The Hero of Flight 1549: The Guy at the End of a Safety Chain

By now you probably know most of the details behind the successful ditching of Flight 1549 in the Hudson River, right between New York City and New Jersey. The airplane, an Airbus A320, took off northward from La Guardia, lost power in both engines at 2,800 feet, and made a shallow left 180 degree turn, overflying the George Washington Bridge (the GW, in local parlance), then ditching in the Hudson a few miles south of that.

It was a spectacular piece of flying by the captain, Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger III, the pilot with the name and a face straight out of a Rudyard Kipling novel.

The guy, it turns out, is exactly who you wanted at the controls under the circumstances. Experienced, level headed and capable of making quick, cool decisions on his own. He's been a pilot at US Airways for decades, rising through the ranks to captain and check airman. He runs his own safety consulting business. By all accounts that I've read, he's a serious airman with a no-nonsense attitude about safety.

Dick Collins told me one time, as he's told many other pilots, I'm sure, that he didn't care a lick for all his experience, because the only hour that mattered was the hour he was currently flying. And that was true for Captain Sullenberger, too. For all his action hero appeal, he was just a guy flying a 160,000 pound glider at low level over the most densely populated area on the continent.

He had to make a few critical choices, and he nailed them all.

First, he had to realize that they were too low to turn back to LGA. He never wavered on that point. Then, when the controller was suggesting Teterboro, across the river, as a possible site, Sullenberger passed on it, too, apparently without hesitation. He decided to do the unthinkable, to ditch the airplane in the Hudson because it was the best possible alternative. I've imagined ever other scenario, and short of a miracle, any other choice than a ditching probably would have resulted in total catastrophe.

Of course, while he was thinking, he was flying too, and by all appearances, his glider training and experience probably came in handy, as he was able to get everything out of that engine-less Airbus he needed to. And when it came time to ditch, he obviously did it all exactly right, right by the book. And if he didn't, well, then they should re-write the book to conform to Sully's methods.

But when it comes right down to it, the triumph of Flight 1549 is not just one guy's success story. It's the success of the culture of training and safety that created procedures and scenarios that allowed all A320 pilots to practice over and over again in the sim just what to do when the cards are stacked against you.

The passengers indeed owe their lives to Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger III, it's true. But it' s more complicated than that. They also owe their lives to the thousands of people from the airlines, the simulator manufacturers, the training providers and the FAA, people who put in place a set of safety standards and training requirements that led directly to the happiest possible outcome in what otherwise could have been a tragedy of epic proportions.

Congratulations to all of them.

Comments

[Glenn Lindsey]

I think that people might need to realize the copilot's actions during all of this. He's the one calling out airspeed, altitude, checklist items while the captain was flying. I don't mean to minimize Capt Sullenberger's obvious skills, but I haven't seen his copilot's name mentioned anywhere.

[Robert Goyer]

You're right. Jeffrey Skiles is his name, and as reports of the brief transcript have come out, it's clear that he was an invaluable part of the crew coordination effort. Good point. And, I'd like to point out, the flight attendants' work was nothing short of heroic, too. A textbook effort by all involved.

[Tony Airplane]

I feel that we need to take a more reserved approach. Should we really swallow what the media is feeding us? The reporting of this story has really bothered me, just as much as poor reporting of aviation accidents with bad outcomes does.

First, let's see if they find bird bits in BOTH of those engines, or other physical evidence of a bird hit. There's a chance that they may not. Pilots have pulled the wrong engine before (wasn't there a DC9/MD80 that crashed due to that?), or maybe there is some other issue that came up - there are reports of a compressor stall a couple of days before the crash. Could that have been a bird strike?

Also, what's the maint. history of this aircraft? How about the training history of the crew? Has either had to have any remedial training in normal or emergency procedures?

They may well be heroes, and if it turns out that they are, I'll be happy to laud them. But I just can't get behind the media's adoration, and Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg (who should know better) in giving the pilot the key to NYC, at least not until the facts are in.

Also, no matter whether it was a true accident or crew induced, why weren't they high enough to make the field upon loss of power? Did ATC keep them from climbing higher than they could have been? Maybe ATC procedures for airline operations should be revised. For maximum safety, shouldn't all aircraft spend the minimum amount of time at altitudes where they can't glide to a field? Both inbound and outbound? Especially in places where there's no water runway for an alternate?

