar enough with the Hudson River/Manhattan areas to do this myself, I think the best way to discover the impact point would be to study videos of the impact and extrapolate from known landmarks, using a bit of trigonometry... – jaksmata 14:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have it on tape from several fixed locations on both sides of the river. I know that the point of impact was just off frame in the Coast Guard clip, while another clip taken from the other side of the river via security cameras at a warehouse shows the plane come down right in front of the warehouse. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at videos here, I think it was directly across from the pier on 50th street. They had cameras on both sides of a pier (and one from the pier to the south), where the camera on the north side just caught the impact point before the plane went out of view. Looking at Google Maps, it's hard to be 100% sure, but I think that was the pier on 50th St. The only other option is the pier on 52nd street, but looking at the video which shows the next pier to the north, I think that is showing the 52nd meaning the camera is on the 50th street one. That would make the impact point between 50th and 51st streets. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Slang?

Is ditching a technical term for a water landing? Just wondering because it sounds rather unprofessional Fruckert (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. According to the Water landing article:

The National Transportation Safety Board of the United States government defines "ditching" in its aviation accident coding manual as "a planned event in which a flight crew knowingly makes a controlled emergency landing in water. (Excludes float plane landings in normal water landing areas.)"[5] Such water landings are extremely rare for commercial passenger airlines.

Hiberniantears (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a picture of the ditching button here, as well. I don't think it was actually used in this incident. Fletcher (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly labelled "DITCHING", and so, yes, that's what it's called, NTSB or no NTSB. Fortunately this time the crew were too busy ditching safely to have time to use it. But a sea ditching might have been a very different story. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

They were "too busy ditching safely" to push the "Ditching button????" Have any sources criticized this failure amongst the hoopla of the "perfect ditching?" Would the failure to operate the button be noted as an error in a training exercise on the simulator? One newspaper gave him praise for pressing the button, before it turned out no one pressed it. Various news sources stated early on that the ditch switch closing the openings was important in the non-sinking of the plane. So it turns out to be irrelevant? I'm not sure what if any of the commentary about this would be considered "reliable" but it implies the ditch switch is at the end of a 3 page ditching procedure that they did not have time to go through. The article could note how far they actually did get. Were they following the ditching checklist or the "engine restarting checklist?" Seems like they could not have been doing both. Did they abandon attempts to restart the engine and start on the ditching procedure? Edison (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it would be noted. And noted very signficantly. I don't think anything has "turned out", certainly not from my ironic/ flippant suggestion I'm sure. Your suggested sequence of events sounds extremely plausible. Perhaps the eventual report will tell us. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting question - I thought that maybe in the heat of the moment they just forgot or missed that step. The thought that they might only have seconds left to live might have contributed to procedural errors, but that's what makes it so incredible that they kept control and ditched without any loss of life. – jaksmata 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the article may eventually be able to "... note how far they actually did get" if and when that detail becomes public via the accident investigation report. And unsure whether ir not they "... could not have been doing both". Guessing also that Skiles may have been working thorough the checklist(s) while Sullenberger was putting his efforts into safely flying the aircaft. Teamwork will have been critical factor with or without the switch. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Channel 4's The Miracle of the Hudson Plane Crash, [6], concluded that operation of the ditching button was never reached by the co-pilot as it was "at the end of the engine restart checklist" - a lengthy procedure designed to re-start engines with the aircraft at about 30,000 feet, not at about 3,000. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Engines designed to detach?

I read in the press that the engines on this aircraft are designed to come apart from the wings when subjected to the stresses of a ditching. Is this true? And if so, shouldn't it be mentioned? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The pylon shear bolts are intended to shear off at a known range of forces. If they didn't the drag of the engines on the water or ground would cause a plane to flip tail-over-nose, which is definitely not desired behaviour in a crash. The rather surprising thing is that one engine remained attached. The equivalent feature on Boeing products is called an engine "fuse pin". In some aircraft designs they are also intended to protect the aircraft from excessive torque when an engine suddenly siezes.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Additionally, that known range of forces includes the forces that would be acting on the engine if any one of the shear bolts failed in flight, so that the engine, rather than hanging loosely by some of the bolts and possibly bouncing around and damaging the aircraft, would simply break free and fall away, giving the pilot a better chance of successfully landing. A rare case where a design that seemingly makes the situation worse is actually a deliberate choice made to improve safety. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's the exact scenario of American Airlines Flight 191, although that one did not turn out very well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There were fatigue and corrosion-related similar problems with Boeing designed aircraft that turned out badly. See El Al Flight 1862. Any such component that is designed for critical "failure" behaviour needs to be very carefully considered and monitored.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Duplication of Sullenberger bio

The article seems to repeat too much of the Captain's bio, which is now available in the separate Chesley Sullenberger article. I suspect that this reflects an earlier stage in the evolution of the two articles. I would suggest something along these lines for the Flight section:

The captain was Chesley Sullenberger, 57, a former fighter pilot who has been a commercial pilot since leaving the Air Force in 1980. He is also a safety expert and a glider pilot.

Incidentally, it can't be standard WP practice to give people's ages, can it? As luck would have it, Sullenberger celebrated his 58th birthday yesterday! If we must give his age here, there's probably a suitable template that will auto-update: anyone? ... anyone? ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed such an age related template, though I personally wouldn't list his age here, as its non-relevant to the story. That said, I don't think his bio should even exist, per WP:NOT#NEWS, though I'm not one to take it to AfD... --Izno (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is even more notability for Sullenberger now that GAPAN have awarded him a Masters Medal. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On 2nd thoughts, I can see some point in mentioning the ages of the pilots as a rough surrogate for their experience. As I mentioned above, though, it would be more meaningful to give their flying hours. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Awards

I've added a section for the awards and honours given to the crew. GAPAN have awarded the entire crew a Masters Medal each, which is sufficiently rare enought to warrent an entry. No doubt there will be more to come. For precedent see BOAC Flight 712. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

New info on awards at http://www.northjersey.com/news/newyorkmetro/goodsamaritans021809.html

Evacuation

This section states that:

During the evacuation, some passengers directed that women and children evacuate the aircraft first instead of all passengers exiting according to proximity to the exits.

What is the point of adding this detail, even if it is true? Were these (no doubt chivalrous) instructions obeyed by anyone? As it stands, this just sounds like a quaint anecdote. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to have taken this up; but this stillborn anecdote really can't be left as it stands. Either add some clarification or—and I think preferably—delete it. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree it's a bit lame. And uncited. One wants to know what cabin-crew did or said in response. But such (maybe any) evacuation detail may useful to show at least (a) no panic (b) not in line with proper procedure. One suspects that in such situations there may be some preference shown to women and children on a seat-by-seat basis. But if some gallant "hero" had made the passengers disembark strictly on this basis, there could have been utter choas. An aircraft cabin is simply not as spacious as the deck of a slowly sinking ship. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Seems to have roots in this NYTimes story, though the blogosphere has bounced it around some.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Delete it. - auburnpilot talk 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My word, from that NYTimes story, it WAS utter chaos. Apparently there was a "stampede" and plenty of sceaming. Maybe other parts of the story are more worthy of a mention? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is still an embarrassment in what has become a factual & useful article. We'd expect chaos, screaming & a bit of a stampede (which the cabin crew must have done their best to mitigate & control). So the question remains: why mention only this story of "some" passengers trying (presumably unsuccessfully) to hijack the evac? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Women and children first" really applies more to abandoning a ship on which passengers assemble at lifeboat stations where they are then organized and loaded into the boats over time. It would seem that in the confines of the cabin of a crowded airliner with relatively limited exits, trying to first organize passengers into groups of women, children, and others would greatly slow the the evacuation, not speed it up. While somebody may well have yelled "Women and children first!" during the evacuation, I very much doubt that this would have had any real consequences in how it actually transpired. There simply would not have been the time or space to organize the passengers into groups in the congestion and chaos existing in the packed cabin. As most of the occupants were already out on the wings and inflated slides by the time that the first rescue boat arrived about four minutes after the ditching, this would seem to indicate that the order of evacuation was based on how close people were sitting to the exits, not their gender and/or age. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Per this (rare) consensus, I've removed the misleading and silly sentence. – jaksmata 17:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some additional research indicates that there is no mention of "women and children first" in either the FAA FLIGHT ATTENDANT GENERAL EMERGENCY TRAINING CURRICULUM or in this paper on aircraft evacuation published by the Association of Flight Attendants which points out that the key factor in an evacuation is for the cabin crew to establish effective "passenger flow control" without any reference being made in it to their gender or age. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

(out) Additions to Evacuation and Rescue were reverted by User:Evb-wiki thus [7] as "pov rhetoric & unsourced trivial detail". But these were facts, reported here [8] by the passengers themselves. Having just narrowly escaped a ditching and finding oneself slipping off a wing without a life-jacket into a freezing tidal river, or already stumbling on a floating slide, knee-deep in icy water, the prospect of being crushed to death or drowned by an out-of-control ferry-boat may not have seemed "trivial". That edit was unsourced yes, but "POV rhetoric detail"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about joke about birdstrike similar to laborstrike and tailstrike

I wrote joke last time: [9]

This which make upset other editors, which I felt sorry about it:

• User:Baseball Bugs
• User:Centpacrr

I try to learn about how to became a good editor: [10]. My English is still learning, so I didn't understood everythings. So sorry, I didn't want to became conflict. --B767-500 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

So I try contributing other things which should became better. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

regular flight schedule

"(The Charlotte-to-Seattle leg was not operated on the day of the accident.)" Does this mean the continuing leg was not scheduled on the day of the accident? Or that it didn't fly because of the accident? If it's the second, this is a pretty silly statement. 140.247.248.121 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not silly at all. It is clear from the preceding text that both legs were scheduled to operate as normal. There were very likely passengers awaiting to board the continuation of Flight 1549 in Charlotte who could have been flown on to Seattle by another crew in a substitute aircraft, if available, which often happens when an earlier portion of a multi-leg flight is cancelled because of equipment problems, weather, or (or as in this case) accident. If the Charlotte to Seattle segment had been so operated on January 15, then it would have been equally appropriate to state that as well. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

So airline load factor became issue for next leg! But, sometimes, airline wouldn't reject next leg because they have to admit told last leg became crashed! So some superstitions, they have to dealt with it and maybe best to cancelled next leg. So basically, how to explain CLT-SEA passenger, about 'substitute' aircraft! Maybe they cancelled, but need citation to explain to other editor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead quote

Is Lynn Lunsford, aerospace industry reporter for The Wall Street Journal, so uniquely authoritative that she needs to be singled out & named in the Lead section? The quote itself is a good statement of what makes the ditching so remarkable; but the source details are already given in the reference, so why repeat them in the text—& in such a prominent position? The link to the WSJ is irrelevant & out of place in the text. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I can express my misgivings about this sentence in a different way. As it stands, it seems to be about LL & the WSJ. But will a reader—however un-"dumb"—coming to this article in 6 months' or 2 years' time really be interested in the fact that it was none other than Lynn Lunsford who wrote these words, or the fact that the vehicle for her opinion was the WSJ? I very much doubt it. It would be much more appropriate to quote (or allude to) the actual words of the GAPAN citation given in the Awards section. I suggest replacing the final sentence of the Lead with something like the following:

The entire crew of Flight 1549 were later awarded the GAPAN Masters Medal. According to the citation for that award, "[T]his emergency ditching and evacuation, with the loss of no lives, is a heroic and unique aviation achievement."

It is only worded that way due to the total paranoia of some editors who refuse to accept the notability of the incident, even when it was previously explained in neutral, non-sensational terms. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only worded what way? Please explain what you mean. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous US airways accidents section

This section seems over the top to me, mainly because these accidents (of a large airline company, near huge airports) are not of any direct relevance to the current accident. As such; the provided information is nothing more the trivia.

I would suggest to replace this section by a brief list in the -See Also- section. Something like

Previous US Airways accidents involving LaGuardia or Charlotte Airports

• USAir Flight 5050
• USAir Flight 405
• USAir Flight 1016

Alternatively the current section requires a strong argument WHY the information about these unrelated accidents is relevant to the casual reader. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete this entire section. 842U (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous USAir accidents at LGA & CLT

This section looks almost—but not quite—like Trivia. What is the point of it? If there is a point (eg to compare & contrast with Flight 1549) it should be made explicit. If accidents at CLT are to be discussed, why not go the whole hog & mention those at the eventual scheduled destination SEA as well, for good measure?

I don't mean to be unreasonably negative about this: I just don't understand the rationale for the section. Wouldn't it be more relevant to discuss previous (USAir) accidents caused by bird strikes? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I hadn't seen the previous comment when I wrote this: it seems I'm not alone in finding this section unnecessary. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section is not sufficiently relevant to the subject of the article. IMO, it does not belong. BTW, it was already removed once, but re-added by the original contributer without comment. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re second section - No problem, happy I am not alone in this. I removed it again, asking for discussion before re-adding. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is highly unusual that a single carrier has had three take off aircraft write-off accidents at the same airport. I might be willing to leave out the Charlotte accident, but the other two are relevant simply because of the unusually high number involving the same carrier, airport, and phase of flight. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Unless the accidents in question occurred AT the airports in question, I don't see any logical rationale, apart from to show some factual basis for some superstition. Other accidents from bird-strike and other ditchings far more justifiable and useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You state it is highly unusual, however I have no idea this is true, or just your personal perception. This has to be referred to accident stats for all airlines and airports; currently no reference is given.

And even if you provided stats these would need to be adjusted for the fact that USAirways is big (hence more likely to have accidents); LaGuardia is big (hence more likely to have accidents) and LaGuardia is a focus airport of USAirways and has more than average flights (and hence is more likely to have accidents).

If with all these corrections you still find that it is higly unusual (i.e. statistically different from a chance event), even then it would still be trivia (see Martinevans123), but at least interesting trivia. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW there are now 5 editors (counting user:Izno who made the original removal) who question this section altogether. At least 2 of these explicitly disagree with the given argument. I think it is clear consensus is the whole section has to go; untill the view on this talk page has turned to favour the idea. Arnoutf (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the Charlotte crash and restored the LGA take-off accidents which I find relevant to the operations of this carrier as the same airport. I do not see how this is "trivia" at all. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I think I'd want to see (at least) percentage of all flights which were USAir over the time frame to be even slightly convinced. The other accident detail may be interesting to show how different they were to this last dichting, but that is not justification. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia because it is what looks like a random list. It is also original research on your part to make the link. This information belongs at the airport article, not this article about a crash. --John (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain "I find relevant" in an objective (ie ot personally or subjectively coloured) way. You could turn to statistics as I suggested. Without such explanation I cannot agree; as "I find this irrelevant untill proven otherwise".

Alternatively we could add other relevant sections such as several about ornithology; although such sections are likely to have more causal relations to the accident compared to this one..... Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A list of accidents at all airport articles might be useful. But I really don't think here and now is correct at all.Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This section does not belong in this article. This artificially conflates these incidents. What's next, a section on "incidents with the Ferry boats," "incidents near the Statue of Liberty," "incidents that happened on the Hudson River?" Please. 842U (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the entry to "previous take-off phase accidents at LGA" since it opened in 1939 (there have only been five). Flight 1539 is the third of these to involve the same carrier, and that the same carrier would be involved in 60% of these incidents (even if they had different causes) seems to me to be highly relevant and not just "trivia." It is impossible, however, to get any positive feedback and achieve consensus on this if it keeps getting unilaterally deleted before anyone else gets a chance to see and comment on it. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

60% means very little without knowing what proportion of all flights were USAir flights over this time. But I would encourage you to add this interesting material to the airport article (if you can convince others there). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it here so that anyone who cares to can actually see what is being discussed. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Previous take-off accidents at LaGuardia

Prior to Flight 1549, there have only been four other "write off" commercial carrier take-off accidents at LaGuardia Airport since the field opened in 1939. Two of these also involved US Airways flights while it was operating under its previous name, USAir).

• USAir Flight 5050: On September 20, 1989, a year-old Boeing 737-401 (N416US) operated as a unscheduled late night "equipment repositioning" flight from LaGuardia to Charlotte with only a crew and USAir employees and members of their families on board. These non-paying passengers, who were added to the flight at the last minute, had been waiting to travel as "stand-bys" on earlier scheduled flights that had been cancelled or delayed due to thunderstorms in the vicinity of the airport. The plane overran the end of runway 31 during an aborted takeoff and dropped onto a wooden approach light pier which collapsed causing the aircraft to break into three pieces and drop into fifteen feet of water in the East River. Two of the 63 people on board were killed.

• USAir Flight 405: On March 22, 1992, a Fokker F-28 (N485US) being operated as a scheduled flight from LaGuardia to Cleveland, Ohio, crashed on take off from runway 13 into Flushing Bay killing 27 of the 51 people on board. The cause was determined to be pilot error and a large amount of ice and snow that had collected on the airframe when the flight was delayed after earlier deicing.

US Airways/USAir take off accidents involving write offs at LGA

The documented fact the 60% (three of the five) of the only take off/departure phase commercial carrier accidents at this airport that resulted in the aircraft being written off in the seventy years since the field opened in 1939 involving the same carrier is both well documented and statistically significant. It is not just "trivia." I agreed to remove the larger section I had created earlier and reduced the central facts to a single sentence. There has certainly been no "consensus" reached (or even been discussed) about the documented fact that this one carrier has been involved in such a high percentage of the small number of serious takeoff accidents at this airport over such a long period of time. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Comment' JMHO, but these accidents are correct to the LGA article - unless it can be proved that there is a direct causal link between them. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail?

