5 ms·

The status of 140 people in the back has zero bearing on the situation in the cockpit. The situation is that one engine has gone offline and there has been a s

The status of 140 people in the back has zero bearing on the situation in the cockpit. The situation is that one engine has gone offline and there has been a sudden depressurization event. The airline industry realized long ago that people suck under pressure so they write checklists and explicit sets of procedures for dealing with basically everything. Your job as the pilot is to execute that checklist, as best you can and not be a cowboy. Even getting the plane ready for takeoff is a checklist you must complete and file before every takeoff.

coldcode 9y ago
Even the Miracle on the Hudson was a pilot completely aware of what could and should be done even though the exact scenario had never been practiced. Experienced pilots have been through enormous training sessions these days and even tossing them something no one has ever faced is still based on them understanding the limitations and potentials of a plane in distress. It doesn't always come out perfectly (planes do still crash based on pilot error) but I'd trust a well trained experience airline pilot without question in life or death in an airplane.
- huffmsa 9y ago
  Yeah that definitely wasn't the first time Capt Sullenberg had experienced a double engine failure on takeoff. First time in the middle of Manhattan, sure, but that doesn't change much, just means there's no big cornfield to set the plane down in.
  - twtw 9y ago
    Source? Double engine failures are incredibly rare, and I've not been able to find anything that indicates Sullenberberger was involved in any prior to 1549. In simulation, probably.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- ensignavenger 9y ago
  I don't know how accurate the movie was, but it is my understanding that the NTSB initially questioned whether the pilot made the right choice to land in the Hudson rather than turn back to the airport.
  - devy 9y ago
    Later report ruled that turning back on was going to be a much risky option with possible collateral damages on the ground.
    - ensignavenger 9y ago
      Exactly, the pilots had to evaluate the situation and make a decision, I don't think they had a checklist that told them what to do. They made the right decision- and executed beautifully.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    That is a natural question for them to raise, even derelict if they didn't raise it. Once it was raised and investigated, I think it was conclusive that the Hudson was a very reasonable (and probably the) best choice.
- ars 9y ago
  He missed one step - he forgot to activate the "ditch switch", which keeps the plane floating longer by closing various things. I guess it wasn't on the checklist?
- gbacon 9y ago
  Losing all thrust shortly after takeoff is a particularly nasty emergency. Pilots of single-engine airplanes talk about the impossible turn for a reason. It’s really closer to a 270° turn than a 180° turn and requires aggressive maneuvering at low altitude to avoid a stall-spin accident, which has claimed many lives. Unless the pilot is particularly proficient at the maneuver, common advice is to plan on landing straight ahead until reaching 1,000 feet AGL. Having multiple engines makes it not twice as safe but thousands of times safer, at least with respect to losing all thrust. (Multi-engine aircraft have other ways to kill you.) A multi-engine turbine aircraft — turbine engines being far more reliable than pistons — is so unlikely to lose all thrust, i.e., in all engines simultaneously, that they didn’t bother training for it. This worst-case scenario happened anyway. The Southwest incident took place in the flight levels. Altitude is insurance and gives lots of time to consider options. The airplane still had thrust from one engine so may have been capable of (slow) climbs and certainly of level flight. The big unknown in the moment was whether the airframe would hold together, so they still wanted to get on the ground as soon as possible. Given the choice of emergencies, one would take the Southwest circumstances easily. Both pilots did great work managing terrible situations that could have ended up much worse. Loss of all lives on board was in the realm of possibility for both.

coldcode 9y ago

Even the Miracle on the Hudson was a pilot completely aware of what could and should be done even though the exact scenario had never been practiced. Experienced pilots have been through enormous training sessions these days and even tossing them something no one has ever faced is still based on them understanding the limitations and potentials of a plane in distress. It doesn't always come out perfectly (planes do still crash based on pilot error) but I'd trust a well trained experience airline pilot without question in life or death in an airplane.

huffmsa 9y ago
Yeah that definitely wasn't the first time Capt Sullenberg had experienced a double engine failure on takeoff. First time in the middle of Manhattan, sure, but that doesn't change much, just means there's no big cornfield to set the plane down in.
- twtw 9y ago
  Source? Double engine failures are incredibly rare, and I've not been able to find anything that indicates Sullenberberger was involved in any prior to 1549. In simulation, probably.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
ensignavenger 9y ago
I don't know how accurate the movie was, but it is my understanding that the NTSB initially questioned whether the pilot made the right choice to land in the Hudson rather than turn back to the airport.
- devy 9y ago
  Later report ruled that turning back on was going to be a much risky option with possible collateral damages on the ground.
  - ensignavenger 9y ago
    Exactly, the pilots had to evaluate the situation and make a decision, I don't think they had a checklist that told them what to do. They made the right decision- and executed beautifully.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  That is a natural question for them to raise, even derelict if they didn't raise it. Once it was raised and investigated, I think it was conclusive that the Hudson was a very reasonable (and probably the) best choice.
ars 9y ago
He missed one step - he forgot to activate the "ditch switch", which keeps the plane floating longer by closing various things. I guess it wasn't on the checklist?
gbacon 9y ago
Losing all thrust shortly after takeoff is a particularly nasty emergency. Pilots of single-engine airplanes talk about the impossible turn for a reason. It’s really closer to a 270° turn than a 180° turn and requires aggressive maneuvering at low altitude to avoid a stall-spin accident, which has claimed many lives. Unless the pilot is particularly proficient at the maneuver, common advice is to plan on landing straight ahead until reaching 1,000 feet AGL. Having multiple engines makes it not twice as safe but thousands of times safer, at least with respect to losing all thrust. (Multi-engine aircraft have other ways to kill you.) A multi-engine turbine aircraft — turbine engines being far more reliable than pistons — is so unlikely to lose all thrust, i.e., in all engines simultaneously, that they didn’t bother training for it. This worst-case scenario happened anyway. The Southwest incident took place in the flight levels. Altitude is insurance and gives lots of time to consider options. The airplane still had thrust from one engine so may have been capable of (slow) climbs and certainly of level flight. The big unknown in the moment was whether the airframe would hold together, so they still wanted to get on the ground as soon as possible. Given the choice of emergencies, one would take the Southwest circumstances easily. Both pilots did great work managing terrible situations that could have ended up much worse. Loss of all lives on board was in the realm of possibility for both.