This is pretty nuts. Delivery van crashes into taxing aircraft. Skip the first 20 seconds of the video.

After spending nearly 7 years in HK/Macau, I'm going to go on record and say this was:

1) A very weak attempt at suicide.

2) An employee who had a dispute with his employer, either DragonAir or the HK Airport.

I'm leaning towards #2.

Here's an interesting read for anyone who has the inclination to check out a 220+ page transcript. Everything you wanted to know about Sully's emergency landing in the Hudson River. Quite a bit different from what's in the movie, according to a good friend of mine (I haven't seen the movie).

US Airways Flight 1549 NTSB Transcript

I just read the part with Captain Sullenberger. Hard to overstate how impressive he is.

Fascinating read. Can't help but detect a fair bit of similarity between the way Captain Sullenberger responds to questions and our resident expert does.

While I understand that continuous improvement is a big driving force that helps American aviation be as safe as it is, I sort of wanted to punch a couple of the clowns that seemed to insinuate that the crew was anything but heroic in their actions.

Highlights:

CAPT. SULLENBERGER: I also was not able at all to communicate with those on the right side of the airplane because the fuselage was in the way.

and

MR. DeLISI: Were you at all surprised that both engines were taken out by impacts when you encountered this flock of birds?
CAPT. SULLENBERGER: Yes.

Like a boss.

haven't read it, but isn't this kinda the whole point of these inquiries/interviews? If they all just go in with "yeah, great job guys, high fives all around" then what's the point of even doing them in the first place? Their job is to challenge the reported account to see if it holds up.

Did anyone else pick up on the undertones regarding the capacity of the life raft? Were they trying to prove that perhaps Airbus overstated the max capacity?

I agree in principle. There's just a bit of douchey armchair quarterbacking along the lines of questioning why he said "This is the captain, brace for impact" instead of "This is the captain, brace for impact with water".

The aviation world is very particular and mired in pride - a lot of people are very dedicated to flying and its well-being.

The Canadian Forces had an incident a while back where a turbo-prop trainer plane lost its engine and had to choose between ejecting and landing on a grid road. The instructor chose the road and landed the plane relatively safely.

After the the Transportation Safety Board (civilian) and the Directorate of Flight Safety (military) had concluded their thorough investigations they had a town hall where all the Qualified Fight Instructors (QFIs) got to ask the instructor their questions.

Essentially what happened is half the group felt he did the right thing, but the other half felt he unnecessarily endangered 2 military assets (pilots) for a relatively minor piece of equipment (a leased plane with insurance).

The discussion got so heated that it almost came to blows. Anything related to aviation is serious business to pilots: don't **** with their mission.

I suspect, but don't know, the rafts capacity isn't set by Airbus. Or at least, there are standards and testing that determine what they're allowed to say the capacity is.

I thought it was an interesting discussion. Because based on Sully's statements it does seem like the capacity of the lifeboat is overstated.

It seemed like a good example of how important these investigations are even when everything goes right.

Sorry, I tried to look up grid road and I got somewhat contradictory answers. Would this be a busy (or not) road and paved or unpaved?

I also didn't pick up any attempts to question the crews heroic actions. Even a lot of the questions about his state of mind and decision making process seemed more about figuring out why they behaved the way they did while other crews wouldn't have behaved as well.

You don't want to just find what can be improved. You also want to find out why certain things went well so you can try to do things to replicate that success in the future.

I have read (haven't seen the movie either) that for dramatic purposes the movie showed the investigation as a much more confrontational process than it really was. The were going to use the investigators real names but Sully, as a consultant for the movie, insisted that if they were going to portray it that way real names should not be used as the investigation was cordial and professional, tough but fair.

grunch, sorry if repost

Has this crash been discussed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabern...airplane_crash

"On August 10, 1984, a Cessna L-19 Bird Dog (registration number N4584A), piloted by James Jeb Caddell, 38, crashed in a forest near Tabernash. The aircraft was en route from Granby, Colorado to Jeffco, Colorado. The wreck was found by a pair of backpackers three years later on August 23, 1987. A 6½ minute video shot from a VHS camcorder mounted on the instrument panel was found at the site. The heavily damaged tape, some of it hanging from tree branches, was recovered and repaired by Colorado deputy sheriff Dale Wood."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzDSq6m2zV4

Back to the md-88 incident on March 2015...
Yesterday, NTSB noted they are getting ready to set the final report and held a public hearing

http://avherald.com/h?article=482b659f/0003

Did the incident influence the current landing trainings? Have you seen any of the automated changes NTSB recommends being tested?
(And within the permitted information sharing- were the pilots allowed back to fly? and I am not sure I have a pro/con on that, as I am not 100% convinced it is purely a 'human error', aka- the runway reports from the previous landings did not match the conditions they run into)

So I happened to be clicking around on youtube and found the below video. You have spent a lot more time in a 767 than me, but I found myself wanting to lift out of my seat after about 50 seconds. It took 62 seconds to get airborne.

