Don't thank us...thank the algorithm. ;-)

it really is a last action of critical recovery attempt. dual-engine failure is rarely a happy ending

Indeed, it's really the "this is what we got time for, let's do it" option. Of course the checklist will go into some more detail, but the checklist is build for a failure at high altitude, not at low level.

My thoughts exactly

I thought it was real I like the real flights

@@irisfields1659 Assuming you genuinely didn't realize... Modern amateur simulators have achieved pretty decent graphics, but there are still numerous tell-tale signs. Like seeing the camera at the exact position of the captain's head, which wouldn't be possible in a real flight (even supposing it were mounted on the head, it wouldn't be perfectly still like this); having it pan, which generally doesn't happen with the cameras that get mounted in cockpits; having it pan, and it's butter-smooth; seeing shadows with glitchy edges (game graphics apparently still haven't perfected those). Or better yet, having a mouse cursor moving over the picture, and all the buttons and levers getting moved with no visible hands, or any visible _people_ for that matter. And of course, the most common-sense reason that we don't see much footage from the flight deck of a real airliner in flight, probably for safety and security reasons.

The fist "sink rate" warning is what got me.

As a sea plane pilot… I see it all the time.

Absolutely, that's exactly right. That's by the way also what I wrote in the video description. I recieved a could of comments in the past few days that I could only do it because I knew in advance what was about to happen. Together with that came quite an increase in the number of views. May I ask if there was any youtuber or any website that linked my video and made a statement like this? That would seem odd because that's exactly what I wrote in the description of the video from day one onwards.

@@A330Driver Apologies I didn't read the video description, but please understand I wasn't complaining about your video, I was just highlighting how well the decisions were made on the day! I'm not aware of any other video pointing people in your video's direction, I found this video on my Home page.

Let's get serious for a moment

@@ParallaxRS No worries at all, your reasoning is absolutely correct in the end!

@@geoffcarlton4047 ”You are looking for human error, so make it human”

And after an hour ring a bell: "Lunch break is over!" and when everybody is back inside, make a water start :-)

I live maybe 60 or 70 miles away from the cross site. I remember that day. It was bitter cold on dry land.

:D

Well can answer question your they send a team from Boeing to see what a 737 would have done in the situation and their figures came back 7:37 would have made it to laguardia

I think it has no point. What if it was 737-max???...

Indeed, they did an astonishing job there! No way to tell from the classroom (or even simulator) if you could do the same.

@@A330Driver They? Who’s they? He’s a one man show, despite what he says afterword to hide that fact. He was not flying the plane when this happened and he did not have to take over and lots of pilots do not take over in these situations because there’s plenty else to do like figuring out where to land. No, he’s a hotdog. he’s gotta have the limelight so he took it away from the first officer and he never let the cabin crew in on the fact that he was ditching the plane. And yet people will say anything to cover for him they are so desperate to make him out the faultless hero. He knew he did wrong. that’s why he hid out for three days in a hotel room before he allowed himself to be debriefed. Lucky for him during those three days the mayor of New York City, a typical politician never allowing an opportunity to be in the limelight go by, called it the “miracle on the Hudson” and the press started calling him a hero and it just built and built. By the time he came out of that hotel room he knew there was no way that the NTSB could fault him without incurring the wrath of millions, and so did they and they as much as say so. Instead of a role model for piloting he should be a role model for classes in public relations.

​@@GOLDVIOLINbowofdeath Sure Mark, sure.

@@GOLDVIOLINbowofdeath You need to cut the weed out man, it's making you paranoid

Sounds like a lot of conspiracy nonsense to me, which goes squarely against the final report. He can't be faulted for what the media does. They're going to make their money off a story either way. After having lost both engines shortly after takeoff, he ditched the plane and everyone survived. That's all that really matters in the end. Sim recreations showed about a 50/50 shot if he turned back for LGA, not even counting for startle factor. That would've been over 50% chance of landing it in someone's living room. It's easy to sit there and armchair quarterback everything you think he did wrong, but you're not the one responsible for keeping yourself and 154 other people (plus anyone on the ground) from being incinerated in a fireball.

We actually don't know if the Alpha Protection would have made a difference if the Airbus didn't have them. It's a theory that they helped, but in the end you can fly an "approach" like this just as well in a 737 which doesn't have those protections. A different type of flying is required, but pilots are taught the right style in the type rating and overall I would not see any issue if the crew had been trained to fly the 737 that they could do without those protections. If damage would have occured to the fuselage is indeed a good question, there had been a batch of 737s where it would have been rather likely indeed.

