Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) again remove irrelevant chat - see notices at top of page |
|||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
Apologies to those editors who I just reverted, but I couldn't figure out an easier way to revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=US_Airways_Flight_1549&diff=prev&oldid=264380765 this edit] by {{user|Naruto76}}. It seems like an unnecessary and unexplained revert to an earlier version of the article. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#000080">auburn</font><font color="#CC5500">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
Apologies to those editors who I just reverted, but I couldn't figure out an easier way to revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=US_Airways_Flight_1549&diff=prev&oldid=264380765 this edit] by {{user|Naruto76}}. It seems like an unnecessary and unexplained revert to an earlier version of the article. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#000080">auburn</font><font color="#CC5500">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Animals == |
|||
Were there any animals being transported in this airplane? Cause I think they will probably die. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I wondered about this, havent seen any reports yet. [[User:Superpie|Superpie]] ([[User talk:Superpie|talk]]) 04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Nobody cares.{{unsigned|128.232.242.178}} |
|||
:I'm also curious to know about this. I hope someone can find out. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.176.59.67|70.176.59.67]] ([[User talk:70.176.59.67|talk]]) 05:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:: On CNN.com's webcast this question was brought up, and the reporter on-camera said that sadly if there were any animals in the hold, they were most certainly a casualty. But I have found no archived source for this. -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 05:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
As an animal lover myself, I was wondering offhand about this, but I have not seen anything. Might be worth adding if we can find sourcing about it.[[User:Umbralcorax|Umbralcorax]] ([[User talk:Umbralcorax|talk]]) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::And don't forget those birds that were flying along and minding there own business when an Airbus came along and sucked them into its turbofans. Bye bye birdies! How long until some animal rights groups wants to have the pilots charged with murder for dicing the birds, and drowning the animals? Heroes indeed! - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::Seriously, was a comment of this nature really necessary? [[User:Umbralcorax|Umbralcorax]] ([[User talk:Umbralcorax|talk]]) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Nickname == |
== Nickname == |
||
Line 187: | Line 174: | ||
If possible, someone please replace [http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/plane-crashes-into-hudson-river/?apage=9 the NYT blog] with a better reference. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
If possible, someone please replace [http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/plane-crashes-into-hudson-river/?apage=9 the NYT blog] with a better reference. [[User:Squash Racket|Squash Racket]] ([[User talk:Squash Racket|talk]]) 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Ze plane == |
|||
Does anyone know how they're going to get the plane out of the water? Will they have to cut it in pieces? Is it likely to ever fly again? Would be interesting to know. [[Special:Contributions/193.54.174.3|193.54.174.3]] ([[User talk:193.54.174.3|talk]]) 11:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:If they put that plane back into service, getting anyone to buy a ticket on it will ''definitely'' qualify as a "miracle". [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 11:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: It's been towed by tug and presumably will be lifted by a crane or ... ? Apparently a plane that ditched in San Francisco Bay some years ago was retrieved from the bottom of the bay some months later and recommissioned so it's a virtual certainty this one will be as the damage is less. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.150.44|72.228.150.44]] ([[User talk:72.228.150.44|talk]]) 11:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: ''Apparently a plane that ditched in San Francisco Bay some years ago was retrieved from the bottom of the bay some months later and recommissioned so it's a virtual certainty this one will be as the damage is less.''. See [[Japan Airlines Flight 2]]. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 15:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::I wonder what condition the luggage is in by now? At some point, the passengers might want it back. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 11:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The CBC website was riddled with hyper-active whining by people crying that the pets stowed in the cargo hold were not rescued before the human passengers were. Only on the CBC website would that even be possible.