Over the last day or so, a lot of indisputable facts have been added to this article which I think also qualify as too much detail:

• Runway numbers
• Codeshare agreements
• Aircraft manufacturing details (location, date)
• Leaser, Insurer
• Number of flights (cycles) for the aircraft
• Engine installation dates
• Number of engine flight hours
• Date of last A Check
• Date of last C Check
• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT
• Time of day that fire crews began to stand down

While all true facts, I think these reduce the readability of the article. Some of these things might be relevant if the crash was caused by engine failure due to poor maintenance or something, but this plane was brought down by a flock of birds. Even if this flight were a brand-new, never-been-flown-before aircraft, sucking a flock of geese into both engines would have brought it down. I think it would be better to provide a link to the maintenance details rather than list them all here. (I missed the discussion above about Previous US airways accidents, but I agree that it was inappropriate, for reasons already pointed out.) – jaksmata 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of knowing our audience. Are we only aiming at people who consider USA Today a plentiful news source? Or do we aim at a broader audience? - Denimadept (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aviation is a highly technical field in which facts and details are important, especially in the case of an aviation accident. Dumbing down an article to the lowest common denominator might be fine for Reader's Digest, but not so in an encyclopedia in which specifics should always be favored over generalities. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I know that maintenance dates are important in the field of aviation, but why are they important in the field of encyclopedia writing? Specifically, what relevance do maintenance dates have for this particular article? – jaksmata 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess only insofar as less maintained engines might fail more easily on birdstrike. But possibly not what the "target audience" is really interested in. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "target audience" is, be definition, meant to be a broad one and not just the "lowest common denominator." If there is some technical or specific portion of an article that does not interest a particular reader then he/she is, of course, free to skip over it. Just because some relevant detail does not interest everybody does not mean that it does not interest anybody. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Those are straw man arguments. I'm not asserting that the article needs to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, nor am I talking about the target audience. My assertion is that the items I listed above are irrelevant. So, I'll ask my question again: Specifically, what relevance do maintenance dates have for this particular article? – jaksmata 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If there were a causal relationship between the maintenance and the failure, they would be relevant, but . . . . --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These technical details are absolutely relevant to pilots such as myself and other people with a serious interest in aviation, and are exactly the kind of detail that makes the article so valuable. I can see a possible case for eliminating some technical detail in a physical "hard copy" encyclopedia where printing and production costs are an important consideration. Fortunately, however, this is a website where the additional information only requires a few more digital "ones and zeros" transmitted at the speed of light. And as for relationship between maintenance and failure, you can be absolutely sure that this will all be of very great interest to the NTSB investigators charged with learning whatever lessons they can from this accident. As I said earlier, if you are not interested in this information just skip over it -- but don't deny it to many others who find it central to the event. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Another excellent example of a straw man! Did I say that the facts were uninteresting to aviation aficionados? Did I say we were short on space? Did I say that the NTSB was ignoring inspections in their investigation? Did I say that I was uninterested? Provide diffs, please. – jaksmata 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of dates of the A and C Checks and other technical details about N106US is that they are the key "vital statistics" of the aircraft which is the topic of the section of the article in which they are found, and were, in fact, the very first details that US Airways released (on January 16) after the accident. As you apparently do not disagree with any of my other positions if you describe them as being "straw men," then I don't see what other issue you are having with the inclusion of any of the technical details currently in the article.(Centpacrr (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Now we're getting somewhere. If these are "the key 'vital statistics'" and not original research (synthesis), please add that statement, along with the source of the quote to the article. As a professional author, you should understand the need for context, and, as a wikipedian, you should understand the need for verifiability. Please provide both for each of the items you say are "central to the event" - that will convince me that these are not just random facts, but actually relevant. Let me be clear: I don't doubt the factual accuracy of any of these items - I doubt that they are "key 'vital statistics'." Don't just reference some website that has the facts, but doesn't say why they are important relative to this crash. – jaksmata 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See NTSB Major Investigations Manual Appendix H (pp H-32 to H-37). (Centpacrr (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

I could not agree more Jaksmata; it's humorous watching the microscopic data filter in an out of the article... especially the introduction. At some point someone will wish to relate the GPS coordinates of the splashdown right in the introduction... mark my word. 842U (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Also, the exact height of the mini-tsunami produced by the splashdown. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding:

• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT

Let's be absolutely clear here, these are not mere consequentials that could do with being left out. The presence of a system to provide electrical and hyrdraulic power in the event of a loss of engines and being without any mechanical backup system, and possibly a system of auto-stabilisation, is most likely exactly why the pilot, skilled as he no doubt is, was able to land this plane so well without loss of life. It is of course primary to the article, and in no way can be considered superfluous detail better left elsewhere. I personally also don't give a rat's ass about code share agreements or who insured the aricraft, but in this section you have lumped trivia in with essential detail. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Enquiring minds also want to know just what species fowled up the engines. Specifically, they want to know if the plane got "goosed". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be serious. This article has enough problems with well meaning but mis-placed ideas about what is and isn't valid information, confusing that with poor humour will just fowl up the situation. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(good one) J. Van Meter (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Honk. The article says a single feather was found. What kind of feather? And do we know it was just an accident? Maybe the goose was depressed over having lost its nest egg. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Partly agree... some of the info is overkill, some is not. My opinions:

• Runway numbers
  • LaGuardia runway very relevant; that would have a significant effect on the plane's flight path
• Codeshare agreements
  • Slightly interesting; reference is just part of a sentence which is probably the maximum it needs
• Aircraft manufacturing details (location, date)
  • In any air crash, definitely required info (date anyways)
• Leaser, Insurer
  • Can't see a reason
• Number of flights (cycles) for the aircraft
• Engine installation dates
• Number of engine flight hours
• Date of last A Check
• Date of last C Check
  • For these few... normally highly relevant for an airliner crash, but if the cause turns out to be entirely due to the birds and not mechanical issues, maybe not. I'd leave them at least until the NTSB issues a final report probably.
• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT
  • Highly essential; systems like that are why the pilot was even able to land the plane as well as he did.
• Time of day that fire crews began to stand down
  • Can't see any relevance.

Just my opinions. And yes, the NTSB sent the organic material for DNA testing, so yes I'm sure we will eventually know the exact species of bird -- which would be interesting too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not knowing what "details" are now considered too many by the community, I have deleted all the information that I contributed to this article. You are free to restore those you don't consider to be spurious. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Eh, that's a bit much ;-) I see someone reverted it, thankfully. Too much detail can always be edited down; much better to have it to begin with. I was also trying to point out that much of that list is in fact highly relevant, and nowhere near random trivia. Even stuff like the insurer can become relevant if a dispute between them and US Airways occurs... you never know. Sometimes relevancy can only be seen in retrospect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to make a point as reasoned discussion seems to fall completely on the deaf ears of those who feel that the article should be constantly dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

I am both a pilot as well as a professional writer, historian, and researcher with more than forty years experience and the author of four published books. I did not, to my knowledge, delete anything here that I had not personally researched and added to this article -- only to be told that detail and technical perspective were unwelcome by those who seemed to be intimidated by "too much information." Aviation is an extremely technical field, and should be treated that way.

I think I will just leave this article alone for awhile and come back to it later after the frenzy among the "doyens of relevance" has died down. In the meantime it's all yours and I will go on to other things. (Centpacrr(talk) 02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Since Centpacrr is taking some time to chill out, I'll state the blindingly obvious on his behalf. Maintenance history speaks to the question of assuring that the engines were in the required state of readiness at takeoff. Hypothetically speaking, overly fatigued or worn or even dirty engines would be to some extent less able to survive insults such as bird strikes. The species of bird involved speaks to just what mass of meat was impacted by the engines. A great deal of subsequent analysis will determine if the failure occured within or outside the expected survival envelope and whether there is a way to avoid repeating the accident. While no engine is expected to survive hitting two adult geese, we expect that it should normally survive a single duck or gull. One goose is a marginal condition. If (again hypothetically) gulls stopped or destroyed both the engines then there would be some seriously surprised engine designers. If a single goose stopped or destroyed an engine, there are limited possibilities for making the engines more able to survive it, but there are potential ways to better detect and warn of such bird strikes and so to improve the capability of aircraft to avoid hitting the flock with both engines. Given time, the investigation will sort out what matters. We can keep the content for now and trim it later. Let us instead address the question of which details deserve a spot in the lede.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the key phrase in LeadSongDog's comments is the investigation will sort out what matters. It isn't the job of a WP article to conduct that investigation.

CLindberg's list is useful. Just a couple of comments:

• Runway numbers. I've pointed out before that if they're relevant (both the takeoff r/w & the proposed r/w for landing back at LGA, which Sullenberger rejected), then readers (who aren't dumb: they just happen not to be aviation experts) should be helped by translating the numbers into directions (north-east & south-east respectively).

Yes wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Aircraft manufacturing details. Of course something is needed; I just happen to think that the details are a bit verbose. Why not simply say built by Airbus Industrie in June, 1999 at Toulouse? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Struggling to see how location of manufacture is relevant. And the fact that an Airbus A320 was built by Airbus Industrie is not really a great surprise, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is significant because since N106US was built the assembly facility for the A320 has been moved from Toulouse, France, to Tianjin, China. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

It may be significant to an understanding of A320s, but how is that in any way relevant to this accident? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a significant element in the description for the plane which is what the section of the article (The aircraft and its safety systems) in which it appears is about. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Why is it significant? Did its manufacturing location have any impact, positive or negative, on the events connected with this flight? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the point I've been trying to make all along. This article is about a crash, and should contain relevant details. We don't need to know everything about an A320. If the information doesn't relate directly to a crash, or has no context to the crash, put it in Airbus A320 family. We don't need to copy a 315 page manual about how the NTSB investigates crashes, just put in relevant details (with non-synthesized context). All the rest can go into Air safety or NTSB or General procedures that the NTSB uses in all accident investigations. – jaksmata 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The section of the article in which this background information appears (The aircraft and its safety systems) describes the aircraft involved in the accident, not the accident itself. It is basic to the background of the plane and therefore is appropriate in this section. If any particular readers are not interested in that aspect of the flight, then they can just skip to the next section, but there are also those who are interested in these details. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Does Death of Diana, Princess of Wales tell us that the Mercedes-Benz S280 W140 was built by Mercedes-Benz in Germany? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not a section in Death of Diana article about the vehicle involved in the accident, and commercial airliners are very much different than passenger cars. Apples and oranges there. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

I believe that whole section can be moved to Airbus A320 family, with only a few relevant facts incorporated into other sections of this article. There is a link in the article to the Airbus A320 article (second sentence) for people who are interested in details about the airplane that have no relevance to the crash, which is the subject of this whole article. Links to other articles allow interested readers to follow their specific interests. – jaksmata 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The information included here relates to a) this specific A320 (c/n1044) which is the one involved in the accident, and b) technical aspects of its systems which were compromised by the bird strike (engines, flight control system, internal power, hydraulics) which are integral to understanding the rest of the accident. Again if you are not interested in or don't understand the import of the technical information contained in the section of the article then just move on to the next section. There are plenty of others who are interested and for whom this section adds perspective and substance. As has been previously observed here, Wikipedia is not meant to be USA TODAY nor is it designed to appeal only to the lowest common denominator. If that were the case then the article could logically be reduced to only the introductory paragraph and everything else eliminated as constituting "too much detail." (Centpacrr (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Cease the condescending lectures and answer the question: "Why does the plane's manufacturing location matter?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

*...Seufzer...* (Centpacrr (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

(For those who don't know German, Centpacrr is sighing or moaning.) Centpacrr, what you fail to realize is that this is not an article about the A320, it is not about crash investigations, it is not even about the specific aircraft with the tail number N106US. It is about what happened to US Airways Flight 1549‎‎ on January 15, 2009. I think one of two things is happening: either you don't understand the concepts of scope and context, or your résumé of professional writing and aviation interests makes it difficult for you to realize that these disjointed facts don't fit into this article. – jaksmata 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of this detail needs to be ditched! Let's hope it floats, wherever it comes down? (apologies) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason the country of manufacture matters is that it determines which countries are officially entitled to representation in the investigation. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly LeadSongDog. And I was "sighing" in response to the presumptuousness of a 13-year old who had made no meaningful contribution to the contents of the article eldering me for making good faith and reasoned arguments -- which he apparently does not understand -- with an inappropriate importunement to "cease the condescending lectures." (Centpacrr (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Even if no fatalities? Is that under US Law? I wonder do have a supporting ref? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert but I have heard somewhere that it is actually about the country that (hosts the institute which) issued the certificate of airworthiness of the aircraft type. Which I think makes much more sense. (and anyway Airbus planes tend to be manufactured in at least 3 different European countries...) Arnoutf (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, something resembling some answers. P.S. It's 13 and a half. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The NTSB Major investigations manual para 5.1 points to the Chicago Convention, that is, "Annex 13 to the Convention on International Aviation", to which the US is a signatory.

The Safety Board represents the United States in accident investigations involving overseas interests under the provisions of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Aviation. This will typically occur in one of two situations: 1) an overseas manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the United States or its possessions, or 2) a U.S.-manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the territories of another country.
Annex 13 outlines the entitlements and participation of an Accredited Representative. The ICAO Manual of Aircraft Accident Investigation outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Accredited Representative. These duties and responsibilities are contained in Appendix S.

LeadSongDog (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

5.1 International Investigations

The Safety Board represents the United States in accident investigations involving overseas interests, under the provisions of ICAO Annex 13. This will typically occur in one of two situations: 1) an overseas manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the United States or its possessions, or 2) a U. S. manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the territories of another country.

5.1.1 Domestic Accident

If a foreign manufactured, operated, or registered aircraft is involved in an accident in the United States, the state (country) of manufacture, operations, or registry may send an Accredited Representative and advisors to participate in the investigation. The Accredited Representative is the leader of any officials from another country, such as airline and manufacturer advisors. Usually, the investigation will have already begun by the time the Accredited Representative arrives. On occasion, an advisor to the Accredited Representative, such as a representative of the airline or the aircraft manufacturer, will arrive before the Accredited Representative. Regardless, provide the Accredited Representative with all information given to party coordinators and thoroughly brief him or her on the progress of the investigation.

In the case of this accident, France will be represented by the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyse, the French counterprt of the NTSB.

(Centpacrr (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

LeadSongDog, that's an excellent bit of information that nobody has brought up before.

Centpacrr, if it is true (about representation in the investigation) - and I believe it is - then that fact needs to be added to the article to create context. It's not enough just to say "The aircraft was manufactured in the US and France." That, by itself as it is now, has no demonstrated relationship to the subject of the article. Add context by writing: "Since the aircraft was manufactured in the US and France, French authorities are participating in the crash investigation." and give a reference. I've been going on about context assuming that you knew what it meant. As a professional writer, you need to know these things.

Just for the record, you are being condescending, and a 13-year-old is being accurate. You are ignoring my good-faith and reasoned arguments and instead attacking straw men, exasperating yourself by talking about people who are not interested, going on about USA Today, and making up criteria to describe "key vital statistics." By the way, I read that NTSB document (fascinating), and found no mention of "key vital statistics." Baseball Bugs may be 13, but at least he's not making up expressions and pretending they came from the US government. – jaksmata 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So we have "may" and "usually". Any evidence of French involvement? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the following statement from Airbus, a six person Airbus Technical "Go Team" team was dispatched on January 16, to assist the NTSB and the Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) who will join the investigation representing France as the State of aircraft manufacturer:

Toulouse, 16 January 2009

"Airbus confirms that an Airbus A320 operated by US Airways was involved in an accident shortly after 15:30 East Coast local time yesterday 15th of January. The aircraft was operating a scheduled service, Flight US 1549 from New York - La Guardia (New York State) to Charlotte (North Carolina).

"The aircraft was MSN (Manufacturer Serial Number) 1044, registered under the number N106US and delivered on 02. August 1999 to US Airways. It was powered by CFM 56-5B4/P engines.

"Initial reports indicate that all 155 persons on board, including 5 crew members, evacuated the aircraft and were successfully rescued. No fatality is reported.

"In line with ICAO Annex 13 International convention, the US NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) will lead the investigation assisted by Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) as State of aircraft manufacturer. A go-team of 6 Airbus Technical Advisors has been dispatched to New York to assist the Investigation Authorities." (Centpacrr (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Certainly convinced me on place of manufacture. Well done. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also satisfied on that point. Now we need to come up with reasons to keep the other dozen-odd facts. Carl Lindberg had a few good points that were ignored earlier in this discussion... – jaksmata 20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Restating the original long list:

• Runway numbers
• Codeshare agreements
• Aircraft manufacturing details (location, date)
• Leaser, Insurer
• Number of flights (cycles) for the aircraft
• Engine installation dates
• Number of engine flight hours
• Date of last A Check
• Date of last C Check
• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT
• Time of day that fire crews began to stand down

I believe we've dispensed with all except the codeshare and the fire crew discussions. Because codeshares have cashflow associated there are schedule pressures too. It's a factor for the investigators to look at, although it seems highly unlikely to have been a factor here. The time of day speaks to how long the rescue process took. Anyone who's ever had to swim in very cold water will grasp the significance. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, although I'd suggest adding the direction of runway 13 for the reasons given by NigelG. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The flight did not use runway 13, it took off from runway 4 and its direction is 044º which I have already added to the first sentence of the "Ditching" section along with a detail of the FAA Departure plate. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Suggested only as thought angle/ proximity of that runway may have been a factor in the pilot's decision to ditch. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed most of these things, but their relevance is still unsupported in the text of the article right now (with the exception of manufacturing location). I think we've established that most of these things probably are not worthy of exclusion from the article, but the way the article is written, they lack context.

I haven't seen a good reason (here on the talk page) to keep number of cycles, engine installation dates, engine flight hours or the maintenance check dates.

As for the time of day that fire crews began to stand down: Nobody was in the water until 4:55. If you want to put in how long they were in the water, that's fine, but until 4:55 isn't it.

The issue I have with context is this: I could add to the article "The aircraft's flaps were in good working order at the time of ditching." Assuming that I had a good source and it wasn't OR, there's no way of knowing, short of prior knowledge of aircraft, why that interesting factoid might be relevant. It is relevant because flaps provide increased lift when moving at slower speeds, such as would be the case when both of your engines fail. Without that context the relevant fact becomes disjointed.

