Talk:US Airways Flight 1549/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Importance of pilot's glider training?

Has the pilot yet commented on the usefulness of his training as a glider (sailplane) pilot? As a glider pilot myself, I know that an important part of the training is developing the ability to select suitable fields or other landing areas for "out"landings when no more lift (typically thermals) can be found. Since gliders have no engines, they are in a sense in a permanent state of engine failure—so having to make a fairly quick decision to land in an unfamiliar area is perhaps less of a big deal for trained glider pilots than it is for pilots who fly only powered aircraft. This in no way diminishes Sullenberger's superb professional handling of what could so easily have turned into a tragedy.

Another essential aspect of flying a glider is the need to constantly monitor and estimate glide angles to a destination—and this may well have enabled the pilot to rule out immediately the proposed diversion to Teterboro airport. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK's "Sunday Times" 18 January 2009 stressed the criticality of the aircraft's angle of approach to the surface of the water just before touch down - apparently 7 degrees. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sullenberger hasn't spoken with the press at all yet. So far I haven't seen anything mentioned about his glider experience in NTSB's reports of their interviews with the pilots. I agree with the presumption that it must have been useful in that situation. (I recently got my glider rating.) With just some rough info based on news reports, they were about 6 miles from Teterboro at 3000 ft altitude when they briefly considered going there. Just with some quick math, in order to arrive at the airport with 1000 ft to spare to make the almost-90 degree right turn to Runway 1, the A320 would have needed a glide ratio of at least 15:1, which is probably more than an A320 has even without Flight 1549's draggy damaged engines. They probably didn't have time to do such math in their heads - but their years of experience led to the same conclusion that there was no safety margin even if they could make it there. Under the responsibility to make such a decision with as wide a margin of safety as possible, the Hudson River would have appeared as a much more conservative and achievable goal. There was no doubt they could make that. So that's what they chose. Hindsight confirms they made the right decision even under severe time constraints. Ikluft (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Airbus itself recommends 11 degrees of pitch at the time of touchdown [1] (This link also shows where the "Ditching Button' is located). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

While the glider training is probably invaluable for incidents like this (and the Gimli Glider incident), I believe that 'in-head' calculations like this are tested as a standard part of the Commercial Pilot practical test in the US. I was asked to calculate glide distances (and whether I could make a given airport) in the practical tests for both my single and multi commercial ratings. I would assume that it is certainly a component of most type-rating checkrides. Given that one of the uses of an article such as this would likely be to assuage some fearful flyers, if I can find a citation about it (calculating glide distances) being a part of the commercial PTS, would that be a reasonable add? CaptainChrisD (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly would. (BTW I've moved your contribution to its correct chronological position in this thread—though I can understand why you inserted it where you did.)--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The criticality of the 11 degree glideslope was stressed again in Channel 4's The Miracle of the Hudson Plane Crash.[2]. Any greater and it would have gone in tail-first, any less and it would have gone in engines-first - both probably catastrophic. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the AIRBUS Accident Information Telex, the actual pitch attitude was 10 degrees (which is extremely close to AIRBUS recommended 11 degrees pitch attitude in a ditching). Very good job. IlkkaP (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you don't actually mean "glide slope" which is the overall angle of descent over distance of the aircraft during the approach, but you are talking about the "flare" which is when the pilot changes the pitch attitude of the aircraft by pulling up the nose just before touchdown. This slows the descent to virtually zero by both bleeding off airspeed and by taking advantage of ground effect. In this case the flare was to an attitude of +11º above the horizon. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes you're qute right: "Airbus recommends 11 degrees of pitch at the time of touchdown... " - this is flare not glidesplope. Thanks for the clarification Centpacrr.

Rewriting history, archiving unresolved issues etc

I'm not aware of another article in which so much editing of the talk page and archiving of active issues has taken place. Surely there is no compelling need to remove things wholesale until the points raised have been resolved. Perhaps there is a case for dicussion pages being write-only except for admins. Rewriting history is not a hallmark of democratic institutions! --TraceyR (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been erased; check the History tab. I agree that the movement of discussions into archive pages has been premature. Tempshill (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the last archive, this page was 84 kilobytes long, and carried the warning "It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage". All archived material is linked to, from this page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was a great idea to move it yet even if it was 300K, since the page was only a day or two old; I don't like repeating arguments and breaking threads of discussion. Editors who write on discussion pages aren't going to blink at the pages loading a few seconds more slowly (which would only happen for people with 28.8K modems anyway). Tempshill (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar incidents

This extraneous section seems out of place. I think it should be removed. Maybe a List of Airplane ditchings should be created. Then that page would be an appropriate *see also* addition. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a list water landing Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See also the navbox at the bottom. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is more info on flight 1549.

1) Remember that jet aircraft are subject to “compressor stalls. When these occur it is very noisy because of the explosions and flames come out of the engine. The passengers are usually terrified.

2) A dual engine compressor stall occurred on December 15, 2008 and led the FAA to demand that all Air Bus planes using that engine be inspected and if necessary repaired before January 13, 2009.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/B13C349078EBEE5086257530004EC0A4?OpenDocument

http://www.mzp.gov.si/fileadmin/mzp.gov.si/pageuploads/DL_AD_NOTE2008/EASA_EAD_2008-0228-E.pdf

3) After the accident of flight 1549 the captain was not available to the press for 24 hours.

4) When he was available on his 60 minutes appearance he stated that the crash was due to birds hitting the aircraft.

5) The passengers seemed to have a different experience from the pilot. They reported that the landing was preceded by a large explosion with the plane filling with fuel fumes. The explosions were even observed from the ground.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nynyplan206005334jan20,0,5076269.story

6) A second pilot was aboard that flight and she was treated to a royal “ wine and dine” experience after the crash.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/01/american-pilot-talks-about-her.html

7) It seems that there were different experiences between those of the captain and those of the passengers. In the light of the recent Air Worthiness Directive it is prudent to ask if the mandated inspections required by the FAA were made before the January 15 flight of US Air flight 1549.

8) Two days before flight 1549 that same aircraft was known to suffer from compressor stalls and almost returned to LaGuardia.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nynyplan206005334jan20,0,5076269.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.171.75 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How did we get all the way to 2 March without a conspiracy theory - is 46 days a record? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We didn't. On the first day this version was ready to blame the seagulls before Washington decided to Blame Canada.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Within a few days of the incident, I received a forwarded e-mail from a friend who advanced this and other conspiracy theories, as well as a number of true, half-true, and outright falshoods about Airbus aircraft. The tagline on the e-mail was "If ain't Boeing, I ain't going". The gist of the e-mail was that "fly by wire" was inheriently unsafe and somehow responsible for the crash, which would have otherwise be recoverable. The e-mail implied that the fly-by-wire system prevented the engines from restarting, claiming that the accident was somehow similar manner to the Air France Flight 296 incident. The irony, of course, is that Boeing uses "fly by wire" in its newer aircraft as well.

I believe the e-mail is based on this blog:

http://blog.booneairport.com/2009/02/interesting-comments-on-sullenberger.html

I am not sure whether the blog (and e-mail) is just knee-jerk American jingoism or a planted viral story to defuse any publicity gain airbus received from the incident.

Joe Patent (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I think Sullenberger himself might be particularly surprised to read that: "On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real"(!) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Test of jet engines for bird strikes

Do we need to cover the test of bird strikes on jet engine? This seems to be a highly relevant topic. Trent370 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How many pigeons have to sacrifice their lives when those tests are conducted? And I'm guessing they're only paid in chicken feed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Incident with same plane two days earlier

Not really certain this is fleshed out enough to go in the article, or where to put it, but this story on CNN reports that the same plane that crashed in the Hudson suffered an apparent issue with the right side engine two days before the accident. Like I said, I don't think this is fleshed out enough for the article, but thought to make a note of it here on the talk page for reference purposes. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard that news report also. It certainly has a good chance to tie in with the big story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait until it is confirmed it was indeed the same plane and not some other Airbus 320 of US Airways. Arnoutf (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight status: delayed

It is a mark of my dedication as a Wikipedian that I didn't add Flight Status: delayed to the infobox at the top right. :) Alan Canon (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Experimentation?

There was some discussion about the difficulty of "training" ditching with commercial jets. How about "testing" ditching commercial jets, using commercial jets that are decommissionned due to coming to the end of their useful lives, perhaps by piloting them robotically, just to test the optimal methods to train for in simulator runs? Does that go on? If it does, perhaps it could be mentioned in the article even. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty certain that it doesn't go on. Probably because the anti-pollution nazis would be up in arms in such a test was proposed. Just imaging all that damage a few hundred gallons of kerosene would do in trillions of gallons of seawater! You can bet that if such a test ever got the go-ahead the press would be there and we'd all know about it. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also very expensive. Witness the Controlled Impact Demonstration from 1984 for the most recent example of a full-up free-flight crash test of an aircraft. (There were also two preliminary non-free-flying tests in the 1970s that led up to that, one using a DC-6 and one using a Lockheed Constellation; the DC-6 test footage was famously shown as the in-flight movie in Airplane!, and has been widely used as stock footage since.) The FAA does do crashworthiness experiments with small aircraft (up to about the size of a Learjet) that were either abandoned prototypes or suffered non-structural damage that renders them unsellable--many, many Piper single-engine airframes were used for such tests following the 1974 Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, flood that flooded out Piper's factory--but only to test projects where there's not enough data to run successful computer simulations.

There is plenty of data on landing large aircraft on water, albeit mostly from World War II and earlier, both from ditching damaged military aircraft during the war, and from operating large flying boats in civilian and military service, so the requirements and stresses are well-known, and any experiments to improve them can be carried out in computer simulations at far lower cost than purchasing airworthy aircraft to destroy rather than scrap. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight attendants etc

Is there really any point in naming the 3 flight attendants? I'm sure they behaved professionally & courageously in difficult circumstances, but they don't need to be named here. Does "flight attendant" need a link? If so, it should be given at the first mention of the term, not later on in the article.

Please make it clear that the copilot & first officer were the same person: that certainly won't be obvious to all readers of the article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If the flight attendants aren't worthy of a mention by name, why is the Captain entitle to his own article and why is the FO entitled to be mentioned by name? They were a crew of five, and worked together as a team to ensure a successful outcome (no lives lost). They are all deserving of being named in the article. See also BOAC Flight 712. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If naming the entire crew is standard WP practice, that's fine. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the flight attendants' names. We need to keep it brief. The idea is that this is an encyclopedia, not a thorough catalog of all details of the incident. A reader can completely grasp the entirety of the incident without the names of the flight attendants. Tempshill (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sullenberger injured?