[Colin Walker]

By the Book? The Hudson incident illustrates an important point that I have not seen mentioned. On the subject of ditching I have often heard it said that at the last moment one wing should be lowered so that as it slices into the water it disapates energy and slews the aircraft around. The result being that there is less destructive force as the fuselage enters the water and the passangers experience an increasing, rotating, sideways force which is supposedly less injuring than being immediately thrown directly forwards at impact. This I am told was the preferred method for experienced fighter pilots during WWII and I have spoken to Light aircraft pilots who have used this method successfully in aircraft of under two tonnes. However in the past whenever a "Heavy" has had a water ditching and this method has been used (eg the ditching off the Seychells) the result has been the disintegration of the aircraft fuselage with major loss of life. In the Hudson ditching, from what I can see, it appears that the aircraft was brought onto the water in a flat level attitude and as a consequence the fuselage remained in one piece and all were saved. The Pilots decision and handling were therefore at odds to the methodology often espoused. So Yes, I think they need to re-write the book and they should get Captain Sullenberger to write this chapter!

[Herb Hunter]

The question, " why weren't they high enough to make the field upon loss of power?" struck me as rather odd. Flight 1539 wasn't high enough because the bird strike occurred before they could gain much altitude (it had been reported, early on, that the flight had been cleared to climb to 15,000 feet). This morning it was reported that the NTSB found what appears to be the remains of a bird in the engine that was still attached to the wing.

[Tony Airplane]

In my best Chris Berman voice: Herb "Fate is the" Hunter,

So you are saying that an Airbus can't climb at a rate that would ensure its safe gliding return to the airport?

I'm not so sure. There might have been an intermediate hold, don't you think? My point is that there's too much maneuvering at low altitude in the terminal area.

TA

[Oh Come On]

Day one, every student pilot is taught to look for the longest open unobstructed area in a forced landing. "Gliding" a jet back to short LaGuardia even it is was high enough, landing at some unimaginable speed, would have been a terrible choice. Teterboro, short, the same. The only possibility really was the river. The sailplane experience argument is nonsense. They were going down. Options were one, the river. The elegant apparent full-stall landing and textbook perfect evacuation is impressive. What if the departure, after hitting birds over the zoological garden bird magnet, had been east over populated Long Island?

[Jim Miles]

It was mentioned in one of the responses about the "OLD SCHOOL" teachings of lowering one wing into the water to help slow the aircraft and to lessen the impact. That same sort of old school thinking is still being taught by some jr college flight instructors. As a former Captain in charge of the one of the best aircraft rescue & firefighting crews (other wise known as ARFF) at George Bush Intercontinental in Airport/ IAH,I had the pleasure of speaking to some of the local college aviation students about aircraft accidents and what to expect from the ARFF crews at the airports across the country. I am not a CFI but I am a pilot and aircraft owner and my advice to any pilot is too never lower a wing on any wheels up landing or especially a water landing. I had one college flight instructor tell his class to land in the grass between paved ares of an aiport in the event of a wheels up landing. Who knows what is in the grass. Is it level? Are there ditches there that are covered with grass? Who knows what is lying there lurking to either flip the aircraft or worse yet, tear a wing tank open and now we have a fire that may not be survivable.I saw one pilot try to save his plane by doing a wheels up landing in the grassy area between the runway and let one wing drop. It dug into the dirt, flip the plane tearing it apart and seriously injuring the pilot.Just food for thought. Myself, I beleive Captain Sully has joined the ranks of such cool and level headed pilots as Captain Al Haines. We all remember him dont we?

[Oh Come On]

Let's not forget along with Captain Sullenberger's experience, his advancing age. The book "Outliers" predicts anyone with over 10,000 hours in any experience, to be a master craftsman. Old gray beard (reminds of Al Haines, DC-10 in Sioux City at 59) saves the day again. Yet, where'd his pension go? PBGC. At least he gets to work to 65 whereas hundreds of his former "Outlier" coworkers were kicked to the curb by the antiquated age 60 rule so they get their $30K a year (non-inflation adjusted) annuity. They can thank their former union ALPA for that.

