Home > Money > Rick Newman > How Sullenberger Really Saved US Airways Flight 1549

How Sullenberger Really Saved US Airways Flight 1549

Reader Comments
Back to blog

welll people were lucky i think

bob of TN 2:13PM February 17, 2012

Pertaining to the 'Insufficient Attitude' : No matter how many simulation of the Flight 1549 later proved that heading back to LGA after the aircraft had lost both engine was possible, landed at the Hudson River was the decision made by Cap. Sullenberger was done in 'Split Seconds'. It is impossible for the Captain to calculate if heading back to LGA is possible, or it may have more casualties and causing disaster on the ground despite the passenger on the plane.
I stay still for his right decision to land on Hudson River and thumbs-up for what he has done!

KC Tan 5:00AM April 22, 2011

Examine the facts and you'll agree that the entire incident was manufactured by Sullengberger. The strike occurred because in addition to breaking the Sterile Cockpit Rule by not keeping his own eyes on the job, his "beautiful view of the Hudson"-comment distracted the guy who was actually flying the aircraft - FO Jeff Skiles. Had both been using their standard-issue MK-1 eyeballs to watch where they were going, they wouldn't have ended up going where they were watching.
Here's only a partial list of Sully's F-ups: didn't turn back to LGA immediately (he had a 35-second window to do it in - all pilots that sim'd the event in that time made it back safe and sound); took control of the aircraft (the flying is the eays part; the more-experienced pilot does the trouble-shooting); didn't declare an emergency (no 'MayDay' call. In spite of what the NTSB says); used wrong call-sign ("Cactus 1539. He was 1549); didn't use emergency frequency; 'stepped' on ATC; said he was heading back to LGA, but didn't - and didn't advise otherwise; spent time starting APU (it starts automatically); turned the wrong way (you land into the wind - he went downwind. Which also required that he avoid 600-fot-high Geo Washington bridge); didn't advise cabin what he was doing (not one person donned a life jacket); didn't drop full flaps (which is why he tore the whole arse-end of the plane open on landing. When Skiles asked if need more flaps, he said 'No'); didn't hit the ditching switch (which would have sealed off outside openings); didn't use his cell to call 911 to advise of what was going on. But he did call his wife.
The joke of it is, he's passing himself off as an 'expert' on aircraft safety when, as his own experience shows, he's an abject screw-up. The title of his next book should read "Flight 1539: What I Forgot to Tell You".
When the feathers finally settle in this one, the man and his former employer will be sued like you wouldn't believe. And if the statute of limitations hasn't passed, find himself facing charges of reckless endangerment.
The
BTW, Sully and I have something in common: we've both splashed into the Hudson. Except I was smart enough to do it in an aircraft built for more than one water landing.

Dave BRough of UT 12:33PM March 19, 2011

For those so called pilots trashing Sully on ability to return for successful landing, its lucky for flight 1549 you werent piloting. NTSB simulation concluded with a mere 35 seconds immediately following strike and loss of thrust in both N1 and N2, the pilot would have been unsuccessful in a return landing to LGA at 4.5nmi (LGA being the shortest option). The 10 simulations that showed a return to LGA possible only worked in "simulator" with an immediate turn to LGA upon strike (Zero second decision). NTSB panel concluded the pilot made the best possible decision that provided the highest survival probability given all factors present. In this case, all 155 alive.

jgrant of OK 1:28AM December 16, 2010

So let me get this straight - you think the captain chose a near certain death scenario to do, rather than return nice and easy to the airport?
Give me a break. It's really easy to be a Monday morning quarterback....
Somehow, I bet you would have been screaming like a toddler had you been the pilot.

Common Sense of NJ 8:55AM December 06, 2010

I am a G.A. pilot and the fact that Sully was able to glide long enough to touch down in lower manhattan strongly indicated to me that there should have been more than enough glide to execute a return to LGA. This notion was confirmed in a discussion I had with a US Air Pilot in Philly, while waiting to make a connection. The US Air pilot's comments are a mirror image of what you wrote and based on the information you provided, and what thie US Air pilot told me, it looks like my thoughts were right on - that plane definitely could have safely returned to LGA.