Has there been any report of injuries sustained by Sullenberger or his FO? Sullenberger was just shown at the Obama inauguration, and was being helped (considerably) to his seat by a man in uniform. I can't imagine that he wasn't injured, but I've seen no reports. - auburnpilot talk 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that was the right person? I looked at a recording of CNN's coverage. Sullenberger was shown leaving after the inauguration with no sign of any problem. Ikluft (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see his face, as his head was down, but the news anchor certainly could have been incorrect in his identification. The man he identified as Sullenberger was struggling down the steps, aided by a man holding onto him by his right arm. The NTSB has only identified one injury, likely the flight attendant, so I was rather surprised to see the man identified as Sullenberger suffering from an apparent injury. Personally, I'll take the word of the NTBS before I take the word of a random news anchor. - auburnpilot talk 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Injury by ferryboats and other watercraft?

The danger of run on sentences: take a good look at this intro sentence and tell why every reader shouldn't believe the passengers weren't injured by the watercraft:

"After successfully evacuating the cabin, all were subsequently rescued from the partially submerged Airbus without additional serious injury by nearby ferryboats and other watercraft which arrived within minutes."

There is no need to cram so much information into an introduction. The art here would be to reduce the introduction to the essential facts, with as few words as possible. 842U (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. The fact that everyone survived and was rescued is fine, details about injuries and boats can wait until further down in the prose. – jaksmata 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the aircrew intentionally ditched near the ferry boats was was a key factor in the survival of all the passengers and crew and is thus an essential element for for inclusion in the introduction. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

I couldn't disagree more. That's essential to the story, but not essential the introduction of the story. There's a difference. 842U (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Twenty-two words (or one sentence) hardly seems excessive to cover three major elements (ditching, evacuation, and water rescue) in the introduction. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

See the sectionRescued, above. The earlier wording, "All on board survived the ditching. " is sufficient for the lede. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No actually it isn't. The accident was not over for the 155 occupants of the plane with "surviving the ditching" as they were still in grave peril at that time. It ended only when the plane was subsequently evacuated and it's occupants were rescued from the wings and slides as is made quite clear in Rescued above. You are arguing over a difference of sixteen words (half a sentence) which, if left out, renders the intro both incomplete and misleading by ignoring two of the four major elements of the overall accident. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

What are the four elements again? I think I missed something. In a previous post you mentioned three majors, is there a minor one? (I'm not trying to be facetious, I just don't understand what you're saying).

At any rate, I only see two elements: first, the people survived the ditching, second, they were rescued by boat. (The fact that they left the plane at some point seems obvious.) I think an adequate, but not overly wordy rendition would be: "All passengers and crew survived and were rescued from the floating aircraft by nearby ferries and rescue boats." (This is pretty similar to what's there now.) – jaksmata 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The four elements of the overall accident were: 1) the bird strike and loss of both engines; 2) regaining control of the plane, the descent, selection of a place to bring the down, and then ditching in the river; 3) the evacuation of the planeafter the ditching under the guidance of the aircrew, and; 4) the rescue of the occupants by the ferry boats and other watercraft. The first element was an event (bird strike) that was neither expected nor under the control of anyone, and it disabled the plane. Accomplishment of the second element was the responsibility of the flight deck crew. The third was the primary responsibility of the cabin crew. The fourth was primarily guided and accomplished by the rescuers. While all four elements are inextricably associated with the overall accident, each was also a distinct element which presented separate perils and for which different people were responsible. The difference in the length of the sentence in the intro to do this right (and prevent it from being misleading) is three words which hardly seems excessive. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

This phrase, "they were still in grave peril at that time", is a somewhat emotional interpretation or perception, rather than something we can all call a neutral fact. If that's what's driving inclusion of unnecessary detail in the introduction, please reconsider.

The salient introductory point is: everyone on board survived. This is a true statement that includes survival of the ditching, evacuation and retrieval by watercraft. Fewer words > more words. Less emotion > more emotion.842U (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that surviving the ditching was the same thing as surviving the all elements of the accident. It wasn't. If you were inside the cabin of a full airliner which had just ditched in frigid weather and was filling with water and didn't think you were still in grave peril then your nerves are far better than anyone I have ever come across. As a professional writer (four published books and thousands of articles) it puzzles me that there is all this kerfuffle being made over a difference of three words in the length of a sentence which without them is misleading and incomplete. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Which is why the earlier wording was "survived the incident". Problem solved. (I'm a professional, published writer, too, so you've no special advanatge there). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a single incident but a complex event with four distinct elements. Also inanimate objects (like dog bones) are retrieved; people in peril are rescued -- that's why they are called "rescue" workers as opposed to "retrieval" workers. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

If you believe that this is not suitable for discussion as a single incident, I suggest you RFC subdivision into separate articles, supporting your proposals with verifiable references (such as separate NTSB reviews). Meanwhile, we treat it as one incident; as we do for other air-accident articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your argument seems to be just a circular one now. As I have pointed out several times already, the overall incident is made up of four inextricably connected sequential elements: 1) the bird strike and loss of thrust in both engines; 2) regaining control of the plane, the descent, selection of a place to bring the down, and then ditching in the river; 3) the evacuation of the planeafter the ditching under the guidance of the aircrew, and; 4) the subsequent rescue of the occupants by local ferry boats and other watercraft. The sentence in the intro which covers elements 2, 3, and 4 reads:"All on board survived the ditching, successfully evacuated the cabin, and were rescued from the partially submerged plane by nearby watercraft." You have not contended, as far as I can tell, that this is in any way inaccurate or not adequately sourced. It covers three of the four elements if the "incident" quite efficiently in just 21 words which hardly seems to be excessive. So I just don't see the issue or the point you are trying to make, unless this is a matter of NIH factor. If it is something else, please make your case.

• I will presume that your suggestion that I should make a series of proposals to break this article into four separate articles was intended to be disingenuous and so will take it as such. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Splitting the article into several subarticles is not needed at this point, nor answers the question whether the lede of the article is sufficient as it stands right now. I personally consider "All on board survived the ditching" to be ambiguous, as passengers could have survived the ditching and died of hypothermia during rescue operations. In fact, the whole lede is rather scant on details, and can be significantly lengthened without running afoul of WP:LEDE. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting "All on board survived the ditching". I use the wording "survived the incident" a couple of entries above your comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that the "challenge" made to me to split up the article into multiple parts was made seriously, and I certainly did not take it that way as it would be completely inappropriate to do so. I fully agree with all of your comments as well. (See my comment immediately above) (Centpacrr (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Perfectly serious; if you cannot soundly do so then it is an illustration of why your approach is unhelpful. Your four incidents are arbitrary; we could as easily divide this single incident into 8 or 16. The issue is not one of "NIH", but of unnecessary verbiage in an introductory section. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems the real issue for you is one of the definition of "incident," a term which you apparently feel should be limited only to uncomplicated or monolithic happenings without either notable precursors or associated subsequent consequences, as opposed more complex real world happenings occurring over a generally discernable period of time and composed of a complex sequence of inextricably interconnected elements.

As in the case of US Airways Flight 1549, into which the current article is already divided into six such elements -- Flight; Ditching; Evacuation; Rescue; Injuries; Aftermath -- most "incidents" fall into the later category. My summarizing and including the existence and relationship of three of those major elements in a single sentence composed of 21 words hardly seems excessive. The intro section in the Wikipedia entry about TWA Flight 800, for instance, is 294 words in length spread over four paragraphs. As I last left the intro in the Flight 1549 article it was just 95 words, or less than one third the length of the well established TWA 800 intro. (The unsourced POV bit discussed in Intro material? below is not mine, and I do not advocate its retention.)

Following the approach you appear to advocate to its logical conclusion would reduce the intro in the instant article to something like "US Airways Flight 1549 was a passenger flight that ditched in a river." or 13 words. That would certainly be a far more "concise" and "efficient" use of space, but would hardly make the intro very useful or informative. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Flight renumbering

The current article discusses twice the renumbering of the flight, with different references. Could some astute editor consolidate these somehow? Murray Kucherawy 23:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Glamorization of the event

There is a tendency to glamorize the event:

The water landing of the aircraft, almost intact and without loss of life, was described as "one of the rarest and most technically challenging feats in commercial aviation", and with few parallels in aviation history.

The statement is peacockery without attribution. In other words, the quote isn't from a notable aeronautical expert... it's the opinion of the reporter.

In the same article, the author goes on the use weasel words to support the claim: "even though pilots go through the motions of learning to ditch a plane in water, the generally held belief is that such landings would almost certainly result in fatalities."

The other part of the intro sentence "few parallels in aviation history" comes from the New York Post, in an article that calls the Sullenburger a "superpilot." Please, this is the reference?

Either way, these are the kind of phrases that are easily tossed off in emotional moments and then used to sell newspapers. They aren't a considered reckoning of history.

The editor who has introduced this to the intro, says it establishes notability. Does anyone here think an article about a plane that landed in the Hudson without casualties needed its notability propped up? ...and by the New York Post and a writer at the WSJ citing "generally held beliefs?"

Let's let the facts speak for themselves, without pseudo-important embellishment.842U (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the POV "Miracle on the Hudson" references as well. This is nothing more than an inaccurate meme-like moniker created by politicians and the commercial media. It has nothing to do with the facts of accident itself. (Centpacrr(talk) 09:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Many, many sources call it that. And your claim it's "inaccurate" is your own POV. I say it is accurate. And the sources agree with me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of "sources" that report that headline writers and politicians have used this expression. However you have cited none whatsoever that indicate that anything associated with this incident is the provable result of the "visible interruption of the laws of nature that can only be explained by divine intervention." You are, of course, welcome tobelieve that if you wish, but by definition such is NOT provable. Discriptions based on religion do not belong in articles about real world, scientifically explainable events. Those belong in pulpits. (Centpacrr(talk) 10:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

I can easily make the case for divine intervention in this incident, but that doesn't really matter. The sources are what matter, and they decided that this is the "Miracle on the Hudson", just as they decided to call the 1980 event the "Miracle on Ice" and the 1969 event the "Miracle Mets". I would be curious to know if you think any event in history qualifies as a "miracle" under the narrow religion-only usage of the term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If, as you claim, you can easily make the case for divine intervention with a factually provable (as opposed to religiously based) argument then I invite you to do so. Religion is founded on belief in the otherwise unexplainable and is therefore, by definition, never provable as fact. You are still confusing the term "Miracle on the Hudson" -- which was invented by headline writers and adopted by politicians and others -- as being a "fact" simply because it has often been repeated. What it actually is is a classic example of the power of "popular culture" and nothing more -- just like the still popularly accepted description of the White Star liner RMS Titanic as being "unsinkable" which it clearly wasn't. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Was the sinking of Titanic an example of a "miracle", then? If not, can you cite even one "miracle" in the history of the human race? In any case, this incident was widely, and justifiably, called the "Miracle on the Hudson". To remove that fact from wikipedia makes wikipedia look stupid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please actually read what I said which is that calling "Titanic" unsinkable was an example being misled by treating popular culture as it it were fact. Its sinking was certainly not a miracle as NO ship is unsinkable. I have also not cited any provable "miracles" here because, as I have observed at great length, there are none as that is a religious concept based on belief, not proof. I take from your failure to make a provable case for divine intervention in this event (or any other event in history) that you do not have one despite you claims to the contrary. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