@@A330Driver I used to work for Honeywell, although not the aviation business, if I remember correctly there was a company wide email saying that the Honeywell APU provided the power that maintained power to the flight control systems, which stopped the plane flying into stall conditions, which had been commanded by the pilots.

He had his APU up and was able to get to flaps 15 for touch down. The 737 was first designed and built in the 60s, and is overbuilt compared to to any AB. The engines must be shut down, by moving the condition lever to cutoff, and a partial power situation after the flock of birds might have occurred. AB removes the option to let it run, unless it was dual flameout, that I doubt.

@@axelBr1 Correct. I think just relying on the RAT throws the computers into Mechanical Law with minimal electrical and hydraulic power, meaning flight surface control is limited to the basics, rely on gravity landing gear etc. and no alpha protection. The APU keeps all the systems alive.

@@mkaestn I think it's pretty well established isn't it that it was dual engine flame out with damage to prevent restart?

Correct, Airbus has the Ditching button which closes all external wents. Boeing doesn't have that, you need to close the bleeds and outflow valve, and after the landing the fuel vales manually.

But Sully and Skiles did not activate the ditch switch. They didn't have enough time to complete the checklist.

@@toneale yeah but they should have activated the ditch switch. they did all perfect that day (expcecially the apu) but they forgot that switch that could help even more

@@toffonardi7037 the ditch switch would of made no difference to the outcome as the damage to the fuselage during the water landing meant that water entered anyway. Then someone opened one of the rear passenger doors.

@@sumpyman ​ “Then someone opened a rear passenger door” I’ve always wondered how that fool felt afterwards… 🙂

Sometimes emergencies require special handling... of course in a normal flight you wouldn't do anything below 200ft, but in this case... if I can get an engine to start the very latest moment it's still better than not having one running at all.

We are pilots. We don’t sell potatoes.

@@theHDRflightdeck I guess if you were sitting on 80 tonn of potatoes traveling at more than 170 kn you would have more than reason to become nervous when both of your peeling knifes become dull.

@@matekochkoch indeed that would be a bad day

Or perhaps configuration profiles that are only available in one model? Etc. What technical differences exist and how do those differences affect the outcome?

I am not a pilot, however I was told by on that the 737 would have allowed thrust untill destruction of the engine rather than shutting down. Maybe an extra minute of partial thrust would allow other options. Is this true?

@@jeffmariajenson9751 Interesting point - from what I recall my dad (a retired A320 captain) the engines were actually running at idle power, but the goose guts clogged some sort of sensor ports, causing bad readings that caused the electronic engine controls/FADEC to provide only idle thrust. Had that not been the case the engines could have still produced partial thrust (less than 1/3 thrust on each engine probably could have gotten them to a runway), mechanically were still functional enough. Granted I'm guessing it's probably hard to know how much damage to the engine fan blades was from the geese versus slamming into the water. I asked him if they could design the FADEC to have some sort of backup open-loop control mode to still produce thrust when those ports are clogged, presumably doable with simple software changes, he said things like this happen so rarely it's not worth the trouble - seems a bit odd to me, but he had a few odd takes on things at times. I don't know if the 737's engine controls would be different, if it wouldn't have had that problem. Early 737s (even back to the 200s) had much simpler non-electric engine controls, which wouldn't have been affected in this way, but I'm guessing the NG and MAX are more electronics, I don't know if they would have had the same problem.

@@quillmaurer6563 Fadec is standard on every airliner today. The CFM 56 is Fadec too, there's no other way to reach such a high life span with up to 50k Fh until an overhaul.

@@simonm1447 I figured such. The question is if this design would have also lost thrust if clogged with goose guts the way the A320's did.

Its a sim dude..😆🤨

My guess is that it's a bit because it's a sim, a bit because I knew what was about to come and a bit because the drag model with the engines dead is probably not 100% accurate.

Like the one I did yesterday just after your post? ;-)

@@A330Driver Yeah you’re always on top of it..!

That's the issue with flying the plane and handling systems at the same time. Here I just miss the second pilot. I did use the standby instruments mainly for my airspeed reference. The good thing about the 737 is that if it's in trim it'll more or less hold the speed by its own.

@@A330Driver doesn't it kind of need thrust at the autotrim system for that??

@@rkan2 auto thrust was holding a steady 0% N1. Given that's stable, once in trim, the plane should return to trimmed speed using c/g and centre of lift alone.

How times have changed.

It still would be if MD hadn’t taken over Boeing and cut costs with the 787 and the 737 Max for pure profits.

I love to hear it Charly!