I don't know how long the runway was or what the crosswinds were, but based on what's there visually, doesn't this seem like it's a bit too risky for a passenger flight?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9IhQxmt08U

If you're referring to my sidebar, a grid road would be a gravel road generally uninhabited. Essentially they run in 1 mile by 1 mile grids so farmers can easily access their crops.

I don't think so. The max capacity of a raft is something that's easily verifiable in the initial testing of the raft and overstating it wouldn't have much upside in the long run since it will eventually be found out.

On the topic of rafts, it was a bit of luck that this particular airplane had them. Not all of the planes you fly have rafts on board. In some cases, all you've got for a water landing is a seat cushion to aid in buoyancy. When I take a plane to the Bahamas, one of the things I verify during preflight is that I've got a plane equipped for over-water flight.

I'm the last line of defense on that point. The company only dispatches properly equipped planes to over-water destinations, but humans always find a way to to do an end run on the system. One possible scenario would be a mechanical problem necessitating a last minute swap of planes. Even here, the computer system should catch that the new plane isn't suitable, but I still check.

And while we're discussing life rafts...

You might find it interesting to know that the training regarding this piece of equipment is minimal. During my initial training at the company, we all had to climb in a raft one time. The Training Center has an indoor pool with a fuselage and a large raft (already deployed) in the water. A class of pilots and flight attendants are brought to the pool and we simulate a water evacuation, jumping in the water and climbing into the raft.

I can't remember the raft's capacity, but it was on the order of 40 people. I have never seen an inflated raft since that training. The subject comes up during recurrent training when we discuss all of the on-board safety equipment, but nobody's getting wet.



Just went to see Sully two days ago. My report will follow shortly...

For those who may not remember this accident, it was a Delta MD-88 landing at LGA during snow and low visibility and ceiling. The plane departed the runway after landing and went through a fence, coming to rest about 90° to the runway. The report listed the main cause: Use of excessive engine reverse thrust and rudder blanking on MD-80 series airplanes.

I may not the best guy to ask, since I haven't flown since this past January*, but there was a renewed emphasis on the topic of reverse thrust. It's very easy to exceed the recommended EPR when using the thrust reversers and I always brief the First Officer to monitor the EPR during the landing rollout when I'm flying and bring it to my attention if I'm starting to get it up near 1.6. After logging some time in the 88, most pilots become very comfortable with where to set the reversers but it's easy to overdo it. In the 717 (which is like an MD "mini me") they have FADEC engines and there's a detent for putting the throttles into reverse. It works perfectly every time and I'm always envious of that when I jumpseat on that plane.

To my knowledge, there has been no automation retrofitted on the planes to aid in avoiding an overboost during thrust reverser deployment. I doubt there ever will be any such modification made to the plane. Like it or not, proper use of reversers in the MD-80 series of planes is going to depend on capable pilots.

I have no idea what became of the pilots involved in this accident. I assume they're still flying, but who knows? On the subject of runway condition reports, that is known to be subjective. One man's "good braking" is another man's "fair." And braking action can be significantly different at different points along the runway, not to mention that it can change a lot over a short period of time with changes in precip and temperature. It's just not an exact science.

When I'm landing during any wintry precip, I make sure to select auto-brakes, max flaps (for lowest touchdown speed), and heightened attention to the touchdown point, seeking to plant it on at the 1000' point. We want to land firmly to get the weight on the main gear quickly so that the brakes have maximum effectiveness.


*On this subject: I had a clean CT scan two weeks ago and I'm waiting to hear about getting back to work.

Thumbs up on the clean scan!

Lots of awesome stuff there, and looking forward to the Sully review but f all that clean scan = great news.

Yeah, definitely congrats!

Thumbs up on clean scan!

This has to be the most amazing amateur landing I've ever seen, possibly the best ever period: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng3ULAsAUB4
In case you don't have time to watch the whole thing, spoiler below.

Wow! Great show!

And to think I thought Sparks' flying adventure was incredible—this one just might be a tad bit more amazing.