BREAKING CNN: People on flight 1549 2 days before say that they had the SAME problem!

[originalpckelly]

It was the same plane, breaking on CNN.

Say they had compressor stalls, loud bangs, and flames from the engines. It was the same plane, and that's confirmed by US Airways. Three different sources!

Uh oh.

[originalpckelly]

1. I have a feeling this is going to turn into a scandal...

Has US Airways been skimping on plane maintenance? Why would this exact same failure happen on the airplane within such a short period of time. The passengers even thought they were going to die!

[marketcrazy1]

3. might explain

why the flight crew has said they are not giving interviews until the FAA completes its investigation....

[originalpckelly]

4. I think that's a normal thing.

But this is too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence.

[joeunderdog]

105. It was reported that the pilot cancelled an interview due to "pressure from the Union." nt

[Lagomorph]

108. The Union wishes to remain an official "interested party"...

...in the investigation and has to refrain from letting it's membership make public statements regarding the incident.

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. There were, in the past stories, about flight maintenance being outsourced.

for some airlines.
Duno about US Airways.

I do have concerns about NSTB, tho.
Thye never investigated any 9-11 crashes.

[originalpckelly]

26. Yeah, these airlines have been under the gun for fuel prices...

so they've been trying to cut everywhere else.

[Angleae]

78. It's not so much as being outsourced as where it's outsourced.

Some places are better than others, some are downright scary. Most people don't have a second thought to Southwest's maintenance, yet it's also outsourced.

[aquart]

89. Because it's odd for a plane to be destroyed when it flies into a building?

Sure, kid.

[joeunderdog]

107. They never--ehem--located at least one black box.

They've never lost one on a crash site on land, and seldom in the ocean.

[Angleae]

77. Their reputation for maintenance is pathetic.

We don't call them US Scareways for nothing.

[SharonAnn]

106. US AIR (Unfortunately Still Allegheny In Reality)

[dysfunctional press]

2. it's not uncommon for the same plane to fly the same routes back and forth day after day...

i wonder if sully was the pilot that day as well?

[originalpckelly]

5. True, but the big deal here...

is that they said they had problems with the plane's engines that sound like the ones that 1549 had only two days later, the implication being that the problem started before then and was NOT fixed, which would be a scandal.

[mucifer]

9. That's not the pilot or crew's problem. It's the maintanence crew's issue.

[originalpckelly]

19. Of course, I doubt pilots would take off with that knowledge in their heads.

Sully is still a hero, but now we have a villain.

[meegbear]

7. And I'm flying them at the end of March ...

lovely.

[originalpckelly]

8. Well, this ought to be fleshed out before March.

So keep your hopes up, it would make sense that they'd be on the ball with maintenance by the time you travel with them.

[onehandle]

10. Was it the same birds, too?

DUers crack me up.

[Common Sense Party]

30. USAir is a corporation. They MUST be evil.

Birds are nature's little innocent critters. THEY can't be the culprit:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7836664.stm

Oops.


(I agree. Some nutters always pop up--EVERYTHING has to be a conspiracy. They're entertaining, although predictable.)

[johnfunk]

95. I'm thinking the same Al Qaeda bird cell -- better call Alberto Gonzales...

Can you waterboard a waterfowl?

[nini]

11. and this was not reported at the time?

Seems kinda strange with our sensational type media that this wouldn't' have been reported by some attention whore back then.

FLAMES coming from an engine and no word of it? Did that plane take off? Did they about the flight and come back?

When stuff happens like that at LAX it makes the news. But then so do police pursuits :evilgrin:



hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[AngryAmish]

12. Hero pilot might be full of BS?

that would be a shame

[Alexander]

17. The pilot's character and heroic actions are not in question.

If such a thing happened, it's the maintenance crew's problem, not the pilot's.

[LisaL]

20. Exactly. It appears clear the plane did lose power in both engines.

The pilot landed it into the river, thus saving the lives of everyone on board. The question is, why did the plane lose power in both engines?