So, right now, we have this in the article: "Its last A Check ...(routine maintenance inspection performed every 550 flight hours) was completed on December 6, 2008." There's no context for such a statement. That's why I called it "too much information" yesterday. I can see how it's loosely related to the article now (it's a standard item the NTSB checks), but there are thousands of standard checks the NTSB does, why is this one important enough to keep here? They probably interviewed the pilot to make sure he wasn't suicidal, standard procedure of course, but that isn't relevant. My hypothetical statement about the flaps isn't relevant, but you can bet they'll check that too. So, what's so special about the A Check and C Check? Why is it essential to put those specific items here rather than directing interested readers to an article that lists all the things the NTSB does in major investigations? – jaksmata 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are always going to be facts which could be added to an article about a recent event, but not all verifiable facts are encyclopedic. It seems like too far much detail to include in an encyclopedia article the hours each engine had operated down to the hundredth of an hour, when there has been no reliable source attributing the crash to the number of hours the engines had operated. If James Dean is killed in a car wreck, do we need to know the odometer reading down to the tenth of a mile, and how many miles since his last oil change? Excess detail hides important information. We are not accident investigators, needing to carefully search for clues. They are the ones who should review every excruciating detail. If they say the engine hours was important, then we should note the numbers or other relevant details.But we are not preparing a file for their use in the investigation. Edison (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This argument is kind of amusing, If the information in sourced, it doesn't hurt to include (so long as written in such a way that a general audience could understand it, with occasional click-thrus for definitions). If it's too technical for intext, it could be moved into a note. If it's OR, it doesn't belong. Joshdboz (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, these numbers -- cycles, flight hours (or "Total Time") on the airframe and engines, last A and C Checks, etc -- are the most basic and universally understood "vital statistics" (my term as an analogy) as the standard criteria used to describe and/or evaluate the "health" and/or status, and suitability for operation of any aircraft, just as one's age, height, weight, blood pressure, pulse rate, etc, are the "vital statistics" for a person which provide the similar basic information to a physician as a basis upon which to evaluate an individual's baseline physical condition. These are the first and most basic numbers that any accident investigator, mechanic, pilot, or any other aviation professional want to know about any aircraft in question, and they are always among the first things to be considered in any aviation accident investigation. (See, for instance page 6 of the NTSB Accident Report for USAir Flight 5050 at LGA, September 20, 1989). This is not an esoteric concept in aviation, and their significance and context are well understood without further explanation in the aviation community at all levels. As such they should most assuredly be retained as fundamental information. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not the aviation community at any level. Context is required here. Do you really expect Wikipedia readers to have an aviation-community knowledge level? See WP:MTAA - if you want to call that "dumbing down," so be it - it's an established Wikipedia guideline. – jaksmata 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No objection to adding the context to explain what these things are, but of course WP:NOT#PAPER means it doesn't all need to be in the article. We can link to Aircraft maintenance checks and let the reader follow the link if interested. If we can find a wp:reliable source that simply states "all routine scheduled maintenance had been done" then we could do without the detail, but to draw that conclusion ourselves would be unusable as WP:original research. Instead we state the things which we can reference and allow the reader to draw the conclusion. LeadSongDog (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also added link to CFR 121.380.2. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

That addition will satisfy me...

I'm going to stop pushing this issue now, although I don't think we've resolved everything, and I think other editors will continue to question out-of-context facts. I never meant this to turn into such a big deal, but I am happy that after a very long discussion some improvement has been made to the article. It's been amusing, but I don't usually have this much "wikenergy", as I usually contribute in a more gnomish fashion. Thanks, everyone, for an intellectually stimulating debate, especially you, Centpacrr. – jaksmata 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Appparently what needs to be pointed out here is that we, Wikipedia, are not conducting an accident investigation. The details that would be critical to the NTSB's investigation are not necessarily details that are critical to an encyclopedia article about a plane crash. General details are certainly important: birdstrike, mechanical failure, lapses in maintenance, pilot error (or competence), and so on. A lot of those details we don't really know yet -- but we will know the salient factors when the NTSB prints its final report, and we will summarize the what the report finds. We will not end up mentioning things like the A and C checks unless they are singled out as a contributing factor to the accident by the NTSB.

Pretending that we should approach our encyclopedia article about this event the same way the NTSB would approach its investigation into the accident is inappropriate.--Father Goose (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here is pretending to "conduct an investigation" but just stating a few of the very most basic fundamental details ("vital statistics") about the known status of N106US at take off which were released and widely published immediately after the accident. These are fully sourced and are stated without offering interpretation in two sections -- "The aircraft and its safety systems" and "Accident investigation" -- for those who are interested in them. Just because not everybody might be interested in this basic information does not mean that nobody is. Those who are not are, of course, free to skip these sections.

We have now expended almost 6,000 words discussing this issue in just this one section of the US Airways Flight 1549 talk page which is more than twice as many as the roughly 2,900 words in the whole article itself. Let's just leave it at that and move on to something else. (Centpacrr (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Does "Let's stop the discussion and move on" mean "Let's leave all the minutia in the article so it is the way I want it to be?" The number of words of discussion shows that many editors want the compulsive listing of details of unproven significance removed. How about go with consensus and not include the hours on each engine down to the hundredth of an hour, for starters, since no reliable source has attributed the accident to the hours on the engines. It would be more encyclopedic to state that all maintenance was current, or other general statements, referenced to reliable sources. Note general normality, report exceptions that have been noted by reliable sources as important. Edison (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What this shows is that these were both high time engines at the time of the accident which would tend to make them more susceptible failure when ingesting birds (although even new engines probably would not have survived this event). The high engine time will certainly be considered closely by the investigators, however. I have considerably tightened the language relating this information, however, without compromising the basic information. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Notes

(adding to avoid cite ref warnings 84user (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Life vests

On a photography forum there are some pics and discussion about passengers not wearing life vests. Was there any discussion in US media on this?

(unsigned?) Yes, very interesting pictures, including one of (apparently) ice hanging from the attending ferry boat. There is also some speculative discussion as to why so few passengers are wearing a life-vest. But for the blog source, I'd suggest adding a comment in the Evacuation section (which may, in any case, need improvement wrt actual sequence of events, one suspects). I can find no other "media" source/discussion about the life-vests, although I don't see why such would be much more reliable. Again, however, any comment might be pre-judging the findings of the accident investigation report. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I’d suggest, though, that the weather conditions at the time of the incident certainly deserve some mention, particularly river water temp. The temperature in New York was apparently about 20 degrees about the time of the crash [11] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(Fahrenheit: ie -6 or -7 C.) --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recap

I hope no one will mind too much if I repeat a few points I've made in various sections above, just in case they've been overlooked in the sometimes heated Too much detail? debate:

• Choice of the most appropriate final lead quote.

• Relevance/reliability of the evacuation anecdote

• Runway numbers/directions. I see that the text now reads Runway 4 (heading 044º)—but that seems only to be duplicating the heading already embodied in the r/w number. Yes, I suppose readers could take a few seconds to work out that it means north-east; but why not help them a bit? The same goes for the proposed landing back on runway 13: if it's worth mentioning the number at all, it's worth explaining that it means landing in a south-easterly direction. Changing the text to Runway 13 (heading 130º) would again be uninformative.

Could we please have some degree of consensus on these points &, if agreed, modify the text? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Northeast (045.4º) and Southeast (135.5º) headings for Runways 4 and 13 added to text. I have no particular preference one way or the other on the final lead quote ("rare success of ditching") or evacuation ("women and children first") anecdote. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Runways are always referred to by two digit numbers - 04 and 13 in this case. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Headings are given in three digits (such as 044º), but runway 4 at LGA is only designated by the single digit "4" which is how it appears on the direction signs on the airfield, on all the FAA plates, and how its number is painted on the runway threshold. (You can confirm this for yourself by navigating to LGA on Google Earth or on Google Maps.) (Centpacrr (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

I've now changed the text per the first 2 points above. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the evacuation anecdote has been promptly restored. My quarrel with this anecdote/report is not with its content but with its pointlessness. The reader is left in suspense, wondering "Well, did anyone obey the injunction? Did a fight break out? Were the Ladies Firsters voted down? Did the flight attendants overrule the injunction?" As it stands, it tells us nothing worth knowing. It's a story without a punchline. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PS The phrase some passengers directed ... is particularly comical in this context. Who were they: natural born leaders? If you must retain this story, I suggest you inject a note of realism by saying instead some passengers screamed ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Reword it to distill the references. Identify the actions and perpetrators, attributing the identification. That's not the same as deleting it.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No: I'm sorry, but life's too short. I did the only merciful thing—but since you think it's worth including, it's up to you to fix it.--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?

Its clear that this article has been taken over by a few editors, bent on turning the encyclopedia article into a set of overly precise and excruciatingly aeronautic minutiae — all etched in stone tablet form lest we "dumb down" the article. Whole sections of the article are a complete joke now, myopic to a degree that is completely laughable, missing only the GPS breadcrumb trails of the passengers as they left to resume their lives. 842U (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Feel free to improve the article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Aviation is by nature a highly technical field in which accuracy and unambiguity is essential to safety. I find nothing in here, however, that is either esoteric cannot be easily understood from the context. I really don't see how accuracy and precision are in anyway antithetical to, or inconsistent with, being encyclopedic. Commercial aviation accidents are by their very nature complex, multifaceted occurrences. Treating them as if they are nothing more than simplistic or monolithic events does a disservice to both those who were involved in them at all levels, as well as to those who chose to come to Wikipedia to learn the facts about what happened. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

This isn't Aviation, Centpacrr, this is Wikipedia. We don't see any of this technical jargon and over-embellishment of detail in articles by the Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, or New York Times because — it's unnecessary, completely unnecessary -- and destructive to comprehension. Despite one editors perceived "need" to bring their version of "accuracy of precision" to the article and the "unwashed masses," the information is over-specialized. Wikipedia is for birds... rather than for Long-billed California Curlews... at the exclusion of all birds. 842U (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Give the article time to develop. It is still relatively "new" at the moment, and there are many edits per day. The British Airways Flight 38 article went through a similar development last year. For now, the main thing is to keep everything referenced, and linked as necessary to explain technical terms. With an article such as this, they have to be included to give a full picture. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said. If in fact the aircraft were brought down by Long-billed California Curlews that would be of very considerable interest. Gather ye breadcrumbs. There is lots of time for digestion later. For now, we've only got a few high quality sources to work from, but that will certainly change.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in not aviation, and nobody ever said it was. But the subject of the instant article is an aviation accident for which precise terms and language exists to describe what happened. The Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, and New York Times are in no way analogous to Wikipedia as they are daily newspapers, not encyclopedias or permanent reference works. Newspapers are meant to be timely only on the day they are published because the next day they will just as likely be used to "wrap fish" or line birdcages as they are to ever be read again for informational purposes. You are really talking apples and oranges there.

Encyclopedias are designed to be enduring reference works which provide far greater detail, depth, and perspective. Information is compiled over time and from many sources which are then cited and/or footnoted. Again you seem to be advocating that Wikipedia should be aimed at only to the "lowest common denominator." I think you are vastly underestimating its audience, however. How are people supposed to ever broaden their perception and understanding of the world if they are only presented with things they already know about? Again if you are not interested in the more technical aspects contained in this or any other particular Wikipedia entry then you should feel free to ignore them. But don't deny others who are interested free access to that material just because it does not interest you. There is really room for everybody. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Still struggling with the rigid aeronautic stone tablets (for the fahrenheit challenged). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All units of measurement should be converted anyway. Mjroots (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

At a more meta-level. Many new articles rapidly pick up a lot of details. Only in hindsight the relevance of all these details will be proven to be high or low. This articles will at first probably suffer from the same, but once the investigation has closed I am pretty sure it will be gradually edited towards a more accessible article... the Wikipedia way. The relevant technical details (to be determined by the investigation) will then of course be maintained, while others will go. So a slightly over technical article at this stage would only facilitate future clean up and focussing; while at this moment many people may be interested in these details as the crash is hot now, and people want all information one mouse click away.
In summary, I would not worry about loading the article with potentially relevant details (we have to be careful about trivia) as the article will evolve to a less technical, more stable and final version after the initial fuss has died down. Arnoutf (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wise words, at last. They're still tablets, 842U. I'll just have to keep taking them, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan in opening sentence

There is no need for the part in bold in the lead senence. It is over-specific, and jars the flow of the sentence breaking it into too many pieces. I removed it once, and it has been reinserted.

US Airways Flight 1549 was a commercial passenger flight that ditched in the Hudson River adjacent to midtown Manhattan about five minutes after takeoff on January 15, 2009

MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hudson River is 315 miles long. The fact that the plane ditched in the very short section of the river adjacent to midtown Manhattan is extremely significant because it is probably the major reason that all 155 occupants of the aircraft survived the ditching. The plane came to a stop in the water at 3:31 pm very close to the Midtown Ferry Terminal at West 39th Street and the West Side Highway from which many NY Waterway ferry boats operate. The first of those boats to reach the plane did so at 3:35 pm -- just four minutes later! This key factor in making it possible for all 155 people involved in the ditching of a commercial jet airplane certainly seems worth four words ("...adjacent to midtown Manhattan...") in the introductory paragraph. It is a central part of the what happened to US Airways Flight 1549.

Say, for instance, that a A320 took off from Sydney Airport, struck a flock of large birds on climb out, and ended up ditching in Sydney Harbour. If the aircrew were able to bring it down so that it stopped within a few hundred yards of the Sydney Opera House and everyone was promptly rescued by local ferry boats as opposed to somewhere near the mouth of the harbour, would that not be a significant part of the story?

If you think the intro is too long, why not advocate removing the 45-word, two sentence long second paragraph which relates to a prize awarded some days later by a private organization located in London, England. This had nothing whatever to do with the accident, its cause, or its outcome. Exactly where the plane came down, on the the other hand, most assuredly did. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

It's one of a hundred 'extremely important' facts about the incident. They are not all going to fit in the very first sentence. It's too long, and doesn't read correctly, either that is just clear to you by quickly reading it, or it isn't. I would of thought it was obvious I was not suggesting it wasn't important by removing it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with demoting those two sentences, however I must take issue with characterization of GAPAN as "a private organization". In fact it is the relevant Livery Company, which is a rather different thing. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with LeadSongDog about GAPAN. The G stands for "Guild", GAPAN is one of the London Guilds. It is an important aviation organisation that is respected worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

By "private organization" I meant that it is not a Government organization, body, or agency, and there is no indication that I am aware of that it is involved with this accident in an official capacity. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

I get the point. But who better than their peers to assess how significant an accomplishment it was? These are British commercial pilots, many flying the same very same type of aircraft, offering acknowledgement of the feat through their professional body. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating taking it out, I was only pointing out that for the intro, the fact that the plane ditched adjacent to midtown Manhattan was far more important and directly relevant to the outcome of the accident then an award made made some days later. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

It won't be long before the GPS coordinates of the splashdown move into the intro... I can just feel it... along with the GPS breadcrumb trails of the passengers as they left to return to their regularly scheduled lives. Can't wait. Then again, none of us should be surprised by any of this: at least one editor keeps arguing that each piece of minutiae is "extremely important." But in life, not all things can be "extremely important:" when everything is of the same importance, there's no longer an extreme. Forget that it treats the reader as a complete idiot to suggest that a plane that takes off leaving Laguardia could after five minutes then ditch in the Hudson... 315 miles away: this is a form of "dumbing down" that "we" approve of. I don't have to be sarcastic anymore... I can now be ironic. Oh well. Gather yee breadcrumbs. 842U (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the upper right corner of the page you will find that User:Pigsonthewing added the GPS coordinates to this article at 17:13 on January 15 which was just an hour and twenty minutes after the page was originally created. You will also find that similar GPS coordinates also exist in many many thousands of other Wikipedia pages that relate to a geographical place. (Wikipedia has long supplied a "coordinates template" for that purpose.)

Had the aircrew decided to continue to fly north after the bird strike as opposed to turning south at the Spuyten Duyvil, the plane would have most likely touched down in the Hudson River somewhere between Dobbs Ferry and the Tappen Zee Bridge or about twelve to fourteen miles north of where it did. The river in this area is very different in width and character than it is adjacent to midtown Manhattan, and there would have been no nearby watercraft there capable to rescuing the passengers quickly. (Remember that the air temperature was in the 20's and the water temperature in the 40's so any delay in rescue would have no doubt resulted in many deaths or injuries due to exposure.)