[[Special:Contributions/139.48.25.60|139.48.25.60]] ([[User talk:139.48.25.60|talk]]) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::: There's plenty of precedent for crashed vehicles being re-used. ''City of Elgin'', formerly ''City of Edinburgh'', the plane which suffered a quadruple engine failure (and fuel contamination) owing to volcanic ash in the [[Jakarta incident]] was cleaned and returned to service, where it continued for many years. The 'diver' locomotive which took its crew and all passengers to the bottom of a river in the [[Tay Bridge disaster]] of 1879 was put back into service, too. [[User:AlexTiefling|AlexTiefling]] ([[User talk:AlexTiefling|talk]]) 12:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:They'll have to strip the interior and give every system a complete reassembly to ensure there's no rust, contamination, etc; but I would imagine the airframe is still serviceable. [[User:Radagast|Radagast]] ([[User talk:Radagast|talk]]) 13:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I would seriously doubt it will go back into service as a whole, I wouldn't imagine rust being a problem as A320s are constructed of composites but the stress of a water landing on the airframe etc could render it unsafe. More than likely it will be stripped and serviceable parts will be returned to the airline and reconditioned after the investigation. '''Ṃ'''<small><s>μštўç</s></small>'''RUŠTЎ '''♣ 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mustycrusty|Mustycrusty]] ([[User talk:Mustycrusty|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mustycrusty|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Well since we are talking about an airplane that costs $73.2 to $80.6m to make (According to the wiki article of the type of plane here) I would say something will be done to save it.[[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]]14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: I don't know how old the plane was (A320 have been around since 1988). The US Airways fleet is on average 12 years old, so if it is somewhere near that age, I gather it will be written off. |
|||
: In any case, the airframe may be damaged by the impact. The engines are destroyed by the geese, all interior is destroyed by water, and all electronics will be compromised by the water. Even if it can be recovered repairs will be very, very expensive (multiple millions of dollars). [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 19:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Minor injuries? == |
== Minor injuries? == |
Revision as of 20:16, 16 January 2009
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||
Departure Time
The time US Airways give in their press release (3:03p) is the pushback time from the gate. The take-off time was 3:26p - see FlightAware or Flightstats Extended Details (free sign up needed for extended details). I changed this as the take-off time is probably more interesting for most readers. --SmilingBoy (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Make sense. Good change. I may change wording to "took off" instead of "departed" for a bit more clarity.Stu (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Flight Duration
Currently, we have: "The plane was in the air for about three minutes before it went down, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said, adding that preliminary information indicates a bird strike." On FlightAware (which uses radar tracking), the duration of the flight was 6 minutes. Any other sources? --SmilingBoy (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Pilot's age
The plane was piloted by...a 29-year employee of US Airways who flew F-4 Phantoms...from 1973 to 1980. ??? He clearly wasn't flying F-4 phantoms 35 years ago if he's only 29 years old... I have removed this for now. 93.97.36.253 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- "A 29-year employee" is not the same as "a 29 year-old employee." There is no contradiction in the text you deleted. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep I'm with you on that, I was caught out by American English grammar; the only situation we would use an age like that is with -old suffixed to the year so my mind turned it into what I was expecting! That'll teach me. 93.97.36.253 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
How about a reword ... an employee of US Airways for 29 years who...--91.107.199.7 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
US and Local News
Would it make sense to stay away from BBC and stick to the most local news possible for an ongoing event?--Christopher Kraus (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arguably you should stick to news agencies such as Annova etc... who are internationally known and respected. Sources such as the Charlotte observer whilst credible aren't as "respected" in the international community as BBC et al. (yes I'm a Brit!)--91.107.199.7 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- The difference with the BBC/Reuters/AP etc is that they don't rush to publish unverified stories. They may take a little longer to get the story out but when they do tend to get it right. 84.9.35.34 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- The BBC had reporters on the riverbank in New York. They have exclusive interviews with people who saw the plane land. How much more local to the event do you want them to be? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Probably for this case, one may want to also look at stories from the New York Daily News, New York Post, and New York Times, which have all put up stories from their own reporters on their web sites. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Injury count
Where did we get 76 injuries from? Anyone have a cite? Greensoda (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Revert
Apologies to those editors who I just reverted, but I couldn't figure out an easier way to revert this edit by Naruto76 (talk · contribs). It seems like an unnecessary and unexplained revert to an earlier version of the article. - auburnpilot talk 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Nickname