[originalpckelly]

22. Yep, just because the pilot saw birds, doesn't mean he hit them.

Correlation v. causation. Until we hear of puree of Canadian goose being found in the engines, I'm suspicious.

[Common Sense Party]

32. How about the sounds of crashing geese?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7836664.stm

[originalpckelly]

41. I'm still suspicious. I've seen videos of engines having birds chucked into them...

perhaps there was a flaw in the engine that was exacerbated by the impact of the birds? From what little I've heard, accidents are rarely caused by one factor, but a number of factors that align at the same time.

[stray cat]

33. Geese smacked into the plane and the pilots instintively ducked

so there were geese that hit the plane. Supposedly there was also a smell of cooked geese.

[Common Sense Party]

35. Not to mention sounds of thumping geese on the black box recording:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7836664.stm

[stray cat]

37. I think the evidence is clear the geese were at least guilty of hitting the plane

:hi:

[Common Sense Party]

40. I think so.

I find it hard to believe that a mechanical failure would cause BOTH engines to die at EXACTLY the same time.

[TwixVoy]

97. Bull shit

IF (and that is IF) he was the pilot during the other incidents he would have been grossly negligent for allowing this plane up in the air again. In which case he wasn't a hero, but an irresponsible fool who got lucky.

Now this is again only IF he was the pilot during those flights and was aware of this.

[Dorian Gray]

103. That's ridiculous

Even IF the story is true that there was some engine trouble on the plane, it has NOTHING to do with this particular pilot. He's not the mainenance guy, and they have a rotation of pilots. One pilot doesn't fly one plane every single day.

Having said that, even prior engine trouble does NOT mitigate a flock of birds flying into the engine.

[underpants]

13. It landed in the Hudson two days earlier???

:wow:

[trotsky]

14. LOL

:thumbsup:

[originalpckelly]

23. No, and this is not funny.

People almost died, and people suffered painful injuries when this may have been totally preventable.

[Dorian Gray]

104. So posting internet

fraudulent stories is going to make it all better?

[johnfunk]

96. Is that going to be a regular stop on that route now??

[underpants]

98. tricky!!!

especially coordinating the tugs and passenger ferries

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Maybe hitting the birds exacerbated a problem the plane already had?

Yep, sounds like US Airways has a problem.

[Ghost Dog]

16. Actually, the plane must have been under some power

to make such a "landing" (watering).

They don't really glide, you know.

[neverforget]

64. Actually they do glide. Without thrust, an airplane becomes a big

glider.

[JohnyCanuck]

65. Sure they glide (admittedly with a high sink rate compared to a glider)

Just google "Gimli Glider" (Air Canada flight that ran out of fuel mid flight and glided to a safe landing at an abandoned air strip at Gimli, Manitoba.)

And there was another smilar case too where a large passenger aircraft on a transatlantic flight became a glider after both engines flamed out due to fuel loss from an undiagnosed fuel leak in an engine fuel line.

Air Transat Flight 236 was an Air Transat route between Toronto and Lisbon flown by Captain Robert Piché and First Officer Dirk DeJager. On August 24, 2001, the flight ran out of fuel over the Atlantic Ocean with 306 people (293 passengers + 13 crew) aboard. The flight crew was able to successfully land the plane in the Azores with no loss of life. <1>

snip

Without engine power, control of the aircraft depended on the last backup, a ram air turbine, which supplied limited power to hydraulic and electrical systems. Whilst Piché flew the plane, DeJager monitored its descent rate — around 2000 feet (600 metres) per minute — and calculated that the plane had about 15 to 20 minutes left before they had to ditch the plane in the water.

The crew flew the plane a few more minutes, until sighting the air base. Piché then had to execute a series of swerving maneuvers to lose altitude and slow the plane. Although they successfully lined up with Runway 15/33, they faced a new danger. The plane was on a final descent, going faster than normal. Although they had unlocked the slats and deployed the landing gear, the airspeed was 200 knots, compared to the preferable 130-140 knots.