The fact that the plane came to a stop in the river in the midst of an area of heavy ferry traffic adjacent to midtown Manhattan was indeed the key factor (i.e. "extremely important") in making possible the successful and rapid rescue of the occupants without any fatalities or serious injury after they they survived the ditching. That being the case, I just can't see how including four words ("...adjacent to midtown Manhattan...") in the intro to acknowledge that fact could in any way be considered excessive. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm going to agree with Centpacrr on this one. In addition to what he said, "adjacent to midtown Manhattan" is a phrase that really sets the scene for the article. I would call it just as important as the first-sentence mention of the 14th Street Bridge in the article on Air Florida Flight 90. It specifies the location of the accident in terms that most people can visualize. While the addition of that phrase does increase the grammatical complexity of the first sentence, I don't think it raises it to a level that is unreasonable. – jaksmata 21:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tightened and simplified the language of the intro while retaining all the relevant information. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Air Florida Flight 90 actually crashed into the 14th Street Bridge, so it would be ridiculous not to mention it. But in each of American Airlines Flight 587, Swissair Flight 111, TWA Flight 800, and similar articles, the nearest identifiable geographic entity is mentioned in the lede. In this case, that entity is Manhattan, and it doesn't hurt to further specify midtown Manhattan, since Manhattan is about 15 miles long.--Father Goose (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for a more concise intro: US Airways Flight 1549 was a commercial passenger flight that ditched in the Hudson River adjacent to midtown Manhattan on the afternoon of January 15, 2009. The Airbus A320 was bound for Charlotte, North Carolina when it struck a flock of birds about 90 seconds after take off. The plane lost power in both engines and went down in the river three-and-a-half minutes later, at 3:31 pm. All 155 people on board survived the ditching, safely evacuated the cabin, and were rescued from the partially submerged plane by nearby commercial and rescue watercraft. J. Van Meter (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (ie, move altitude to ditching section and master medal to aftermath section.) J. Van Meter (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No mention of LaGuardia there, and the middle two sentences also seem to sightly muddle the relationship of the events. The altitude of the bird strike is not as essential, but it is not unimportant either because it is the most valuable "asset" any airman has to husband in an in-flight emergency. (The more altitude a pilot has, the more time he or she has to deal with and try to mitigate the problem.) Upon reflection, I also think the award bit is ok because it provides a "hook" to mention the extreme rarity of a successful ditching. I think my last (16:44) version of the first paragraph better covers all those bases in three concise and uncomplicated declarative sentences. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

[Deleted Posts]

Wait, are saying the article is shit because a particular bit of information is in its second sentence instead of its first? Calm down, dude.--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've been WP:BOLD and rewritten the lede para, mainly for flow. I believe that I've kept the content unchanged. Fire away.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed my posts, on reflection they weren't all that helpfull. MickMacNee (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked and tightened second sentence for clarity of sequencing. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Temperature

Since the Fahrenheit temperature given in the Evacuation section (about 20° F) is itself an approximation, wouldn't it make more sense to give the conversion as another simple approximation (about -7° C) rather than an approximate range (about -6° to -7° C)? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I now have Scriptural authority for changing this, since the Convert template generates the solution I was suggesting all along! Note that one about is sufficient. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro (again)

sorry, i just don't think the addition of "unable to return to the field" (here) does anything to tighten or clarify the opening paragraph. J. Van Meter (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

These six short words concisely provide the reason why the flight ditched into the river as opposed to attempting to land at either of the two nearby airfields (LaGuardia and Teterboro) which were both offered to the aircrew by TRACON as options. The aircrew quickly determined that the plane was "unable" to reach either one, however, and therefore advised ATC that "We're gonna be in the Hudson." Even including the extra "award" paragraph, the US Airway 1549 intro is still just 179 words which, for instance, is 115 fewer then the 294 words in the intro for the the Wikipedia article on TWA Flight 800. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

a landing at teterboro would not have been a "return"; hence the lack of clarity. i would suggest "unable to reach the nearest airports" instead. J. Van Meter (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote to include rejection of all airfield options and related that to the decision to ditch in the river. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Re: Word selection:

• "Land" vs "set down": Airplanes can only "land" on land, not water (which is not land)

• "in water" vs "on water": The NTSB Aviation Accident Coding Manual describes a ditching by a land plane as being "in water." (Float planes and flying boats would set down on water, however, as they are expected to float.)

• "successfully": "successful" ditchings are rare, therefore "successfully" is significant

• "nevertheless": implies an outcome contrary to what would be expected under the circumstances which is what happened in this case (the expected result of a ditching would be the breakup of the airframe and many casualties) (Centpacrr (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

• Clearly the general press usage has agreed roughly 4:1 with the NTSB's sloppy choice of "in" over Oxford's choice of "on", but they are wrong. A ship operates on the water. A submarine operates in it. US1549 was not submerged in the river until well after the last person was off. All that said, neither choice should be excessively jarring to a reader. We have better points to focus on.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree this is not a big issue, but the length of time it took for the Airbus to "sink" should really be irrelevant in this case as it is a land plane which is not intended to float or ever be put down in water. It certainly was partially submerged immediately after touch down, and the only reason it did not go under completely much faster was that fortunately the hull of the aircraft was not significantly compromised during the ditching. Float planes and flying boats are, of course, different in that they are intended to float and operate on water.(Centpacrr (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Just as a matter of interest, why "encountered and struck"? Wouldn't "struck" on its own be enough? Or even "flew into", still linked to Bird strike.--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not absolutely essential so I deleted it. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, that was my thinking when I first encountered it. It struck me as redundant.--Father Goose (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to put too much emphasis on gliding, but I think that the term is fairly widely understood, whereas "in unpowered flight" may puzzle some readers. Yes, it's perfectly correct as a technical term; but not all terms used in WP need to be technical. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

While I suppose that "unpowered flight" is a less widely used term than "gliding" is at some level, it would not really mean the same thing in the context in which it would be used here. Gliding as applied to flight is, in my experience, generally used to describe flight that is intended to be unpowered and is done for sport. That is not the case here.

I really don't see how there can be any serious confusion caused by the usage of the more appropriate technical term "unpowered flight" here:

" ... resulting in the immediate loss of thrust in both engines. Although unable to either

return to LGA or reach any other airfield from that altitude in unpowered flight, ... "

Any "gliding" this plane did was obviously not its intended mode of flight as an A320 is a plane that can only be successfully operated under power. The text above says that both engines lost power, and as a result of suddenly being in this unintended unpowered condition, the plane did not have sufficient altitude to reach any airport and therefore ended up having to ditch in the North River. That being the case, I think "unpowered flight" is the far more accurate and appropriate term to use. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, there is the precedent of the Gimli Glider. According to the intro to the WP article, The crew was able to glide the aircraft safely to an emergency landing at Gimli Industrial Park Airport .... But I'm not going to labour the point. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume the term "glide" was used in this case because the flight had been dubbed "Gimli Glider" in popular culture. (If the flight had made its emergency landing at Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport, for instance, I'm not sure how likely it would have been called the "Richardson International Glider.") What AIr Canada 143 was technically doing, however, was unplanned, unpowered flight owing to fuel exhaustion.(Centpacrr (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

... Well, perhaps I will labour the point just a little bit!

• What about the following: The aircraft was beyond gliding range of any airfield including LGA; however the aircrew succeeded in ...?
• I'm beginning to wonder about this now: ... the immediate loss of thrust in both engines. Wouldn't it be clearer, & less open to misinterpretation, to say instead ... the total loss of power in both engines? "Loss of thrust" might be construed as "reduced thrust". --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that not all thrust was lost in the engines (see Airbus Accident Information Telex and for example http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/23/321591/hudson-a320-partial-engine-power-aided-textbook-ditching.html). According to these sources, the engines produced 35% and 15% thrust. Level flight would have required 70% thrust from one engine.IlkkaP (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro word choice:

• "any" vs "an": The flight was offered and considered the option of an emergency landing at two airports (LGA and Teterboro) therefore the plural ("any") is the appropriate word as opposed to the singular ("an");

• "Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum": This Museum is a very well known landmark (even though it is in the water) located on the North River. As such, it gives the readers a much much better instant mental picture of the site of the ditching then referring only to North River Pier 86 alone which would be all but meaningless to most readers without saying what is docked there. (This would be similar to saying only that somebody has an office at "350 5th Ave" as opposed to saying the office is in the Empire State Building. Both describe the same location, but including the name of the iconic landmark building located there makes the statement far more meaningful.) (Centpacrr (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

I know there's a certain reluctance to use the word glide (despite the fact that many reports of the incident seem to use it); but the ugly phrase the then-unpowered airliner is certainly no improvement. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Various views as to the aesthetics of the language aside, it is still the most accurate phrase to describe exactly the condition in which the A320 was after the bird strike and before the ditching. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

"Unpowered flight" sounds like an accurate phrasing, although I'm not sure what the problem is with "glide", but "unpowered airliner" is a little misleading because the aircraft did have power from its APU or possibly the RAT, apparently never having lost electrical power and hydraulics. I realize of course that "powered" customarily refers to forward thrust provided by the engines, but I'm worried readers not familiar with airbus' flight control systems might be confused into thinking the whole plane "shut down" and the pilot dead-sticked it into the Hudson. I'm not sure of the best phrasing, though, and there seems to be some edit warring going on over the lede. Hmm. Fletcher (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I have changed "unpowered" from modifying "airliner" to "flight" (as I had it originally) so that it now reads "When the pilots concluded that the airliner would be unable to reach any airfield in unpowered flight, they turned it southbound near ... " (Centpacrr (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the Intrepid, I personally would leave that detail out of the lede and just say "adjacent to midtown Manhattan". The "Ditching" section is a better place for the additional interesting details, such as the Intrepid being nearby, and the aside that that part of the Hudson is also known as the North River. Much as I am fond of the "North River" moniker, it's more a historical name than an active one. Just call it the Hudson in the lede.--Father Goose (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Adjacent only to "midtown Manhattan" describes an area which could easily be interpreted by readers as being anywhere within several miles of where the ditching took place, whereas identifying the site as also being near the "Intrepid" relates it to a well known specific landmark (even though it is in the water) located at North River Pier 86 at the Western foot of 46th Street. As such, it gives the readers a much much better instant mental picture of the site of the ditching then referring only to Pier 86 alone which would be all but meaningless to most readers without also saying what is docked there. (This would be similar to saying only that somebody has an office at "350 5th Ave" as opposed to saying the office is in the Empire State Building. Both describe the same location, but including the name of the iconic landmark building located there makes the statement far more meaningful to a general readership.)

While North River was used historically as the name for the entire 300+ mile long Hudson River, it is still very much used to describe that portion of the waterway (which is actually a tidal estuary) between Manhattan and New Jersey. That is how this section is identified on many maps (such as this example which I see was actually posted by you), how it is referred to by mariners and others who use the river, and also how all the piers are named. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm still not convinced that "unpowered flight"—however technically accurate that description may be—is the best phrase to use in an intro aimed at a general readership. Perhaps as a compromise we could link to Gliding (flight), which contains the useful explanation that All powered aircraft are capable of gliding when flying with engine power reduced to zero. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed text to "When the pilots concluded that the airliner would be unable to reach any airfield in unpowered flight, they turned it southbound just upriver from the George Washington Bridge and glided approximately eight miles to a successful intact ditching ..." which now includes both terms in a way which I think accurately describes what happened. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks: a great improvement! Personally I'm quite happy with that. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely it isn't necessary to give the flight number twice in the very first sentence of the intro, is it? (US Airways Flight 1549 (Callsign: Cactus 1549)). And I would have thought that mention of "Cactus" could safely be left to its proper place in the article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 19:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

North River

Let's stick to the sources on this one: no news outlets covering the story called it the North River. (There is a single blog there that mentions the North River, and that author is quoting from our article.) North River is pretty much an archaic term in this context, so let's not go too far in trying to repopularize it. I think it's sufficient to mention it as the "North River section of the Hudson" in the "Ditching" section and to pipe "Pier 86" in the lede to North River piers.

But incidentally, thank you for the link to nrhss.org; I've been looking for just such a reference to add to North River (New York-New Jersey).--Father Goose (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While "North River" may be an archaic usage when referring to the entire 300+ mile length of the Hudson, it is not when applied to the section between Manhattan and New jersey which is not actually a river but a tidal estuary that comprises part of New York Harbor. The link is to the specific waterway in which the plane ditched -- the North River -- which is also how it is listed on many maps such as this one that you yourself posted in the North River article:

one

The wikilink in the intro should therefore be to the article that most specifically describes where the plane actually ditched. I would prefer to identify it in the text of the intro as the "North River section of the Hudson River" for clarity, but if if it is still just called the "Hudson River" there, it should still be linked to the correct Wikipedia article for where it actually ditched which is the North River (New York-New Jersey) link. Just because some news sources do not accurately use the North River name for where it ditched does not mean that Wikipedia should compound that mistake. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

I would suggest omitting the North River mention in the intro and note it later in the Ditching section. We want the intro to be as clear and concise as possible and I doubt most readers (including me, before I read this article) will be familiar with the North River, even if it is wikilinked. If North River is an old fashioned usage I'm not convinced it needs to appear at all. Fletcher (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the article used as a source in Hudson River is to be believed, the estuary portion of the Hudson extends about 150 miles upriver to Troy: [12]. But that's not relevant to our conversation here.

The point here is that it's not for you or me to say that calling the river west of Manhattan "the Hudson" is inaccurate. Is its "official" name the North River? Not according to NOAA: [13] nor according to USGS: [14], which lists "North River" as one of several "alternative names" for the Hudson, and not a separate entity. Being an aviator, you may have some aviation maps of New York City; do they call it the North River?

The edits I've done to North River (New York-New Jersey) should show to you that I like the "North River", but I know not to insist that it's the "correct name" of the lower Hudson. It's at best a name of that portion of the river -- an enjoyable historical facet of the lower Hudson, but not its One True Name.--Father Goose (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't believe that the words "North River" should be in the intro, but instead introduced and explained in the main article I can accept that for the reasons you gave. However I still think that the Wiki page to which "Hudson River" links to in the intro of this particular article should be the "North River (New York-New Jersey)" page because that describes where the plane ditched with much greater precision than the generic Hudson River page does. The first image that appears when the North River page comes up is an aerial photograph which actually shows both the location of LaGuardia Airport and of the North River as it relates to Manhattan. The first image on the generic Hudson River page, however, is of a view of the river some forty miles to the north at the Bear Mountain Bridge near Peekskill, New York which can be quite misleading as it has nothing whatever to do with the locations of anything related to the accident. I have therefore deleted the words "North River" from the opening line of the intro, and linked the words "Hudson River" to the page that best shows where flight actually ditched in the river. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

I can see that reasoning. With the recent changes I made to the North River article, I think the distinction between its current and historical use is pretty well outlined, so I see less of a problem linking to it from this article for the sake of more specificity and a nice visual. In this article, I'm going to change "Pier 86, North River" back to "Pier 86" (piped to North River piers), and beyond that, I'm satisfied that the issue is settled.--Father Goose (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

similar incident in Denver

On Feb. 3, a similar incident like this one happened in Denver but the pilot landed back at the airport not a body of water. Would it be relevant to mention this here briefly?Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that bird strikes are quite common, and this is probably only being reported because bird strikes are "in the news" after US Air 1549. This birdstrike doesn't seem to have disabled one engine, much less two, and the aircraft did not have to make a forced landing. In that sense it's not a "similar incident". It wouldn't be necessarily wrong to add it, but it's the kind of thing I can see getting trimmed before long. Fletcher (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Status of plane

Was the plane salvagable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it was written off. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

AIRBUS Accident Information Telex

Should AIRBUS Accident Information Telex be referenced or at least the text reflect information in the Telex? The Telex is not available officially in the Internet, but it is available on many bulletin boards, for example: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6993431&postcount=128

According to the Telex, both engines had some thrust available all the time (contradicting "loss of all thrust from both engines" in the article intro. Full text of the telex:

FROM : AIRBUS FLIGHT SAFETY DEPARTMENT TOULOUSE

ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX - ACCIDENT INFORMATION TELEX

SUBJECT: US AIRWAYS Flight US1549 ACCIDENT IN NEW YORK

OUR REF: USA US1549 AIT N°2 DATED 23rd JANUARY 2009 Previous ref: USA US1549 AIT N°1 DATED 16 JANUARY 2009

SUBJECT: US AIRWAYS Flight US1549 ACCIDENT IN NEW YORK

This is an update to the AIT N°1 issued on 16th January 2009.

The information which follow has been approved for release by the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) and represent the highlights from the initial analysis of the available data: mainly Digital Flight Data Recorder, aircraft components, ATC script and radar.

The A320 aircraft was operating a scheduled flight US1549 from New York, La Guardia airport to Charlotte, Virginia on 15th January 2009, when the aircraft ditched on the Hudson river shortly after take-off at 15:30 local time.

The aircraft performed a normal flex take-off in slats/flaps configuration 2 from La Guardia airport with the co-pilot as Pilot Flying.

At time T0, soon after the aircraft was in clean configuration at an airspeed of about 210kts, both engines suffered a simultaneous and sudden loss of thrust at about 3000ft pressure altitude. The engines N1 decreased abruptly to 35% and 15% on engines 1 & 2 respectively. This sudden and simultaneous loss of engine thrust is consistent with the reported bird strike on both engines and also with the initial observations from the remaining engine 2. (Recovery of engine 1 being still in progress).

The captain took immediately control of the aircraft making smooth nose-down pitch inputs to maintain the airspeed at about 200kts.

At approximately T0+20 sec, the crew changed the aircraft heading towards the Hudson river.

There was no more response from the engine N°2. The engine N°1 continued to deliver a minimum thrust (N1 around 35%) for about 2 minutes and 20 seconds after T0.

At approximately T0+2min20sec, the crew attempted at about 500ft/200kts a quick relight on engine 1 without success.

The crew then selected slat/flap configuration 2 which was achieved.

From then on and until the ditching, the heading remained almost constant. The speed decreased from 200kts to 130kts.

Ditching occurred 3 minutes and 30 seconds after the thrust loss in the following conditions:
- Airspeed was about 130kts (at the Gross Weight, Valpha max is 125kts and Valpha prot is 132kts)
- Pitch attitude was 10 degrees up and bank attitude was at 0 degree.
- Flaps and slats were in configuration 2.
- Landing gear up

It is to be noted that at all times during the event and up until the ditching, the normal electrical supply (AC and DC buses) and all three hydraulic systems were fully operational and the flight control law remained in Normal law.

In line with ICAO Annex 13 International convention, the US NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) continues the investigation assisted by Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) as State of aircraft manufacturer. Airbus continues to support the NTSB investigation with advisors on-site and in the various investigation working groups.

Airbus has no specific recommendations at this stage. Should there be the need for recommendation as a result of the investigation, operators will be notified accordingly.