Bill DeFalco of NY 1:26AM October 20, 2010

Whoever wrote this article is an idiot... Successfully ditching a full sized commercial aircraft is almost un-heard of and attempting it results in death for everyone nearly 100% of the time... Just look how low those engines hang below the fuselage. He had to thread the needle to land that thing in a controlled way and had one shot at it. If you want to see what true heroism is, listen to the cockpit voice recorder. That guy has an epic pair. If you compare it to other crash recordings where guy's are wetting their shorts moments before impact, the contrast couldn't be any clearer. "We'll be in the Hudson"... Compare that with the usual "We're Going Down, oh @#%!" or the even more popular "oh @#%!" or if they have a few more seconds ..."oh @#%! @#%! @#%! me @#%! @#%! @#%!"
Give the guy some credit. He kept his cool in the face of near certain death and yeah, I'm sure the guy's in the back did a great job of making sure everyone remembered returned their seat backs to their full upright and locked position before the crash... Come on, this was a one man show... All the training in the world, and a monkey next to him pushing the start button on the trashed engines doesn't change the fact that pulling this one off required a man with ice water flowing through his veins and some massive stones.
Sully, this Buds for you!

Jason of WA 4:26AM October 06, 2010

This man "Sully" inoculated himself as much as possible with all the public appearances and hails of "hero". What B.S.! He should have had a competency hearing at the least. With over 30 years as Captain in transport category turbojets and have flown that airspace countless times, IMHO he could have made Teterboro or LGA no sweat; at 3000' AGL you could glide almost 9 miles. And if he were to have chosen to return, he would have had a tail wind. Instead, he got scope locked on the river and splashed it in. Thank God no one was killed or it would be a completely different story. No one should have ever gotten wet; only cleaning out their pants once on the ground. Check out the NTSB flight recorder video and notice how much excess energy was left as he glided down the river bleeding off airspeed. Sheesh! Sully’s no hero by any stretch, just one incredibly lucky retiree.

restricted of OH 5:02PM May 06, 2010

Call this “The Paul Harvey version”
Sample this: The NTSB ran a series of tests in France using Airbus simulators to see if Flight 1549 could have returned safely to LaGuardia. The simulation started immediately following the bird strike, with the participating pilots aware of the situation. When they responded within 30 seconds, all were able to return safely to LaGuardia.
So this: If they did it, Sully could have, too! Having seen the birds before impact and feeling the impact, he should have known that with birds the size and weight of bowling balls, there wasn't a snowball's chance for a relight. In other words, turn and head back. Had he reacted within that 30 seconds window, he could have put it back down at LGA with barely a mention in the press. If he had spare altitude, he could have tried for the relight on the way down. And even if he didn't make the runway, there's a lot of water around LGA and he could, as a last resort, have put it into the drink.
The simple fact is, Sully trashed an $80 million aircraft and, had even one of his lucky stars not been perfectly aligned, would have killed himself and 154 others.
Talk about situational awareness, he didn't even know that the airport off to the side was Teterboro!
The only thing Sully did right was to keep it straight, level, and flying until the the big splash. “Straight, level, and flying” is the first lesson any student learns about flying. Only sheer, unrepeatable luck saved those people. Sully not only didn't even have the forethought to warn that they would be in water, he didn't hit the 'ditch switch' and, when he went back for his jacket, forgot to even close the doors!
The real hero of the day? Airbus. It had the smarts to build an aircraft with the ability to endure a high-speed splashdown and outsmart idiots who can't even remember to hit the ditch switch or close the doors.
What I don't understand is why, when it knows the real story, has the NTSB has hidden it?
It's time to expose this reluctant non-hero for what he is: a third-rate driver who distinguished himself by having some of most incredible luck ever experienced in aviation.
Tell me different!

Bruff of UT 7:51PM March 01, 2010

Disregard the passenger comments. They are all but useless. The only valid passenger comment would be from someone with documented expertise isolated and interviewed immediately after the event (and even then should be viewed with skepticism.)
As to the left engine, there is no evidence that it was damaged or not functioning properly. From the initial NTSB report: "The initial external examination of the engine revealed dents on both the spinner and inlet lip of the engine cowling. Five booster inlet guide vanes are fractured and eight outlet guide vanes are missing. A visual examination of the engine did not reveal evidence of organic material; there was evidence of soft body impact damage." All of this damage corresponds to what one would expect of a water landing and/or subsequent rescue and salvage activity. The complete lack of "organic material" in the left engine (as was found in the right engine) leaves the NTSB only an "educated guess" as to what happened. By the way, no one (including the pilots) has stated or testified that they saw any birds (of any kind). In this case, the absence of "comments" is exponentially stronger than the passenger comments I advised you to disregard above.
Finally, I'm not trying to be contentious here. Just stating that there are other valid explanations than the self-serving material you've heard to date. I will accept whatever the NTSB comes out with in their final report.

Samuel Stone of NV 9:07AM January 19, 2010