After a fifteen month investigation the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its final report on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 on the January 15, 2009 Hudson River ditching of US Airways Flight 1549. The Airbus A320-214 (N106US) carrying 150 passengers and a crew of 5 had taken off from New York's LaGuardia Airport (LGA) bound for Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT) in North Carolina when a flock of Canadian geese caused a bird strike which disabled both engines, forcing the flight crew to make an emergency water landing. Everyone on the aircraft survived. Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, III, 57, became a national hero for his decisive and skillful actions. He has since retired following 30 years of service with the carrier.
PHOTO CAPTIONS: (ABOVE LEFT) Captain Chesley Sullenberger (Wikipedia Commons - Public Domain); (BELOW RIGHT) Captain Sullenberger with California State Senator Christine Kehoe (Photo courtesy of Christine Kehoe); (BELOW LEFT) US Airways flight 1549 in Hudson River on January 15, 2009 (Wikipedia Creative Commons - Public Domain); (BELOW RIGHT LOWER) A bird feather found in the left (#1) engine of US Airways Flight 1549 (NTSB Photo); (BELOW LEFT BOTTOM) The wreck of US Airways Flight 1549 being lifted out of Hudson river, Battery Park City, New York (Wikipedia Creative Commons - Public Domain)
A slide show and five videos follow this article.
Recent articles: Be sure to read expanded coverage on recent news events below.
NTSB reports on US Airways 1549
United and Continental to merge
Jake Pavelka tearful goodbye
Lufthansa and Apple iPhone
Flights over Europe resume
E-cars at San Diego Airport
Volcano closes Euro airports
Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash
Ryanair proposes pay toilets
NTSB reports on Learjet crash
Bomb scare on UA flight 663
Earthquake impact on SAN airport
Quake halts SAN operations
TSA will use added screenings
United flight 889 in near miss
Lisa Campbell free airport gig
Airlines consider fat tax
Cirrus CAPS parachute saves lives
Cirrus SR22 crash kills pilot
Lancair IV-P has killed others
Plane kills jogger on the beach
Bizarre aviation incidents
SAN Green Build progress report
Green Build local opportunities
Non invasive security scanners
Use care in choosing a lawyer
In its report, the NTSB cited actions by the flight crew and the chance presence of over water safety equipment which were not mandatory for this route, including forward emergency exit slides and inflatable rafts, as reasons that no lives were lost.
According to the NTSB, "Investigators said that had the airplane not been equipped with forward slides and rafts, many of the 64 occupants of those rafts would likely have been submerged in the 41-degree Hudson River, potentially causing a phenomenon called 'cold shock,' which can lead to drowning in as little as five minutes."
"Once the birds and the airplane collided and the accident became inevitable, so many things went right," said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. "This is a great example of the professionalism of the crew members, air traffic controllers and emergency responders who all played a role in preserving the safety of everyone aboard."
Other factors cited by the NTSB in leading to a successful outcome were good visibility, calm waters, and proximity of passenger ferries, which rescued everyone on flight 1549 within 20 minutes.
The report adopted by the Safety Board on Tuesday validated the Captain’s decision to ditch into
the Hudson River saying that it "provided the highest probability that the accident would be survivable." Contributing to the survivability of the accident was the crew resource management between the captain and first officer, which allowed them to maintain control of the airplane, increasing the survivability of the impact with the water.
Regarding the hazards that birds pose to aircraft of all sizes, the report noted that most bird strike events occur within 500 feet of the ground while flight 1549 struck geese at 2700 feet. Investigators said that this difference demonstrates that "bird strike hazards to commercial aircraft are not limited to any predictable scenario."
Concluding that engine screens or changes to design would not be a viable solution to protect against bird ingestion events on commercial jetliners, the Board made it clear that the potential for significant damage from encounters with birds remains a challenge to the aviation community.
The Board made 35 safety recommendations on engine and aircraft certification standards, checklist design, flight crew training, airport wildlife mitigation, cabin safety equipment, and preflight passenger briefings, but rejected the need to retrofit aircraft with engine screens. Many passengers who were interviewed by the NTSB after the incident admitted to ignoring the preflight safety briefing. According to the report, "more creative and effective methods of conveying safety information to passengers" was needed. Investigators also found that passengers had significant problems in donning the life vests that were stowed under each seat.
Captain Sullenberger, who lives with his wife Lorrie and their two adopted daughters in Danville, CA, is the author of Highest Duty, a memoir of his life and of the events surrounding Flight 1549, published in 2009 by HarperCollins. He is active in aviation safety issues and is a sought after speaker at international conferences.
Tell us your thoughts about this incident. Please leave comments below or by email and subscribe to get future updates.
Comments
I think that the worst part of all of this is that people who are as corageous as Sully Sullenburger get paid peanuts. The real issues is the lack of money we pay pilots...
I truly appreciate your coverage.
Great article! That flight was truly a miracle - if it had happened at night or if visibility had been limited by snow or low clouds, there's no telling what would have happened. I used to be a (private) pilot and have had close encounters with birds during takeoff and landing but never an actual bird strike.
I'm convinced - water landing equipment on all flights! Slides, rafts, the whole bit.
So Sully is a hero after all! Thanks for the update.
Excellent coverage, Joel. Congrats on another great article. I agree with CFH...I have two cousins who are pilots, and one of them tells me that the amount of pay is so ridiculous that he has often thought of going into another profession. How sad...
Really interesting article. Pilot pay must vary. I know someone who is a pilot and he doesn't work all that much and is very well compensated. Maybe it varies airline to airline and by seniority.
Excellent follow-up report on this event...
Cheers..
Re pilot pay: Senior pilots who fly "big iron" for a major carrier get paid well. But if you're a low seniority pilot flying a regional jet on domestic routes, the pay is surprisingly low, considering the skill required and the amount of responsibility on the pilot's shoulders.
It was a miraculous flight with just the right circumstances and just the right person in the cockpit... Thanks for giving us this update on the NTSB report.
It is nice to see that the aviation industry can learn a lot from an incident where no one died.
Great reporting.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!