DOCSLIB.ORG

Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River US Airways Flight

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River US Airways Flight Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River US Airways Flight 1549 Airbus A320‐214, N106US Weehawken, New Jersey January 15, 2009 Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10/03 National PB2010-910403 Transportation Safety Board NTSB/AAR-10/03 PB2010-910403 Notation 8082A Adopted May 4, 2010 Aircraft Accident Report Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River US Airways Flight 1549 Airbus A320-214, N106US Weehawken, New Jersey January 15, 2009 National Transportation Safety Board 490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20594 National Transportation Safety Board. 2010. Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River, US Airways Flight 1549, Airbus A320-214, N106US, Weehawken, New Jersey, January 15, 2009. Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10 /03. Washington, DC. Abstract: This report describes the January 15, 2009, accident involving the ditching of US Airways flight 1549 on the Hudson River about 8.5 miles from LaGuardia Airport, New York City, after an almost complete loss of thrust in both engines following an encounter with a flock of birds. The 150 passengers, including a lap-held child, and 5 crewmembers evacuated the airplane by the forward and overwing exits. One flight attendant and four passengers were seriously injured, and the airplane was substantially damaged. Safety issues discussed in this report include in-flight engine diagnostics, engine bird-ingestion certification testing, emergency and abnormal checklist design, dual-engine failure and ditching training, training on the effects of flight envelope limitations on airplane response to pilot inputs, validation of operational procedures and requirements for airplane ditching certification, and wildlife hazard mitigation. The report also discusses survival-related issues, including passenger brace positions; slide/raft stowage; passenger immersion protection; life line usage; life vest stowage, retrieval, and donning; preflight safety briefings; and passenger education. Safety recommendations concerning these issues are addressed to the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the European Aviation Safety Agency. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, railroad, highway, marine, pipeline, and hazardous materials safety. Established in 1967, the agency is mandated by Congress through the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to investigate transportation accidents, determine the probable causes of the accidents, issue safety recommendations, study transportation safety issues, and evaluate the safety effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation. The NTSB makes public its actions and decisions through accident reports, safety studies, special investigation reports, safety recommendations, and statistical reviews. Recent publications are available in their entirety on the Internet at <http://www.ntsb.gov>. Other information about available publications also may be obtained from the website or by contacting: National Transportation Safety Board Records Management Division, CIO-40 490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20594 (800) 877-6799 or (202) 314-6551 NTSB publications may be purchased, by individual copy or by subscription, from the National Technical Information Service. To purchase this publication, order report number PB2010-910403 from: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 (800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000 The Independent Safety Board Act, as codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 1154(b), precludes the admission into evidence or use of NTSB reports related to an incident or accident in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. NTSB Aircraft Accident Report Contents Figures .......................................................................................................................................... vii Tables .......................................................................................................................................... viii Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... ix Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................xv 1. Factual Information ...................................................................................................................1 1.1 History of Flight .........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Injuries to Persons ......................................................................................................................6 1.3 Damage to Airplane ...................................................................................................................6 1.4 Other Damage ............................................................................................................................6 1.5 Personnel Information ................................................................................................................6 1.5.1 The Captain ......................................................................................................................6 1.5.1.1 The Captain’s 72-Hour History .........................................................................7 1.5.2 The First Officer ..............................................................................................................8 1.5.2.1 The First Officer’s 72-Hour History ..................................................................8 1.5.3 The Flight Attendants ......................................................................................................9 1.6 Airplane Information .................................................................................................................9 1.6.1 General Information .........................................................................................................9 1.6.2 Airspeed Displays ..........................................................................................................10 1.6.3 Flight Envelope Protections ...........................................................................................12 1.6.4 Low-Speed or -Energy Warning ....................................................................................12 1.6.5 Electrical and Hydraulic Systems ..................................................................................13 1.6.6 Engines ..........................................................................................................................13 1.6.6.1.1 Requirements at the Time of Certification............................................. 