You seem to be missing the point about Titanic. The only reason anything was made of it being called "unsinkable" is because it sank. Further, you are narrowly constricting what a "miracle" is and then demanding that the term only be used under that definition. Sorry, but the citations win, and "Miracle on the Hudson" is what this was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The White Star Line promoted Titanic and Olympic as being "unsinkable" in a publicity brochure the company published as early as 1910 ("... these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable...") which was two years before the ship was launched. You should also note that "Miracle on the Hudson" almost always appears only as a headline, in quotes, and/or is capitalized because it is only a slogan (A memorable motto or phrase used in a political, commercial, religious and other context as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose), and not intended as a statement of provable fact. Just because this slogan has since been repeated ad nauseam by those who created it (the media) gives it no greater cachet of truth or provability than saying New York City is a "Big Apple" or that Coca-Cola is truly the "Pause That Refreshes." I cannot find (nor have you provided) a single citation that uses this in any context other than as a slogan, headline, or hyperbole, nor have you yet offered any proof of "divine intervention" that you claimed that you could do "easily." I fully agree that this phrase appears in many, many citations, but only as a slogan and not as proof that any real unexplainable "miracle" took place. Any argument to the contrary simply does not hold water. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Again, it's perfectly fine for people to label the event however they wish... just not in an encyclopedia article. This is a place for cogent, reasoned statements — not histrionics, hype and glamorization. Once the FAA does it's report and the experts conclude this was the "rarest" or "most technically challenging" event, so be it. In the mean time, the article doesn't need to be covered in journalistic whipped cream. 842U (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read most of the above (don't care to; sorry), but it isn't our duty to determine which widely used descriptions are worthy and which ones are not. That applies even more so to the description of it being "the miracle on the Hudson". I've had the engine of a C172 fail a couple times, and once had to land in a field 10 miles from the nearest airport. Anyone who has flown a 172 knows this was not a difficult task. My sister called it a miracle. That didn't insult my sensibilities as a pilot, and I didn't take her statement as divine fact. The phrase has been used widely enough that it should be included, and does not require attribution to a specific person (though I would mention NY Gov).

As for the info 842U initially complained about, I agree it doesn't merit inclusion at this time. The conjecture of one journalist isn't sufficient and likely represents a minority view point. The only way to present that info is to say "New York Post journalist John Doe described the incident as '...'". Even then, I wouldn't support its inclusion. - auburnpilot talk 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just can't agree that it is appropriate to adopt media created slogans in an encyclopedic context for the very reason that this tends to mislead the less sophisticated readers who may not understand that's what it is (see comments above) and denigrates (no matter how slightly) the skill and training of the aircrew and rescuers. I've had close calls myself as well (both weather related) while flying a Beech Bonanza and certainly did not call on anyone other than myself (i.e. no request for "divine intervention") to get out of them. The term appears in the footnotes as part of the headlines of several of the articles cited as sources. I don't see compelling any reason, however, to promote the slogan in the text of the article. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Mislead the less sophisticated readers? I highly doubt even the dumbest of our readers will see that phrase and believe God himself was aboard the plane, threw up his hands, shouted "Miracle!" and then conducted an interview with various media outlets after coining the phrase "miracle on the Hudson" himself. Seriously. Every applicable policy supports its inclusion, while none support its exclusion. Other than your apparent distaste for something being attributed to anything other than man's will, what reason is there to exclude it? The phrase (in quotes) draws nearly 330,000 results on a google search and 3,500 ghits on the news search. It's a widely used descriptor of the event, and not just some once used "slogan". - auburnpilot talk 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just think it is best to leave the consideration of "miracles" to the philosophers, theologists, and/or the the doyens whatever brand of religion each reader choses to subscribe to. The very intensity of views espoused in this discussion seems to me to be reason enough to leave out this contentious phrase from the body of the article. I don't see that it adds anything substantive to the account of the events, and provides nothing factual that advances the understanding of what happened. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

The assumption that people do know exactly why this event is notable in the history of aviation is just that, an assumption, something that absolutely should not be inherent in an encyclopoedic article. Your incredulity that anyone needs this explained to them is matched by my incredulity that you won't accept basic facts until the NTSB spoon feeds them to you. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, the NTSB narrative inexplicably fails to mention miracles, rarity, technical challenge, nor — notably — the considered opinion of one special WSJ reporter. It also soberly fails to mention the evacuation, the ferry boats, the partially submerged plane, and most especially, the "rescue from peril." What's wrong with these people?

On January 15, 2009, at approximately 1530 eastern standard time, USAirways flight 1549, an Airbus Industrie A320-214, N106US, equipped with CFM engines, incurred multiple bird strikes during initial climb, lost thrust to its engines, and ditched in the Hudson River. The flight was a Title 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled domestic passenger flight from New York's La Guardia Airport (LGA) to Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT) in Charlotte, North Carolina. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. To date, of the 5 crewmembers, and 150 passengers on board, one serious injury has been reported. A final injury count is still to be determined. 842U (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So basing whether you can include/exclude information in the article based on whether the NTSB has commented on it would seem to be a rather pointles measure for determining what is or isn't appropriate content wouldn't it? I am not arguing for inclusion of the mircale crap, that has been innappropriately tacked onto this section, which is about a separate issue. As a general idea about my thinking: Reasonable claim - This is the most succesfull ditching in history. Tabloid crap - This was a mircale on the Hudson. MickMacNee (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Realizing unfortunately that no independent, impartial source actually ranks plane crashes like football teams, wouldn't it be more accurate, if we were going to glamorize, to say "Flight 1549 was the most successful ditching in history by a small margin, see Japan Airlines Flight 2." Of course, given that there was so little sensationalism in 1968, no one recorded how Japan Airlines Flight 2 ranked on the "miracle scale" either. Oh well. 842U (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, its been a busy few days so I won't blame you for not remembering that it was me that added that exact historical fact to the article, which you later gave people a few hours to source, before removing it entirely. So please just make up your mind what is good enough for you. Or not. Whatever. And as an aside, I am quite sure there are plenty of independant impartial sources that rank air accidents on various metrics, but to use them would require some complex explanation to satisfy you quite probably, so the approach of simply not bothering to go to such efforts, or waiting for a word for word one click spoon feed, just seems easier. Oh, and on a point of order, your definition of a "by a small margin" is not exactly accurate either. MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What, you can't tell sarcasm when you see it? Oh well. 842U (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why sarcasm is so helpful. - auburnpilot talk 19:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Injuries

At the moment there are two references for the claim that a flight attendant broke both legs. As far as I can see, neither of those pages now says anything of the sort. Elsewhere I recall having read that one flight attendant suffered a laceration to one leg. Is there an official statement on injuries out there, and does it support the claims in the article? //Carl T (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call - I've reworded accordingly, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See the press conference at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blNwjC1CLqA, a deep laceration and not a fracture - xedaf (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the numerous reports about two broken legs suffered by a woman? (Search)

Here are just two examples:

• "Helen Rodriguez, a paramedic who was among the first to arrive at the scene, said she saw one woman with two broken legs." [3]

• "One passenger was hospitalized with two broken legs, but no other serious injuries were reported." [4]

I'm well aware that initial news reports can be inaccurate, so if official reports don't confirm this, okay, but the news has reported this. If it's true, we should correct what's written in the article. If it's not correct, we should still note this fact (that "It was first widely reported that a passenger broke both legs, but subsequent reports failed to confirm the initial reports.") -- Fyslee (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The NTSB's preliminary report (PDF) only indicates one injury. Unless the reporting of injuries was widely over exaggerated in the beginning, I honestly don't see the point in saying "initial reports were contradicted by subsequent reports". - auburnpilot talk 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideally we should be able to report the actual extent of injuries. Right now we are using a reference that isn't very strong. Many other references mention one woman with both legs broken, which could (a bit of OR here...) be the "one serious injury has been reported" mentioned on the NTSB site. We need to get this confirmed or denied, and find out what really happened. I strongly suspect that our current content is incorrect. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the flight attendant mentioned in the YouTube report above, there is no inconsistency between this and the reports of a woman with two broken legs, since this can be two different persons. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So far I can't locate any certain confirmation about the woman with two broken legs, but I can find a very good source for the flight attendant, Doreen Welsh, who suffered an injury. Problem solved. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring article

Swissair Flight 111, a Good Article, uses the following structure that we might adopt:

0 Lede
1 History
1.1 The aircraft and its crew
1.2 The flight
1.2.1 Nationalities of passengers
2 Recovery and investigation
2.1 Examination
2.1.1 Cockpit and recordings
2.2 Findings
2.3 Recommendations
3 Legacy
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links

Perhaps we can learn some lessons?LeadSongDog (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Impact point

This part of the thread seems to have been removed. With the location of the left engine, is there any hard facts about the impact point of the plane? This would go a long way to cleaning up the flight path graphic included with the text. It would also help define more accurately the placings of the events. Looking at TRACON Data of other flights in the area, there was a near miss by the GWB with a general aviation craft, that may have been a helicopter, and a second possible helicopter that shows on the track north of the Lincoln Tunnel after the incident. I haven't seen any reporting on this but I don't live in front of a TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjhawkin (talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the short answer to your question is "no." Although the NTSB might figure it out eventually, there's currently no information about whether the engine fell off immediately upon impact or if it held on until the airplane slowed down. Nobody new for sure that it was gone until it was moored, so it could have come off during towing (that might be a long shot). On top of that, strong currents could have moved it from the point where it fell. I think the fact that divers took 6 days to find it leads me to believe that it wasn't where officials initially thought it might be.

Although I'm not familiar enough with the Hudson River/Manhattan areas to do this myself, I think the best way to discover the impact point would be to study videos of the impact and extrapolate from known landmarks, using a bit of trigonometry... – jaksmata 14:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have it on tape from several fixed locations on both sides of the river. I know that the point of impact was just off frame in the Coast Guard clip, while another clip taken from the other side of the river via security cameras at a warehouse shows the plane come down right in front of the warehouse. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at videos here, I think it was directly across from the pier on 50th street. They had cameras on both sides of a pier (and one from the pier to the south), where the camera on the north side just caught the impact point before the plane went out of view. Looking at Google Maps, it's hard to be 100% sure, but I think that was the pier on 50th St. The only other option is the pier on 52nd street, but looking at the video which shows the next pier to the north, I think that is showing the 52nd meaning the camera is on the 50th street one. That would make the impact point between 50th and 51st streets. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Slang?

Is ditching a technical term for a water landing? Just wondering because it sounds rather unprofessional Fruckert (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. According to the Water landing article:

The National Transportation Safety Board of the United States government defines "ditching" in its aviation accident coding manual as "a planned event in which a flight crew knowingly makes a controlled emergency landing in water. (Excludes float plane landings in normal water landing areas.)"[5] Such water landings are extremely rare for commercial passenger airlines.