VICE PRESIDENT FLIGHT SAFETY

AIRBUS

IlkkaP (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider this a viable reliable source for the information in it, personally, at least until the NTSB releases its final report. (Interesting note, 35% N1 is basically ground idle thrust on a modern high-bypass turbofan. If #1 was generating 35% N1 to the end, it was still running, but only barely.) rdfox 76 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources." 71.236.251.6 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Note the "usually" in that statement. In any event, we're not actually citing the forum posting itself; we'd be citing the official Airbus telex. It's not any different from citing a television broadcast or film as a reference after seeing it on YouTube. While YouTube itself isn't a reliable source, and can't be linked on Wiki, we can reference the material actually shown on it, regardless of whether it's posted legally or not (the reason for banning YouTube links).

In any event, the telex includes important information that won't be available from a more typical source (like the NTSB report) for at least a year, so I'd invoke WP:IAR on this one. rdfox 76 (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But is there any proof this is real and not something someone just decided to type up? And why would it pop up at an Apple speculation forum? 71.236.251.6 (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Time for Archive 4! Could whoever did the previous archives please move the bulk of this page? I'd do it myself if I knew which archiving method was used. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

done. J. Van Meter (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And the method used was ... ? Cut 'n' paste—or something altogether more sophisticated? I'd like to know for future reference. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

cut and paste it is. J. Van Meter (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that's reassuring! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Climb out?

What is climb out and why would aviation jargon belong in the intro? 842U (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See climb. As for why aviation jargon belongs in the intro, maybe, just maybe, because this is an article about an aviation incident. There are specific terms for specific phases of flight. Mind blowing, I know. - auburnpilot talk 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Condescension is not needed, no matter what the subject. Please keep your comments civil. It was a legitimate question, the answer should be respectful and considerate. – jaksmata 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart, please. Some editors have been doing their damnedest to remove any word or phrase that has any relation to aviation. A question asking why an aviation term is used in the intro of an article about an aviation incident is about as legitimate as asking why we use political terms in a politician's bio. Sometimes the connotation is just as important as the definition. - auburnpilot talk 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

So, the solution then is use terms the reader won't understand, e.g., "on climb out"? Gotcha 842U (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the solution is to link uncommon terms and provide a brief explanation, as is standard throughout Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As a pilot I can say from experience that the initial climb out is a very specific and always critical phase of flight because the plane is still flying at a relatively slow speed, is at or close (METO) to being under maximum power, is usually heavy and perhaps even still over its maximum landing weight (full fuel load), and it does not yet have much altitude "in the bank" to provide the aircrew much time to find a place to put down if there is a sudden loss of power at low altitude as there was in the case of US Airway 1549. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Great guys, but don't expect any other readers besides "the pilots," to know what you mean by "on climb out." Furthermore, you'd think if linking to climb were enough, that article might mention "climb out." But low and behold, even an entire encylopedia article on the phrase itself...is missing the phrase itself. But go ahead, write "for pilots." 842U (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Magic. Using correct terminology is not writing "for pilots"; it's writing accurately. Also, a simple Google search brings up several news articles using the term. Some of the articles are about Flight 1549, while others are not. - auburnpilot talk 22:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can clarify, what part of "wikt:climb" "wikt:out" is confusing? It doesn't seem to be terribly specialized vocabulary.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then show me another single reputable account of the ditching that used the term "on climb out." I'm thinking The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, or The Washington Post. The term obviously means something extremely specific. And once again, the pilot editors feel their doing a great service to the average reader by not defining their terminology. So go ahead, show me the other reports that used this term... 842U (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should have left my comments in. The incessant nonsense in this articles lead seems unstoppable. Hudson North? What the hell? Climb phase? Oh my God!. ", they turned the aircraft southbound while about a mile upriver from the George Washington Bridge" Seriously, why is it so impossible to produce a human readable lead section for an article here? MickMacNee (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what is it with this stupid article that any idea that the LEDE is supposed to be an accessible simple summary flies right out of the window? Pun intended. MickMacNee (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Think you could dial down your comments here and in edit summary? You don't have a monopoly on clarity - in fact your last edit left the lede too cryptic in my view (i.e., hitting birds does not automatically translate to the lay reader as loss of power - that needed to be stated). There's really no need for the nastiness. Tvoz/talk 03:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jargon needs to be linked. Advising people to look for it in Google is not the right way to do things. The term ditch is linked. There are probably links to words like airplane and Hudson River. It's a good bet that a lot more readers know what those things are, than know what the aviation term "climb out" means. To the average reader, "climb out" is what the passengers did after the plane ditched. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point BB. Tvoz/talk 03:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Climb out was linked, to climb. My point about Google was that the term is used in reliable sources, contrary to what 842U wants to believe (Fox News, Dayton Daily News, New York Times, and others). I wouldn't direct a reader to Google, but I expect an editor to use it (I don't intend to hand feed any editor). As I stated above, link uncommon words and provide a basic explanation. Don't, however, remove a term or phrase simply because its origin lies in aviation. - auburnpilot talk 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the article has been pirated by pilots-editors, much to its detriment. Two of the sources that you cite, AuburnPilot, for "on climb out" use the term in highly technical context, and the other isn't referring to the term "on climb out" as the critical phase of flight.

These three instances actually show how to properly use the term (or just the words), and show how NOT to use them in a general readership article:

The Fox News used the term when Geraldo Rivera quoted from an Airworthiness Directive: "RIVERA: A random bird strike? I hold in my hand what's called an Airworthiness Directive. All right, this Airworthiness Directive, which is, in effect, December 31, 2008 reads: "This Airworthiness Directive results from an Airbus A-321 airplane powered by a..." and it goes on to designate the engine, the turbo fan engines experiencing high pressure compressor stalls during climb out after takeoff. In other words, airplanes with that Airbus with the engines that that airplane had were suffering stalls…"

The Dayton Daily News used the term — at the end of their article — when quoting Kevin Poorman, a senior research engineer at the University of Dayton Research Institute, and in a context where he both used the term and explained what it was: a critical phase in the flight: "The plane brought down on Thursday reportedly hit one or more birds, disabling its two engines. If both engines are hit and they lose power on both of them, especially in a critical stage of the aircraft's flight like climb-out or approach, then it doesn't leave time to do any corrective action," Poormon said."

New York Times used the words "climb out" (vs. "on climb out") without using them as aeronautical jargon , the same way a six year old would say "now I'll climb out of my fort." The words are the same, but here the New York Times, near the end of the article, is describing a simple action rather than the "critical phase of aircraft flight:" The A320 would normally climb out of LaGuardia with the nose pointed high in the air, limiting forward visibility and would have been moving at close to 200 miles an hour, at which speed a pilot would have little time to recognize a flock of birds and take evasive action, aviation experts said.

In other words, the introduction to a Wikipedia article is not an Airworthiness Directive, and is not the place to introduce a technical quote of a senior research engineer. It's possible the pilots who are editing this article have lost perspective on what an introduction to a Wikipedia article is actually about. In the elegant parlance of our article, the pilot-editors have struck birds 842U (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of text, but nothing really meaningful is there. Whether or not the plane was climbing out of LaGuardia or in the phase of flight referred to as climb out, it's a simple statement of fact. Personally, I'd rather include the statement in the body of the article rather than the lead, as such detail is not needed in the opening paragraph. But it should be somewhere, as it is fact. Wherever, I would suggest something along the lines of "During climb out, the portion of flight operation between takeoff and the initial cruising altitude, the Airbus A320 struck a flock of birds and lost thrust in both engines". Obvious it can be tweaked, and should be. - auburnpilot talk 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And its all back in again. Seriously, why is it not possible for some people to see that currently, the lede section is a total nonsense from any normal perspective, and it does not do what it is supposed to do - summarise the article in an accessible manner. Nobody cares about half the stuff in there at the lede stage, it might as well be a duplicate of the ditching section right now. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the climb—"out" or otherwise—need to be mentioned at all in the lead? (I notice, incidentally, that there is only one other reference to climbing in the entire article.) Almost all readers will know that after takeoff planes just tend to, well, climb. Given the additional information that 2 minutes later the aircraft hit the birds at 3,000 ft, any lingering doubts as to the vertical movement of the plane are quickly dispelled.

With this in mind, & incorporating a couple more simplifications, the first 3 sentences of the 2nd para could be rewritten along the following lines:

About two minutes after taking off at 3:25 pm, the Airbus 320 struck a flock of large birds at about 3,000 feet resulting in an immediate loss of thrust from both engines. Realizing that the airliner would be unable to reach any airfield from that altitude in unpowered flight, the pilots turned south about a mile north of the George Washington Bridge. After gliding above the river for some eight miles, the aircrew successfully ditched the airliner intact at 3:31 pm not far from the USS Intrepid Museum (Pier 86, North River) in midtown Manhattan.

I've deleted the weasel word significant referring to the loss of thrust. I was under the impression that the loss of power was complete: is that right? If so, we'd better spell it out. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, loss of thrust was not complete. Engine 1 fan was revving at 35% speed and engine 2 fan at 15% speed after the bird strikes until the ditching. Although not enough to maintain level flight, there was still some thrust left.IlkkaP (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Climb Out: A flight's initial climb out is a very specific and always critical phase of flight because the plane is still flying at a relatively slow speed, is at or close (METO) to being under maximum power, is usually flying heavy and is often even still over its maximum landing weight because of a full fuel load, and it does not yet have much altitude "in the bank" to provide the aircrew much time to find a place to put down if there is a sudden loss of power at low altitude as there was in the case of US Airway 1549.(Centpacrr (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't suppose anyone's disputing the accuracy of this (repeated) paragraph. I'm off on a wikibreak from this article: good luck to the remaining editors. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Capt, Sullenberger in his interview on 60 MINUTES on February 8, 2009: "Well, it was a normal climb out in every regard. And about 90 seconds after takeoff, I notice there were birds, filling the entire windscreen, from top to bottom, left to right, large birds, close, too close to avoid," (Centpacrr (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Use of "sic" in this article

It is not necessary with reference to the call sign. It is spelled correctly and is otherwise proper and normal usage.

Sic also belongs in brackets and not parentheses. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the wrong flight number.Tvoz/talk 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point: it indicates that "1539" isn't just a typo. BTW I don't know why someone unlinked the word sic. It's rather a scholarly term, & I doubt whether it's widely understood: hence the link, which I've now restored.

The fact that both Sullenberger & the ATC get the flight no. wrong is, perhaps paradoxically, proof of just how professionally everyone reacted to the emergency. They were entirely focused on the essential task of getting the aircraft down safely: the flight no. was an irrelevant detail at that stage. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A better question is why they used "Cactus" apparently as a pseudonym for USAirways? With all the pedantic detail about the aviation field, that explanation is lacking at present. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Bugs, actually it isn't missing at all -- and never has been. Simply click on footnote 34 immediately next to the callsign in the article and it will take you directly to the FAA reference document ("PART 1 Section 3. FDC General NOTAMs (FDC 8/5299) September 1, 2008) that explains the reason that the call sign for all US Airways flight is now "Cactus." (This is, by the way, why these are called "references.") (Centpacrr (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it is missing. The footnote is in the wrong place, but aside from that, the linked document does not explain where "cactus" came from, only that it's to be used. My question is, where did they come up with "cactus" as a name? Why "cactus" and not "tumbleweed", for example? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me where, in this "citation", that it explains how they came up with "cactus": "FDC 8/5299 - SPECIAL NOTICE AS A RESULT OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF US AIRWAYS (USA) AND AMERICA WEST AIRLINES (AWE) EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2008 AT 0800 UTC UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. ALL FLIGHTS OPERATED UNDER EITHER CORPORATE LIVERY WILL HAVE THE TELEPHONY "CACTUS". AIRCRAFT OPERATORS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT ATC WILL UTILIZE THE CALL SIGN "CACTUS" WHEN COMMUNICATING WITH OR REFERRING TO THOSE FLIGHTS. WIE UNTIL UFN." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that it matters why the callsign is Cactus. What does matter is that it is accurately reportd that it is Cactus. There's scope here for a List of airline callsigns if anyone really wants to write it. I've wikilinked sic yet again, as it is a word that many will not be familiar with. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Latin for "thus", and is used as a cue to the reader that although the item that precedes it might look like an error, it's reported the way it was stated. A link to "sic" is a good idea, just as a link to the definition of "climb out" was a good idea. Whether it "matters" why it's called cactus depends on whether you think the names of things in general matter. Some readers might, including readers who already know what "sic" means. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Call sign#Aviation has a little more about call signs. As Centpacrr notes, America West's association with Arizona, and the desert, is a very good guess as to where it came from. Fletcher (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of the linked NOTAM is to explain why the flight was not identified for ATC purposes as "US AIR(WAYS) 1549" as it would have been prior to Sept. 1, 2008, but had been changed on that date to "Cactus" for all US Airways flights because of the consolidation of the formerly Virginia-based US Airways and America West Airlines, a carrier based in Arizona, which had long used "Cactus" as its ATC identifier in radiotelephony. I don't know why you think the "footnote is in the wrong place" as the numbered link to it is immediately next to the callsign in the text to which it refers. Is there somewhere else that you would have expected it to be? (Centpacrr (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

[out]I don't think we need to cite the erroneous callsign 1539 twice in this article. Reference to the callsign could safely be dropped from the Ditching section (where it merely interrupts the flow of the narrative). It's far easier to justify its inclusion in the Accident investigation section, since that section explicitly discusses the recently-released audio tapes.

I've deleted the first mention & slightly reworded the second. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The callsign is appropriate here as this is the first mention in the narrative of the report from the flight of the bird strike. Deleting it also removes the link that explains why US Airways flights use the callsign "Cactus" instead of US AIR(ways) as had been done by the carrier until September 1, 2008, and which was the main reason that the callsign was included in the first place. The redundant verbatim repetition of the pilots' report of the bird strike (which was added much later to accident investigation section) has been deleted. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

The footnote that explains "cactus" is not next to "cactus", it's next to the flight number. That's why I said it was in the wrong place. If they picked up "cactus" from America West's designation, that makes sense and it answers my question. Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we've mentioned that the pilots got the flight no. wrong ("1539"), I don't think it would be unreasonable to quote the ATC's mistaken "1529" (repeated more than once on the audio tape). This isn't a facetious point: I think it vividly illustrates the extraordinary pressure all participants were working under during this emergency. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Borat?

Has Borat recently developed an interest in editing WP? Some recent edits here & in the article itself might suggest that he has. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What Type of Birds

there is no mention of the type of birds were that took the engines out... I referenced it for this reason, so im sure others would want to know as well.Andrew Powers (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure we'll want to get the genus and species into the intro. 842U (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on the photos of the engines, I'd say they're a species of sh-redbird. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The type of bird is being determined by DNA testing conducted by the Smithsonian Institution, and by their examination of the feather recovered from one of the engines. (Centpacrr (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

When the information is released, it can be added to the article. For now, "birds" is sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure 842U will be pleased to hear that we did briefly have the full scientific name of the geese. I'm afraid I deleted this didactic detail, which is of course available in the linked article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Andrew, an important question, especially given that most (if not all) testing of aircraft bird strike is typically performed using a standard chicken of pre-defined standard weight? But a more significant question, not dealt with in the bird strike article, might be whether or not changes in migratory paths are increasing the risk to aircraft using coastal airports. Geese and ducks seem to be particularly hazardous. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter of particular concern at my home airport, Philadelphia International Airport (KPHL), which has the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge extending right off of the threshold of runways 9L and 9R. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Opening of the rear door?

"Evacuation" section contains claim:

One rear door was opened by a panicked passenger, causing the aircraft to fill more quickly with water

I suspect the validity of this claim. One of the references (48, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/nyregion/17flight.html) contradicts the claim by explaining:

Inside, as if heeding one collective thought, everyone moved to the rear of the cabin, only to find the exit doors there locked tight and water rising as the tail dipped below the surface.

“If that door opened, everything would go under,” said Brad Wentzell, 31, a patio-door salesman from Charlotte, the flight’s destination. The crowd turned and began moving up the aisle all at once.

Furthermore, in the post-ditching videos both rear doors seem to be closed. Opening of an armed door would automatically inflate the emergency chute which is not visible.