Well, most of the news that are covering this story are calling this the Miracle on the Hudson. Should we incorporate this into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrolman89 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Calling it a miracle is an insult to the flight crew. They performed a textbook dead stick water landing in a very complicated aircraft which has never been tested or trained for such an eventuality. Bravo, yes. Miracle, absolutely not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.183.137 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but had there been more bridges along the Hudson River above the GWB, I wonder if the outcome is so certain. Therefore, in retrospect, it is a miracle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- It can easily be considered a "miracle" if they landed an aircraft perfectly despite never being tested or trained in this complicated maneuver. But I guess this would lead into the theological discussion about the definition of a "miracle". More importantly, whether it is or isn't an insult is irrelevant when reliable sources are using that term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see if both tabloids follow Patterson's lead and use it as their head, then we can make it a redirect to this article. I suppose it's a miracle in that you never can be sure, even given conditions as generally favorable as this (well-trained and experienced crew, daylight with no precipitation and good visibility, ditching very close to two heavily populated areas in a busy waterway where it was certain experienced well-equipped and -trained rescuers would come soon, passengers following instructions and remaining calm) that you won't even a single fatality. As it is we could have been looking at even one hypothermia death, even with all that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's leave the labeling of "miracles" to the Pope and movie makers. Unless it is being widely and overwhelmingly used, the incident should be referred to only as US Airways Flight 1549. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is typically referred to as "Miracle on the Hudson" (in quotes) as I have seen it. Trent370 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- {{citationneeded}}. Cable news marketing hyperbole used in on-screen graphics should not be considered any type of consensus (or even accurate description of the story). As others have noted below, this is not much miracle and a lot more training and preparedness. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is typically referred to as "Miracle on the Hudson" (in quotes) as I have seen it. Trent370 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Referring to this as a "Miracle" is grossly inappropriate and denigrates the skill and levelheadedness of the aircrew which, like all professional pilots and cabin attendants, continually train and practice all their professional lives to handle just such an emergency. The application of the term "miracle" to this event by the media and non-aviators is nothing more than an example of their complete misunderstanding of how aircrew prepare to meet the challenge of safely bringing down a severely crippled airplane with no loss of life. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:44, 16 Janury 2009 (UTC))
- Totally agree. It's especially ironic since the Captain spent his entire career working in airline risk management, planning and developing air safety systems precisely to guard against 'one in a million events' and 'acts of god'. You're insulting his life work by calling this a miracle. 128.100.48.225 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Leave it to wikipedians to decide that we're smarter than the reliable sources. The skill and teamwork of the flight crew is not mutually exclusive with the "miraculous" nature of the event. The sky was clear, it was daylight, and the water was relatively calm, and the crew had nothing to do with those facts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- USAToday quotes the New York Governor as calling it "The Miracle on the Hudson". [1] Of course, USAToday is just a tabloid, the Governor is a nobody, and wikipedians know everything. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Leave it to wikipedians to decide that we're smarter than the reliable sources. The skill and teamwork of the flight crew is not mutually exclusive with the "miraculous" nature of the event. The sky was clear, it was daylight, and the water was relatively calm, and the crew had nothing to do with those facts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Totally agree. It's especially ironic since the Captain spent his entire career working in airline risk management, planning and developing air safety systems precisely to guard against 'one in a million events' and 'acts of god'. You're insulting his life work by calling this a miracle. 128.100.48.225 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's leave the labeling of "miracles" to the Pope and movie makers. Unless it is being widely and overwhelmingly used, the incident should be referred to only as US Airways Flight 1549. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- A "miracle" is defined as "a visible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can only be explained by divine intervention" which is really a religious concept. The fortunate outcome of the event was the result of the skill of the five members of the aircrew, the behavior of the passengers, and the speed of response of the civilian and government rescuers, not an "interruption of the laws of nature." The Governor of New York is a POLITICIAN, the last occupation one would want to select to be the arbiter on "divine intervention." USA Today was simply reporting what a politician said, but "reportage" is hardly the same thing as an endorsement of what he said. (Centpacrr (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