Hiberniantears (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a picture of the ditching button here, as well. I don't think it was actually used in this incident. Fletcher (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly labelled "DITCHING", and so, yes, that's what it's called, NTSB or no NTSB. Fortunately this time the crew were too busy ditching safely to have time to use it. But a sea ditching might have been a very different story. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

They were "too busy ditching safely" to push the "Ditching button????" Have any sources criticized this failure amongst the hoopla of the "perfect ditching?" Would the failure to operate the button be noted as an error in a training exercise on the simulator? One newspaper gave him praise for pressing the button, before it turned out no one pressed it. Various news sources stated early on that the ditch switch closing the openings was important in the non-sinking of the plane. So it turns out to be irrelevant? I'm not sure what if any of the commentary about this would be considered "reliable" but it implies the ditch switch is at the end of a 3 page ditching procedure that they did not have time to go through. The article could note how far they actually did get. Were they following the ditching checklist or the "engine restarting checklist?" Seems like they could not have been doing both. Did they abandon attempts to restart the engine and start on the ditching procedure? Edison (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it would be noted. And noted very signficantly. I don't think anything has "turned out", certainly not from my ironic/ flippant suggestion I'm sure. Your suggested sequence of events sounds extremely plausible. Perhaps the eventual report will tell us. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely an interesting question - I thought that maybe in the heat of the moment they just forgot or missed that step. The thought that they might only have seconds left to live might have contributed to procedural errors, but that's what makes it so incredible that they kept control and ditched without any loss of life. – jaksmata 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the article may eventually be able to "... note how far they actually did get" if and when that detail becomes public via the accident investigation report. And unsure whether ir not they "... could not have been doing both". Guessing also that Skiles may have been working thorough the checklist(s) while Sullenberger was putting his efforts into safely flying the aircaft. Teamwork will have been critical factor with or without the switch. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Channel 4's The Miracle of the Hudson Plane Crash, [6], concluded that operation of the ditching button was never reached by the co-pilot as it was "at the end of the engine restart checklist" - a lengthy procedure designed to re-start engines with the aircraft at about 30,000 feet, not at about 3,000. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Engines designed to detach?

I read in the press that the engines on this aircraft are designed to come apart from the wings when subjected to the stresses of a ditching. Is this true? And if so, shouldn't it be mentioned? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The pylon shear bolts are intended to shear off at a known range of forces. If they didn't the drag of the engines on the water or ground would cause a plane to flip tail-over-nose, which is definitely not desired behaviour in a crash. The rather surprising thing is that one engine remained attached. The equivalent feature on Boeing products is called an engine "fuse pin". In some aircraft designs they are also intended to protect the aircraft from excessive torque when an engine suddenly siezes.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Additionally, that known range of forces includes the forces that would be acting on the engine if any one of the shear bolts failed in flight, so that the engine, rather than hanging loosely by some of the bolts and possibly bouncing around and damaging the aircraft, would simply break free and fall away, giving the pilot a better chance of successfully landing. A rare case where a design that seemingly makes the situation worse is actually a deliberate choice made to improve safety. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's the exact scenario of American Airlines Flight 191, although that one did not turn out very well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There were fatigue and corrosion-related similar problems with Boeing designed aircraft that turned out badly. See El Al Flight 1862. Any such component that is designed for critical "failure" behaviour needs to be very carefully considered and monitored.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Duplication of Sullenberger bio

The article seems to repeat too much of the Captain's bio, which is now available in the separate Chesley Sullenberger article. I suspect that this reflects an earlier stage in the evolution of the two articles. I would suggest something along these lines for the Flight section:

The captain was Chesley Sullenberger, 57, a former fighter pilot who has been a commercial pilot since leaving the Air Force in 1980. He is also a safety expert and a glider pilot.

Incidentally, it can't be standard WP practice to give people's ages, can it? As luck would have it, Sullenberger celebrated his 58th birthday yesterday! If we must give his age here, there's probably a suitable template that will auto-update: anyone? ... anyone? ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed such an age related template, though I personally wouldn't list his age here, as its non-relevant to the story. That said, I don't think his bio should even exist, per WP:NOT#NEWS, though I'm not one to take it to AfD... --Izno (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is even more notability for Sullenberger now that GAPAN have awarded him a Masters Medal. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On 2nd thoughts, I can see some point in mentioning the ages of the pilots as a rough surrogate for their experience. As I mentioned above, though, it would be more meaningful to give their flying hours. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Awards

I've added a section for the awards and honours given to the crew. GAPAN have awarded the entire crew a Masters Medal each, which is sufficiently rare enought to warrent an entry. No doubt there will be more to come. For precedent see BOAC Flight 712. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

New info on awards at http://www.northjersey.com/news/newyorkmetro/goodsamaritans021809.html

Evacuation

This section states that:

During the evacuation, some passengers directed that women and children evacuate the aircraft first instead of all passengers exiting according to proximity to the exits.

What is the point of adding this detail, even if it is true? Were these (no doubt chivalrous) instructions obeyed by anyone? As it stands, this just sounds like a quaint anecdote. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to have taken this up; but this stillborn anecdote really can't be left as it stands. Either add some clarification or—and I think preferably—delete it. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree it's a bit lame. And uncited. One wants to know what cabin-crew did or said in response. But such (maybe any) evacuation detail may useful to show at least (a) no panic (b) not in line with proper procedure. One suspects that in such situations there may be some preference shown to women and children on a seat-by-seat basis. But if some gallant "hero" had made the passengers disembark strictly on this basis, there could have been utter choas. An aircraft cabin is simply not as spacious as the deck of a slowly sinking ship. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Seems to have roots in this NYTimes story, though the blogosphere has bounced it around some.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Delete it. - auburnpilot talk 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My word, from that NYTimes story, it WAS utter chaos. Apparently there was a "stampede" and plenty of sceaming. Maybe other parts of the story are more worthy of a mention? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is still an embarrassment in what has become a factual & useful article. We'd expect chaos, screaming & a bit of a stampede (which the cabin crew must have done their best to mitigate & control). So the question remains: why mention only this story of "some" passengers trying (presumably unsuccessfully) to hijack the evac? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Women and children first" really applies more to abandoning a ship on which passengers assemble at lifeboat stations where they are then organized and loaded into the boats over time. It would seem that in the confines of the cabin of a crowded airliner with relatively limited exits, trying to first organize passengers into groups of women, children, and others would greatly slow the the evacuation, not speed it up. While somebody may well have yelled "Women and children first!" during the evacuation, I very much doubt that this would have had any real consequences in how it actually transpired. There simply would not have been the time or space to organize the passengers into groups in the congestion and chaos existing in the packed cabin. As most of the occupants were already out on the wings and inflated slides by the time that the first rescue boat arrived about four minutes after the ditching, this would seem to indicate that the order of evacuation was based on how close people were sitting to the exits, not their gender and/or age. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Per this (rare) consensus, I've removed the misleading and silly sentence. – jaksmata 17:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some additional research indicates that there is no mention of "women and children first" in either the FAA FLIGHT ATTENDANT GENERAL EMERGENCY TRAINING CURRICULUM or in this paper on aircraft evacuation published by the Association of Flight Attendants which points out that the key factor in an evacuation is for the cabin crew to establish effective "passenger flow control" without any reference being made in it to their gender or age. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

(out) Additions to Evacuation and Rescue were reverted by User:Evb-wiki thus [7] as "pov rhetoric & unsourced trivial detail". But these were facts, reported here [8] by the passengers themselves. Having just narrowly escaped a ditching and finding oneself slipping off a wing without a life-jacket into a freezing tidal river, or already stumbling on a floating slide, knee-deep in icy water, the prospect of being crushed to death or drowned by an out-of-control ferry-boat may not have seemed "trivial". That edit was unsourced yes, but "POV rhetoric detail"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about joke about birdstrike similar to laborstrike and tailstrike

I wrote joke last time: [9]

This which make upset other editors, which I felt sorry about it:

• User:Baseball Bugs
• User:Centpacrr

I try to learn about how to became a good editor: [10]. My English is still learning, so I didn't understood everythings. So sorry, I didn't want to became conflict. --B767-500 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

So I try contributing other things which should became better. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regular flight schedule

"(The Charlotte-to-Seattle leg was not operated on the day of the accident.)" Does this mean the continuing leg was not scheduled on the day of the accident? Or that it didn't fly because of the accident? If it's the second, this is a pretty silly statement. 140.247.248.121 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not silly at all. It is clear from the preceding text that both legs were scheduled to operate as normal. There were very likely passengers awaiting to board the continuation of Flight 1549 in Charlotte who could have been flown on to Seattle by another crew in a substitute aircraft, if available, which often happens when an earlier portion of a multi-leg flight is cancelled because of equipment problems, weather, or (or as in this case) accident. If the Charlotte to Seattle segment had been so operated on January 15, then it would have been equally appropriate to state that as well. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

So airline load factor became issue for next leg! But, sometimes, airline wouldn't reject next leg because they have to admit told last leg became crashed! So some superstitions, they have to dealt with it and maybe best to cancelled next leg. So basically, how to explain CLT-SEA passenger, about 'substitute' aircraft! Maybe they cancelled, but need citation to explain to other editor! —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead quote

Is Lynn Lunsford, aerospace industry reporter for The Wall Street Journal, so uniquely authoritative that she needs to be singled out & named in the Lead section? The quote itself is a good statement of what makes the ditching so remarkable; but the source details are already given in the reference, so why repeat them in the text—& in such a prominent position? The link to the WSJ is irrelevant & out of place in the text. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I can express my misgivings about this sentence in a different way. As it stands, it seems to be about LL & the WSJ. But will a reader—however un-"dumb"—coming to this article in 6 months' or 2 years' time really be interested in the fact that it was none other than Lynn Lunsford who wrote these words, or the fact that the vehicle for her opinion was the WSJ? I very much doubt it. It would be much more appropriate to quote (or allude to) the actual words of the GAPAN citation given in the Awards section. I suggest replacing the final sentence of the Lead with something like the following:

The entire crew of Flight 1549 were later awarded the GAPAN Masters Medal. According to the citation for that award, "[T]his emergency ditching and evacuation, with the loss of no lives, is a heroic and unique aviation achievement."

It is only worded that way due to the total paranoia of some editors who refuse to accept the notability of the incident, even when it was previously explained in neutral, non-sensational terms. MickMacNee (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only worded what way? Please explain what you mean. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous US airways accidents section

This section seems over the top to me, mainly because these accidents (of a large airline company, near huge airports) are not of any direct relevance to the current accident. As such; the provided information is nothing more the trivia.

I would suggest to replace this section by a brief list in the -See Also- section. Something like

Previous US Airways accidents involving LaGuardia or Charlotte Airports

• USAir Flight 5050
• USAir Flight 405
• USAir Flight 1016

Alternatively the current section requires a strong argument WHY the information about these unrelated accidents is relevant to the casual reader. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete this entire section. 842U (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous USAir accidents at LGA & CLT

This section looks almost—but not quite—like Trivia. What is the point of it? If there is a point (eg to compare & contrast with Flight 1549) it should be made explicit. If accidents at CLT are to be discussed, why not go the whole hog & mention those at the eventual scheduled destination SEA as well, for good measure?