At 06:46 UTC, or 02:46 EDT, 20 minutes after the engine failure, the plane touched down on Runway 15/33 at about 370 km/h. With the operation of the emergency brakes, several tires burst. The plane eventually stopped in the middle of the runway. Sixteen passengers and two crew members were injured during the evacuation of the aircraft. Most injuries were minor or very minor. Two passengers suffered serious, but not life-threatening, injuries.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Air-Transat-Flight-236

[conscious evolution]

85. I remember Flt 236

That was quite a feat they pulled off.IIRC they glided for over a hundred miles.Major pucker factor for anyone on that flight.

[Ghost Dog]

86. Well, Ok. But in this case there doesn't appear to have been

anything like a "2000 feet (600 metres) per minute" descent rate.

[Garbo 2004]

90. Flight 1549 was a smaller aircraft with about half the number of people on board than 236.

Not exactly comparable.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

91. The descent rate would be slowed as he was trading air speed for reduced descent rate.

He didn't need or want the air-speed at that point.

The flights mentioned above would be operating a their "best rate of glide" which would be a combination of descent rate AND air-speed.

[ljm2002]

93. I read that for flight 1549 the rate was...

...1 foot drop in altitude for ever 100 feet of forward motion -- that was the rule of thumb the pilot used to estimate how far they could go.

[flyingfysh]

66. actually, they do glide

There was a famous case several years ago where because of a miscalculation, an airliner actually ran out of fuel during flight. They managed to land on a runway for a closed airstrip.

[Garbo 2004]

75. They can...For ex: flight ran out of fuel over Altlantic, glided to landing in Azores in 2001.

Info after Canadian Air Transat Flight 236 investigation completed with links to other gliding incidents: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Air-Transat-Flight-236

[CreekDog]

110. Yes, the plane did have some power, it's called "Gravity"

Gravity was used to keep the plan above stall speed.

[Whoa_Nelly]

18. can CNN confirm their "people on flight 1549 two days before" sources?

:popcorn:

[originalpckelly]

21. Just saw one of them on TV, and US Airways does confirm...

that guy was on the flight/plane two days before. The text message could probably be traced. When did he send it? I thought cellphones don't work on planes?

That's the only hole in the story, but there are two other people who confirmed the story.

[LeftyMom]

24. They don't call them US Scareways for nothing.

The only airline I flat out refuse to fly.

[Marr]

25. The Free Market in action!

See, this is just how the almighty Free Market stabilizes things. Airlines cut maintenance until they reach a point at which their costly planes begin crashing at a rate that outpaces maintenance costs. Then they know the most cost-effective number to spend on maintenance.

Isn't the free market amazing?!

[originalpckelly]

28. I'm pro-free market, but I agree. If airlines really had to compete with rail's safety record...

they would lose each time. There isn't a real free market going on here, so odd situations are playing out in this partial market which is only causing a race to the bottom.

[Dennis Donovan]

27. I'm not seeing this anywhere else...

Anyone got a link?:shrug:

[originalpckelly]

31. It was a CNN exclusive.

And CNN doesn't have it up right now, on top of that, they are focused on the inauguration. Now that CNN did a story, you can bet that something is going to happen here.

[IDemo]

29. "Pilot misses geese on first attempt, scores two hits on second" n/t

[originalpckelly]

34. No, perhaps you should read what I wrote.

It's being suggested that geese didn't cause the problem.

[Common Sense Party]

36. It's also being suggested--no, EVIDENCE is being found--that geese

DID cause the problem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7836664.stm

[LisaL]

38. All this article really says is that both engines died at the same time.

Until the investigators find the bodies of the birds inside the engines, I am going to wait on what the cause of the crush was.

[Common Sense Party]

42. Highly unlikely that a mechanical failure alone would cause BOTH

engines to dies at exactly the same time, don'tcha think?

Not to mention the first-person accounts of the pilot and co-pilot.

[LisaL]

44. I know nothing about engines on the planes, so I have no clue

whether mechanical failure can cause both engines to die at the same time or not. I think finding why the engines died should be easy enough since engines were recovered.

