CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Plane crashes in the Husdon river
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Plane crashes in the Husdon river - Page 2

post #51 of 67
1/16/09 at 8:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Never underestimate the ability of some a-hole lawyer to pull shit like that.
True, just goes to show once again we have too many lawyers in this country.
Reply
post #52 of 67
1/17/09 at 4:15am
It was such a cold and miserable day in NYC on Wednesday. So glad no one died in that icy water. Imagine if conditions were a little worse, winds or Lord knows what pushing the plane a half mile east? He ditched in the Hudson right near 50th street. It coulda been Times Square instead of water. Not too long ago, we had a private plane lose control and plow into a skyscraper here.

Miracle? Close enough to one for me.
Reply
post #53 of 67
1/17/09 at 4:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Phibes View Post
Miracle? Close enough to one for me.
A well-trained crew and good conditions is all you need.
Reply
post #54 of 67
1/17/09 at 5:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti View Post
I really don't think you understand the difficulty of what he did and its low chances for success. The last time someone tried to ditch an airplane, it cartwheeled and everyone died.
Wall Street Journal:

Quote:
For the first time in 50 years of commercial jet flight, the pilots of US Airways Flight 1549 successfully executed one of the most technically challenging maneuvers, landing a jetliner on water without fatalities.
Am I reading that wrong, or is that saying it's the first (and only) time anyone's ever done it successfully? Or that there have been varying degrees of fatalities?
Reply
post #55 of 67
1/17/09 at 6:58pm
Would something like wind (or lack of) be the mitigating factor in the success of this maneuver? Seaplanes can do this type of stuff all the time. It'd be a great thing if regular planes weren't that different.
Reply
post #56 of 67
1/17/09 at 7:05pm
It's a 90,000-pound aircraft. Seaplanes are a little more lightweight.
Reply
post #57 of 67
1/17/09 at 7:18pm
Let's not squabble over details.... (jk) ah your point is obviously well taken. I'm not very quick today.
Reply
post #58 of 67
1/17/09 at 7:41pm
Weight (and/or size) isn't the issue-- just ask Howard Hughes. Seaplanes have their wings mounted above the fuselage so that they don't touch the water. I'm no engineer but I'll guess that conventional aircraft have their wings under the fuselage because it's a more stable configuration for the landing gear.
Reply
post #59 of 67
1/17/09 at 7:47pm
Just read that this guy was a Purdue alum. Aw, yeah.
Reply
post #60 of 67
1/17/09 at 7:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
Weight (and/or size) isn't the issue-- just ask Howard Hughes. Seaplanes have their wings mounted above the fuselage so that they don't touch the water. I'm no engineer but I'll guess that conventional aircraft have their wings under the fuselage because it's a more stable configuration for the landing gear.
Well, I'm sure weight and size wouldn't matter if the plane were designed to land on water. Since it isn't, I'd imagine those kinds of factors determine how much stress the plane can take during an emergency landing.
Reply
post #61 of 67
1/18/09 at 12:56am
I overheard someone say earlier today that the pilot is an Air Force vet, and trained NASA pilots. . . in how to crash. Apparently, if you're on a plane, and it's gonna crash, he's the guy you want to crash with.
Reply
post #62 of 67
1/18/09 at 12:59am
He has a an air-safety consulting business on the side. Not to sound cynical, but this is the best publicity he could ever get.
Reply
post #63 of 67
1/18/09 at 1:07am
True. And he just sort of fell into it.



Sorry. I hadda.
Reply
post #64 of 67
1/18/09 at 1:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Kimbell View Post
Just read that this guy was a Purdue alum. Aw, yeah.
yeah, that made my wife a bit happy as well..not for me, I left after 3 years..ha

so this pilot spent years training for this, and training overs.. do you think when the shit was hitting the fan, he was just thinking to himself, "Well about fucking time something happened!"
Reply
post #65 of 67
1/18/09 at 2:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post
Ultimately, this is the kind of thing that makes me think of an incident Walter Lord liked to relate. Some time before Titanic was lost, another ship smacked right into an iceberg. Thanks to the position on impact, the ship was severely damaged but managed to limp to port in the US. People lauded the crew and chests were swelled. Lord accurately points out that folks came away from the disaster seeing the strength of ships rather than the danger of icebergs.
So you now think that folks are going to walk away and think that any crash landing into a river is just going to be A-OK?

There is no way you can compare this incident on the Hudson, and to what happened with that boat.
Reply
post #66 of 67
1/20/09 at 6:57pm
LAWLZ!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Captai...7497235?ref=mf
Reply
post #67 of 67
1/20/09 at 7:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Am I reading that wrong, or is that saying it's the first (and only) time anyone's ever done it successfully? Or that there have been varying degrees of fatalities?
Tyler Durden: [pointing at an emergency instruction manual on a plane] You know why they put oxygen masks on planes?
Narrator: So you can breath.
Tyler Durden: Oxygen gets you high. In a catastrophic emergency, you're taking giant panicked breaths. Suddenly you become euphoric, docile. You accept your fate. It's all right here. Emergency water landing - 600 miles an hour. Blank faces, calm as Hindu cows.
Narrator: That's, um... That's an interesting theory.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Plane crashes in the Husdon river