Therefore, I don't believe this sentence to be valid. Could it be removed? IlkkaP (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It may a actually be valid. The flight attendant who was in that section described the opening of the door by a passenger, and her efforts to close the door (which failed) as water rushed in up to her chest level. The interview was on 60 Minutes last night, and she described that particular event while in the presence of the entire crew, none of whom contradicted her. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, have to believe. Still sounds strange that the emergency chute (apparently) didn't inflate. IlkkaP (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[ec]Flight attendant Doreen Welsh, who was seriously injured with a deep gash in her leg, said "one panicked passenger opened a rear door against her instructions, which let water in." [15] --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the more interesting aspects of the incident. Hopefully much more will come to light about what actually happened with the door. In the 60 minutes episode Doreen Welsh seemed the most emotional of all the crew, saying she wouldn't put on her uniform, giving one reason that the uniform itself was torn to shreds... I seriously doubt she only owned one uniform or that 60 minutes wanted her to put on a shredded uniform. It seemed like she was being emotional in the interview even. During the incident she said she panicked and started pushing people toward the front. Also, have we ever heard how she got the gash in her leg? 842U (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[Discussion of "Panic" moved to a new section below]

This is a YouTube video of the A320 emergency door opening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXBRrgxnpc I don't believe it would possible to close the door once it is opened. Someone might have tried to access the door, but not actually opening it. Water was probably flowing in from damage when the tail hit water. IlkkaP (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There was some reported damage to the tail from the impact, but according to Ms. Walsh in the 60 MINUTES interview, most of the water in the rear of the cabin came when a passenger opened the door "slightly" which she was then unable to reclose tightly. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't think this is correct. On Discovery channel there was a special about what happened. This was not mentioned once. There was mention of a passenger told to go to there nearest exit and open the door. The device on the door did not inflate like it was suppose to and the attendant told him to jump. He didn't open it without being told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.95.29 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The door referred to in the Discovery Channel program which was opened by the passenger in seat 2A and from which the slide did not immediately deploy was the forward port side door. The door discussed in this section of talk was a rear door which had been cracked open by a passenger without instruction to do so resulting in the flooding of the aft portion of the cabin when the flight attendant was unable to reseal it. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC))

"Panic"

This is one of the more interesting aspects of the incident. Hopefully much more will come to light about what actually happened with the door. In the 60 minutes episode Doreen Welsh seemed the most emotional of all the crew, saying she wouldn't put on her uniform, giving one reason that the uniform itself was torn to shreds... I seriously doubt she only owned one uniform or that 60 minutes wanted her to put on a shredded uniform. It seemed like she was being emotional in the interview even. During the incident she said she panicked and started pushing people toward the front. Also, have we ever heard how she got the gash in her leg? 842U (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Flight attendant Doreen Welsh did not say in the 60 Minutes interview that she had panicked, instead she said "I had some panic in the back (among the passengers) and so had to calm the them down." She also said that it was a passenger who cracked open the rear door which she then tried to close again because it was flooding the rear of the cabin.(Centpacrr (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

And Centpacrr, your point is? Doreen did not say verbatim "she panicked." I did not use quotation marks. But here is an exact quote: "I just went crazy back there." Close enough. These were some of her exact quotes: "The most shocked I'd ever been in my life." "It was crazy back there." "There was no doubt in my mind it was over." "I just went crazy and started yelling at people and pushing people to go over the seats." I stand by my characterization. And without a doubt, she did an amazing job given her considerably more violent landing and more dangerous immediate circumstances after the landing. 842U (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you quoted Flight Attendant Walsh as saying that during "the incident she said shepanicked and started pushing people toward the front." She certainly said that she pushed people toward the front which was exactly what she was supposed to do. But she definitely did not say that in the interview or any other time that she had panicked. "Panic" is defined as "a sudden fear which dominates or replaces thinking" -- a condition that leads to inaction, not action. I know of no evidence that Ms. Walsh or any other member of the aircrew did that, and certainly none of them said that they did.

Ms. Walsh certainly did indicate in the interview that she was fearful, but her demonstrated response to that fear was not to panic and become petrified by it, but was instead to do what she was trained to do: to get the passengers out of the plane as quickly and safely as possible. If she had to do that by "going crazy", i.e., by being extremely forceful in giving her instructions to get the passengers to overcome their panic and move forward to get out of the plane, then that is exactly what she was supposed to do. If she had actually panicked, however, by definition that would have rendered her incapable of doing her duties and that was clearly not the case. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Ms. Walsh's exact words: "I just went crazy back there." By definition, panic does not preclude action. People panic and act all the time... sometimes they get lucky. If you watch the interview, and I mean this out of no dis-respect to Ms. Walsh, anyone can see and feel that her energy is very different from the rest of the crew. Her description of what happened in the rear of the plane didn't reflect the personal calm of her crew-mates. Even in the interview she was agitated and anxious. You make a good point that the training she received may have helped her push through what I call her panicky anxiety to do what she did. Still, what happened in the rear of that plane with respect to her energy and that door were one of the more touch-and-go aspects of the incident — note use of aeronautic jargon. You are perfectly welcome to hyper-analyze what I've written here, and most likely will. I could care less. I stand by my original statement. 842U (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I watched the interview very carefully and could see that Ms. Walsh was agitated, distressed, and had clearly been through more of an ordeal in the back of the plane than the rest of the aircrew. My only point is that you specifically said above that she said that she had panicked thereby ascribing that word to her and she just did not say that. That wasyour word, not her's. The dictionary definition of panic is "a sudden overwhelming fear, with or without cause, that produces hysterical or irrational behavior, and that often spreads quickly through a group of persons or animals." You are, of course, free to interpret how she behaved in any way you want to, but Ms. Walsh herself never said in the 60 MINUTES that she had "panicked." (Centpacrr (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Centpacrr, you are hilarious. Nobody, not even 842U, cares if she "went crazy" or "panicked" except you. Give it a rest. 842U isn't trying to change the text in the article, and neither is anyone else.

The original question of this thread (was the rear door opened) has already been answered. Personally, I agree with you that she did not "panic", but it's so completely irrelevant. – jaksmata 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that you have both missed the point. The whole purpose of the safety and emergency training of aircrew is to teach them how to prevent panic in themselves and to mitigate it in the passengers. The only time Ms. Walsh used the word "panic" in her interview had to do with her calming down panicked passengers just prior to the ditching. ("I had some panic in the back and so had to get out of my seat to calm the them down." )

It is this very training that has been correctly credited for being responsible for the pilots being able to successfully ditch the their very seriously compromised plane virtually intact, and for the fact that all 155 people on board were able to safely evacuate the cabin and survive the accident. The only reason I brought this up at all was that 842U stated that Flight Attendant Walsh said in a nationally broadcast television interview that "she had "panicked"" which was simplynot true. This may be a small and insignificant point to people who have never been actively involved in aviation, but it is not to those of us who have been. Panic in an aviation emergency can have huge consequences for the outcome. It is hardly irrelevant. (See "Coming to Grips With Panic" by Sharon Barthelmess, MA "Cabin Crew Safety", Vol 23, No 2 March/April, 1988; Flight Safety Foundation, Publisher) (Centpacrr (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Wow, that really puts me in my place. If only I knew how to recognize what's important like you do. I weep for myself. I'm definitely crying for some reason. – jaksmata 20:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, sir, it is you who said that whether or not a member of the aircrew "panicked" during the accident is "completely irrelevant," not I. I am not trying to put you or anyone else "in their place," only to point out a basic and universal tenet of flight safety. You are welcome to your view, of course, but I think that you will find that it is not one that is shared within the aviation and flight safety community. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I said it was completely irrelevant, referring to this thread, not referring to the aviation community (context!).

By the way don't keep moving my comments outside of the "Opening of the rear door?" thread. You are violating talk page guidelines. See in particular the bullet on split threads that says: "Splitting a thread should not in any way alter the meaning of any comments therein;" [emphasis theirs]. I have referred to "this thread" twice now, meaning "Opening of the rear door?". This thread is the subject of my posts, not panic. Panic: I agree with you. This thread: Irrelevant. – jaksmata 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The only posts I moved to the "Panic" sub-section were the ones relating directly to the panic issue although I left a copy in both places of the one post that addressed both the panic and door issues. These included two posts of yours both of which were addressed directly to me and related only to the "panic" question. The only reason I moved them at all was that you complained that they were irrelevant to the "door" question which you also observed has already been answered. I also left a bold faced notation in place of the moved posts that indicates what had been moved immediately below. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

In that case, thank you for your good-faith effort to resolve my concern, and thank you for leaving it as a sub-section. – jaksmata 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, sir. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

When I read the above I almost panicked. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I almost panicked but didn't. Do you get that: I didn't panic. Actually, it should be very clear to all — save one, that is — that what is packaged here as erudition, is in fact a form of... how shall I say (suspecting I'll be quoted)... er... trolling. 842U (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I am puzzled as to why you seem to be taking this discussion so personally, or why you perceive it as trolling. Nothing I have said has ever been meant to be taken that way. I have only ever tried to make two points regarding the issue of panic:

• 1) Flight Attendant Walsh did not say at any time in the 60 MINUTES interview that she had "panicked" as you stated that she had.

• 2) Had Ms. Walsh (or any of the other crew members) actually panicked before or after the ditching, it is highly unlikely that she (or they) would have been able to carry out their duties to protect the passengers and evacuate the plane in the professional and competent manner that, based on the excellent outcome, they most assuredly did.

For a discussion of this later point, please see page 2 of the article "Stress, Behavior, Training and Safety (in Emergency Evacuation)" from the journal "Cabin Crew Safety" (Vol 25, No 2), May/June, 1990. The Flight Safety Foundation, Publisher. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Maybe everyone panicked and no-one wanted to admit it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsequiturs in the lead

According to WP:LEAD, it should summarize content from the article, yet looking at the references we find several that are used only in the lead. At FAR, this is one of the first signs for a reviewer that the lead contains content that is not in the article. Let's have a look to see if the statements in the lead supported by the following refs are actually in the body of the article.
The refs in question that need to be chased down are:

• Munro, Ian (January 16, 2009). "Passenger jet plunges into Hudson River". The Age (Melbourne). http://www.theage.com.au/world/passenger-jet-plunges-into-hudson-river-20090116-7ie3.html?page=-1. Retrieved on February 9, 2009.
• US Airways (January 15, 2009). US Airways Flight 1549 Initial Report. Press release. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=196799&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1245239. Retrieved on February 9, 2009.
• US Airways (January 15, 2009). US Airways Flight 1549 Update # 2. Press release. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=196799&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1245262. Retrieved on February 9, 2009.
• Wald, Matthew L. (January 16, 2009). "Plane Crew Is Credited for Nimble Reaction". New York Times: p. A25. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/nyregion/16pilot.html?_r=1. Retrieved on February 9, 2009.
• Gittens, Hasani; Hogarty, David (January 15, 2009). "Plane Crashes Into Hudson: Hero Pilot Saves Everyone". Chicago, Illinois: WMAQ-TV (MSNBC). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679133/. Retrieved on February 9, 2009.
• Mike Brooks, Jeanne Meserve, Mike Ahlers (January 15, 2009). "Airplane in Hudson River after failed takeoff, FAA says". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/15/new.york.plane.crash/index.html. Retrieved on January 15, 2009.
• Michelle Maskaly, AP (January 16, 2009). "Pilot in Hudson River Crash Flew Air Force Fighter Jets". Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480108,00.html. Retrieved on January 16, 2009.
  LeadSongDog (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

All seven of these references are to articles or documents published within 24 hours after the accident and have most likely been replaced in the article by later references which contain more up to date details as well as the earlier information. Perhaps all that is required is to substitute the later references in the lead for the earlier, now stale ones. The text of the lead itself, however, appears accurate, up to date, and is supported by the more detailed accounts of the flight, ditching, rescue, etc, in the main article. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, but please see my last comment in Intro_(again) above. The mere fact that "Cactus" is mentioned in the text is not in itself a reason for introducing it in the first sentence. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add "Cactus" to the lead, somebody else did. I agree that it does not need to be there because it is fully explained and footnoted in the "Ditching" section and so I have removed it. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

If replacement refs are found and used, please strike through the replaced ref in the above list.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Best practice examples

For best-practice examples, see Category:FA-Class Aviation accident articles.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Refs

I have formatted all refs from #1–67 (except #63 and 64). They were a bit of a mess and inconsistently formatted. Authors should now be listed last, first; newspaper and magazine titles are italicised, and all links have been checked to make sure they still work, which is why I've updated the accessdate on them. Those that didn't exist any more have been replaced with other versions (a lot were AP articles that appeared in many publications). I will finish the rest tomorrow. Regards Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that altering the accessdates was quite the correct thing to do, but what's done is done. Good work in checking and formatting them though. Mjroots (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not? I accessed them. Some of the references had expired already. It shows that all references work as of February 11 or 12. I'll continue to work on the remainder today, but if you wish I won't update the accessdates. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If the link is OK when you check it, there's no need to change the date. If you have to alter a link, then the date should be altered too. Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Brittany Catanzaro

I disagree completely that including the age (20) of Brittany Catanzaro, captain of the the ferry Governor Thomas H. Kean, is an irrelevant detail in the overall narrative of the ditching and rescue. That the aircrew of a fully loaded airliner would be able to successfully ditch in the North River in the middle of the winter and everyone on board would be successfully rescued is a remarkable story. That the captain of one of the commercial ferry boats that was a key to that successful rescue effort was a twenty year old female is, I think, even more remarkable, and was the subject of major interest and news coverage in the days following the accident. If the captain of the Gov. Kane were a 47 year old male, for instance, then the age and gender would not have been a significant detail or element of the story. That she is a 20 year old female, however, certainly is. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Do we have sources that tell us the usual age and sex of new ferryboat captains? LeadSongDog (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the New York Times, Capt. Catanzaro is both the youngest ever and first (and only) female NY Waterways ferry captain. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this whole incident was remarkable, and fought to mention it in the 2009 article for that very reason. I also find it fascinating that the heroes of the day ranged from an atypical airline captain (a former fighter pilot and a published scholar) to an atypical boat captain (a young woman). But unless we can demonstrate that someone in a reliable source has also found this fascinating, then we can't emphasize it without orienting ourselves in the direction of original research. If Catanzaro was indeed "the subject of major interest and news coverage," then something substantive from this interest or coverage should probably be mentioned. Simply inserting her age may make the reader go, "Wow!" but alas it is not the job of an encyclopedia to make jaws drop. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at the linked reference source which does just that, and that's why I added the link when I restored her age to the entry. I really don't see, however, how anyone can seriously dismiss the fact that one of the key figures in the remarkably successful rescue effort (which is the section of the US Airways 1549 article in which the information is included) was a 20-year old female ferry boat captain as being an irrelevant detail. This is not original research, but a well sourced fact that was widely reported in the media and for which a Google search currently returns 1,730 hits. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

That seems fine to me. I like the way our current wording gives her (obviously feminine) name, rather than going out of its way to state that she's female, which would be slightly patronizing ("look what a girl can do!"). In short, it's fine to state notable facts as long as we can avoid editorializing. Fletcher (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The fact that she is 20 years old is extensively sourced. The opinion that this matters is not—at least as far as I have seen. The source you provided emphasizes the significance of her gender ("Catanzaro, the authority's first female captain..."; "The captain seemed embarrassed by all the attention she has attracted, not only for the rescue, but for her presence in a male-dominated profession") and, in fact, downplays the importance of her age a little bit ("In many ways, the captain is a typical 20-year-old"). I never said that it "is" original research to point out her age; I said that we're "orienting ourselves in the direction of original research" if we go to unusual lengths to imply that something matters without citing a source that is explicit about its mattering. It is not standard practice to state the ages of encyclopedic subjects in non-biographical articles. It is not clear what her age has to do with her ability to command a boat or to rescue people from the water. The fact that two unusual people proved to be heroes during an unusual event is quite poetic, and I wish that I could use this opinion of mine to justify mentioning her age. But to do so would be to be to do an unusual thing for an original reason. We can do unusual things and we can have original reasons for doing things, but when we do both at the same time, we make things stick out like sore thumbs on an encyclopedia. Surely, if no one can "seriously dismiss" her age, then you can find at least one independent source in which someone takes her age seriously? Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If it were a twenty-year old male captain that would have been notable as well. The point of the linked resource story ("Young captain reacts like 'seasoned pro'") was that despite her young age, the Captain reacted to and performed in an unexpected emergency situation in which many lives were at risk as a far more experienced mariner than would be expected for one so young. ("But when she saw the plane in the water, Catanzaro reacted like a seasoned pro who has spent a lifetime around boats.") A very significant percentage of the hits returned in the Google search also make the same point and take quite seriously her unusually young age for both being a ferry boat captain, and for her skill, competence, and professionalism in rescuing so many occupants of the ditched airplane. I really don't see that you have made a case for not including this objective and relevant fact that is both well sourced and was widely acknowledged and reported in the media as being significant. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

<sarcasm>Should we also include the ages of the flight attendants? That would give a nice mix of both young and old women? It seems that now the only ones whose age is mentioned are Captain, FO and ferry captain.</sarcasm>IlkkaP (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, I somehow missed the first two. I have no idea why the ages are given for Sullenberger and Skiles. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of "Young captain reacts like 'seasoned pro' ") is that the sex was notable (she is stated to be the first female captain with the NY Waterway Authority) but the age is not so notable (she's said to have been driving boats for eight years). It's certainly not notable that she came to render aid, that is required by law under the Safety of Life At Sea convention even if it has been the expected behavioural norm for seafarers for centuries. Her age is, to my reading, less significant than the fact that she is a Coast Guard Reservist. Still, it is well supported in the sources and mildly interesting trivia. For three characters, just put it in. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

