Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The captain and the first officer should be commended for doing an outstanding job in landing the Airbus A320 in the river, and I'm glad to see that there was no loss of life.
No one is sure yet, but they're saying that one bird was sucked into one of the engines, and subsequently disabled both engines. Although it's rare, but it can happen. When the bird got sucked in, the aircraft was on a climb after taking off, which would tell me the engines would have been running at 95% thrust. At that point, when engine parts break off from a bird getting sucked in, they can go through the wing section and damage components that control the fuel pumps, and that might explain why they lost both engines.
A very lucky break for the crew and passengers. Bird ingestion, while common, could have had a much worse outcome. Back in '95 when I was stationed up in Anchorage an AWACS (four engine 707 type jet) took some geese into the engines on takeoff and they were not able to get more altitude and manuever. Thankfully in today's incident the pilot was able to stay aloft and align the plane to land on the river. Good thing it happened during daylight also with visibility and so much river traffic to get to the plane quickly.
Did anyone hear it reported that the passengers had followed a "women and children out first" system?
I heard it in one of the earlier reports and it surprised me as I could imagine the chaos that goes along with being in a life-threatening situation.
This evening I heard an interview with a guy who said he stayed on the plane til all the other passengers were off. The interviewer asked him about the women and children system, and he just said no, it didn't happen that way. He seemed chagrined about that.
But knowing what it's like to get off a crowded plane in the BEST of circumstances where there is no room in the aisles and you almost have to climb over people to get your luggage, I can't even imagine a scenario where it would have made sense time-wise (remember, the plane is filling with water) to try to get the women and children to the emergency exits in front of the men.
as a man i wouldnt be frightened by being the last out. I'd want to be one of the last out to make sure weaker ones are safe. besides the plane was floating considerably. not the mention the bunch of ferries nearby
Sorry, I was unclear when I mentioned that guy. He deliberately stayed in the plane til everyone was out because that's the "way he was raised" or something. He was chagrined that the people on the plane did not follow the women and children out first system because he would have liked to have seen them saved first if he were in charge.
I see his point of view and I know some men like that, but in this situation it did not seem feasible since the plane was crowded and getting people off in order of where they were seated would seem to have made more sense than a women and children rule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