16 1.6.6.1.2 Amendments Made After Certification ................................................. 18 1.6.6.1.3 Postaccident Actions .............................................................................. 20 1.6.7 Airframe Ditching and Emergency Landing Certification Requirements .....................20 1.6.8 US Airways Maintenance Program ...............................................................................23 1.6.8.1 General .............................................................................................................23 1.6.8.2 Engine Maintenance Records ..........................................................................23 1.7 Meteorological Information .....................................................................................................24 1.8 Aids to Navigation ...................................................................................................................24 1.9 Communications ......................................................................................................................24 1.10 Airport Information ................................................................................................................25 1.10.1 FAA Guidance on Airport Wildlife Hazard Management ..........................................25 1.10.2 LGA Wildlife Hazard Management Program ..............................................................26 1.10.3 Air Traffic Control .......................................................................................................26 1.10.3.1 ATC Guidance ...............................................................................................27 1.10.3.2 Traffic Conflict ..............................................................................................28 iii NTSB Aircraft Accident Report 1.10.3.3 Airport Surveillance Radar ............................................................................29 1.11 Flight Recorders .....................................................................................................................29 1.11.1 Cockpit Voice Recorder ..............................................................................................29 1.11.2 Flight Data Recorder ....................................................................................................30 1.12 Wreckage and Impact Information ........................................................................................30 1.12.1 Structural Damage .......................................................................................................30
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Airways Flight 1549
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Captain Chesley Sullenberger Got Any Ideas?: U.S. Airways Flight 1549 First Officer Jeffrey Skiles Leadership ViTS Meeting April 2011 Bryan O’Connor Chief, Safety and Mission Assurance Wilson B. Harkins Deputy Chief, Safety and Mission Assurance This and previous presentations are archived at: http://nsc.nasa.gov/SFCS THE MISHAP When the 155 passengers and crew members aboard U.S. Airways Flight 1549 left New York City on a cold day in January 2009, no one anticipated the drama that was about to unfold. Takeoff proceeded normally, but when the aircraft climbed to 3,200 feet, a flock of migratory geese crossed its flight path. Each of the Airbus A320’s turbofan engines ingested a goose and subsequently suffered damage that disabled its thrust-producing capability. Unable to return to the airport and left without other landing options, the flight crew valiantly ditched the plane in the Hudson River. Seconds after the aircraft skidded onto the frigid water, passengers evacuated onto the wings and waited for rescue. Within minutes, commuter ferries and Coast Guard vessels arrived at the scene and rescued the airplane occupants. Aircraft Controls •Airbus A320 is not equipped with a conventional control yoke; pilots instead use a side stick to fly the aircraft. •Side stick inputs are analyzed by a “fly-by-wire” electronic interface which prevents the aircraft from executing maneuvers outside its performance limits. •Setting the fly-by-wire system to Normal Law keeps the aircraft within a safe flight envelope with respect to roll, pitch, yaw, and speed.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Landing Automation Aids: an Evaluation Inspired by US Airways Flight 1549
    AIAA Infotech@Aerospace 2010 AIAA 2010-3381 20 - 22 April 2010, Atlanta, Georgia Emergency Landing Automation Aids: An Evaluation Inspired by US Airways Flight 1549 Ella M. Atkins.* University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105, U.S.A The Hudson River emergency landing of US Airways Flight 1549 inspired aviation enthusiasts and citizens alike. The pilot's skill and composure were exceptional, clearly contributing to one of the most successful aircraft water ditchings possible. As we prepare for transition to a next-generation air transportation system, we are developing new technologies both to increase system capacity and efficiency and improve safety levels. This paper describes the practical application of an adaptive flight planning automation aid to the specific US Airways loss-of-thrust situation, demonstrating how this technology, if available, could have enabled a safe return to a LaGuardia runway. First, the adaptive flight planning architecture and its evolution are summarized, followed by an analysis of the Flight 1549 cockpit data recording time histories to identify pertinent features for our analysis. The adaptive flight planner was tasked with identifying emergency no-thrust landing plans for the A320 at a series of different delay times after the dual bird strike incident occurred. Our results show that LaGuardia airport runways were reachable so long as the approach is initiated within approximately sixteen seconds after the dual bird strike incident. This result is consistent with accident docket data published by the NTSB. Our results further illustrate how chances of a safe runway landing decrease as a function of delay, in this case due to being forced to land on a runway with suboptimal wind conditions, or ultimately being forced into a water ditch situation that may not always have the positive result of Flight 1549.