[Tony Airplane]

Airliners have been glided in before, even at "at some unimaginable speed". Remember the Air Canada that ran out of fuel?

I'm sticking to my point - if they're high enough they have more options - and not all airports have nice wide rivers nearby.

Being at 3200 ft. at 5 or 6 miles from the airport just doesn't make sense to me. I read that the Air Canada incident showed a 10 to 1 glide ratio, so these guys could have glided about 6 miles, too close to try it with what was beneath them so of course the river was the right choice. But what if they had been at 7,000?

[Gastón]

Yo creo que con ambos motores detenidos a la altura que había alcanzado no se debe girar 180º para planear hasta nivel 0.Habría que saber cómo era el viento !!!!!
Lo hizo y le salió muy bien, pero fué un milagro!
No lo considero un ejemplo a imitar, de ningún modo.

In all your WELL FOUNDED accolades to those in aviation to whom the passengers AND CREW owe their lives, you have missed A BIG GROUP OF PEOPLE, who, WITHOUT THEM, the passengers and crew of Flight 1549, would have been left standing on the wing of a sinking A320, stranded in the middle of the icy cold Hudson River, and that is the group of people that came to their aid...the civilian ferry boat crews AND their PASSENGERS, the members of the NYPD, the FDNY, the USCG and all the others, who got the passengers and crew of Flight 1549 from the INTERIM SAFETY of the plane, to the FINAL SAFETY of the shore and on to places of care. Yes, Captain Sully and HIS CREW got the passengers safely onto the water and out of the plane, but that was only the first part of the story. You forgot the accolates for those who got the passengers and crew OFF THE WATER and on to final safety. I would be VERY DISAPPOINTED in you if you don't come back in the next issue of flyingmag.com and say some good things about this "ship to shore and onward" group of dedicated and caring people. Without them, I believe this story would have had a possible, if not, probable tragic ending.

[Oh Come On]

With a partial flap landing(who knows how much they could have gotten down?), approach speeds would be very high. Kinetic Energy is Mass/2 x Velocity SQUARED. LaGuardia and Teterboro would have required not only an accuracy spot landing, on a long runway but everything working to get the plane stopped before it careened off the end. Yes, jets glide but the speeds are fast, perhaps 230 knots. At some point they got to get configured (if possible) and slowed down. The river was the best opportunity. Give USAirways pilots their pensions back and the elder "gap" pilots their jobs back. Experience matters.

[Skypilot]

I would first like to ask Herb Hunter why he subtracted 10 from Flight 1549.
We really have to wait for the orange boxes info. but at least we can speculate.
Could they have AVOIDED the birds? I heard that one pilot saw birds on the side.
Why was Long Island Sound ruled out?
Air Bus has a 'ditch switch' that closes a lot of air vents so the plane will float longer. Does Boeing have this?
Since both engines were not operating, were the hydralics (sic)
capable of dropping the gear or can they deploy by gravity in case they decided to return to LaGuardia.
Finally, America was desperate for GOOD NEWS and some HEROES in a time when all you hear is how bad George Bush screwed this country up. Good riddens George, you weren't even
1/100th as capable as Sully you draft dodging sob.

[Lou Messier]

Gentlemen,

I'm hoping someone will address the question of how the flight controls were able to function without engine power.

How difficlult was it for the flight deck to wrestle the yoke and rudders to force the hydraulics to work?

[Tony Airplane]

Skyyypilot-

How can somone that served as an Air Force pilot be a draft dodger? You're confusing him with BJ Clinton, who really did evade the draft.

What is "riddens"?

Lastly - the reports are that they forgot to throw the "ditch switch". They are fortunate that the thing didn't sink faster, and maybe recovery might have been easier if they had follower the proper procedure.

[Joel Godston]

As a pilot who 'dead-sticked' a T-33 in Air Force pilot training; flew B-47's in SAC and F-86H's in the Air National Guard in the 1950's and 60's, and still fly a Cessna 182; What an incredible job done by everyone...the pilots Chesley Sullenberger and Jeffery Skilles, and crew, who are trained(train and re-train) to handle ALL kinds of emergencies;and executed what was necessary to have EVERYONE survive the event..... the passengers who did not panic; but left the airplane in a very professional and 'calm' manner....and finally ALL the people who helped the passengers and crew members of US Airways flight 1549 to safety....ALL are HERO's

[Tony Airplane]

Joel,

What if it turns out that they caused, or could have prevented the accident?