The hijaker took the controls at the last moment

It's important to note that in the Ethiopian incident, one of the stupid hijackers started wrestling for the controls at the very last moment, which made the left wing dip at the most critical moment.

There would have been many more survivors of that Ethiopian Airways flight (despite the violent impact) had the passengers followed instructions and not inflated their life vests inside of the aircraft.

In fact the most optimal position is one where the engines and tail hit the water at the same time. For a 737 10° Pitch is what you should be aiming for as per Boeing guidance.

The water is going to "grab" anything it touches. If tail comes down too far, it's going to likely take the tail right off and the aircraft will go cartwheel. Ethiopian 961 landed left wing first in the water because of a struggle between the PF and the moronic "but the 767-200ER brochure says it has a range of 6600 NM!" hijacker.

Indeed, they've been lucky there's been so little traffic out on the river on these days.

@@A330Driver I bet had it been summer time there would have been more boats out there in the water

yep, with such a failure at such a low altitude the aviate part is most definitely the most important one!

phew, I wouldn't want to know which kind of systems we might get so know in such a rare situation ;-) Just joking of course!

@YT that is only partially correct. Yes, theoretically the glide slope doesn't change with weight, but the drag changes with speed and speed changes with weight. Also the induced drag of the wing changes with the weight on it. So with more weight you will have slightly higher drag and therefore a slightly reduced glide range. The effect is minimal however.

Indeed, whenever I'm getting out of the clouds and see the airport ahead I'm thinking "wow, I could easily glide there now if I wanted to".

@@Blockbuster2033 The range you cover is unaffected by weight, what does change is the time that it takes you to get there. A heavy aircraft will fly faster and descend faster, but it'll cover the same distance as a light aircraft. So in a heavy aircraft you'll have less time available in such an emergency to cover your checklists and make your decision.

You obviously spent about 10 seconds researching this..🙄

Fully agree!

Hard to talk about something I don't have a good background on. I wouldn't call myself an Airbusnoob, but without a type rating I'd find it hard to compare. Too easy to make mistakes.

@@A330Driver That's fair, thanks for the reply - I enjoyed the whole series. Good stuff.

After the Airbus qrh it should be full flaps

Basically Flaps 40 and 10° Pitch as in the Boeing QRH. But no time here so I just went by the feeling of the airplane.

@@A330Driver That's a big difference with the A320, in normal law (APU running, Both engines off) Sully could pull full sidestick aft and the A/C would fly exactly at the lowest "safe" flying speed considering the configuration, weight etc = more flight time, more thinking time.

When it's ready.... I really don't know. I'm not a spokesperson for PMDG however.

LOL the crash detection is always the first thing I turn off in MSFS, P3D, FSX or whichever simulator I'm flying. The only one where I have damages turned on is DCS!

I’m sure doing it correctly matters, but if this was real life neither engine was going to start no matter what you did.

he actually got to 3100ft in this sim which is higher than Sully so had potential to travel further.

@@petesmith8000 Just slightly higher though, the real one got to about 3000ft. But yes, the 737 glides better than the A320.

The 737 indeed has superior glide performance. As an example, when you're flying a downwind and you're exactly abeam the airport for a 10NM final in the 737 you should have around 7000ft to make it without speedbrake. Many former Airbuspilots I'm flying with these days tell me that in the Airbus you could be around 9000ft high at that point and still make it without speedbrake. That's quite a difference indeed.

Also Transair 810 (cargo) off the coast of Oahu in 2021.

And there's also the Air Niguini flight that "accidentally" ditched somewhere in the pacific when they landed short of the runway in bad visibility.

The gear really is what makes the most drag usually, the Flaps aren't that bad altogether for as long as 30 and 40 aren't out. 30 and 40 are really mainly drag settings but 15 and less, if it's a SFP, are mainly lift settings.

Nope, definitely wasn't!

Sully had a co pilot to do all checklist stuff. So Sully was able to focus on the flying/gliding. 737NG driver was alone and often looking away from the instruments. That likely had a big part to do with it.

737 has much better glide performance, and better performance in general. This meant he got to a somewhat higher altitude than 1549 got, and was able to glide more efficiently.

Thanks a ton

That would not be politically correct. He’s just another lemming.

Covered in todays video!

Pretty much exactly that. That Sully did an amazing job!

The overall scenario is fictional, so.......

That's for the third part in this series ;-)

Always you have to take the River to become a famous Hero (look in the charts)

Simply what it could have looked like in a 737. The Fenix currently hardly represents the real flights flight path as it has far too much drag. So I thought it would be interesting to see how the 737 would behave.