- Lots of things have to come together, and the crew had no control over the time of day, the weather, and the relative calm of the river. If you don't like "miracle" then you could call it "luck" or "fate", but it's all really the same thing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see if both tabloids follow Patterson's lead and use it as their head, then we can make it a redirect to this article. I suppose it's a miracle in that you never can be sure, even given conditions as generally favorable as this (well-trained and experienced crew, daylight with no precipitation and good visibility, ditching very close to two heavily populated areas in a busy waterway where it was certain experienced well-equipped and -trained rescuers would come soon, passengers following instructions and remaining calm) that you won't even a single fatality. As it is we could have been looking at even one hypothermia death, even with all that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- The aircrew also did not have any control over the flock of birds their plane hit or any other physical circumstance related to the event, but none of these factors in any way constituted a "a visible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can only be explained by divine intervention." And this fact does not in any way denigrate the accomplishments of the aircrew, passengers, and rescuers -- it only enhances them. Nothing that happened was in any way a "miracle" that could only be "explained" by a suspension of belief of the laws of nature -- the commercial and political utterances and coloquilisms of the media and political classes notwithstanding. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
- By your strict definition, miracles are impossible. You need to think outside the pedantic box. No matter how experienced a pilot may be, there is always a luck factor. It was bad luck that they hit a "fanjet of birds" (two of them, yet) and it was good luck that weather factors were reasonably favorable. And while experience increases the likelihood of survival, it does not guarantee it. And wikipedians are not smarter than the media, even though many of them think they are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- It can easily be considered a "miracle" if they landed an aircraft perfectly despite never being tested or trained in this complicated maneuver. But I guess this would lead into the theological discussion about the definition of a "miracle". More importantly, whether it is or isn't an insult is irrelevant when reliable sources are using that term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Arguing the merits and/or faults of such concepts as "miracles, fate, and luck" is appropriate on religious, philosophical, or spiritual websites, but not as being in any way factual on an encyclopedic site -- especially when writing about a non-fictional event. Reducing this accident to requiring a belief in any of these by definition unprovable concepts as being in any way causative or controlling of its precursors and transpiration is the same as saying that there is therefore no purpose to investigating and determining the real events and the causes/explanations therefore. And I am saying this as one who, at one time or another in my life, has been a professional aviator, writer, journalist, and/or broadcaster. (Centpacrr(talk) 12:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- There was an extremely low probability of this all turning out well, yet it did. Hence the term "Miracle on the Hudson", which is a reliably sourced term, which overrides your personally finding it offensive, and your misguided assumption that it somehow diminishes the heroism of the crew and the various boaters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but had there been more bridges along the Hudson River above the GWB, I wonder if the outcome is so certain. Therefore, in retrospect, it is a miracle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well I am afraid that you have completely missed the point and are still confusing the advocation of the employment of religious and spiritual concepts as unprovable explanations for events in place of searching for the real facts and understanding them by the application of the scientific method. Nothing about this event will ultimately be found to be mysterious or unexplainable. "Miracle on the Hudson" is only sourced as being a term that has been invented, applied, and promoted primarily by politicians and the media as something they decided to call it. It is in no way an actual provable "miracle" which, by definition, must be unprovable because it depends on a belief in "divine intervention." Encyclopedias are about being factual, not an exercise in proselytization. (Centpacrr(talk) 13:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
- Calling it a miracle is an insult to the flight crew. They performed a textbook dead stick water landing in a very complicated aircraft which has never been tested or trained for such an eventuality. Bravo, yes. Miracle, absolutely not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.183.137 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, as long as it is clear any inclusion of "Miracle on the Hudson" in this article is for what it is -- a bit of commercial headline writing and/or political hyperbole -- as opposed to being represented as an actual "miracle" (whatever that is). I am sure that Capt. Sullenberger -- himself a veteran aviation accident investigator -- would be the first to agree that this is a fully explainable accident. The good outcome for the passengers and crew was the result of training and experience of the aircrew and rescuers, not "divine intervention." (Centpacrr (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