She is apparently the youngest ever NY Waterway captain (male or female) -- just as interesting as her gender. There was a NYTimes article on her last December.[16] I'm not sure it deserves too much space in this article, but it is interesting -- maybe much of it should be in a footnote. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The headline of the article about the 20-year old ferry boat Captain reads ("Young captain reacts like 'seasoned pro'") and the line within the article relating to it is"But when she saw the plane in the water, Catanzaro reacted like a seasoned pro who has spent a lifetime around boats." That relates to her performing at a level which appears to be beyond her years. The ages of the plane's Captain and First Officer (which are mentioned) and of the flight attendants are not nearly as significant because they performed at a level which was not beyond their years and would be expected of professionals with as much experience as they had. According to the captain on 60 MINUTES, the aircrew's experience in the aggregate exceeds 120 years. Her experience commanding a commercial motor vessel plying the busy waters of New York Harbor with as many as 170 passengers amounts to but a few months. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Centpacrr's source is informative and well-written, but only in a rhetorical sense does it present the image of a "captain by day, kid by night" (if I may paraphrase). What the source doens't do is tell us what that means: Is it indeed an anomaly? Does it indeed make the day's events more shocking or profound? Is it, in the final analysis, encyclopedic? But by pointing out that not only is she their first female captain, but indeed also the youngest, Carl Lindberg's source allays my main concerns. Still, though, if she was just following protocol, as LeadSongDog suggested, then she should probably not be emphasized to the point of distracting the reader from Sullenberger, whose actions and overall being have been downright brilliant. And for that very reason, there are also things about Sullenberger (e.g., his research on airplane psychology) that are far more relevant and interesting than his age (but aren't necessarily mentioned in the article), so while I won't continue to contest the mention of Catanzaro's age, I've gone ahead and removed Sullenberger's (and, at least for symmetry, Skiles's). Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Catanzaro is notable enough to have her own article. That would remove the need to mention her age here. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, per WP:NOT#NEWS. Her young age is an interesting fact, but she's only really notable for this one news event. Fletcher (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are so fixated on removing ages. The ages of Sullenberger and Stiles are useful biographical facts of two of the principal actors in this story. They don't take up much space. And there is no conflict between providing their ages and providing other important facts about them. Like I've said, providing simple facts does not conflict with our original research policy, as long as we don't editorialize about them. Fletcher (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm "fixated" on a minor issue, it's because I don't have any bigger complaints about the article. It's well-done--I could see this being a GA or even an FA--and I'm just trying to polish off some spots. (And if you're fixated on taking the opposite stance on this minor issue, I presume it's for a similar reason.) Yes, their ages are useful biographical details, but this leads to two slippery slopes. First, other factors (e.g., hometown, ethnicity, alma mater, political persuasion, religious beliefs) are just as important, if not more so. Why not mention any of them? Second, other people also have ages. Imagine how silly this would look: "U.S. President George W. Bush, 62, called Sullenberger to thank him for saving the lives of the passengers, as did President-elect Barack Obama, 47..." (or imagine that sort of thing even in an article about something in which Bush and Obama were "principal actors"). To be fair, I realize that many news reports will introduce relatively unknown individuals as "John Smith, 36"; it helps to personalize things a bit, which is, I guess, a clever thing for a rather impersonal and indiscriminate news media to do. But an encyclopedia has tighter standards about which stories matter enough to be told, and about which people matter enough to have their own articles. We don't need, figuratively speaking, to shake hands with every name we meet as we read an article, because that name is presumably A) in an article about something that's already supposed to matter to us, and/or B) wikilinked to a biographical article that can provide information that would be off-topic in the other article. If the reader wants to know Sullenberger's age/background/hometown/etc., then the reader can click on the wikilink to his BLP. Skiles probably deserves his own article, as well--in fact, the whole airline crew is probably notable enough for an article about them collectively--but his non-wikilinked presence in the article indicates that, at the very least, his particpation in a notable event is worth our attention, regardless of any of his biographical details. And, frankly, the presence of their ages in the article seems a bit superfluous and distracting. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The pilots' ages give an indication of their experience... nearly all decent-length airline accident wikipedia articles give that info, and it should be there. It is far more relevant than Catanzaro's age (which should probably be in a parenthetical comment or footnote to describe why it is interesting). Even more relevant would be info like how much the ferry captains train for scenarios like this, which greatly aided their efficiency (pretty important in near-freezing weather)... Catanzaro mentioned they use life rings in the water, and practice keeping the boat alongside it.[17] Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair points. My inclination would still be to omit the pilots' ages, but that looks like a reasonable-enough case for including them that I won't revert again if anyone re-adds them. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I care one way or the other on including/excluding ages, but to imply that older age = more experience is completely wrong. There are young people who are highly experienced pilots, and old people who are beginners. Saying that "ages give an indication of experience" is only true if you are unaware of how experience is gained. It's gained by flying, not by getting old. – jaksmata 22:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly true when speaking of amateur practitioners, but it is far more significant when included as one of a group of facts when discussing the backgrounds of professionals such as airline pilots, ship masters, physicians, surgeons, attorneys, watchmakers, journalists, musicians, or those in any of dozens of other fields in which age and concomitant experience can be one of the indicators of their expected -- or in some cases even unexpected -- high level of skill, competence, and judgement. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Per the above discussion, I have restored the ages of the Captain and First Officer of the plane which are appropriate facts for the article because they provide a fair indication of their extensive levels of experience as professional airmen, a factor which was widely acknowledged in the coverage of the event as having been a key to the fortuitous outcome for the 155 occupants after the plane's airworthiness had been fatally compromised while inflight. The inclusion of the age (with linked reference) of the Master of the Gov. Kane is also appropriate for the various reasons I have laid out in detail above.

With all due respect, however, I am constrained to observe that these otherwise undisputed and fully sourced facts (which in the aggregate constitute six digits and some punctuation in the text) have been way overanalyzed to come up with reasons to not include them. The ages (and their import) of these three particular individuals have received vast amounts of attention from both persons who were in any way involved in the accident and its aftermath, and in a great many of the media accounts relating thereto. Including them in the US Airways Flight 1549 Wikipedia entry does not constitute original research, nor is it in any way "editorializing" or promoting their significance. They are simply objective statements of relevant facts with links to external source material that any reader who is interested can easily access to learn their significance.

I dare say that there are literally tens of millions of similar well sourced facts included in articles throughout Wikipedia that, if subjected to the same level of hairsplitting analyses as these three ages, would end up being unilaterally wiped away by those editors who seem far more interested in finding reasons to delete factual information than to actually contributing it. And were that to happen, Wikipedia would, I fear, be much the poorer and less useful as an online encyclopedia as a result. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

I admit that I've become a bit preoccupied with a rather microscopic aspect of the article. Nonetheless, my "hairsplitting" is really a glimmer of at least three larger concerns. First, the inclusion of ages seems like a news-like attempt to "personalize" information that, in an encyclopedia, should not have to be "personalized" or otherwise presented with rhetorical devices that incline us to appreciate the information, because encyclopedic information is supposed to be inherently, or at least prima facie, notable. I addressed this point above. Second, ages, while obviously associated with additional information, are often done so stereotypically. (Ever notice how both the very young and the very old are associated with both wisdom and poor judgment?) Jaksmata's observation above is a good reason for me to maintain my inclination to omit the ages (although, as I have said, I will not act on that inclination, at least unless consensus to do so emerges). My dad is as old as Sullenberger, but has taken only a few flying lessons. So, as much as I love my dad, I'd probably have been safer in the air with the late Vicki Van Meter when she was just eleven. Then again, there almost certainly is a rather strong correlation among professional pilots between age and flight experience. But that leads me to my third concern, namely that quantitative information about social and biographical reality is often overrated. The fact that Sullenberger was 57 years old tells us nothing about his subjective experience (remember, it's his experience that we're trying to convey, and experience happens subjectively), apart from the fact that he had "experienced" 57 revolutions of the earth around the sun. Far more humanly interesting are the facts that he is a former fighter pilot and a safety expert, let alone a scholar who has published with NASA; these facts imply action, whereas age denotes only being. And they inform the reader that Sullenberger is, indeed, highly experienced. Anyway, I can sense a rough conensus to leave the ages there, and I respect that. At this point I'm just offering a sort of apology (in the rhetorical sense), in case it comes in handy to current or future editors, for the view that the ages are problematic. Overall, though, I think this is a very good article, and it is an excellent example of how teamwork can produce some fine material in a short amount of time. But with the ages in there, or at least without the presence of the ages being scrutinized, I'd be hesitant to call it a perfect article. Then again, so what? Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Latte on this. If we want to include age as a surrogate for experience, why don't we give Captain Vincent Lombardi's age too? Presumably because he's boringly middle-aged, with an average amount of experience ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Essentially" unpowered flight

Intro says: "After gliding for about eight miles in essentially unpowered flight, the aircrew set the airliner down intact in mid-river" (my bold). What is the meaning of "essentially" unpowered here? AFAIK, the aircraft was in "just plain" unpowered flight, and we should rephrase this as "After gliding for about eight miles in unpowered flight, the aircrew set the airliner down intact." Or am I missing something here? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "essentially" is included because according to to the AIRBUS Accident Information Telex above, the engines were still producing some power after the bird strikes. ("The engines decreased abruptly to 35% and 15% on engines 1 & 2 respectively.") The A320 would have required at least 70% MRT from one engine to maintain flight. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

Was the residual power sufficient to extend the glide at all? In other words, was the achieved glide angle down the Hudson better than it would have been with a total power failure? If so, that should definitely be mentioned. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not found anyplace that quantifies how much the severely compromised engines may have extended the glide if at all, only that they still appeared to be providing some thrust and so that is why it would seem to be more appropriate to say the plane was in essentially unpowered flight as opposed to just unpowered flight. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree on the current wording "essentially unpowered". I am not sure how much remaining thrust helped to glide the plane, but at least the available power kept the plane all the time in Normal Flight Law, meaning that flight control computers prevented the plane from stalling etc.IlkkaP (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but essentially sounds perilously like a weasel word (sort of hedging our bets)! Should it be effectively, perhaps? My question about extending the glide really needs to be answered at some stage, since it could well mean the difference between a 4-mile glide, say, & one of 8 miles. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The AIRBUS Accident Information Telex confirms that engine fan speeds were 35% (#1) and 15% (#2) after the bird strikes. As you say, we need an aviation expert to validate whether that translates to any useful thrust in gliding the plane. I think that Captain Sullenberg said in the CBS interview that there was no usable thrust (or useful, I don't remember the exact wording) available after the bird strikes. However, even with no usable thrust, my understanding is that engines generated hydraulic pressure and electricity keeping all the plane control systems operating as in normal flight (and thus preserving Normal Law flight protection controls). With complete loss of engine power that would have been a problem, as it takes some time to start the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) and/or RAT (Ram Air Turbine) to generate backup hydraulics pressure and electricity (both of them were deployed).IlkkaP (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Might also be useful to clarify which, if any, of the A320 aircraft systems are dependant on engine power above 35% / 15%, regardless of whether or not the engines were providing any thrust/ steering control. This information does not appear to be available in Airbus A320 family. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comments. Suggest that we add to the article text some brief clarification along the lines of Centpacrr's first post: " "The engines decreased abruptly to 35% and 15% on engines 1 & 2 respectively." The A320 would have required at least 70% MRT from one engine to maintain flight." (Cited, of course.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The telex also notes that the #2 engine completely stopped very quickly, and the #1 engine completely stopped after 2 minutes 20 seconds, so it sounds like it was completely unpowered when it ditched (by the engines anyways; there are units like the APU and RAT mentioned in the article which apparently provided enough power to control the plane). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Too bad that neither APU nor RAT get any mention, even in the "design" section, of the A320 article, and that the articles for those units themselves also don't mention A320, although one supposes that principles of operation are common to all airliners. See also ETOPS. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While neither engine appears to have been providing any usable thrust at the moment of ditching, at least one of them appears to have been turning for almost two-and-a-half minutes after ingesting birds. As the "glide" from the GW Bridge to touch down in the water only lasted only about three minutes or so, in the absence of further evidence it would seem to be presumptive at this time to state that neither engine was providing any usable thrust, no matter how slight, for at least some portion of its essentially unpowered flight down the river. I suspect that the answer to that question will probably not be know definitively one way or the other until the NTSB issues its final accident report. The Wall Street Journal reported in a story published on January 20 entitled "Backup System Helped Pilot Control Jet" that "the plane's auxiliary power unit made by Honeywell International Inc. was operating during the descent and gave the pilot full use of the jet's flight-control system, according to a spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board and other people familiar with the details." I have not found that confirmed elsewhere, however. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

This Flight Global article seems to be written from an expert view (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/26/321541/ditched-a320-crew-had-full-hydraulics-and-electrical.html). We could perhaps source it unless these technical details are deemed too complex for this article. Based on the article, engines were running at 35% and 15% until the ditching (as the engine they tried to re-light didn't react to the relight sequence). When APU had started it would not have mattered even if the engines had stopped completely (provided that the thrust they generated was not needed in the glide).IlkkaP (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the engines weren't providing thrust, by turning they may have been able to supply generators and hydraulic systems, as per BA009. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[out]OK, let's approach this a different way. What glide angle did the aircraft actually achieve over its 8-mile unpowered flight from the GWB? Is this glide angle consistent with what one would expect from this aircraft flying with a complete loss of power? That's what we need to know. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Is This Not Featured?

It seems fairly stable now and it's excellently done. Spinach Monster (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a peer review first; or GA review, to hammer out some of the minor issues, that are bound to have room for improvement. The people at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates really appreciate that rigorous checking has been done on an article before it is candidated for Featured Article, as they are overworked as it is.

That said, having had a quick look at the article I think after such a peer review it might make a good chance for promotion. Arnoutf (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason at all why this shouldn't eventually go on to FA status. However, we ought to let the dust settle a bit first: barely a month has elapsed since the incident, & new material facts continue to emerge. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It could take a year or more before the final report into the accident is released. There will be a lot more info once that has happened, with possible scope for major expansion of part of the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured status is not the same as fixing an article; so maybe possible even before final reports are out. I would suggest to wait though; at least untill the dust has settled. Arnoutf (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Injuries section

It was an excellent idea to include the psychological effects of the incident in this section. Two brief comments:

• suggest the title be changed to something like Injuries and after-effects
• too many passenger names given, making the text sound journalistic. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the addition to this section; it sounds very trivial, almost tabloid to me, and if I'm not mistaken the source given is in fact a tabloid (People). The "after effects" just don't seem to be very notable at all -- it should be obvious people on board were shaken up, and might take some time to return to normal. First Officer Stiles experienced temporary sleeplessness? Heavens! Passenger Andrew Gray "sought videos... to understand what happened." Oh my, I hope he recovers from his video search. Anyone else have a similar reaction? This comes off as soft news rather than actually encyclopedic information. Fletcher (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this portion is thin and should probably be either deleted altogether or reduced to a single sentence or two indicating that psychological counseling had been offered to the aircrew and that they have been given time off until they feel ready to return to flight status which is what both the Captain and F/O have said in TV interviews that I have seen (60 MINUTES on CBS; Charlie Rose on PBS). Some level of PTSD is likely to be suffered by anyone involved a similar incident no matter what the physical injury. What would be remarkable is if they had not been so affected. (Centpacrr (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Quote from F/O Jeffrey Skiles re PTSD on the Charlie Rose show (PBS), February 10, 2009:

• "Well, it’s a -- when we -- the night after, when we got to the hotel -- actually, the night of -- when we got to the hotel, you are actually surrounded by your union representatives, because we’re in a pilots’ union, and one of the things they have is they actually have a critical incident response team that are people who are trained in the psychological effects of what this can do to you. And just sort of to talk you down at that point. And everything they said is true. It’s post-traumatic shock. It’s standard reactions. They sat us down. They said you probably won’t sleep tonight. You may not sleep tomorrow night. Then you might sleep an hour, wake up, relive the incident in your mind, and you just can’t turn off your mind. And slowly, over time, that will get better. And they were absolutely right. I would say the first two weeks, I probably averaged three hours of sleep. I’m much better at it. Right now, it really doesn’t bother me as much, but you know, it’s been almost a month now." (Centpacrr (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

People (magazine)

Really? Since when do we treat this sort of thing as a WP:RS? Let's get a serious source or lose the blurb.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

People is published by Time Inc. and is not a tabloid in the vein of The Globe and The Inquirer. They focus on soft news, so the issue is one of encyclopedic value. I'm thinking this is trivia. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ps- this seems like a continuation of the previous thread directly above. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Refactored to subheading accordingly. See [[18]]. Quite simply, we can't trust it, particularly for negative biographical content on living people per WP:BLP. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Other than the editor who originated that thread, the 3 on point cmts suggest People should be ok: (1) "People (magazine) is a celebrity magazine, and not generally classed as a tabloid rag." (2) "I am surprised the magazine published it, . . . . Perhaps their standards are higher today--this was in 1988." (3) "People in 88 was reliable, . . . ." I'm not sure whether that's a concensus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As a one-time subscriber to People, I'd say it's pretty reliable; its journalists really do interview people, and they announce factual errors that they've made in previous issues. I also think that they try to create a reasonable balance (if such a thing exists) of celebrity news and ordinary-person news. The problem is that, when talking about ordinary people, they often report ordinary news about them. I agree with Fletcher and Centpacrr here: it's not the least bit surprising that passengers were traumatized or that they've sought understanding of the events. I'd like to hear what I can't simply assume; I want to know about passengers who react in unusual ways. For example, an Australian singer on the flight ([19]) didn't even know that the Hudson River existed, then remained calm throughout the ordeal, and then wrote a song about it and performed it for the entire flight crew on Larry King Live. That's atypical; that's probably worth mentioning--as is the fact that many passengers did indeed react as expected, but it would be odd to give unusual prominence to individuals who reacted in usual ways. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Library book story = trivia?

I added something about the Captain's library book which was removed here. I thought it a nice addition to the article as it showed the extreme attention to detail displayed by the Captain. It was also reliably sourced; it's quite easy to find more coverage of the story. What do others think? --John (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A nice and well sourced vignette, but probably one which is much better suited for the Wikipedia article on Capt. Sullenberger himself. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

As the killjoy responsible for removing the story (which I agree is a nice touch illustrating Sully's punctiliousness), I'd go along with Centpacrr's suggestion. The story has a bearing on the Captain's character, not on the ditching itself. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's already there. --John (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pets

Why are the non-existent pets mentioned under Injuries? It seems that the hold contained no zoo animals either: so there were no caged casualties, but they are passed over in silence. If the pets must be mentioned, put them under Evacuation to document the fact that, not being present on board, they were not evacuated. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason the non-existent pets are mentioned is that there were a several questions about them (on this talk page) earlier in the development of this article. That sentence was added in response. You could delete it as non-information, but then people would just come here asking "what about the animals?" again. (see here and here) – jaksmata 17:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Drowned pets" was widely rumored and/or reported in the early days after the incident, so it's worthwhile for us to keep a single sentence in the article that addresses those rumors.--Father Goose (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oughtn't the article to stick to verifiable and supportable facts, but not include factual statements about rumours? What if the spokespeson had said "We don't carry bombs in our cargo"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In order for the statement about pets to fit into the "Injuries" section, it should probably be prefaced with something like, "Despite early rumors that pets had drowned in the plane's cargo hold..." I wouldn't mind adding this myself, except that I cannot locate a source to confirm it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the question is: when does a rumour become notable? My reaction in general to rumours is "So what?" One day I'll tell you all about my pet theory ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the main idea is that "no loss of life" should be understood in the broadest reasonable sense. I don't know if the plane bonked a fish or two on the head, but the crash didn't kill any of the life forms, human or otherwise, that humans can generally relate to. So perhaps it should be clear that no humans or animals died in the accident, although the current way in which this message is conveyed comes across as rather out-of-place and awkward. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Several animals (canada geese) did die...  – jaksmata 12:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any other WP article on an aircraft incident that mentions (non-human) animal life when discussing survival rates & fatalities? It would of course be notable if, for example, valuable racehorses were being transported. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see the entry for G-AMAD here. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! Luckily no horses died in the Hudson this time round. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that several major newspapers did cover the "pet" angle ([20][21][22][23]), it makes a reasonable case for our including a single sentence about it too. The "zoo animals" question is a straw man, as that question wasn't brought up by the newspapers -- on the other hand, had a spokesperson said anything about bombs, that would have been covered very widely by newspapers, and whatever the spokesperson said would be in our article.