I don't mean to be unreasonably negative about this: I just don't understand the rationale for the section. Wouldn't it be more relevant to discuss previous (USAir) accidents caused by bird strikes? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I hadn't seen the previous comment when I wrote this: it seems I'm not alone in finding this section unnecessary. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section is not sufficiently relevant to the subject of the article. IMO, it does not belong. BTW, it was already removed once, but re-added by the original contributer without comment. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re second section - No problem, happy I am not alone in this. I removed it again, asking for discussion before re-adding. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is highly unusual that a single carrier has had three take off aircraft write-off accidents at the same airport. I might be willing to leave out the Charlotte accident, but the other two are relevant simply because of the unusually high number involving the same carrier, airport, and phase of flight. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Unless the accidents in question occurred AT the airports in question, I don't see any logical rationale, apart from to show some factual basis for some superstition. Other accidents from bird-strike and other ditchings far more justifiable and useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You state it is highly unusual, however I have no idea this is true, or just your personal perception. This has to be referred to accident stats for all airlines and airports; currently no reference is given.

And even if you provided stats these would need to be adjusted for the fact that USAirways is big (hence more likely to have accidents); LaGuardia is big (hence more likely to have accidents) and LaGuardia is a focus airport of USAirways and has more than average flights (and hence is more likely to have accidents).

If with all these corrections you still find that it is higly unusual (i.e. statistically different from a chance event), even then it would still be trivia (see Martinevans123), but at least interesting trivia. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW there are now 5 editors (counting user:Izno who made the original removal) who question this section altogether. At least 2 of these explicitly disagree with the given argument. I think it is clear consensus is the whole section has to go; untill the view on this talk page has turned to favour the idea. Arnoutf (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the Charlotte crash and restored the LGA take-off accidents which I find relevant to the operations of this carrier as the same airport. I do not see how this is "trivia" at all. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I think I'd want to see (at least) percentage of all flights which were USAir over the time frame to be even slightly convinced. The other accident detail may be interesting to show how different they were to this last dichting, but that is not justification. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia because it is what looks like a random list. It is also original research on your part to make the link. This information belongs at the airport article, not this article about a crash. --John (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain "I find relevant" in an objective (ie ot personally or subjectively coloured) way. You could turn to statistics as I suggested. Without such explanation I cannot agree; as "I find this irrelevant untill proven otherwise".

Alternatively we could add other relevant sections such as several about ornithology; although such sections are likely to have more causal relations to the accident compared to this one..... Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A list of accidents at all airport articles might be useful. But I really don't think here and now is correct at all.Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This section does not belong in this article. This artificially conflates these incidents. What's next, a section on "incidents with the Ferry boats," "incidents near the Statue of Liberty," "incidents that happened on the Hudson River?" Please. 842U (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the entry to "previous take-off phase accidents at LGA" since it opened in 1939 (there have only been five). Flight 1539 is the third of these to involve the same carrier, and that the same carrier would be involved in 60% of these incidents (even if they had different causes) seems to me to be highly relevant and not just "trivia." It is impossible, however, to get any positive feedback and achieve consensus on this if it keeps getting unilaterally deleted before anyone else gets a chance to see and comment on it. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

60% means very little without knowing what proportion of all flights were USAir flights over this time. But I would encourage you to add this interesting material to the airport article (if you can convince others there). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it here so that anyone who cares to can actually see what is being discussed. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Previous take-off accidents at LaGuardia

Prior to Flight 1549, there have only been four other "write off" commercial carrier take-off accidents at LaGuardia Airport since the field opened in 1939. Two of these also involved US Airways flights while it was operating under its previous name, USAir).

• USAir Flight 5050: On September 20, 1989, a year-old Boeing 737-401 (N416US) operated as a unscheduled late night "equipment repositioning" flight from LaGuardia to Charlotte with only a crew and USAir employees and members of their families on board. These non-paying passengers, who were added to the flight at the last minute, had been waiting to travel as "stand-bys" on earlier scheduled flights that had been cancelled or delayed due to thunderstorms in the vicinity of the airport. The plane overran the end of runway 31 during an aborted takeoff and dropped onto a wooden approach light pier which collapsed causing the aircraft to break into three pieces and drop into fifteen feet of water in the East River. Two of the 63 people on board were killed.

• USAir Flight 405: On March 22, 1992, a Fokker F-28 (N485US) being operated as a scheduled flight from LaGuardia to Cleveland, Ohio, crashed on take off from runway 13 into Flushing Bay killing 27 of the 51 people on board. The cause was determined to be pilot error and a large amount of ice and snow that had collected on the airframe when the flight was delayed after earlier deicing.

US Airways/USAir take off accidents involving write offs at LGA

The documented fact the 60% (three of the five) of the only take off/departure phase commercial carrier accidents at this airport that resulted in the aircraft being written off in the seventy years since the field opened in 1939 involving the same carrier is both well documented and statistically significant. It is not just "trivia." I agreed to remove the larger section I had created earlier and reduced the central facts to a single sentence. There has certainly been no "consensus" reached (or even been discussed) about the documented fact that this one carrier has been involved in such a high percentage of the small number of serious takeoff accidents at this airport over such a long period of time. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Comment' JMHO, but these accidents are correct to the LGA article - unless it can be proved that there is a direct causal link between them. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail?

Over the last day or so, a lot of indisputable facts have been added to this article which I think also qualify as too much detail:

• Runway numbers
• Codeshare agreements
• Aircraft manufacturing details (location, date)
• Leaser, Insurer
• Number of flights (cycles) for the aircraft
• Engine installation dates
• Number of engine flight hours
• Date of last A Check
• Date of last C Check
• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT
• Time of day that fire crews began to stand down

While all true facts, I think these reduce the readability of the article. Some of these things might be relevant if the crash was caused by engine failure due to poor maintenance or something, but this plane was brought down by a flock of birds. Even if this flight were a brand-new, never-been-flown-before aircraft, sucking a flock of geese into both engines would have brought it down. I think it would be better to provide a link to the maintenance details rather than list them all here. (I missed the discussion above about Previous US airways accidents, but I agree that it was inappropriate, for reasons already pointed out.) – jaksmata 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of knowing our audience. Are we only aiming at people who consider USA Today a plentiful news source? Or do we aim at a broader audience? - Denimadept (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Aviation is a highly technical field in which facts and details are important, especially in the case of an aviation accident. Dumbing down an article to the lowest common denominator might be fine for Reader's Digest, but not so in an encyclopedia in which specifics should always be favored over generalities. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

I know that maintenance dates are important in the field of aviation, but why are they important in the field of encyclopedia writing? Specifically, what relevance do maintenance dates have for this particular article? – jaksmata 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess only insofar as less maintained engines might fail more easily on birdstrike. But possibly not what the "target audience" is really interested in. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "target audience" is, be definition, meant to be a broad one and not just the "lowest common denominator." If there is some technical or specific portion of an article that does not interest a particular reader then he/she is, of course, free to skip over it. Just because some relevant detail does not interest everybody does not mean that it does not interest anybody. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Those are straw man arguments. I'm not asserting that the article needs to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, nor am I talking about the target audience. My assertion is that the items I listed above are irrelevant. So, I'll ask my question again: Specifically, what relevance do maintenance dates have for this particular article? – jaksmata 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If there were a causal relationship between the maintenance and the failure, they would be relevant, but . . . . --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These technical details are absolutely relevant to pilots such as myself and other people with a serious interest in aviation, and are exactly the kind of detail that makes the article so valuable. I can see a possible case for eliminating some technical detail in a physical "hard copy" encyclopedia where printing and production costs are an important consideration. Fortunately, however, this is a website where the additional information only requires a few more digital "ones and zeros" transmitted at the speed of light. And as for relationship between maintenance and failure, you can be absolutely sure that this will all be of very great interest to the NTSB investigators charged with learning whatever lessons they can from this accident. As I said earlier, if you are not interested in this information just skip over it -- but don't deny it to many others who find it central to the event. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Another excellent example of a straw man! Did I say that the facts were uninteresting to aviation aficionados? Did I say we were short on space? Did I say that the NTSB was ignoring inspections in their investigation? Did I say that I was uninterested? Provide diffs, please. – jaksmata 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of dates of the A and C Checks and other technical details about N106US is that they are the key "vital statistics" of the aircraft which is the topic of the section of the article in which they are found, and were, in fact, the very first details that US Airways released (on January 16) after the accident. As you apparently do not disagree with any of my other positions if you describe them as being "straw men," then I don't see what other issue you are having with the inclusion of any of the technical details currently in the article.(Centpacrr (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Now we're getting somewhere. If these are "the key 'vital statistics'" and not original research (synthesis), please add that statement, along with the source of the quote to the article. As a professional author, you should understand the need for context, and, as a wikipedian, you should understand the need for verifiability. Please provide both for each of the items you say are "central to the event" - that will convince me that these are not just random facts, but actually relevant. Let me be clear: I don't doubt the factual accuracy of any of these items - I doubt that they are "key 'vital statistics'." Don't just reference some website that has the facts, but doesn't say why they are important relative to this crash. – jaksmata 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See NTSB Major Investigations Manual Appendix H (pp H-32 to H-37). (Centpacrr (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

I could not agree more Jaksmata; it's humorous watching the microscopic data filter in an out of the article... especially the introduction. At some point someone will wish to relate the GPS coordinates of the splashdown right in the introduction... mark my word. 842U (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Also, the exact height of the mini-tsunami produced by the splashdown. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding:

• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT

Let's be absolutely clear here, these are not mere consequentials that could do with being left out. The presence of a system to provide electrical and hyrdraulic power in the event of a loss of engines and being without any mechanical backup system, and possibly a system of auto-stabilisation, is most likely exactly why the pilot, skilled as he no doubt is, was able to land this plane so well without loss of life. It is of course primary to the article, and in no way can be considered superfluous detail better left elsewhere. I personally also don't give a rat's ass about code share agreements or who insured the aricraft, but in this section you have lumped trivia in with essential detail. MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Enquiring minds also want to know just what species fowled up the engines. Specifically, they want to know if the plane got "goosed". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be serious. This article has enough problems with well meaning but mis-placed ideas about what is and isn't valid information, confusing that with poor humour will just fowl up the situation. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(good one) J. Van Meter (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Honk. The article says a single feather was found. What kind of feather? And do we know it was just an accident? Maybe the goose was depressed over having lost its nest egg. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Partly agree... some of the info is overkill, some is not. My opinions:

• Runway numbers
  • LaGuardia runway very relevant; that would have a significant effect on the plane's flight path
• Codeshare agreements
  • Slightly interesting; reference is just part of a sentence which is probably the maximum it needs
• Aircraft manufacturing details (location, date)
  • In any air crash, definitely required info (date anyways)
• Leaser, Insurer
  • Can't see a reason
• Number of flights (cycles) for the aircraft
• Engine installation dates
• Number of engine flight hours
• Date of last A Check
• Date of last C Check
  • For these few... normally highly relevant for an airliner crash, but if the cause turns out to be entirely due to the birds and not mechanical issues, maybe not. I'd leave them at least until the NTSB issues a final report probably.
• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT
  • Highly essential; systems like that are why the pilot was even able to land the plane as well as he did.
• Time of day that fire crews began to stand down
  • Can't see any relevance.