- Yes. Reliable sources are what matter, not the nose-in-the-air attitude of some wikipedia editors. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- The sources are reliable only as to the fact the term "Miracle on the Hudson" has been used and promoted by the media and politicians for their own purposes as a term to describe the accident and associated events, but not that it is an actual "miracle" which is a religious concept dependent exclusively on a belief the outcome was controlled by divine intervention. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
- There is no such thing as a "miracle" under the dictionary definition. Because, by definition, nothing can defy the laws of physics. The term "miracle" is used for events that had a low probability of success - such as "Miracle on Ice" in 1980, which wasn't a "religious" miracle either. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, Centpacrr and the IPs are missing the point. If the incident is widely referred to as "Miracle on the Hudson" and there are sufficient sources to back that up, than our opinions on whether the term "miracle" is accurate or offensive are irrelevant. Mike R (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. "Miracle on Ice" is appropriate, so why not "Miracle on the Hudson?" Of course this means the media runs our lives, but what else is new? I put it in the title paragraph, in quotes. Someone else already put in the redirect.Dartholorin (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, Centpacrr and the IPs are missing the point. If the incident is widely referred to as "Miracle on the Hudson" and there are sufficient sources to back that up, than our opinions on whether the term "miracle" is accurate or offensive are irrelevant. Mike R (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as a "miracle" under the dictionary definition. Because, by definition, nothing can defy the laws of physics. The term "miracle" is used for events that had a low probability of success - such as "Miracle on Ice" in 1980, which wasn't a "religious" miracle either. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I stated above, reporting that this appellation had been applied to the event in "popular culture" is appropriate although not particularly relevant to the facts of the accident, however implying that it is an actual "miracle" in the literal sense of the word (1137, O.Fr. miracle, from Church L. miraculum: "a marvelous event caused by God") is not. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
(outdent) I suppose it is a miracle in the (somewhat sarcastic) sense that everybody did what they were supposed to do in a situation like this, from the pilots to the passengers, something we often seem to be short of. Especially the guy with the most training and experience ... Sullenberger. I mean, in how many other aviation accidents have come about because someone forgot that FAA maxim from flight training: "The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations in which he has to demonstrate superior skill", and then fell as short on that last part as he did the second. Look at the one everyone's comparing this with, Air Florida Flight 90 with the famous almost-last words about the deicing spray: "Gives you a false sense of security is all it does" (Of course, those guys didn't have adequate experience for what they were doing). Look at Captain van Zanten and the Tenerife airport collision ... 12,000 hours of flight time and he still figured he could save the airline money by pretending he had misunderstood the tower so he could get to Grand Canary and not have to put everyone up for the night. Or when a Brazilian military air controller takes 15 minutes to let the guy in the next sector know he's got a private jet with its transponder off coming in on the same altitude as a full commercial jet.
We have unfortunately come to expect that experts and professionals will disappoint us. So we call it a miracle when they don't. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- As additional evidence for the nickname, "Miracle on the Hudson" returns 2583 hits on Google News from yesterday and today alone.Dartholorin (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Did the airplane crash in New York or New Jersey?
Not as easy a question to answer as you might think, given that it ditched somewhere near the mid-Hudson.69.141.86.93 (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- After a Flickr review aided by Google Maps, I believe the crash happened north of the Lincoln Tunnel but soon the plane drifted south of the tunnel; however, I am still unsure which side of the border the crash was on. It may well have occurred in both states. 69.141.86.93 (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Flight Tracker in Google Earth, although it apparently incorrectly places the crash site south of where it should be, does suggest strongly that this was a New Jersey crash. The Hudson River has a southeast "kink" in it below the Chelsea area, and the pilot could well have tried to compensate for the kink by slightly aiming for impact on the west side of the river, facing southeast. That raises the likelihood of the crash being in NJ. 69.141.86.93 (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC) If the plane landed, or rather, watered.. on the western half of the river the specifics get a bit tricky. Per the "treaty of 1834" "The state of New York shall have and enjoy exclusive jurisdiction of and over all the waters of the Bay of New York and of and over all the waters of Hudson River, lying west of Manhattan Island... and of and over the lands covered by the said waters to the low water mark on the westerly or New Jersey side thereof..