    [Show full text]
  • Substandard Flight Crew Performance I
    Running Head; Substandard Flight Crew Performance i Substandard Flight Crew Performance: Recurrent Human Factors in Flight Crew Initiated Aircraft Incidents and Accidents By Raymond Newell, BSc (Hons) MSc Doctoral Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University June 2017 Substandard Flight Crew Performance iii ABSTRACT The objective of this research has been to understand more about aviation accidents in which the actions of the flight crew members (hereafter FCMs) were the main cause. A new con- struct has been developed known as substandard flight crew performance (hereafter SFP) to provide framework and context for this research. To support this construct, the most recurrent examples of SFP were identified from analysis of decades of investigations and reports. Based upon the frequency of occurrence, the potential contribution to aviation safety, and the feasibility of conducting meaningful research, three diverse but interconnected factors have been identified. The first of these related to the recurrent influence of verbal phenomena in aviation accidents, in particular, distracting conversations and unclear communications. The literature indicated that even those tasked with investigating accidents where these phenome- na had been present understood very little about the underlying reasons for their occurrence. Furthermore, although these phenomena have been studied within more general research populations, as far as is known no previous research has examined their function in the avia- tion context. A questionnaire and unstructured interviews with FCMs resulted in two taxon- omies, both of which have been supported by ethnographic1 observations. The next strand of this research critically examined some of the reasons why some flight crews become unsure of their position or orientation whilst navigating both in flight and on the ground, a phenome- non that has been associated with some of the most serious instances of SFP.
    [Show full text]
  • TCDS A.064 ANNEX - Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321 - Special Conditions
    TCDS A.064 ANNEX - Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321 - Special Conditions This annex to the EASA TCDS A.064 was created to publish selected Special Conditions, Equivalent Safety Findings that are part of the applicable certification basis and particular Interpretative Material: Table of Content: D-0306-000: Application of Heat Release and Smoke Density Requirements to Seat Materials 2 D-0322-001: Installation of suite type seating .................................................................. 3 E10: High Altitude Airport Operations (up to 14,100 ft) ...................................................... 5 E-18: Improved flammability standards for thermal / acoustic insulation materials - ESF to JAR 25.853(b) and 25.855(d) ............................................................................ 6 E-2105: Type III Overwing Emergency Exit Access ............................................................ 7 E-2107: Passenger Extension to 180 ................................................................................ 9 E-34: Seats with Inflatable Restraints .............................................................................10 E-3002: Reclassification of doors 2 & 3 to type III ............................................................12 E-4001: Exit configuration .............................................................................................13 G-1006: ETOPS ............................................................................................................14 H-01: Enhanced Airworthiness Programme
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Miracle on the Hudson
    DAVE SANDERSON: BEYOND THE MIRACLE ON THE HUDSON A business meeting that ended early… That’s how it all began on January 15, 2009 for Dave Sanderson, a top-notch tech sales manager who spent more time on the road than he wanted, away from his wife and four children. He had finished work sooner than anticipated and wanted to get home. It was the least he could do to make up for the time he spent working two jobs trying to make a better life for them all. He called his travel agent, who was able to procure a seat for him on an earlier flight departing from New York’s LaGuardia Airport for Charlotte, North Carolina. Sanderson boarded, moved down the aisle to seat 15A, and fastened his seatbelt for takeoff. The flight had been delayed as an earlier blizzard in the area cleared. Now it was cold and bright and clear, a perfect day for flying. A few moments later, what happened to US Airways Flight 1549 was to become known around the world as The Miracle on the Hudson. On its initial climb, a flock of Canada geese collided with the Airbus 320, crippling both engines. Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger knew he couldn’t make it to any of the nearby airports, and there was only one option left: to attempt a water landing and put the plane down safely in the Hudson River. The passengers heard the Captain’s words over the PA system -- “Brace for impact” – and then the plane crashed. In his window seat, Sanderson ascertained how quickly he could get to an exit as the plane started taking on water.