We raise the pets question because the news raised it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Father Goose. A simple declarative sentence indicating that there were no pets or service animals being carried in either the cargo hold or cabin is appropriate and necessary. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Still a little uneasy that, simply by denial, this article gives credence to an irrelevant and distracting piece of media-hyped rumour. Good job there weren't any straw men in the cargo hold. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At least they would have floated.--Father Goose (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[out] I'm not that impressed with Father G's links: 2 of them are simply answers to individual readers' questions. I'm not going to take up arms in an edit war over this, but I think that with the passage of time the inclusion of non-pets in this article will appear increasingly ridiculous. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. That is one of the advantages of Wikipedia being a living encyclopedia: we can cover topical stuff with a topical focus, and as it slides into the historical, we can change our focus to match. By the time the NTSB final report comes out, much of what's now in the article will become irrelevant.--Father Goose (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Precise headings needed?

I'm glad to see that the everyday terms northeast and southeast have been retained in the Ditching section. I wonder, though, how much is added by giving the precise headings (to within 6 minutes of arc!): 045.4° and 135.5° (as opposed to 045° and 135°, which are the exact equivalents of the terms NE & SE). Any reader needing such extraordinary precision can easily click on & examine the LGA diagrams in the section on Flight designations, route, and crew. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, seems a little over-precise. Exact departure heading relevant to the accident? The proposed landing runway was never used. Runways generally referred to by means of just a two digit number? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As the runway number is the approximate magnetic heading (divided by ten) it also seems superfluous. Fletcher (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Runways numbered 1 to 9 are referred to only by a single digit while 10 to 36 use two digits. (If there are parallel runways at a field then the last digit is also followed by an "L" or "R" for left or right.) As these numbers are derived from the approximate headings of the runways, for accuracy I also included the exact magnetic headings (to 0.1º) for runways 4 and 13 at LGA which is how that is specified on the FAA's airport diagram plate for that field. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

That is US practice, in the UK, runways are numbered from 01 to 36. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NigelG that the plate diagram should speak for itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead & deleted the headings. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

TV and film

I've added a section on TV and film. So far, there have been two programmes. It is likely that there will be more. The three links under the CBS 60 minutes section are the actual programme. I've no idea how long they will remain live, but while they are live I think they should be included. It enables those outside the USA to see the programme. The C4 programme is not available online yet. C4 has a policy of 30 days availablilty. Again, a link should be provided as long as the programme is available IMO. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be available now, though the website insisted on some plug-in I don't have before it would let me see it. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's restricted to over 18's, you need to register and get a Pin. As it may not be admissible in the article according to Wikipedia policy, the link is here for those who are interested and would otherwise not have seen the programme. Windows Media Player 11 is also needed. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Near the museum?

Doesn't the intro's second paragraph suggest that the plane landed near a building... or "nearer the Intrepid museum than any other building?" Or even 'next to' the museum?

Didn't the plane land in the middle of the river? Or is that incorrect and the plane landed near a building?

The GPS coordinates don't show the landing spot as near any particular building -- rather the coordinates seem to show the plane landing in the middle of the river at a point parallel to the Intrepid museum in Manhatten and the Hoboken ferry terminal in Hoboken -- I might have the Jersey side landmark incorrect, but that's the gist... the plane landed in the middle of the river, at a point parallel to tow points on either side of the river... rather than next to or even actually "near" a building.

Why the suggestion that the plane landed near a building? 842U (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum is not a building, it's a ship; specifically, a museum ship that is in the river on the Manhattan side. – jaksmata 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you seriously think anyone will be misled by the word "near", you could use the (unfortunately less familiar) word "abeam" instead. I'm not sure we didn't have that at one stage. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who originally added "near the Intrepid Museum" to the article to provide readers with a well known reference point on the river that they would likely be more familiar with than just "North River Pier 86" which is where the ship is docked. (This issue was previously discussed above at great length on February 5th and 6th.) The aircrew later visited the museum where they filmed part of the interviews for 60 MINUTES with the spot that they ditched in the river visible in the background. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

How about "opposite" or "off", if we feel that "abeam" is too technical?--John (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Opposite" is a good word. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So if the plane didn't land near the Intrepid Museum itself, rather it landed in the middle of the river at a point across from, abreast of, off, parallel to, or opposite the Museum, why does the sentence currently leave the reader to figure this out? Someone unfamiliar with the incident wouldn't be wrong to imagine the plane landing twenty yards from the museum. What's the advantage of leaving this open to misinterpretation? 842U (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Intrepid's own website describes the point of ditching as "near" the Museum which seems perfectly straight forward and far less ambiguous than any of the other suggestions. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

I still don't like "near". We can do better than that. --John (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A simple Google search returns more than 1,000 hits with references to Flight 1549 having ditched in the river "near the Intrepid." The whole issue of the "Intrepid" and its propinquity to the ditching was hashed out and resolved in talk more than two weeks ago. It was only raised again a couple of days ago by a user (who has apparently since been blocked for Disruptive editing elsewhere) because he thought it was a building instead of a ship, a misapprehension which he could have easily overcome by simply clicking on the words in the lead describing the USS Intrepid Museum and its location at Pier 86. The word "near" seems to me to be perfectly clear and unambiguous in the context in which it is used here, and that is why I selected it when I originally added this information to the article about a month ago. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

I am indifferent as to the block log of someone who raised what seems like a valid objection to this vague terminology. As an encyclopedic project, we do not need to base our exaxct wording on the results of a Google search. Certainly we should try to follow the sources, but precise wording is important too. --John (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The museum's security cameras captured the touchdown (Youtube), making me think it was in fact "near" to the museum, though not dangerously close to it. I always read that sentence as giving the east-west position relative to the shoreline by saying "mid-river" and the north-south position relative to Manhattan by saying it was near the museum. I could see how "near" might be confusing if it had landed in a very large body of water, but in this case I think "near" works to provide position, but still isn't misleading if interpreted as proximity. The touchdown looks to be just a few hundred yards from the museum. I'm not fan of "opposite" which would imply on the other side of the river. Fletcher (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If the location of the ditching and rescue were, as User:John seems to imply, "precise" and static, then perhaps a narrower or more specific term describing such a geographic location in relation to the Intrepid might be appropriate. However the plane came down in a body of flowing water and thus it did not remain stationary but moved down river with the current. All of the other terms that have been proposed would imply that it stayed in the same geographic location after the ditching. It did not, of course, and thus using any of these other terms would in and of themselves be misleading.

While "near" may not describe this with the exactitude that some might desire, it is by far the best choice, especially for an introduction to the article. I originally added this information to help relate for the reader the general area of the river in which the ditching and the rescue took place to an already well known landmark. By the very nature of the accident, however, this is not a precise or static spot, but one that extended over the time it took for the overall incident to play out from north ("above") to west ("abeam," "opposite," or "adjacent") to south ("below") the Intrepid's fixed location at Pier 86. "Near" is the term that best takes all of that area into account. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the security camera footage, the aircraft appears to have landed upstream from the Intrepid. Therefore I've struck my earlier comment, and fully support "near" as being the most appropriate word to use. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolving conflicts raised by differences in the administration and regulation of aviation between the US and Commonwealth countries

As demonstrated in discussions appearing above, there are a variety of differences between US and Commonwealth practices relating to the administration and regulation of aviation (such as runway numbering) that have seem to have been the source of a number of issues and conflicts about formatting, terminology, language usage, etc, that have been raised over the past weeks mostly by the many UK and Commonwealth based editors who have contributed to this article. However as this accident involved as US commercial air carrier and took place in the New York, under the WK:MoS, US usages should prevail in resolving all such cases or conflicts. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Somewhat related to this article

I came across a few articles [24] [25] that describe how the Smithsonian identifies birds after a bird strike. The first was written before Flight 1549 ditched in the Hudson, and the second only has a few specifics on Flight 1549, but they describe the very people who identified the geese in this case, and the methods they use. Interesting reading, anyway.

I found the articles because they are linked from "snarge" - a word I looked up after seeing it used in a different article about a helicopter/bird strike incident. I can't tell if "snarge" is a technical term, or (more likely) just military slang. – jaksmata 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The drink

I've removed the "Sully" drink from the article. It is not notable and unencyclopaedic. The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster article doesn't mention the "Space Shuttle" cocktail (A 7 Up and a Teacher's) which was "invented" after the disaster. Of course, that one could have been a joke in poor taste but it is still non-notable and unencyclopaedic. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the drink doesn't belong here - based on the first source that was given. With the NYP source, it becomes a bit more notable, but still not enough so to remain in the article. If this becomes more than just a passing fad then I will be convinced that it should stay, although I don't think that's likely. As far as I can tell, right now only one bar serves it. Hardly notable even if there is a newspaper blurb on it. – jaksmata 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion -- move the drink info (which does have legit citations) into the Chesley Sullenberger article. it's named for the man, after all, and not the flight (See Roy Rogers, Shirley Temple, and Rose Kennedy) J. Van Meter (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The three "cocktails" given as examples above have all been well established in the popular culture over decades and were named for people who were already long time famous public figures. Two are also non-alcoholic euphemistic "cocktails" named for entertainers popular with children, the other is a regional drink named for the matriarch of a prominent New England political family, and all three drinks have a Wikipedia entry of their own. This is not the case with the so-called "Sully" which is apparently served at a single small bar in New York which apparently "created" it to commercially exploit the transient notoriety of a single current news event. In and of itself, however, the cocktail has nothing whatever to do with the actual ditching of US Airways Flight 1549, the rescue of its occupants, or the investigation of its causes, but instead is basically transient fluff which is neither notable nor encyclopedic in any sense of these words. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't think the drink belongs anywhere in Wikipedia unless it's notable enough to merit it's own article (i.e., survive an AFD). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, for the record, that's not how Wikipedia works, otherwise 99% of the content of every article would not belong. Perhaps you're thinking of something like WP:UNDUE? Regardless, this should be discussed on the Sully page. Joshdboz (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone added "In 2009, (insert notable band here) sang a song about the flight," that would be debatable under undue. If someone add "In 2009, (insert unsigned non-notable band here) sang a song about the flight, there would be no debate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And I'm entitled to order both a Manhattan and a Kamikaze but refuse to have them served together over a cold buffet. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sullenberger testimony

Last night Channel 4 News featured some clips from the testimony of both Sully & Harten before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Some of the material (notably on the effects of pay cuts on morale & pilot quality) probably belong in the Sully article rather than here. But both men had some interesting things to say about the ditching. Can anyone find a good video link? If so, please add it to the TV and film section. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See hereLeadSongDog (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Compensation and claims

Today’s UK Times includes the story “Survivors of Hudson River air crash consider suing airline” [26]. Do editors feel that this topic warrants inclusion? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Virtually every air carrier accident eventually results in litigation of some form or another. Such cases generally take many, many years to resolve and include many broad pleadings and counterpleadings that are made to cover every possible or potential ground to claim relief. (Many, if not most, of these may never be proven.) As such it is really a separate legal "story" which does little to elucidate -- and sometimes even obfuscates -- an otherwise objective view of what happened during the original incident itself. Those findings are properly left to the NTSB.

In general such litigations are usually settled quietly between the plaintiff(s) and the airline's insurance carriers years later without much public notice or ever going to trial. It probably would be more notable, in fact, if there were NO litigation ever contemplated or filed as opposed to the contrary. Unless and until a case would reach the trial phase (not likely) and/or be publicly settled, none of what happens in the interim is probably worth mentioning here. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

I see from the Times story that: "The airline has sent the passengers a letter of apology, a $5,000 (£3,500) cheque to assist with “immediate needs”, reimbursement for their tickets and a promise to be upgraded to first class on flights until March 10." But I suppose this is typical. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say we don't need to include it yet, but could do so if a lawsuit is actually filed. The source for this news story seems to be an announcement by the passengers' law firm. It's possible the firm is testing the waters to see what the public reaction would be to a lawsuit. Unlike most other aviation incidents, in this incident the crew, and by extension the airline, came out with better publicity and more respect than I have ever seen for this industry. I'm not sure why else the lawyers would announce that their clients are considering a lawsuit, but haven't actually filed one yet. Is that a normal practice? Until we see a lawsuit, or even a decent theory of liability, there is not much to add to our article. Fletcher (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise that the New York law firm that the original story says is the one that has been "contacted by passengers of Flight 1549 about claiming damages for post-traumatic stress disorder" is Kreindler & Kreindler which since its founding in 1950 by the late Lee Kreindler has been the leading practitioner in the areas of major domestic and international air carrier accidents and developing the practice of aviation accident law. Such preliminary contacts, however, are still a very long way from actually filing a lawsuit, and I suspect that finding a provable cause of action for a culpable tortuous or negligent act on the part of the air carrier would be difficult indeed in this particular case. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, would probably be a wild-goose chase. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Airspeed in glide

Centpacrr, you state in a recent editing summary that "airspeed [is] not really the determining factor for distance in unpowered flight, altitude and winds are". Try telling that to a glider pilot (including Sully)! Of course, altitude & head/tail wind are the major factors—but any glider (& I guess by extension any unpowered aircraft) has a "best glide" speed, given the wind strength & direction, which will ensure that it covers the maximum distance. As I'm sure you know, the best glide can be read off the polar curve. In this case, however, you're right to strike out the "then velocity", since that was determined by the residual energy of the climbout & had nothing to do with best glide. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you on this, that but didn't really have enough space in the edit summary to explain it so my comment there was necessarily imperfect. The point I was trying to make is if the aircrew increased the airspeed above "best glide speed" (220 mph achieving a 1:15 ratio descending at 1,000 fpm for an A320) by pointing the nose down, the plane would have actually traveled a shorter distance (even though moving "faster" through the air) because it would have also lost altitude over distance more quickly. Also a sailplane is aerodynamically a much different animal as far as what can be coaxed out of it than an crippled airliner which is not designed to be operated in unpowered flight. The altitude already attained (which was the "storehouse" of the residual energy from the climb out which was then expended against gravity in the glide to cover final distance traveled to the point of ditching) and winds were, once the best glide was established, therefore the factors that most mitigated against being able to reach an airfield for a dead stick landing. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Location of ditching: In the Hudson River vs in "New York City"

If the claim is being made that the eastern portion of the Hudson River between New Jersey and Manhattan is the same as "New York City" than that needs to be sourced. However according to the 1834 Compact between New York and New Jersey as approved by Congress pursuant to the Compact Clause, the line down the center of the Hudson River constitutes a border between the States of New York and New Jersey, not the cities of New York and Weehawken. Beginning in 1921 these waters came under the administration not of New York City, but by the Port of NY Authority which in 1972 became The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to more accurately identify its status as a bistate agency.

Flight 1549 ditched in the tidal waters of the Port between Manhattan Island and New Jersey. If the claim is being made that at no time did it ever drift across the State border line between New York and New Jersey than that would also have to be sourced, but it really makes no difference as to whether the plane came down in New York City or Weehwken, NJ, because it came down in neither. While the portion of these waters in New York State themselves at this location may also be considered as territorial waters of the New York City, a ditching in them is no more a ditching "in" New York City than would be a ditching, for instance, in the the territorial waters of the United States in the Casco Bay be a ditching in the City of Portland, Maine. Waters and "territory" which they abut are just not the same thing. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

I would agree with that and I found the edits saying "in New York City" somewhat awkward. If I were writing that I would say "in New York City waters" or "within New York City boundaries", but it's a moot point because the infobox only needs to specify physical location to help readers understand the topic; the specific jurisdiction is of lesser importance and can be specified in the body of the text, if it merits comment at all. Fletcher (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Style/content of the intro section

Regarding this diff, I think some of our language has become bloated in the interest of precision, even though it does not add significant understanding to the reader:

- "safely reach" an airfield implies they would land there; it's not like they were going to buzz the tower, to "reach" it without landing.

- "Then altitude" is redundant - we know airplanes are always moving in flight, not hovering. It's a given the altitude and location will change while the plane is moving and descending. It sounds odd.

- "That being the case" - sentence just seems to have a lot of words for the meaning it conveys.

- Successfully is implied by intact; you can say they successfully set it down or set it down intact but you don't need both. I'm not sure what "virtually" adds as you are either intact or not. Dicdef: "Not damaged or impaired in any way; complete". Either we have the wrong word choice, or the damage was trivial enough to ignore. In general all these adverbs are poor style.

"thereby ending the flight" -- isn't that obvious?

"lifted off" - isn't "take off" more conventional in aviation? I wouldn't say it's wrong, but it sounded odd to me.

"successfully rescued" - redundant. An unsuccessful rescue would not be a rescue, but an attempted, or partial rescue, and we would spell out what went wrong with it. Fortunately that was not the case.

You've made good contributions to the article but remember you don't own it. I think these edits are justified. Fletcher (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fletcher's changes are good, and not worth an edit war over. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Here are some of the rescuer awards http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2009_02_01_archive.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.224.140 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Rear Door

From http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/03/25/sully-dont-hang-up/

"Among the new information revealed: The impact with the water ripped open a hole in the underside of the airplane and twisting of the fuselage caused cargo doors to pop open, so the plane would have filled with water from the rear regardless of whether a passenger opened an escape door in the back of the cabin."

Maybe somebody can work this information into the article? Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)