Nope

LOL; might be an idea indeed......

That isn’t necessarily a good thing. Sully landed right where the ferries are. Allowing him access to immediate rescue.

@@neilkurzman4907 You are absolutely right! Sully is a very skilled pilot and that skill saved many regardless of where he landed. Especially because of his luck since none of those ferries, tugs, cruise ships, pleasure ships, police vessels, fire vessels, or any of the many other rescue potentials weren't collateral casualties in the landing. And you are correct in argument that his crash location was most important that he didn't land in the Upper Bay due to the potential depth and distance people would be doomed to try and swim if there were more that tried to do so on that fateful day.

*were. I'm also my own grammar nazi.

Also, fuck autocorrect for intending to incorporate "nazi" into something so important that it deserves to be capitalized.

You would be a pretty awful captain to take your cabin full of passengers on a vague unplanned wander over houses, highways and marsh land that would tear the plane and the flesh and blood into shreds in the hope that you will magically get sixty tons or so right on one of the runway thresholds of Teterboro at the perfect speed, height and heading with no chance to correct any overshoot or undershoot. You would also be a pretty awful captain to assume the power of life and death over the Teterboro area residents under such a desperate manoeuvre when an energy dissipating comparatively benign landing surface is staring your in the face. You don’t do practice forced landings any more once you move on from single engine planes. You need that glide speed, positioning and height control skill, real skill to get in the position where your wheels will clear the boundary hedge or fence with the expertly selected into the wind emergency landing surface awaiting your arrival. It is hard in a light single and needs regular retraining and you don’t pick the very furthest mathematically feasible field allowing zero adjustment manoeuvring. Try that unplanned and unpracticed manoeuvre in a A320 with only one suitable safe fence lying hidden somewhere in the murk with an unknown relationship between the runway headings and your random glide track? ATC was trying to vector him onto a northerly Teterboro runway with him descending rapidly to the south!

Assuming the airplane is in a trimmed condition when the hydraulics fail initial control wouldn't be too hard. Only when changing speed significantly without retrimming that would become an issue.

@@A330Driver It would be a manual reversion situation until the Apu was started an AC power supplied. Any flight control move, roll or pitch would be extremely difficult.

LOL

Both has a Honeywell 131-9 apu (B on a 737, and A on a A320), except for the first A320s with a APS3200. So the start-up time is about the same. And the flight crew on Cactus 1549 didnt use the ditching switch.

I don't think the type played too much of a role in the accident. APU Startup time is about the same, but in the 737 the APU is by far not as important as in the A320 so even if it would take longer it wouldn't make as much of a difference. I believe the main point here that made the landing possible is the crew in the flightdeck. And they did an excellent job. If we assume they were just as good on their type, regardless of what that type may have been then I'm sure they would have done just as good of a job in any type.

The Airbus FBW is by far not as precise as many people think it is. Pilots do need to correct as well. And if he didn't command *exactly* wings level previously the Airbus would not have aimed for exactly wings level either, but for the bank that he commanded. The 737 can be flown very, very precisely, it's no problem whatsoever to fly exactly wings level in it.

MSFS issue. The real 737 would sink quite a bit deeper of course. Just look at the pictures of the Air Niguini flight that ditched short of the runway for a more realistic representation of how a 737 floats.

@@A330Driver What happens when the low slung pod engine intakes grab the water at 140 knots ? Didn't that Air Niguini aircraft get all out of shape the second that the left engine hit the water and spin the airplane forcing a 'cartwheel' like trajectory. So, how did Sully pull of such a feat????

Since birds ''killed'' 2 engines the Dassault would end up in the Hudson but the Trident and Tu-154 have a third one so with that at full power they probably could have made it to the nearest airport .... it was a trick question was'nt it ?

Would love to try those, do you know any good addons of the types in question?

@@A330Driver Or try a A330. Mr. Sullenberger are qualifyed to fly that as captain because he already hold license of A320 and has 20k+ flight experiences. I think he didn't do it probably he don't want to.

Fully correct, MSFSs "water landing" physics really aren't very realistic at all. You can somewhat slide on it, but that's it. Just look at how long I slided on the water and how quickly the real US Airways flight stopped on those CCTV videos we have from the landing.

I ended up quite a bit further down in the bay than the real flight. The 737 just glides better than the A320. I wouldn't say there were any major advantages or disadvantages here, they're different aircraft types, but after all can be flown quite the same.

Controlling the speed with the control column??🤔🤨

How else would you do it when your engines are failed?