    [Show full text]
  • IAM Mechanic Agreement – July 18, 2014
    AGREEMENT by and between US AIRWAYS, INC. and the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS July 18, 2014 Table of Contents Article Page Preamble ...................................................................... 1 1 Purpose .......................................................... 2 2 Scope of Agreement ...................................... 4 3 Status of Agreement ...................................... 7 4 Classification and Work Requirements ......... 9 5 Hours of Service ............................................ 18 6 Overtime and Holidays ................................. 25 7 Travel Pay ..................................................... 41 8 Seniority ........................................................ 45 9 Filling Vacancies ........................................... 58 10 Leaves of absence ......................................... 81 11 Vacation with Pay ......................................... 84 12 Sick leave, Premiums and Bonuses ............... 90 13 Transportation ............................................... 93 14 Grievance Procedures .................................... 94 15 System Board of Adjustment ........................ 98 16 Safety and Health .......................................... 101 17 General and Miscellaneous ........................... 104 18 Wage Rates ................................................... 111 19 Union Shop & Dues Check-off Agreement .. 117 20 Severance Allowance .................................... 122 21 Retirement ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Accident Report
    Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River US Airways Flight 1549 Airbus A320‐214, N106US Weehawken, New Jersey January 15, 2009 Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10/03 National PB2010-910403 Transportation Safety Board NTSB/AAR-10/03 PB2010-910403 Notation 8082A Adopted May 4, 2010 Aircraft Accident Report Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River US Airways Flight 1549 Airbus A320-214, N106US Weehawken, New Jersey January 15, 2009 National Transportation Safety Board 490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20594 National Transportation Safety Board. 2010. Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River, US Airways Flight 1549, Airbus A320-214, N106US, Weehawken, New Jersey, January 15, 2009. Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10 /03. Washington, DC. Abstract: This report describes the January 15, 2009, accident involving the ditching of US Airways flight 1549 on the Hudson River about 8.5 miles from LaGuardia Airport, New York City, after an almost complete loss of thrust in both engines following an encounter with a flock of birds. The 150 passengers, including a lap-held child, and 5 crewmembers evacuated the airplane by the forward and overwing exits. One flight attendant and four passengers were seriously injured, and the airplane was substantially damaged. Safety issues discussed in this report include in-flight engine diagnostics, engine bird-ingestion certification testing, emergency and abnormal checklist design, dual-engine failure and ditching training, training on the effects of flight envelope limitations on airplane response to pilot inputs, validation of operational procedures and requirements for airplane ditching certification, and wildlife hazard mitigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Accident Report: American Airlines, Inc., Mcdonnell Douglas
    Explosive decompression, American Airlines, Inc., McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10, N103AA, Near Windsor, Ontario, Canada, June 12, 1972 Micro-summary: On climb, this McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 experienced an opening of a cargo door, explosive decompression, and a main cabin floor collapse, disrupting the flight control system. Event Date: 1972-06-12 at 1925 EST Investigative Body: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), USA Investigative Body's Web Site: http://www.ntsb.gov/ Cautions: 1. Accident reports can be and sometimes are revised. Be sure to consult the investigative agency for the latest version before basing anything significant on content (e.g., thesis, research, etc). 2. Readers are advised that each report is a glimpse of events at specific points in time. While broad themes permeate the causal events leading up to crashes, and we can learn from those, the specific regulatory and technological environments can and do change. Your company's flight operations manual is the final authority as to the safe operation of your aircraft! 3. Reports may or may not represent reality. Many many non-scientific factors go into an investigation, including the magnitude of the event, the experience of the investigator, the political climate, relationship with the regulatory authority, technological and recovery capabilities, etc. It is recommended that the reader review all reports analytically. Even a "bad" report can be a very useful launching point for learning. 4. Contact us before reproducing or redistributing a report from this anthology. Individual countries have very differing views on copyright! We can advise you on the steps to follow.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensory Overload
    AeroSafety WORLD 1,500 HOURS Are you really experienced? FIRST RESPONDERS Flight attendants and safety SKY’S THE LIMIT Single European Sky lags FIGHTING FOR ATTENTION SENSORY OVERLOAD THE JOURNAL OF FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION DECEMBER 2012–JANUARY 2013 AIR ad2 v1a.pdf 1 2012-11-16 12:55 PM The AIR Group Specializing in Safety Systems Product Development and Aircraft Accident Investigation Consultancy Affordably Priced - Highly Capable Flight Analysis System (FASET Animation) Our Animation System is based on over twenty years of R&D in the field of aircraft accident/incident, Flight Data Monitoring and flight simulation, flight visualization technology. It was developed by industry leaders in flight animation systems. Seamlessly integrate into existing third party flight analysis systems or as a stand alone product. FASET will meet your needs and exceed your expectations. C M Y CM MY CY Thinking of adding animation or upgrading your current system, think FASET CMY K Flight Data Monitoring (FDM/FOQA) Services The AIR Group can assist with: • Full implementation of a managed service, eliminating the need for highly specialized internal FDM technical expertise. • Customized service to suit client specific operations. • Investigative assistance for significant flight safety events. • Producing standard or customized reports • Highly qualified experts who can design new measurements and assist with staff training. Aircraft Accident and Serious Incident support services • Post-Accident and Incident Reconstruction • Data Integration and Reconstruction • Technical Reporting, Critical Commentary • Safety and Defect Analysis Applied Informatics and Research Inc. / Accident Investigation and Research Inc. All Operators believe they are safe; however, the AIR Group offers comprehensive safety tools and capabilities to help you to confirm that you are safe.
    [Show full text]
  • Where's the Exit?