On the other hand, "The state of New Jersey shall have the exclusive right of property in and to the land under water, lying west of the middle...of the Hudson River.."
- Where the state line is shown on the map is irrelevant. The Treaty of 1834 is the last word as far as emergency services and public safety people on both sides of the river are concerned ... famously, bodies of people on the losing end of certain business decisions made in Little Italy social clubs that have washed up on the shores of Hudson County a few days after they were last seen getting into a car somewhat nervously were almost always fobbed off on the NYPD even if they were above high water when found, and sometimes the Jersey City/Hoboken/Weehawken PDs would surreptitiously move them to the water's edge before they called their brother officers across the river to make sure about this.
OTOH, if the plane had sunk, it sounds like NJ would get it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where the state line is shown on the map is irrelevant. The Treaty of 1834 is the last word as far as emergency services and public safety people on both sides of the river are concerned ... famously, bodies of people on the losing end of certain business decisions made in Little Italy social clubs that have washed up on the shores of Hudson County a few days after they were last seen getting into a car somewhat nervously were almost always fobbed off on the NYPD even if they were above high water when found, and sometimes the Jersey City/Hoboken/Weehawken PDs would surreptitiously move them to the water's edge before they called their brother officers across the river to make sure about this.
Swam for it?
Someone has written in the Passengers section that some people "swam for it." I've asked for a citation because I have not seen or read this suggestion in any media. It also seems, at best, highly implausible. Wine Guy Talk 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- New York times article suggests at least one passenger swam for it [3]--Govtrust (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- That might be the guy Katie Couric was talking to by phone on CBS News on Thursday evening. He talked about being the last passenger out of the plane, and how he attempted to swim, and how quickly his lower extremities went numb from the cold water. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Water temperature
I have seen several different reports of the water temperature. Some say 32 F, other differ. Can we get a fix on this? Trent370 (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- NY1 and CBS said the water temperature was roughly 42 degrees. The fourth paragraph down states the temperature was 41 [[4]]
Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Timesonline says it was -6 deg C - which is much colder than the above - surely there would be ice at that temperature ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.25.70.58 (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Given that the river water is salt at that point, it could well have been colder than 0° C. I would not have wanted to spend any length of time in it if I didn't have to. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Coincidental link with Captain's career
I'm not sure where it belongs in the article, but if the pilots' military training is relevant enough to mention twice, then it's only respectful to acknowledge Captain Sullenberger's life work in aviation safety systems and training. The story of the "Pilot As Hero" is great for newspapers, but the work that really makes these happy endings more likely deserves to be at least mentioned. Sullenberger developed and championed safety and reliability programs, and taught skills like CRM to his fellow pilots - it's pretty apt that he should end up in exactly the sort of situation he helped teach others to prepare for.
But! I'm not a Wikipedian, so I'm not going to push this too far. This edit was my attempt - could anyone suggest a better way to briefly acknowledge this? 128.100.48.225 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Bird strike
In the box: "Type Multiple bird strike (preliminary)" There is no reference for that, and nothing official statement has been released confirming that. And Wikipedia isn't a collection of unverified claims. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.147.185 (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- it's what multiple news channles have been say accros the world so I think it is probably true for somat like this. rdunn 08:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Google is your friend. A simple lookup finds multiple sources, and named sources at that.