Yep, that's it! Also be aware that Boeing wants pilots to land at a certain attitude and flap setting rather than "go as slow as you can". 10° and F40 in the 737.

@@speedbird9313 As a matter of fact, angle of attack is how you control airspeed. Power controls altitude.

@@A330Driver The fly by wire system in NORMAL LAW (normal AC power was not lost) provides flight envelope protection and prevents the pilot from stalling the aircraft. Full aft stick input maintained Vls, reducing pilot workload during the ditching.

I forgot so much more. That's the issue when you have to deal with a two man job on your own in the sim. Some compromises just have to be made. Unfortunately.

Agreed .....yes looking back at my comment it is too critical Apologies.

I wouldn't trust MSFS physics to be 100% accurate here...

Much further south than Cactus 1549. But we're pretty much all aware of MSFS's exaggerated ground effect and virtually zero water physics (just some drag induced on the A/C contact points for the benefit of float planes in the sim).

Yes, absolutely! Also turn off the bleeds to close the remainder of the valves. Once in the water shut down your engines to close the fuel valves as well.

Simulator training and later linetraining

It’s 10 inches deep in real life

yeah... but I'd rather see it that way than in P3D where you'd just be catapulted back into the air.

No time to read it on such a short notice emergency. In this video I left it open on purpose since the real US Airways crew didn't press the Ditching PB either.

Interesting question indeed, I could imagine them to do better than aircraft with underslung engines, but then again there's a LOT of resistance when that wing, especially the leading edge, hits the water. Hard to tell what the outcome would be. I don't think there's ever been such a case yet.

Correct, the PF would fly the plane and the PM would work the checklists. There is a Ditching checklist, which however is designed for a controlled ditching with engines operating, not a scenario like the one experienced by US Airway 1549. In fact I have not applied it at all, just like it was not applied in the real US Airways accident. Yes, certain procedures need to be know by heart, those are called memory items. I've created a seperate playlist on my channel showing you some of those and giving some general overview. Sully was able to start the APU. In the meantime in the A320 the flight controls could be controlled using reverse hydraulic power from the RAT, in the 737 it would be via manual reversion until the APU provides electric power to run the electric hydraulic pumps.

@@A330Driver many tks!

My bad

What? The aircraft type has nothing to do with it being level or breaking up upon impact. It has everything to do with the skill that the pilot flying has. Your comment makes no sense, but then again, I wouldn’t expect anything much better said by a guy with a Minecraft picture. Look at Air Niugini Flight 73, they landed in the water in a 737NG, and the plane did not break up. Albeit, it wasn’t a controlled ditch and the pilots definitely were not skilled, it was actually a crash. But the wings were level during that crash and the aircraft stayed fully intact in the water.

@@6z0 I am aware of that, and I have to admit that everything went perfect on that day, with smooth water, landing perfectly.

Why do you think hitting the water wings level would be harder in a 737 than in an A320? I can't follow on that one. Where's the difference?

Have you actually seen a real B737? Depending on G loadings, the wingtips are above the top of the fuselage.

Of course not it’s New York City it takes forever to get a variance. I mean you can certainly apply to have the water physics changed. But you’re going to need an environmental impact study.

LOL I would not have been surprised if they even issued an award in the aftermath!

Fully right, that's what I mean when I say that we are quite limited in our single seat environment in home simulators. I had to somewhat combine the two jobs of the PF and PM, of course I had to make some sacrifises. Regarding PAs, I believe in real life they only made a single PA, that was the famous "Brace for impact". And regarding the stress.... yep, totally different situation! I believe I say it in the video as well, either here or in the "Landing from the modern perspective" here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kJumeayH09vZhas.html

On which type is that? In the 737 we surely have them.

@@A330Driver 737-800. Different operators have different procedures and clutter up the QRH with more memory items and some don’t. We only have 6 memory items.

@@Captndarty wow, 6 is not a lot! We are using what Boeing included, there are no operator specific memory items in our QRH as far as I'm aware. Which ones do you have then?

@@A330Driver APU fire, airspeed unreliable, runaway trim, Cabin Alt warning/rapid depressurization, aborted engine start.

yep, very different situation if you know what's about to happen.

Very true. I can't help but chuckled during stressful situations! It's awkward, but it's how i cope

I made a seperate video where I return the flight to LGA. It only worked under the conditions that Airbus also checked and even then just barely. Would be interesting to do this online on VATSIM, but I really don't see what kind of a difference ATC would make in a case like this. There simply are no other options that they could make available for you. Trying this with an FO would be very very interesting indeed, I really hope we'll get shared cockpit at some point in the future in the 737!