[Common Sense Party]

48. Unless the Hudson washed the remains away.

But I believe that they WILL find goose guts in the engines.

[LisaL]

51. I think if the birds crushed into the engines the engines

would show physical damage consistent with the bird crush?

[Common Sense Party]

53. I would think so.

But there may also be physical damage from crashing into the Hudson.

[AngryAmish]

83. Could be bad fuel

Or this airplane had it's tanks contaminated.

I am no aeronautical engineer but I think each engine uses fuel from different tanks. But they do switch fuel from tank to tank.

Heck, maybe I'll just wait for more info.

[nini]

43. So, the pilot's comments at that the time on the recorder mean nothing?

:eyes:

[LisaL]

45. Did I say that? No I did not.

:eyes:

[nini]

58. Then why do you need to see bird guts to satisfy you?

?

[Common Sense Party]

63. Someone upthread mentioned the need for goose DNA to be

satisfied with the "official" story.

[nini]

70. LOL

you can't make this crap up.. :rofl:

[Common Sense Party]

46. To some people, such evidence means nothing.

Because there HAS to be some nefarious cover-up, some eeeevil conspiracy.

Life is no fun when you just deal with reality.

[LisaL]

47. Oh gee. Stop the investigation. It's so obvious, why bother?

:eyes:

[Common Sense Party]

49. I never said stop the investigation.

I'm more in favor of stopping the conspiratorial speculation.

[originalpckelly]

60. Union Carbide Bhopal Disaster.

The pursuit of money above all else is an evil, and as such evil acts tend to be part of that pursuit.

The people who fly these planes, the people who work on them, and those who repair them may all be decent people with the enjoyment of flight at their hearts, but the people who manage them are not the same quality.

Doug Parker has a business background, not an airline background.

I don't trust any companies, and for damn good reason. The post title says it all.

[Common Sense Party]

68. Are you equating this crash landing with Bhopal?

I find it sad you don't trust ANY company. For whom do you work?

[originalpckelly]

74. I'm self-employed.

That means I don't trust myself, I guess. :P

And I'm stating that companies are capable of bad things, to think that it's impossible simply based upon the nastiness of the claim is false.

[malaise]

54. Why?

Kitty Higgins of the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed on Sunday that ice floes in the river were slowing the search for an engine thought to have separated from the plane when it ditched on Thursday afternoon.

911 callers describe the crash scene

But she said the "black box" data confirmed pilot testimony that the plane had collided with a flock of birds.

"About 90 seconds after take-off, the captain remarks about birds," she said, quoting the data recorder.

"One second later the cockpit voice recorder recorded the sound of thumps and rapid decrease of engine sounds. The captain acknowledges that both engines have lost power and he takes control of the aircraft."
From BBC

[bdamomma]

72. and I heard another report that they did detected something

flying around on radar, what did the pilot say about this?

[IDemo]

39. ************* /Sarcasm ************ *

;)

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. Also, the captain is being advised not to comment publicly.

Sumpin's up...............

[Common Sense Party]

56. That sounds like standard practice when an accident is under

investigation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7836664.stm

[TheCowsCameHome]

67. I believe it was his union that requested it.

[NashVegas]

52. LaGuardia's Bird Problems Are Well Known ... Other Than That

I don't fly US Air, ever, because I'm so familiar with their long history.

[Davis_X_Machina]

62. Sure are...

Additional Remarks.

FLOCKS OF BIRDS ON & INVOF ARPT.

[Peace Patriot]

55. Nothing that the lying scumbags running many U.S. corporations

and the U.S. government would do, to serve greed and coverup their crimes, would surprise me, but I would find it hard to believe that a pilot would help them cover this up (that the engines were failing, and they still flew them). The pilot has his own life to think about, and the lives of his crew, as well as his singular responsibility for the lives of his passengers. And this pilot in particular was a safety expert for the pilots' union. Really, I would be flabbergasted if he called in a fake bird strike, or in any way helped to cover up engine failure.