Just my opinions. And yes, the NTSB sent the organic material for DNA testing, so yes I'm sure we will eventually know the exact species of bird -- which would be interesting too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not knowing what "details" are now considered too many by the community, I have deleted all the information that I contributed to this article. You are free to restore those you don't consider to be spurious. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Eh, that's a bit much ;-) I see someone reverted it, thankfully. Too much detail can always be edited down; much better to have it to begin with. I was also trying to point out that much of that list is in fact highly relevant, and nowhere near random trivia. Even stuff like the insurer can become relevant if a dispute between them and US Airways occurs... you never know. Sometimes relevancy can only be seen in retrospect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to make a point as reasoned discussion seems to fall completely on the deaf ears of those who feel that the article should be constantly dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

I am both a pilot as well as a professional writer, historian, and researcher with more than forty years experience and the author of four published books. I did not, to my knowledge, delete anything here that I had not personally researched and added to this article -- only to be told that detail and technical perspective were unwelcome by those who seemed to be intimidated by "too much information." Aviation is an extremely technical field, and should be treated that way.

I think I will just leave this article alone for awhile and come back to it later after the frenzy among the "doyens of relevance" has died down. In the meantime it's all yours and I will go on to other things. (Centpacrr(talk) 02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Since Centpacrr is taking some time to chill out, I'll state the blindingly obvious on his behalf. Maintenance history speaks to the question of assuring that the engines were in the required state of readiness at takeoff. Hypothetically speaking, overly fatigued or worn or even dirty engines would be to some extent less able to survive insults such as bird strikes. The species of bird involved speaks to just what mass of meat was impacted by the engines. A great deal of subsequent analysis will determine if the failure occured within or outside the expected survival envelope and whether there is a way to avoid repeating the accident. While no engine is expected to survive hitting two adult geese, we expect that it should normally survive a single duck or gull. One goose is a marginal condition. If (again hypothetically) gulls stopped or destroyed both the engines then there would be some seriously surprised engine designers. If a single goose stopped or destroyed an engine, there are limited possibilities for making the engines more able to survive it, but there are potential ways to better detect and warn of such bird strikes and so to improve the capability of aircraft to avoid hitting the flock with both engines. Given time, the investigation will sort out what matters. We can keep the content for now and trim it later. Let us instead address the question of which details deserve a spot in the lede.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the key phrase in LeadSongDog's comments is the investigation will sort out what matters. It isn't the job of a WP article to conduct that investigation.

CLindberg's list is useful. Just a couple of comments:

• Runway numbers. I've pointed out before that if they're relevant (both the takeoff r/w & the proposed r/w for landing back at LGA, which Sullenberger rejected), then readers (who aren't dumb: they just happen not to be aviation experts) should be helped by translating the numbers into directions (north-east & south-east respectively).

Yes wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Aircraft manufacturing details. Of course something is needed; I just happen to think that the details are a bit verbose. Why not simply say built by Airbus Industrie in June, 1999 at Toulouse? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Struggling to see how location of manufacture is relevant. And the fact that an Airbus A320 was built by Airbus Industrie is not really a great surprise, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is significant because since N106US was built the assembly facility for the A320 has been moved from Toulouse, France, to Tianjin, China. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

It may be significant to an understanding of A320s, but how is that in any way relevant to this accident? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a significant element in the description for the plane which is what the section of the article (The aircraft and its safety systems) in which it appears is about. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Why is it significant? Did its manufacturing location have any impact, positive or negative, on the events connected with this flight? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the point I've been trying to make all along. This article is about a crash, and should contain relevant details. We don't need to know everything about an A320. If the information doesn't relate directly to a crash, or has no context to the crash, put it in Airbus A320 family. We don't need to copy a 315 page manual about how the NTSB investigates crashes, just put in relevant details (with non-synthesized context). All the rest can go into Air safety or NTSB or General procedures that the NTSB uses in all accident investigations. – jaksmata 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The section of the article in which this background information appears (The aircraft and its safety systems) describes the aircraft involved in the accident, not the accident itself. It is basic to the background of the plane and therefore is appropriate in this section. If any particular readers are not interested in that aspect of the flight, then they can just skip to the next section, but there are also those who are interested in these details. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Does Death of Diana, Princess of Wales tell us that the Mercedes-Benz S280 W140 was built by Mercedes-Benz in Germany? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not a section in Death of Diana article about the vehicle involved in the accident, and commercial airliners are very much different than passenger cars. Apples and oranges there. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

I believe that whole section can be moved to Airbus A320 family, with only a few relevant facts incorporated into other sections of this article. There is a link in the article to the Airbus A320 article (second sentence) for people who are interested in details about the airplane that have no relevance to the crash, which is the subject of this whole article. Links to other articles allow interested readers to follow their specific interests. – jaksmata 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The information included here relates to a) this specific A320 (c/n1044) which is the one involved in the accident, and b) technical aspects of its systems which were compromised by the bird strike (engines, flight control system, internal power, hydraulics) which are integral to understanding the rest of the accident. Again if you are not interested in or don't understand the import of the technical information contained in the section of the article then just move on to the next section. There are plenty of others who are interested and for whom this section adds perspective and substance. As has been previously observed here, Wikipedia is not meant to be USA TODAY nor is it designed to appeal only to the lowest common denominator. If that were the case then the article could logically be reduced to only the introductory paragraph and everything else eliminated as constituting "too much detail." (Centpacrr (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Cease the condescending lectures and answer the question: "Why does the plane's manufacturing location matter?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

*...Seufzer...* (Centpacrr (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

(For those who don't know German, Centpacrr is sighing or moaning.) Centpacrr, what you fail to realize is that this is not an article about the A320, it is not about crash investigations, it is not even about the specific aircraft with the tail number N106US. It is about what happened to US Airways Flight 1549‎‎ on January 15, 2009. I think one of two things is happening: either you don't understand the concepts of scope and context, or your résumé of professional writing and aviation interests makes it difficult for you to realize that these disjointed facts don't fit into this article. – jaksmata 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of this detail needs to be ditched! Let's hope it floats, wherever it comes down? (apologies) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason the country of manufacture matters is that it determines which countries are officially entitled to representation in the investigation. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly LeadSongDog. And I was "sighing" in response to the presumptuousness of a 13-year old who had made no meaningful contribution to the contents of the article eldering me for making good faith and reasoned arguments -- which he apparently does not understand -- with an inappropriate importunement to "cease the condescending lectures." (Centpacrr (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Even if no fatalities? Is that under US Law? I wonder do have a supporting ref? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert but I have heard somewhere that it is actually about the country that (hosts the institute which) issued the certificate of airworthiness of the aircraft type. Which I think makes much more sense. (and anyway Airbus planes tend to be manufactured in at least 3 different European countries...) Arnoutf (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, something resembling some answers. P.S. It's 13 and a half. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The NTSB Major investigations manual para 5.1 points to the Chicago Convention, that is, "Annex 13 to the Convention on International Aviation", to which the US is a signatory.

The Safety Board represents the United States in accident investigations involving overseas interests under the provisions of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Aviation. This will typically occur in one of two situations: 1) an overseas manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the United States or its possessions, or 2) a U.S.-manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the territories of another country.
Annex 13 outlines the entitlements and participation of an Accredited Representative. The ICAO Manual of Aircraft Accident Investigation outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Accredited Representative. These duties and responsibilities are contained in Appendix S.

LeadSongDog (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

5.1 International Investigations

The Safety Board represents the United States in accident investigations involving overseas interests, under the provisions of ICAO Annex 13. This will typically occur in one of two situations: 1) an overseas manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the United States or its possessions, or 2) a U. S. manufactured, registered, or operated aircraft is involved in an accident or incident in the territories of another country.

5.1.1 Domestic Accident

If a foreign manufactured, operated, or registered aircraft is involved in an accident in the United States, the state (country) of manufacture, operations, or registry may send an Accredited Representative and advisors to participate in the investigation. The Accredited Representative is the leader of any officials from another country, such as airline and manufacturer advisors. Usually, the investigation will have already begun by the time the Accredited Representative arrives. On occasion, an advisor to the Accredited Representative, such as a representative of the airline or the aircraft manufacturer, will arrive before the Accredited Representative. Regardless, provide the Accredited Representative with all information given to party coordinators and thoroughly brief him or her on the progress of the investigation.

In the case of this accident, France will be represented by the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyse, the French counterprt of the NTSB.

(Centpacrr (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

LeadSongDog, that's an excellent bit of information that nobody has brought up before.

Centpacrr, if it is true (about representation in the investigation) - and I believe it is - then that fact needs to be added to the article to create context. It's not enough just to say "The aircraft was manufactured in the US and France." That, by itself as it is now, has no demonstrated relationship to the subject of the article. Add context by writing: "Since the aircraft was manufactured in the US and France, French authorities are participating in the crash investigation." and give a reference. I've been going on about context assuming that you knew what it meant. As a professional writer, you need to know these things.

Just for the record, you are being condescending, and a 13-year-old is being accurate. You are ignoring my good-faith and reasoned arguments and instead attacking straw men, exasperating yourself by talking about people who are not interested, going on about USA Today, and making up criteria to describe "key vital statistics." By the way, I read that NTSB document (fascinating), and found no mention of "key vital statistics." Baseball Bugs may be 13, but at least he's not making up expressions and pretending they came from the US government. – jaksmata 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So we have "may" and "usually". Any evidence of French involvement? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the following statement from Airbus, a six person Airbus Technical "Go Team" team was dispatched on January 16, to assist the NTSB and the Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) who will join the investigation representing France as the State of aircraft manufacturer:

Toulouse, 16 January 2009

"Airbus confirms that an Airbus A320 operated by US Airways was involved in an accident shortly after 15:30 East Coast local time yesterday 15th of January. The aircraft was operating a scheduled service, Flight US 1549 from New York - La Guardia (New York State) to Charlotte (North Carolina).

"The aircraft was MSN (Manufacturer Serial Number) 1044, registered under the number N106US and delivered on 02. August 1999 to US Airways. It was powered by CFM 56-5B4/P engines.

"Initial reports indicate that all 155 persons on board, including 5 crew members, evacuated the aircraft and were successfully rescued. No fatality is reported.