- "Authorities said the pilot of the Airbus A320 reported a "double bird strike" during takeoff, forcing the crew to make an emergency landing in the Hudson River as both engines lost power. [5]
- Flight 1549's pilot reported a "double bird strike" to air traffic controllers moments after taking off, and said he had lost thrust in both engines, said Alex Caldwell, a spokeswoman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. [6]
- I don't think there is much debate about the fact that birds are overwhelmingly the culprit at this point, but it should be noted this is "preliminary" until an official report comes out. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Google is your friend. A simple lookup finds multiple sources, and named sources at that.
Co-ordinates
The co-ords would look better displayed as degrees, minutes, seconds instead of decimal degrees. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please see: {{Coord}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Blog
If possible, someone please replace the NYT blog with a better reference. Squash Racket (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Minor injuries?
There are conflicting statements about injuries - i.e. "only minor injuries", "passenger with 2 broken legs", "flight attendant with one broken leg". Can someone with access to the facts sort this out? I know that this is a developing story, but when new information is added the older statements need to be revised. Are we in the realms of what WP is not here, i.e. not a news channel? --TraceyR (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
N106US
N106US doesn't seem to redirect here. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- It does now. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow
Well done to everyone who worked on this and got it up so fast. Dlohcierekim 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, well done to every editor involved. Is there a community barnstar that can be placed on an article? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hudson river crash
Hudson river crash redirects here... aren't there any other articles on crashes on the Hudson? (car crash into it, boat crash, other planes, etc) 76.66.198.171 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any but if there are others then this can be converted into a DMB page. TerriersFan (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
See also Section
I added a short description of each crash into the see also section, because most readers have no idea what each article is about without it. Parler Vous (edits) 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- And you're wondering if your edit is okay? You can generally tell if an edit is "accepted" if no one reverts it. I think you're pretty safe with this one. - Denimadept (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- And he's doing us the courtesy of explaining why he edited it. I doubt that he needs your permission.139.48.25.60 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
injuries
I've noticed something a little confusing in some of the sentences of the article that I wanted to bring up here.
Under the section on Passengers, there's two different ones: "though there are reported to be several mild injuries (including hypothermia)." and "There was only one major injury: a passenger who broke both legs. Seventy-eight other people were treated, mostly for minor injuries.", and the sentence in Aftermath that reads "The most severe injury confirmed as of 5:26 p.m. was a leg fracture received by a flight attendant who was scheduled to undergo surgery."
These seem a little confusing to me, and I was wondering if it might be a good idea to somehow condense things, maybe seperating out "Injuries" into a seperate section? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate the intro sentence.
- US Airways Flight 1549 is a regularly scheduled (since 2005) daily two-leg commercial passenger flight operating from LaGuardia Airport in New York City to Charlotte/Douglas International Airport in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Seattle-Tacoma (SeaTac) International Airport servicing Seattle and Tacoma, Washington.
This is actually the first sentence of the article!
To airline scheduling fetishists, the above is indeed what USAir Flight 1549 is.
To everyone else in the world, USAir Flight 1549 is the airplane that ended up in the Hudson.
Can we please stop prefacing every single Wikipedia airline crash article with a long explanation of routes and scheduling? Who cares? To the general public, Flight 1549 is now and forever will be this particular flight of this particular aircraft. The above unnecessary detail can be moved later in the article to placate the airline scheduling fetishists. Tempshill (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Compare with the lead sentences at Tuninter Flight 1153 and British Airways Flight 38, to pick two examples. What would be a more consistent phrasing? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I rephrased the intro to mimic British Airways Flight 38, thanks for the reference. Tempshill (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've altered it further [7], the change produced virtually identical sentances in the lead and Flight section, which are not very far apart. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I've delinked the above term because it lead to a Brighton based band (with two drummers, apparently). Anyone who thinks they know where this could usefully link to is of course welcome. Britmax (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Backup power for the flight controls systems
Has anyone reported the state of the electrical systems at the time of the ditching? As I understand it, because the A320 has no backup mechanical flight controls, to achieve such a controlled ditching, it would have to have had either some residual engine revolutions to provide power, or be running on backup electrical power from a battery/RAT/APU?. And do the backup systems on an A320 still allow full operation of the fly by wire system? (albeit of course minus the advantages of having engine any thrust). MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- As you said, modern twin turbofan airplanes like the A320 have actually three engines: the two main turbofans under their wings, and a smaller engine in the tail called the auxiliary power unit. The auxiliary power unit is used for instance to power up the main turbofans before takeoff. At the time of the crash, the auxiliary power unit was probably still running. Even in the event of a total loss of power from all the three engines, there is still an emergency ram-air turbine that automatically extends out of the plane, in order to generate electricity. The movement of the plane keeps air flowing and the ram-air turbine running. Cochonfou (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Photos were on Twitter before any traditional media
This is kind of interesting, and a first for a plane crash of this magnitude: the first published photo from the crash appeared on Twitter, rather than on any traditional news media. It was taken by Janis Krum, a passenger on a ferry that got pulled into the immediate rescue operation. Covered in Detroit Free Press [8] and New York Daily News [9]. TJRC (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it's interesting; add it if you can find a reference stating it's "the first for a plane crash of this magnitude". Tempshill (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sources for the last bit of the lead?