I have wondered about two things over the days since his soft landing on the Hudson--that he has been so sequestered, and that one engine was found at the bottom of the river. (Reports were that both engines broke off and sank--but then there was a more recent report that divers couldn't see that one engine was still attached, due to cloudy water, and finally saw it.) Just wondered about them, that's all. I have no idea whether or not it's likely for an engine to fall off in a water landing. Nor do I know what's normal as to sequestering the crew --it just seems that he's been quiet for a rather long time (--with stories put out that he doesn't like the limelight). It could be a case of, yeah, the plane hit some birds, and he reported it as it happened, but that is not why both engines failed. I recall that he or the co-pilot said that the birds were flying in "perfect formation." If that means a "V" formation, or a straight line formation, would the birds have been likely to take out both engines? Maybe they hit one engine and other other engine failed at the most critical moment, when it was needed to land the plane.

Dunno. This certainly bears following. I would hate to take anything away from the incredible heroics of the pilot and the crew, whatever the cause of a double engine failure. It was not their fault. They performed magnificently, as did the rescuers, and the passengers, for that matter. No loss of life. A few scrapes and bruises. That is amazing. And I hope that the symbolic value of what they did, as an ikon for the new administration in Washington DC of a "soft landing" for us all, is not sullied by any coverup shenanigans.

[Common Sense Party]

61. With only seconds to react and try to safely land the plane to save

his own life as well as 150 passengers and the crew, I highly doubt the first thought in this pilot's mind was, "Let's cover up the shoddy mechanical record of the airline--I'll invent some story about hitting geese, which I will tell the air traffic controllers, just before I fly under this bridge."

It just doesn't ring plausible.

[glitch]

76. It really doesn't ring plausible.

And I am usually first on board with most greed/power-based conspiracy theories.

[Common Sense Party]

80. I usually take conspiracy theories with a huge block of salt

So if you are usually "first on board" with them, your skepticism on this speaks volumes about how far-fetched it seems.

:thumbsup:

[glitch]

81. That's funny, that's how I take coincidence theories! Only I say salt lick, not block. :) nt

[Common Sense Party]

87. I wasn't sure if everyone understood the term "salt lick."

:-)

[glitch]

111. It's true I do have to explain it a lot. But it's worth it. :) nt

[Peace Patriot]

113. Did you see the report of the co-pilot's letter to his union?

He seems AWFULLY GRATEFUL that union lawyers were present for his debriefing, and helped him in other ways. His gratitude is such that it seems he's been through an ordeal with management and/or government authorities. He doesn't say so, but, well, read it yourself.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10458525/1/co-pilot-in-crash-landing-thanks-union.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3697684

Now, what could such an ordeal have been about? One possibility--that poor maintenance/safety, due to cost-cutting, was in part responsible for both engines failing. Just speculation. But, with previous passengers coming forward with stories of loud bangs and flames in the same plane, a few days before--and this letter--and the rather tight lid on the crew--you gotta wonder what's going on.

[Peace Patriot]

114. No, of course it doesn't (ring plausible). That's what I'm saying. But

the situation may be more complicated than, a) birds hit plane, take out both engines, and b) pilot & crew heroically save everybody's lives. I think there is no question that the latter is true. What is in question is, why did both engines fail, and, did corporate negligence contribute to this perilous situation? And if the answer to that is, maybe (or there is evidence for it), there could be considerable pressure being put on the pilot and crew, to bend the facts away from corporate negligence. And that may be why the co-pilot expressed such gratitude to his union, for having union lawyers right there, on the spot, during his interview (see my post above). Could also have been something to do with miscommunication from the ground about the flock of birds seen on radar. But I suspect it's about the engines (engine maintenance)--if there is something going on, re pilots vs management, or pilots vs government-siding-with-management. The pilot is a union-side safety expert!

[spinbaby]

57. LaGuardia is odd anyway

I flew out of LaGuardia for the first time last month. After 20 minutes or so, I realized that the plane, instead of quickly climbing to altitude, was still in a very low, banking flight. It made me very nervous until my seatmate told me that's normal for that airport. I can see passengers anxious about that unusual flight path who also hear a normal thump from the landing gear pulling up, thinking that something was wrong.

