An Aircraft Became a Boat:
Who Were the Key Human Players in Making “the Miracle on the Hudson” a Miracle
The water landing of US Airway flight 1549 is often referred as “Miracle on the Hudson,” but who contributed to this miracle?
As the engines run faster and faster, US Airway flight 1549 accelerates down the runway of LaGuardia airport and roars toward Charlotte. It’s a beautiful day in January 2009: a bit chilly, but shiny and peaceful. In the cockpit, pilots finish up their take off procedures skillfully, while passengers are relaxed in the cabin. It’s a routine flight in a pleasant afternoon. Suddenly, a big bang breaks through the sky of New York. Meanwhile, warnings go as loud as thunder in the cockpit, flames and black smoke comes out of both engines and passengers’ faces are as white as a piece of paper. The aircraft runs into a group of geese and some geese stroke the engine. Shortly, the silence come back, but nobody wants quietness—the engine sound goes out. The aircraft is less than 3000ft above ground, and the pilots have only three minutes to land. Otherwise, the plane will crash into densely populated regions of New York. Immediately, the pilots turn the aircraft around to LaGuardia. However, Captain Sullenberger announces a desperate news on the radio: “We’re unable (to go back), we might end up in the Hudson.”
As residents in high buildings watch in shock, Capt. Sullenberger lines up the aircraft up with the Hudson River. The landing is full of obstacles, tall buildings, bridges, and ferries. People are expecting a disaster. A huge splash, and calm water. The aircraft stops in the Hudson and slowly drifts by the tide—it’s like a strange boat. Ferries rush out of piers as the door opens on the plane, and some passengers plunge into the water. Rescuers need to be efficient, or 155 people on board may freeze in the ice-cold water. After heads are counted, everyone is relieved. Passengers and crew members have all survived in this dramatic landing, and only 5 out of 155 people had to stay in the hospital overnight due to exposure to icy water. The event is a miracle because airplane ditching is challenging and always ends up with casualties. For example, on 23 November 1996, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 ditched after running out of fuel, and 125 out of 175 passengers were killed (Sibilla). The water landing of US Airway flight 1549 is often referred as “Miracle on the Hudson,” but who contributed to this miracle?
The miracle did not happen because of luck. It happened because of the pilot’s correct decision to ditch the plane, the captain’s perfect performance when landing the plane, the hasty evacuation of cabin crew and passengers, and the rapid response of ferries on the Hudson.
When they lost both of the engines after the bird-strike, Pilots of US Airway flight 1549, Captain C.B. Sullenberger and Co-Pilot J. Skiles, were under intense stress since they had only a few seconds to decide what to do. If pilots had spent too much time analyzing the situation, they would lose the chance to do an emergency landing due to the low altitude. As the voice recorder of the plane indicates, pilots chose to ditch because they believed the altitude was too low for the airplane to glide to LaGuardia or an alternative airport in New Jersey. Although National Transport Safety Board (also referred as NTSB) simulation shows that emergency landing at airports is possible if pilots turn around right after the bird-strike, the plane will crash if there is a 35-sec delay—what pilots spent analyzing. Thus, the pilots made a wise decision to land on the Hudson instead of taking the risk of returning to airports (United States 88). Pilots cooperated excellently in the cockpit by separating tasks. For example, Capt. Sullenberger stabilized the aircraft after the bird-strike, and Co-pilot Skiles started the emergency checklist. The ability to manage crew resources saved time for the pilots and helped them prepared better for final ditching. Since the emergency checklist given by the manufacturer was designed for a much higher altitude, the two pilots weren’t able to finish the entire list. However, the pilots turned on the auxiliary power unit, a small generator that produce electricity when engines aren’t running, that provided the electricity to control the aircraft (87, 91). Experience and instinct supported pilots when they were making decisions and preparing for the ditching. Captain Sullenberger took control of the plane in the final ditching. He flew the aircraft almost at the minimum operation speed, approximately 15 knots slower than recommendation speed, and putted the aircraft at risk of losing lift. Also, he used flap 2 instead of flap 3. The flap is a mechanism that slows planes and creates extra lift. Thoracically, flap 3 would provide a significant lower operation speed and therefore reduce the impact of hitting the water. NTSB investigation indicates that lower speed wasn’t the fault of the pilots because they had other important things to focus on, and flap 2 was the proper choice because it created less drag. Even though there were some minor flaws, Captain made a textbook-like landing (89-90). In conclusion, despite the minor concern of improper speed, pilots operated perfectly in analyzing situation after the bird-strike, preparing for landing and executing the final ditching. It’s the skill and experience of pilots that made the airplane float calmly on the Hudson.
