Tracking Flight Path of US Airways 1549(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Tracking Flight Path of US Airways 1549
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/15/nyregion/20090115-plane-crash-970.html
8 コメント
A common mistake by small plane pilots is to try and make a U-turn and glide back to the airport. It usually doesn't work since you lose so much altitude during the turns. This pilot seemed to do an amazing job of finding the best glide rate and not turning too much - and then somehow figuring out how to land the plane in the water.
And you really lose a lot of altitude in the stall you induce in that turn, or trying to extend a glide by back pressure, engine(s) out.
When in doubt, land straight out.
When in doubt, land straight out.
One of the articles I perused mentioned that the pilot was a glider pilot as well. I wonder if he acquired some transferable skills!
Ex-glider pilots have been known to do awesome and unorthodox things in order to save a jetliner. This tale of the "Gimli Glider" is another example of grace in an extreme situation.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=744
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=744
Pretty cool; but amateurs can do almost as well with Google maps and Google Earth:
http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2009/01/short-flight-of-...
Teterboro must have been really tempting, a successful ditching is anything but a sure thing, if one of the wings had caught the water before the other the plane would have started tumbling at over 100mph.
Teterboro must have been really tempting, a successful ditching is anything but a sure thing, if one of the wings had caught the water before the other the plane would have started tumbling at over 100mph.
the pilot is said to be an experienced glider pilot, probably helped in this situation
Beautiful, but I can't believe they left out how the plane cleared GW bridge by 900 feet!
I can't wait until someone gets the black box data and History Channel does an animation of the landing trajectory.
Nicely done! Long Live the NYTimes!
I agree. It's a slick, easy-to-understand analysis of the crash.
It also shows quick thinking on the part of the pilot. If they hadn't decided to ditch the plane in the river instead of continuing to the airport, it probably would have come up short and crash landed in an urban area. A lot of people owe the flight crew their lives, not just the passengers.
It also shows quick thinking on the part of the pilot. If they hadn't decided to ditch the plane in the river instead of continuing to the airport, it probably would have come up short and crash landed in an urban area. A lot of people owe the flight crew their lives, not just the passengers.
The NY Times does some very good things, but they also keep publishing Maureen Dowd and William Kristol.
I don't mind being down modded, I stand by what I said.
But I am honestly curious who here is a fan of Dowd's and Kristol's writing?
But I am honestly curious who here is a fan of Dowd's and Kristol's writing?
not me. They sound like broken record player, repeating the same stuff over and over. And Dowd is a misandrist, but that's ok, as it is trendy nowdays.
It looks like the pilot decided to not take the chance to land on the small airport, as if he wanted to avoid the risk to crash into the city.
That's a good point. With both engines out to provide reverse thrust and likely little if any emergency landing facilities at Teterboro, he probably made the right choice.
This is a great report from NYTimes on the best landing since Air Transat flight 236 in 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236).
This just proves that AI would not be soon here! The pilot did an amazing job, no AI can't beat theat.