"In line with ICAO Annex 13 International convention, the US NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) will lead the investigation assisted by Accredited Representatives from the French BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses) as State of aircraft manufacturer. A go-team of 6 Airbus Technical Advisors has been dispatched to New York to assist the Investigation Authorities." (Centpacrr (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Certainly convinced me on place of manufacture. Well done. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also satisfied on that point. Now we need to come up with reasons to keep the other dozen-odd facts. Carl Lindberg had a few good points that were ignored earlier in this discussion... – jaksmata 20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Restating the original long list:

• Runway numbers
• Codeshare agreements
• Aircraft manufacturing details (location, date)
• Leaser, Insurer
• Number of flights (cycles) for the aircraft
• Engine installation dates
• Number of engine flight hours
• Date of last A Check
• Date of last C Check
• Control systems (Fly by wire, actuator control means, computer-assisted movement)
• APU
• RAT
• Time of day that fire crews began to stand down

I believe we've dispensed with all except the codeshare and the fire crew discussions. Because codeshares have cashflow associated there are schedule pressures too. It's a factor for the investigators to look at, although it seems highly unlikely to have been a factor here. The time of day speaks to how long the rescue process took. Anyone who's ever had to swim in very cold water will grasp the significance. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, although I'd suggest adding the direction of runway 13 for the reasons given by NigelG. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The flight did not use runway 13, it took off from runway 4 and its direction is 044º which I have already added to the first sentence of the "Ditching" section along with a detail of the FAA Departure plate. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Suggested only as thought angle/ proximity of that runway may have been a factor in the pilot's decision to ditch. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed most of these things, but their relevance is still unsupported in the text of the article right now (with the exception of manufacturing location). I think we've established that most of these things probably are not worthy of exclusion from the article, but the way the article is written, they lack context.

I haven't seen a good reason (here on the talk page) to keep number of cycles, engine installation dates, engine flight hours or the maintenance check dates.

As for the time of day that fire crews began to stand down: Nobody was in the water until 4:55. If you want to put in how long they were in the water, that's fine, but until 4:55 isn't it.

The issue I have with context is this: I could add to the article "The aircraft's flaps were in good working order at the time of ditching." Assuming that I had a good source and it wasn't OR, there's no way of knowing, short of prior knowledge of aircraft, why that interesting factoid might be relevant. It is relevant because flaps provide increased lift when moving at slower speeds, such as would be the case when both of your engines fail. Without that context the relevant fact becomes disjointed.

So, right now, we have this in the article: "Its last A Check ...(routine maintenance inspection performed every 550 flight hours) was completed on December 6, 2008." There's no context for such a statement. That's why I called it "too much information" yesterday. I can see how it's loosely related to the article now (it's a standard item the NTSB checks), but there are thousands of standard checks the NTSB does, why is this one important enough to keep here? They probably interviewed the pilot to make sure he wasn't suicidal, standard procedure of course, but that isn't relevant. My hypothetical statement about the flaps isn't relevant, but you can bet they'll check that too. So, what's so special about the A Check and C Check? Why is it essential to put those specific items here rather than directing interested readers to an article that lists all the things the NTSB does in major investigations? – jaksmata 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are always going to be facts which could be added to an article about a recent event, but not all verifiable facts are encyclopedic. It seems like too far much detail to include in an encyclopedia article the hours each engine had operated down to the hundredth of an hour, when there has been no reliable source attributing the crash to the number of hours the engines had operated. If James Dean is killed in a car wreck, do we need to know the odometer reading down to the tenth of a mile, and how many miles since his last oil change? Excess detail hides important information. We are not accident investigators, needing to carefully search for clues. They are the ones who should review every excruciating detail. If they say the engine hours was important, then we should note the numbers or other relevant details.But we are not preparing a file for their use in the investigation. Edison (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This argument is kind of amusing, If the information in sourced, it doesn't hurt to include (so long as written in such a way that a general audience could understand it, with occasional click-thrus for definitions). If it's too technical for intext, it could be moved into a note. If it's OR, it doesn't belong. Joshdboz (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, these numbers -- cycles, flight hours (or "Total Time") on the airframe and engines, last A and C Checks, etc -- are the most basic and universally understood "vital statistics" (my term as an analogy) as the standard criteria used to describe and/or evaluate the "health" and/or status, and suitability for operation of any aircraft, just as one's age, height, weight, blood pressure, pulse rate, etc, are the "vital statistics" for a person which provide the similar basic information to a physician as a basis upon which to evaluate an individual's baseline physical condition. These are the first and most basic numbers that any accident investigator, mechanic, pilot, or any other aviation professional want to know about any aircraft in question, and they are always among the first things to be considered in any aviation accident investigation. (See, for instance page 6 of the NTSB Accident Report for USAir Flight 5050 at LGA, September 20, 1989). This is not an esoteric concept in aviation, and their significance and context are well understood without further explanation in the aviation community at all levels. As such they should most assuredly be retained as fundamental information. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not the aviation community at any level. Context is required here. Do you really expect Wikipedia readers to have an aviation-community knowledge level? See WP:MTAA - if you want to call that "dumbing down," so be it - it's an established Wikipedia guideline. – jaksmata 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No objection to adding the context to explain what these things are, but of course WP:NOT#PAPER means it doesn't all need to be in the article. We can link to Aircraft maintenance checks and let the reader follow the link if interested. If we can find a wp:reliable source that simply states "all routine scheduled maintenance had been done" then we could do without the detail, but to draw that conclusion ourselves would be unusable as WP:original research. Instead we state the things which we can reference and allow the reader to draw the conclusion. LeadSongDog (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also added link to CFR 121.380.2. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

That addition will satisfy me...

I'm going to stop pushing this issue now, although I don't think we've resolved everything, and I think other editors will continue to question out-of-context facts. I never meant this to turn into such a big deal, but I am happy that after a very long discussion some improvement has been made to the article. It's been amusing, but I don't usually have this much "wikenergy", as I usually contribute in a more gnomish fashion. Thanks, everyone, for an intellectually stimulating debate, especially you, Centpacrr. – jaksmata 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Appparently what needs to be pointed out here is that we, Wikipedia, are not conducting an accident investigation. The details that would be critical to the NTSB's investigation are not necessarily details that are critical to an encyclopedia article about a plane crash. General details are certainly important: birdstrike, mechanical failure, lapses in maintenance, pilot error (or competence), and so on. A lot of those details we don't really know yet -- but we will know the salient factors when the NTSB prints its final report, and we will summarize the what the report finds. We will not end up mentioning things like the A and C checks unless they are singled out as a contributing factor to the accident by the NTSB.

Pretending that we should approach our encyclopedia article about this event the same way the NTSB would approach its investigation into the accident is inappropriate.--Father Goose (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here is pretending to "conduct an investigation" but just stating a few of the very most basic fundamental details ("vital statistics") about the known status of N106US at take off which were released and widely published immediately after the accident. These are fully sourced and are stated without offering interpretation in two sections -- "The aircraft and its safety systems" and "Accident investigation" -- for those who are interested in them. Just because not everybody might be interested in this basic information does not mean that nobody is. Those who are not are, of course, free to skip these sections.

We have now expended almost 6,000 words discussing this issue in just this one section of the US Airways Flight 1549 talk page which is more than twice as many as the roughly 2,900 words in the whole article itself. Let's just leave it at that and move on to something else. (Centpacrr (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Does "Let's stop the discussion and move on" mean "Let's leave all the minutia in the article so it is the way I want it to be?" The number of words of discussion shows that many editors want the compulsive listing of details of unproven significance removed. How about go with consensus and not include the hours on each engine down to the hundredth of an hour, for starters, since no reliable source has attributed the accident to the hours on the engines. It would be more encyclopedic to state that all maintenance was current, or other general statements, referenced to reliable sources. Note general normality, report exceptions that have been noted by reliable sources as important. Edison (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What this shows is that these were both high time engines at the time of the accident which would tend to make them more susceptible failure when ingesting birds (although even new engines probably would not have survived this event). The high engine time will certainly be considered closely by the investigators, however. I have considerably tightened the language relating this information, however, without compromising the basic information. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Notes

(adding to avoid cite ref warnings 84user (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Life vests

On a photography forum there are some pics and discussion about passengers not wearing life vests. Was there any discussion in US media on this?

(unsigned?) Yes, very interesting pictures, including one of (apparently) ice hanging from the attending ferry boat. There is also some speculative discussion as to why so few passengers are wearing a life-vest. But for the blog source, I'd suggest adding a comment in the Evacuation section (which may, in any case, need improvement wrt actual sequence of events, one suspects). I can find no other "media" source/discussion about the life-vests, although I don't see why such would be much more reliable. Again, however, any comment might be pre-judging the findings of the accident investigation report. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I’d suggest, though, that the weather conditions at the time of the incident certainly deserve some mention, particularly river water temp. The temperature in New York was apparently about 20 degrees about the time of the crash [11] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(Fahrenheit: ie -6 or -7 C.) --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recap

I hope no one will mind too much if I repeat a few points I've made in various sections above, just in case they've been overlooked in the sometimes heated Too much detail? debate:

• Choice of the most appropriate final lead quote.

• Relevance/reliability of the evacuation anecdote

• Runway numbers/directions. I see that the text now reads Runway 4 (heading 044º)—but that seems only to be duplicating the heading already embodied in the r/w number. Yes, I suppose readers could take a few seconds to work out that it means north-east; but why not help them a bit? The same goes for the proposed landing back on runway 13: if it's worth mentioning the number at all, it's worth explaining that it means landing in a south-easterly direction. Changing the text to Runway 13 (heading 130º) would again be uninformative.

Could we please have some degree of consensus on these points &, if agreed, modify the text? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Northeast (045.4º) and Southeast (135.5º) headings for Runways 4 and 13 added to text. I have no particular preference one way or the other on the final lead quote ("rare success of ditching") or evacuation ("women and children first") anecdote. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Runways are always referred to by two digit numbers - 04 and 13 in this case. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Headings are given in three digits (such as 044º), but runway 4 at LGA is only designated by the single digit "4" which is how it appears on the direction signs on the airfield, on all the FAA plates, and how its number is painted on the runway threshold. (You can confirm this for yourself by navigating to LGA on Google Earth or on Google Maps.) (Centpacrr (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

I've now changed the text per the first 2 points above. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the evacuation anecdote has been promptly restored. My quarrel with this anecdote/report is not with its content but with its pointlessness. The reader is left in suspense, wondering "Well, did anyone obey the injunction? Did a fight break out? Were the Ladies Firsters voted down? Did the flight attendants overrule the injunction?" As it stands, it tells us nothing worth knowing. It's a story without a punchline. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PS The phrase some passengers directed ... is particularly comical in this context. Who were they: natural born leaders? If you must retain this story, I suggest you inject a note of realism by saying instead some passengers screamed ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Reword it to distill the references. Identify the actions and perpetrators, attributing the identification. That's not the same as deleting it.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No: I'm sorry, but life's too short. I did the only merciful thing—but since you think it's worth including, it's up to you to fix it.--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?