Even though the water landing was a huge success, the crisis wasn’t over. It was mid-winter, and freezing-cold water was slowly leaking through cracks caused by the impact of the water landing. If passengers hadn’t got out of the cabin fast enough, they would face the danger of losing body temperature due to exposure to cold water. The flight attendants reacted rapidly to clear the exits and guide the evacuation. In its interview with flight attendants, NTSB discovers that stewards realized that water blocked the back doors, so they guided passengers to exit through two front and two wing exits. Flight attendants also conducted passengers, so wing-exits weren’t overcrowded (40-41). Passengers, unlike well-trained flight attendants, reacted differently in the cabin. Some passengers helped cabin crew to open the emergency doors and to clear the evacuation path, some passengers were selfish and brought luggage that slowed other people down, and some passengers risked their life helping others (Michael Wilson). Overall speaking, the mood in the cabin was cooperative, just like McFadden describes in his journal “In what he (a passenger) described as ‘organized chaos,’ the passengers, all wearing life vests, ‘just walked through the water’ toward the exits.” One of the instances of cooperation was Brad Wentzell, one of the strong passengers onboard, helped a mother and her young baby daughter out of the cabin and to the wings. He also helped to stabilize the raft (Michael Wilson). Pilots were very professional post landing as well, Co-pilot stayed in the cockpit to finish up post-landing procedures, and Captain went into the cabin to help evacuation. He passed out floating equipment such as seat cushions and life vests. Both pilots walked around and made sure nobody was left before they left the cabin last (McFadden). In short, the evacuation of the cabin was efficient with the help of cabin crews, passengers, and pilots. The cooperation of people onboard allowed them to walk out of the cabin, stand on wings of the aircraft and wait for the help of rescuers.
It seemed that everyone evacuated from the wreckage and stood on the plane’s wings safely; however, the risk still existed. Since an airplane wasn't designed to be a boat, the wreckage was slowly sinking as water plunged into the cabin through doors. Some passengers, unable to stood on wings steadily, slipped into the Hudson River. An investigator from NTSB states that the water temperature of Hudson was around 40 degrees. If humans were fully exposed to this circumstance, they might die within 30-mins to an hour (Katherine Wilson). Under this circumstance, ferries on the Hudson were put into test: if they hadn’t responded fast enough, passengers might face the threat of death. Ferry Athenia was the first to respond. As soon as Captain Lucas saw the aircraft floating on water, he fired his ferry towards it. Other boats also rushed toward landing site when they saw the floating aircraft and action of Athenia. The majority, 135 out of 155, of passengers were saved by 14 boats from New York Waterway, a water transportation company (Dwyer). More rescuers pulled passengers out of the water. The rescue teams practicing on the Hudson River just finished their regularly training when the plane came down. Spotted the ditching, Vincent Lombardi, captain of one of the rescue ferries, headed towards the aircraft immediately and threw rescue equipment into the water (Dwyer). Due to the rapid response of ferries and rescue boats, all of the 155 people on board were pulled out of the water and sent ashore safely. The crisis was finally over. Nobody had to face life-threat anymore, and those who were watching could relieve.
The incident had a happen ending. Under the emergency of losing both engines at low altitude, no better end comparing to the survival of everyone on board can be expected. 155 lives had been secured by the cooperation of pilots, crewmembers, passengers, and rescuers. If any part went wrong during the landing, evacuation or transferring passengers out of the water, the incident might have a worse result. Although the crisis ended wonderfully, there are still things to be learned from the incident. NTSB made several safety recommendations including improving engines to sustain bird strikes, modifying emergency checklist for better pilot-guidance, installing more life-saving equipment on the aircraft, and preparing pilots for water landing (United States 124-128). While authorities did what they were supposed to do, we passengers should learn from the incident as well. Considering the fact that “only 10 passengers retrieved life vests before exiting the airplane and another 21 passengers received life vests after exiting the airplane. 77 passengers exited the airplane with a seat cushion. All in all, about 60% of passengers had a life saving device with them” (Wilson, Katherine), it’s not hard to conclude that passengers should pay more attention to safety instruction and guidance. Another lesson we should learn from the incident is that keeping calm and cooperating actively is critical when confronting emergency. If passengers ran into each other and ignored those who needed help, the chance of everyone survived would drop dramatically. As the aviation industry learn from incidents and eliminate flaws, air travel is becoming safer and safer. In the future, we shall trust that the breath-taking event like “Miracle on the Hudson” will never happen again.