[Davis_X_Machina]

59. Noise abatement procedures...

...at many large urban airports have the plane doing odd things on takeoff and approach sometimes.

[trotsky]

79. Orange County airport is the worst that I've been to.

The throttle limitations taking off from there, and the rapid descent so you don't disturb the rich Republicans too much.

[fudge stripe cookays]

101. That's what I've heard.

They had a show on in the 90s called "Why Planes Go Down", and it stated that John Wayne was one of the most dangerous, and that pilots hated landing there for just that reason.

I hadn't known about it before that, but have never flown into or out of it because of it.

[originalpckelly]

71. Being told by your flightcrew that you'll have to return to the airport...

hearing weird noises come from the engine, and having some fellow passengers witness flame coming out of the right engine, is not a landing gear retracting.

Maybe it's not a hardware problem, maybe it's a flightpath problem? Even if we assume the suggested cause, that's something that could have a reduced probability by allowing a steeper/louder ascent.

Airplanes are just inherently bad systems to travel en masse, lots of flammable propellant that has to be brought along and can leak and catch fire in a crash. Not only that, then you're flying at 40,000 feet, so you have to pressurize the cabin over and over, causing stress fractures or explosive decompression in a failure mode. They don't run on electricity as first said, so they're bad for the environment. You have to spend a lot of time just getting to the actual mode of transport, or you have to deal with a city full of loud airplanes landing all the time if the airport is close by.

There's no reason that we couldn't extend the NEC and rework it to make it faster, and if we did that, there'd be no reason for regional air on the route.

[spanone]

69. can't find anything on their webpage concerning this....any links????

[originalpckelly]

73. I know, I went to look for it too. I'm not the only who saw it though...

it was shown last hour, and another DUer posted when they saw it too. It's breaking news to normal people, but CNN isn't focusing on it because of the inauguration. Obama better watch out trying to play off of this, he could end up getting slimed by this story, if this story pans out.

I will post a link, or even PM you it when I see on their page.

[akwapez]

82. Link:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hudson.plane.folo/index.html

[originalpckelly]

99. Does anyone know about planes? Does a compressor stall sound like a thud?

These people claim they hear thuds too. Could the cockpit voice recorder have picked up the same sound that occurred on the earlier flight? Would that sound similar enough to confuse someone just listening? A thud is a general sound, and it would be consistent. I mean, unless there is a bird impact on the windshield or some other part of the plane, how do we know with certainty that the birds he saw actually went into the engine?

[Oldtimeralso]

102. Compressor Stalls

Sound like a very loud series of thuds, almost like an indian tom-tom drumming sound. It can cause damage to the engine compressor fan blades. It requires at minimum an inspection of the engine with a boroscope. This is far beyond ordinary aircraft turn around maintenance. (FAA certified mechanic since 1968)

[originalpckelly]

109. Would that require the plane to be out of business for a few days?

[AZBlue]

84. Flames? There were flames and it's just now being mentioned?

Yeah, right.

[originalpckelly]

100. Here's the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hudson.plane.folo/index.html

[Garbo 2004]

88. Passengers on earlier flight say the incident involved the right engine. Not both engines. nt

[L0oniX]

92. Both engines? ...highly unlikely.

[lonestarnot]

94. And they blamed it on the poor birds. Assholes.

[JackRiddler]

112. The hysterical reaction here is telling.

Either the plane was already fucked up two days before and the company's corrupt and dangerous (like corporations tend to be) or it was the birds after all. So what's with all the conspiracy hysteria expressed at the suggestion it might not be the birds?! I'm going to guess birds have caused fewer commercial plane crashes than mechanical defects - and who cares? Neither's very exotic, what's the big deal either way? Why would faraway observers on this thread have a stake in this? Some people act like the legitimacy of the whole society and their "rational" worldview is at risk if the explanation for any event turns out to be sinister after all.