    CABINSAFETY Despite a briefing and illustrated safety cards, passengers on an Embraer 195 were unsure of what to do while using an overwing exit. © Daniel Guerra/Airliners.net BY LINDA WERFELMAN he U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Man. Five of the 95 people in the air- concerned about the possibility of fire, Branch (AAIB) has recommended plane received minor injuries during declared an emergency and diverted to design reviews and modifica- the evacuation. Ronaldsway. The fumes and smoke in- tions of emergency exits on public About 10 minutes after takeoff on a tensified during the surveillance radar Ttransport aircraft following an emer- scheduled passenger flight from Man- approach, and the captain “considered gency landing in which passengers in chester, England, to Belfast, Northern that he would probably conduct an an Embraer 195 became confused about Ireland, the no. 1 air cycle machine evacuation on landing,” the report said. how to use an overwing exit. (ACM) failed, sending fumes onto the He did not notify the cabin crew or The AAIB issued the safety recom- flight deck. The cabin crew reported air traffic control because “he thought mendations as a result of its investiga- an unusual odor and a haze in parts of that to tell them anything at this late tion of the Aug. 1, 2008, incident that the cabin. stage of the flight might cause confu- prompted the emergency landing at The pilots donned oxygen masks sion should he decide not to order an Ronaldsway Airport on the Isle of and, because the commander was evacuation,” the report said.
    [Show full text]
  • US Airways Flight 1549
    Docket No. SA-532 Exhibit No. 6-A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D.C. Survival Factors Group Chairman’s Factual Report (186 Pages) NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Office of Aviation Safety Washington, DC 20594 SURVIVAL FACTORS GROUP CHAIRMAN’S FACTUAL REPORT May 22, 2009 I. ACCIDENT Operator : US Airways, Inc. Airplane : Airbus A320-214 [N106US] MSN 1044 Location : Weehawken, NJ Date : January 15, 2009 Time : 1527 eastern standard time1 NTSB # : DCA09MA026 II. SURVIVAL FACTORS GROUP2 Group Chairman : Jason T. Fedok National Transportation Safety Board Washington, DC Member : David Lefrancq Airbus Toulouse, France Member : Barrington Johnson Association of Flight Attendants Charlotte, NC Member : Dr. Didier Delaitre Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses Paris, France Member : Mark James Federal Aviation Administration Kansas City, MO Member : Brenda Pitts Federal Aviation Administration Garden City, NJ 1 All times are reported in eastern standard time unless otherwise noted. 2 Not all group members were present for all activities. 1 Member : John Shelden Federal Aviation Administration Renton, WA Member : Bob Hemphill US Airways, Inc. Phoenix, AZ III. SUMMARY On January 15, 2009, about 1527 eastern standard time (EST), US Airways flight 1549, an Airbus A320-214, registration N106US, suffered bird ingestion into both engines, lost engine thrust, and landed in the Hudson River following take off from New York City's LaGuardia Airport (LGA). The scheduled, domestic passenger flight, operated under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 121, was en route to Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT) in Charlotte, North Carolina. The 150 passengers and 5 crewmembers evacuated the airplane successfully. One flight attendant and four passengers were seriously injured.
    [Show full text]
  • Planned Ground Evacuation
    Cabin Operations Flight Operations Briefing Notes Planned Ground Evacuation Flight Operations Briefing Notes Cabin Operations Planned Ground Evacuation I Introduction A planned ground evacuation can be defined as an evacuation that enables the cabin crew to review procedures, and to inform and prepare passengers for an emergency landing. The cabin crew provide passengers with brace instructions, guidance on exit usage, and information on how and when exits should be operated. Effective communication between the crewmembers and the passengers is necessary for a timely, effective, and orderly response. II Background Information A safety study by the US NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) in 2000, entitled “Emergency Evacuation of Commercial Airplanes”, cites examples of planned evacuations where the cabin crewmembers were able to provide passengers with a detailed briefing. The cabin preparation and briefing resulted in an orderly, timely evacuation with few to no injuries. III Emergency Checklist Emergency checklists are useful tools that enable cabin crew to prepare the cabin for a planned emergency. It contains all the steps required to prepare the cabin for an emergency, and lists the steps to be completed in order of priority. Many Operators have developed checklists in the form of laminated cards that are distributed to each cabin crew, or are stowed near the cabin crew’s seats. These types of checklists should be readily accessible to the cabin crew. Page 1 of 12 Cabin Operations Flight Operations Briefing Notes Planned Ground Evacuation Emergency checklists are designed to provide support to cabin crewmembers in a planned emergency, and to help them complete all the necessary steps without forgetting anything.
    [Show full text]