As residents in high buildings watch in shock, Capt. Sullenberger lines up the aircraft up with the Hudson River. The landing is full of obstacles, tall buildings, bridges, and ferries. People are expecting a disaster. A huge splash, and calm water. The aircraft stops in the Hudson and slowly drifts by the tide—it’s like a strange boat. Ferries rush out of piers as the door opens on the plane, and some passengers plunge into the water. Rescuers need to be efficient, or 155 people on board may freeze in the ice-cold water. After heads are counted, everyone is relieved. Passengers and crew members have all survived in this dramatic landing, and only 5 out of 155 people had to stay in the hospital overnight due to exposure to icy water. The event is a miracle because airplane ditching is challenging and always ends up with casualties. For example, on 23 November 1996, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 ditched after running out of fuel, and 125 out of 175 passengers were killed (Sibilla). The water landing of US Airway flight 1549 is often referred as “Miracle on the Hudson,” but who contributed to this miracle?
The miracle did not happen because of luck. It happened because of the pilot’s correct decision to ditch the plane, the captain’s perfect performance when landing the plane, the hasty evacuation of cabin crew and passengers, and the rapid response of ferries on the Hudson.
When they lost both of the engines after the bird-strike, Pilots of US Airway flight 1549, Captain C.B. Sullenberger and Co-Pilot J. Skiles, were under intense stress since they had only a few seconds to decide what to do. If pilots had spent too much time analyzing the situation, they would lose the chance to do an emergency landing due to the low altitude. As the voice recorder of the plane indicates, pilots chose to ditch because they believed the altitude was too low for the airplane to glide to LaGuardia or an alternative airport in New Jersey. Although National Transport Safety Board (also referred as NTSB) simulation shows that emergency landing at airports is possible if pilots turn around right after the bird-strike, the plane will crash if there is a 35-sec delay—what pilots spent analyzing. Thus, the pilots made a wise decision to land on the Hudson instead of taking the risk of returning to airports (United States 88). Pilots cooperated excellently in the cockpit by separating tasks. For example, Capt. Sullenberger stabilized the aircraft after the bird-strike, and Co-pilot Skiles started the emergency checklist. The ability to manage crew resources saved time for the pilots and helped them prepared better for final ditching. Since the emergency checklist given by the manufacturer was designed for a much higher altitude, the two pilots weren’t able to finish the entire list. However, the pilots turned on the auxiliary power unit, a small generator that produce electricity when engines aren’t running, that provided the electricity to control the aircraft (87, 91). Experience and instinct supported pilots when they were making decisions and preparing for the ditching. Captain Sullenberger took control of the plane in the final ditching. He flew the aircraft almost at the minimum operation speed, approximately 15 knots slower than recommendation speed, and putted the aircraft at risk of losing lift. Also, he used flap 2 instead of flap 3. The flap is a mechanism that slows planes and creates extra lift. Thoracically, flap 3 would provide a significant lower operation speed and therefore reduce the impact of hitting the water. NTSB investigation indicates that lower speed wasn’t the fault of the pilots because they had other important things to focus on, and flap 2 was the proper choice because it created less drag. Even though there were some minor flaws, Captain made a textbook-like landing (89-90). In conclusion, despite the minor concern of improper speed, pilots operated perfectly in analyzing situation after the bird-strike, preparing for landing and executing the final ditching. It’s the skill and experience of pilots that made the airplane float calmly on the Hudson.