Not saying they did, but it is possible...since they didn't throw the "ditch switch", they might have been using the wrong checklist.....shouldn't we wait for facts before coronating?

TA

[Oh Come On]

Flight controls? Electrics? Not having flown the A320 I don't specifically know but there's backups for ever imaginable possibility e.g. Ram Air Turbines that powers a hydraulic system. Control is of Primary importance so is protected in the event of a Dual Engine Flameout or power loss. The same RAT can power minimal electrics in some other airplanes. With dual engine loss, the airplane is controllable but highly crippled with bare essentials. Things like full flaps/slats may not be possible which means very high approach then landing speeds.

[Skyhawk]

Tony:

Not sure why you are so intent on blaming the crew for this accident. As far as altitude is concerned, they would have presumably be climbing out at the prescribed and USUAL rate of climb, for this type of aircraft, for this particular departure corridor,which would put them at the altitude and distance that has been recorded. With a high deck angle and rapid rate of closure there would have been little, if any, time to spot the birds and react to avoid them, given the inertia of such a large airplane.

Sure, they could have had more options had they been higher when the bird strikes occured, but there was no valid reason for them to be any higher at that point in the flight. You fail to point out WHY the airplane should have been climbing more steeply BEFORE the bird strike. Your statements seems to state that the aircraft could continue to climb AFTER the engines quit. Of course, that makes no sense.

You come across as a person who knows little about airplanes and their performance, crew training and profeciency, and the physics of flight. Your comments contain too many "what-ifs", and "perhaps", and "maybes" Time to re-educate yourself brother.

[Miguel A. Villamil]

USAirways flight 1549 was a special flight because of the circumstances, but it was a normal commercial flight, flown by two pilots with simple common sense, conviction and determination in their thinking and decision making attitude and a well developed sense of responsibility through every take off and every landing --both are different every single time. Therefore, all the preceding comments by others, which are mere speculations just to say something, but the real truth of the matter is that the pilots of flight 1549 are the only ones who knew what to do. And with the enlightment of God, our constant control center, no doubt, they were successful.
Regarding comments and speculations to others' flying attitude, serious pilots should not refer to the book or training specifics, just commend what these two pilots did, and learn from it.

[Tony Airplane]

Skyhawk,

Too many shots with lunch my friend? You have what I said wrong.

I never said they should climb with no power. What I am proposing is that the standard departure procedures include considerations toward safety. There really is no good reason to be flying airliners around at 3k ft.

Also, I am not blaming the crew, it appears that they did a great job, but rather I am cautioning against the media frenzy to create heros before the facts are known.

Remember the C-5 crash in Delaware? The Colonel came out with a statement praising his crew. Then the investigation results came out and it was learned that the crew caused the crash.

All I am saying is that we should be a bit more careful with the blind praise until we find out the facts.

Finally, what's with the personal attack? I'm actually pretty decent with the physics of flight.

[Mgiuel A. Villamil]

To pilots who are prone to speculate with misconception of flying practices or just for the heck of speculating the flying practice displayed by the pilots of USAirways 1549, should ponder on the behavior that a very small percentage of pilots nowadays practice when in an emergency and that is TO FLY THE AIRPLANE.....just fly the airplane to safety...second nature kicks in.

[George Schmidt]

It is interesting to note the comments by rated pilotes and those posted by wannabes or think=they-ares. Kudos to the crew for the successful outcome of the emergency ditching. I see a lot of speculation not based on any fects. And, the real miracle was that no watercraft were in the path of the aircraft. Otherwise, we would mot be smiling.

[George Schmidt]

It is interesting to note the comments by rated pilotes and those posted by wannabes or think=they-ares. Kudos to the crew for the successful outcome of the emergency ditching. I see a lot of speculation not based on any fects. And, the real miracle was that no watercraft were in the path of the aircraft. Otherwise, we would mot be smiling.