Its clear that this article has been taken over by a few editors, bent on turning the encyclopedia article into a set of overly precise and excruciatingly aeronautic minutiae — all etched in stone tablet form lest we "dumb down" the article. Whole sections of the article are a complete joke now, myopic to a degree that is completely laughable, missing only the GPS breadcrumb trails of the passengers as they left to resume their lives. 842U (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Feel free to improve the article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Aviation is by nature a highly technical field in which accuracy and unambiguity is essential to safety. I find nothing in here, however, that is either esoteric cannot be easily understood from the context. I really don't see how accuracy and precision are in anyway antithetical to, or inconsistent with, being encyclopedic. Commercial aviation accidents are by their very nature complex, multifaceted occurrences. Treating them as if they are nothing more than simplistic or monolithic events does a disservice to both those who were involved in them at all levels, as well as to those who chose to come to Wikipedia to learn the facts about what happened. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

This isn't Aviation, Centpacrr, this is Wikipedia. We don't see any of this technical jargon and over-embellishment of detail in articles by the Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, or New York Times because — it's unnecessary, completely unnecessary -- and destructive to comprehension. Despite one editors perceived "need" to bring their version of "accuracy of precision" to the article and the "unwashed masses," the information is over-specialized. Wikipedia is for birds... rather than for Long-billed California Curlews... at the exclusion of all birds. 842U (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Give the article time to develop. It is still relatively "new" at the moment, and there are many edits per day. The British Airways Flight 38 article went through a similar development last year. For now, the main thing is to keep everything referenced, and linked as necessary to explain technical terms. With an article such as this, they have to be included to give a full picture. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said. If in fact the aircraft were brought down by Long-billed California Curlews that would be of very considerable interest. Gather ye breadcrumbs. There is lots of time for digestion later. For now, we've only got a few high quality sources to work from, but that will certainly change.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in not aviation, and nobody ever said it was. But the subject of the instant article is an aviation accident for which precise terms and language exists to describe what happened. The Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, and New York Times are in no way analogous to Wikipedia as they are daily newspapers, not encyclopedias or permanent reference works. Newspapers are meant to be timely only on the day they are published because the next day they will just as likely be used to "wrap fish" or line birdcages as they are to ever be read again for informational purposes. You are really talking apples and oranges there.

Encyclopedias are designed to be enduring reference works which provide far greater detail, depth, and perspective. Information is compiled over time and from many sources which are then cited and/or footnoted. Again you seem to be advocating that Wikipedia should be aimed at only to the "lowest common denominator." I think you are vastly underestimating its audience, however. How are people supposed to ever broaden their perception and understanding of the world if they are only presented with things they already know about? Again if you are not interested in the more technical aspects contained in this or any other particular Wikipedia entry then you should feel free to ignore them. But don't deny others who are interested free access to that material just because it does not interest you. There is really room for everybody. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Still struggling with the rigid aeronautic stone tablets (for the fahrenheit challenged). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All units of measurement should be converted anyway. Mjroots (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

At a more meta-level. Many new articles rapidly pick up a lot of details. Only in hindsight the relevance of all these details will be proven to be high or low. This articles will at first probably suffer from the same, but once the investigation has closed I am pretty sure it will be gradually edited towards a more accessible article... the Wikipedia way. The relevant technical details (to be determined by the investigation) will then of course be maintained, while others will go. So a slightly over technical article at this stage would only facilitate future clean up and focussing; while at this moment many people may be interested in these details as the crash is hot now, and people want all information one mouse click away.
In summary, I would not worry about loading the article with potentially relevant details (we have to be careful about trivia) as the article will evolve to a less technical, more stable and final version after the initial fuss has died down. Arnoutf (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wise words, at last. They're still tablets, 842U. I'll just have to keep taking them, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan in opening sentence

There is no need for the part in bold in the lead senence. It is over-specific, and jars the flow of the sentence breaking it into too many pieces. I removed it once, and it has been reinserted.

US Airways Flight 1549 was a commercial passenger flight that ditched in the Hudson River adjacent to midtown Manhattan about five minutes after takeoff on January 15, 2009

MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hudson River is 315 miles long. The fact that the plane ditched in the very short section of the river adjacent to midtown Manhattan is extremely significant because it is probably the major reason that all 155 occupants of the aircraft survived the ditching. The plane came to a stop in the water at 3:31 pm very close to the Midtown Ferry Terminal at West 39th Street and the West Side Highway from which many NY Waterway ferry boats operate. The first of those boats to reach the plane did so at 3:35 pm -- just four minutes later! This key factor in making it possible for all 155 people involved in the ditching of a commercial jet airplane certainly seems worth four words ("...adjacent to midtown Manhattan...") in the introductory paragraph. It is a central part of the what happened to US Airways Flight 1549.

Say, for instance, that a A320 took off from Sydney Airport, struck a flock of large birds on climb out, and ended up ditching in Sydney Harbour. If the aircrew were able to bring it down so that it stopped within a few hundred yards of the Sydney Opera House and everyone was promptly rescued by local ferry boats as opposed to somewhere near the mouth of the harbour, would that not be a significant part of the story?

If you think the intro is too long, why not advocate removing the 45-word, two sentence long second paragraph which relates to a prize awarded some days later by a private organization located in London, England. This had nothing whatever to do with the accident, its cause, or its outcome. Exactly where the plane came down, on the the other hand, most assuredly did. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

It's one of a hundred 'extremely important' facts about the incident. They are not all going to fit in the very first sentence. It's too long, and doesn't read correctly, either that is just clear to you by quickly reading it, or it isn't. I would of thought it was obvious I was not suggesting it wasn't important by removing it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with demoting those two sentences, however I must take issue with characterization of GAPAN as "a private organization". In fact it is the relevant Livery Company, which is a rather different thing. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with LeadSongDog about GAPAN. The G stands for "Guild", GAPAN is one of the London Guilds. It is an important aviation organisation that is respected worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

By "private organization" I meant that it is not a Government organization, body, or agency, and there is no indication that I am aware of that it is involved with this accident in an official capacity. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

I get the point. But who better than their peers to assess how significant an accomplishment it was? These are British commercial pilots, many flying the same very same type of aircraft, offering acknowledgement of the feat through their professional body. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating taking it out, I was only pointing out that for the intro, the fact that the plane ditched adjacent to midtown Manhattan was far more important and directly relevant to the outcome of the accident then an award made made some days later. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

It won't be long before the GPS coordinates of the splashdown move into the intro... I can just feel it... along with the GPS breadcrumb trails of the passengers as they left to return to their regularly scheduled lives. Can't wait. Then again, none of us should be surprised by any of this: at least one editor keeps arguing that each piece of minutiae is "extremely important." But in life, not all things can be "extremely important:" when everything is of the same importance, there's no longer an extreme. Forget that it treats the reader as a complete idiot to suggest that a plane that takes off leaving Laguardia could after five minutes then ditch in the Hudson... 315 miles away: this is a form of "dumbing down" that "we" approve of. I don't have to be sarcastic anymore... I can now be ironic. Oh well. Gather yee breadcrumbs. 842U (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the upper right corner of the page you will find that User:Pigsonthewing added the GPS coordinates to this article at 17:13 on January 15 which was just an hour and twenty minutes after the page was originally created. You will also find that similar GPS coordinates also exist in many many thousands of other Wikipedia pages that relate to a geographical place. (Wikipedia has long supplied a "coordinates template" for that purpose.)

Had the aircrew decided to continue to fly north after the bird strike as opposed to turning south at the Spuyten Duyvil, the plane would have most likely touched down in the Hudson River somewhere between Dobbs Ferry and the Tappen Zee Bridge or about twelve to fourteen miles north of where it did. The river in this area is very different in width and character than it is adjacent to midtown Manhattan, and there would have been no nearby watercraft there capable to rescuing the passengers quickly. (Remember that the air temperature was in the 20's and the water temperature in the 40's so any delay in rescue would have no doubt resulted in many deaths or injuries due to exposure.)

The fact that the plane came to a stop in the river in the midst of an area of heavy ferry traffic adjacent to midtown Manhattan was indeed the key factor (i.e. "extremely important") in making possible the successful and rapid rescue of the occupants without any fatalities or serious injury after they they survived the ditching. That being the case, I just can't see how including four words ("...adjacent to midtown Manhattan...") in the intro to acknowledge that fact could in any way be considered excessive. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm going to agree with Centpacrr on this one. In addition to what he said, "adjacent to midtown Manhattan" is a phrase that really sets the scene for the article. I would call it just as important as the first-sentence mention of the 14th Street Bridge in the article on Air Florida Flight 90. It specifies the location of the accident in terms that most people can visualize. While the addition of that phrase does increase the grammatical complexity of the first sentence, I don't think it raises it to a level that is unreasonable. – jaksmata 21:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tightened and simplified the language of the intro while retaining all the relevant information. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Air Florida Flight 90 actually crashed into the 14th Street Bridge, so it would be ridiculous not to mention it. But in each of American Airlines Flight 587, Swissair Flight 111, TWA Flight 800, and similar articles, the nearest identifiable geographic entity is mentioned in the lede. In this case, that entity is Manhattan, and it doesn't hurt to further specify midtown Manhattan, since Manhattan is about 15 miles long.--Father Goose (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for a more concise intro: US Airways Flight 1549 was a commercial passenger flight that ditched in the Hudson River adjacent to midtown Manhattan on the afternoon of January 15, 2009. The Airbus A320 was bound for Charlotte, North Carolina when it struck a flock of birds about 90 seconds after take off. The plane lost power in both engines and went down in the river three-and-a-half minutes later, at 3:31 pm. All 155 people on board survived the ditching, safely evacuated the cabin, and were rescued from the partially submerged plane by nearby commercial and rescue watercraft. J. Van Meter (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (ie, move altitude to ditching section and master medal to aftermath section.) J. Van Meter (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No mention of LaGuardia there, and the middle two sentences also seem to sightly muddle the relationship of the events. The altitude of the bird strike is not as essential, but it is not unimportant either because it is the most valuable "asset" any airman has to husband in an in-flight emergency. (The more altitude a pilot has, the more time he or she has to deal with and try to mitigate the problem.) Upon reflection, I also think the award bit is ok because it provides a "hook" to mention the extreme rarity of a successful ditching. I think my last (16:44) version of the first paragraph better covers all those bases in three concise and uncomplicated declarative sentences. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

[Deleted Posts]

Wait, are saying the article is shit because a particular bit of information is in its second sentence instead of its first? Calm down, dude.--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've been WP:BOLD and rewritten the lede para, mainly for flow. I believe that I've kept the content unchanged. Fire away.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed my posts, on reflection they weren't all that helpfull. MickMacNee (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked and tightened second sentence for clarity of sequencing. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Temperature

Since the Fahrenheit temperature given in the Evacuation section (about 20° F) is itself an approximation, wouldn't it make more sense to give the conversion as another simple approximation (about -7° C) rather than an approximate range (about -6° to -7° C)? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I now have Scriptural authority for changing this, since the Convert template generates the solution I was suggesting all along! Note that one about is sufficient. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)