Even though the water landing was a huge success, the crisis wasn’t over. It was mid-winter, and freezing-cold water was slowly leaking through cracks caused by the impact of the water landing. If passengers hadn’t got out of the cabin fast enough, they would face the danger of losing body temperature due to exposure to cold water. The flight attendants reacted rapidly to clear the exits and guide the evacuation. In its interview with flight attendants, NTSB discovers that stewards realized that water blocked the back doors, so they guided passengers to exit through two front and two wing exits. Flight attendants also conducted passengers, so wing-exits weren’t overcrowded (40-41). Passengers, unlike well-trained flight attendants, reacted differently in the cabin. Some passengers helped cabin crew to open the emergency doors and to clear the evacuation path, some passengers were selfish and brought luggage that slowed other people down, and some passengers risked their life helping others (Michael Wilson). Overall speaking, the mood in the cabin was cooperative, just like McFadden describes in his journal “In what he (a passenger) described as ‘organized chaos,’ the passengers, all wearing life vests, ‘just walked through the water’ toward the exits.” One of the instances of cooperation was Brad Wentzell, one of the strong passengers onboard, helped a mother and her young baby daughter out of the cabin and to the wings. He also helped to stabilize the raft (Michael Wilson). Pilots were very professional post landing as well, Co-pilot stayed in the cockpit to finish up post-landing procedures, and Captain went into the cabin to help evacuation. He passed out floating equipment such as seat cushions and life vests. Both pilots walked around and made sure nobody was left before they left the cabin last (McFadden). In short, the evacuation of the cabin was efficient with the help of cabin crews, passengers, and pilots. The cooperation of people onboard allowed them to walk out of the cabin, stand on wings of the aircraft and wait for the help of rescuers.
It seemed that everyone evacuated from the wreckage and stood on the plane’s wings safely; however, the risk still existed. Since an airplane wasn't designed to be a boat, the wreckage was slowly sinking as water plunged into the cabin through doors. Some passengers, unable to stood on wings steadily, slipped into the Hudson River. An investigator from NTSB states that the water temperature of Hudson was around 40 degrees. If humans were fully exposed to this circumstance, they might die within 30-mins to an hour (Katherine Wilson). Under this circumstance, ferries on the Hudson were put into test: if they hadn’t responded fast enough, passengers might face the threat of death. Ferry Athenia was the first to respond. As soon as Captain Lucas saw the aircraft floating on water, he fired his ferry towards it. Other boats also rushed toward landing site when they saw the floating aircraft and action of Athenia. The majority, 135 out of 155, of passengers were saved by 14 boats from New York Waterway, a water transportation company (Dwyer). More rescuers pulled passengers out of the water. The rescue teams practicing on the Hudson River just finished their regularly training when the plane came down. Spotted the ditching, Vincent Lombardi, captain of one of the rescue ferries, headed towards the aircraft immediately and threw rescue equipment into the water (Dwyer). Due to the rapid response of ferries and rescue boats, all of the 155 people on board were pulled out of the water and sent ashore safely. The crisis was finally over. Nobody had to face life-threat anymore, and those who were watching could relieve.
The incident had a happen ending. Under the emergency of losing both engines at low altitude, no better end comparing to the survival of everyone on board can be expected. 155 lives had been secured by the cooperation of pilots, crewmembers, passengers, and rescuers. If any part went wrong during the landing, evacuation or transferring passengers out of the water, the incident might have a worse result. Although the crisis ended wonderfully, there are still things to be learned from the incident. NTSB made several safety recommendations including improving engines to sustain bird strikes, modifying emergency checklist for better pilot-guidance, installing more life-saving equipment on the aircraft, and preparing pilots for water landing (United States 124-128). While authorities did what they were supposed to do, we passengers should learn from the incident as well. Considering the fact that “only 10 passengers retrieved life vests before exiting the airplane and another 21 passengers received life vests after exiting the airplane. 77 passengers exited the airplane with a seat cushion. All in all, about 60% of passengers had a life saving device with them” (Wilson, Katherine), it’s not hard to conclude that passengers should pay more attention to safety instruction and guidance. Another lesson we should learn from the incident is that keeping calm and cooperating actively is critical when confronting emergency. If passengers ran into each other and ignored those who needed help, the chance of everyone survived would drop dramatically. As the aviation industry learn from incidents and eliminate flaws, air travel is becoming safer and safer. In the future, we shall trust that the breath-taking event like “Miracle on the Hudson” will never happen again.