- Note:Post refers to this information
No problem with the details of the Japan Airlines flight, but where's the source for its being specifically the "largest previous zero fatality water landing for a commercial airliner"? I imagine such a source would be reasonably easy to find, so it needs to be in there. Equally, with the Ethiopian plane, no problems about the flight details themselves, but we need a source for its being the "last water landing comparable in aircraft size to Flight 1549". 86.132.138.159 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I moved this to the ditching section as I think it fits there much better than in the lead (which should give the core information of this specific case) Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was in the lead because Wikipedia considers every crash landing notable, with the move you now have to read the entire article to establish just exactly why this is being considered so newsworthy. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I feel this needs a reference, I looked at the water landings article and even though the information is in there, it too is unreferenced.Knowledgekid87 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes these other landings are notable, that's why they have their own articles. Is it essential for the reader to know this information to understand the article (I think not), is it interesting background information (definitely yes). Therefore, in my opinion it belongs in the main text, but not in the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- You misunderstand, all crashes are considered notable. People are raving about this crash precisely because of the rarity of surviving a water landing (added:and for an airliner of this size), which is what those two specific links show (subject to sourceing). That is quite different to just saying, 'here is some background info about other crashes'. It's all about context. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes these other landings are notable, that's why they have their own articles. Is it essential for the reader to know this information to understand the article (I think not), is it interesting background information (definitely yes). Therefore, in my opinion it belongs in the main text, but not in the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I feel this needs a reference, I looked at the water landings article and even though the information is in there, it too is unreferenced.Knowledgekid87 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was in the lead because Wikipedia considers every crash landing notable, with the move you now have to read the entire article to establish just exactly why this is being considered so newsworthy. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It belongs I agree, but just make sure it has a reference to it.Knowledgekid87 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Re Knowledgekid - Where does it belong? In the lead or in the main text.
- Re MickMacNee - Aha, now I understand the intention of the addition better. I tend to agree the lead could do with some emphasis on the rarity of safe ditching. In my view the current text did not convey that message sufficiently.
- How about something. "The ditching of flight 1549, is one of the very few cases in history were a large passenger aircraft has succesfully landed on water. Examples of landings on water are Japan Flight 2 and Ethiopian flight ..." More details about water landings can then be explained in detail in the main text. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- A reference should go after this: "The largest previous zero fatality water landing for a commercial airliner was Japan Airlines Flight 2, with 96 survivors in 1968." One was added to the Ethiopian flight info.Knowledgekid87 14:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I specifically chose those two examples as relevant reference points, i.e. the largest previous no fatalities result, and the result of the last comparable attempt (by aircraft size). "Examples of ..." is just vagueness, and might as well not be there, as examples are already handled by linking the ditching article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- My main argument was that we should be explicitly mentioning that succesful waterlanding is extremely rare, ie more than poviding examples alone, but by making the statement. PS I agree my phrasing of the example is indeed vague, you're right about that, so happy to rephrase. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)