June 9, 2009 2:07 AM

Hearings To Focus On "Miracle" Flight

(AP)  Even after Flight 1549 glided to a near-perfect forced landing on the Hudson River in January, the plane and its 155 passengers and crew came within inches of catastrophe when someone cracked open a rear door, sending water gushing into the cabin.

Who opened the door is one of the questions the National Transportation Safety Board hopes to answer during three days of hearings on the accident beginning Tuesday. Other issues include crew training for forced water landings and dual engine failures, whether aircraft standards for ditching are adequate, bird detection and mitigation efforts at airports, and whether engine standards need to be toughened to withstand collisions with large birds.

Had the door been opened wider, the Airbus A320 would likely have flooded and sank immediately, said one experienced crash investigator. Even the slight gap in the door caused passengers in the rear to struggle through rising water to get to safety.

"It probably would have gone down tail-first very quickly, probably in 30 seconds to a minute, which means some of the people probably wouldn't have gotten out," said William Waldock, who teaches air crash investigation at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz.

Air in partially empty fuel tanks helped their plane stay afloat. Water also was coming into the cabin from a rupture in the fuselage near the tail cone.

Flight 1549 had just taken off from LaGuardia Airport in New York on Jan. 15 and climbed to about 3,000 feet when the plane hit a flock of Canada geese and lost thrust in both engines. Capt. Chesley Sullenberger decided to ditch into the Hudson rather than risk crashing in the densely populated area of New York and New Jersey. Everyone aboard survived.

"I would have to say if things were just a little different that day we could have had a different outcome for sure," said board member Robert Sumwalt, who will chair the hearing. "We want to understand as much about this accident as we possibly can."

One of the first issues on the board's agenda is whether a passenger or a flight attendant opened the rear door after the plane landed. How much training cabin crews receive on how to evacuate passengers in a forced water landing is another.

The first scheduled witnesses are Sullenberger and Billy Campbell, one of 145 passengers interviewed by the NTSB.

Sumwalt said in an interview on Friday that Campbell, who was seated in the second-to-last row, had contradicted flight attendant Doreen Welsh's claim that a panicked passenger opened the door. NTSB spokesman Peter Knudson said Monday that Sumwalt was mistaken about Campbell's account and that passengers' recollections of who opened the door were inconsistent.

"We may never determine how the rear door was opened," Knudson said.

Before Flight 1549, crew training for a forced water landing had not received much attention from airlines because there have been so few water crashes where there was a reasonable expectation most passengers might survive, Waldock said.

"I think it was probably right down at the bottom of everybody's priority list of issues," Waldock said. "It's an issue they're looking at a lot more closely now."

Many airlines still don't warn against using the rear doors for passenger evacuation in event of water landing, he said.

Another concern is whether the FAA and airlines need to revise emergency procedures for pilots in the event both engines fail. Those procedures usually involve a sequence of many steps called a checklist. There are different checklists depending upon the problem, but most are based on the expectation that the problem will occur while the plane is flying at a high altitude - airliners typically cruise above 20,000 feet, giving pilots time to identify and correct the problem.

Flight 1549's first officer, Jeffrey Skiles, told a congressional panel in February that he only had time to make it part of the way through a checklist for restarting the engines when Sullenberger sent the plane into the river.

Sumwalt suggested it would be better for airlines to train pilots to remember one procedure for a low-altitude dual engine failure, rather than go through a long checklist of items while altitude rapidly diminishes.

"If there's not a Hudson River out there, they're going to crash," Sumwalt said.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment
by Slrman-21001573651763300012869 June 9, 2009 9:56 AM EDT
Audacity_of_Deception What an appropriate ID. The religious reich has been audaciously deceiving people for thousands of years. There are no miracles and no god. What saved these people was the superb training and skills of Captain Sullenberger. To attribute it to a "miracle of god" is an insult to Captain Sully and everyone that has dedicated themselves to flight safety.

I would say that you should be ashamed of yourself, but religious people have no shame.
Reply to this comment
by Audacity_of_Deception June 9, 2009 8:02 AM EDT
tbbaot

It appears the word "miracle" is a threat to you. What do you have against God? What did He do to you, besides give you the miracle of LIFE for you to enjoy?
Reply to this comment
by tbbaot June 9, 2009 7:33 AM EDT
It is not really accurate to call the Hudson landing a miracle. The pilot flew many combat missions and was trained to do what he did. This was skill more than it was a miracle. Now compare this to the commuter flights with green underpaid pilots and you will understand the difference.
Reply to this comment
by albert571 June 9, 2009 2:57 AM EDT
Do you forgive me Sully?
Reply to this comment
by stn_sage June 9, 2009 2:37 AM EDT
The focus of the hearing should be the mechanical failing of the airplane that caused the pilot to have to ditch the plane into the Hudson River!

Any recommendations or suggestions can be passed along to the aircrew later!

Keep it short, simple, and speedy! Remember, this may have been a downed plane, but it
had a happy ending---let's keep it that way!

Don't turn the hearing into a "circus"! Remember, the NTSB is not the U.S. Senate!
Reply to this comment
by albert571 June 9, 2009 2:29 AM EDT
Ok, OK, I admit it I did it ! If they had more restrooms on airplanes it wouldn't have happened but I was really nervous and had to go to the restroom..I saw the door and snuck over to it and popped it open ,the rest is history. Sorry guys .
Reply to this comment
by skydrifter1 June 9, 2009 1:41 AM EDT
Evacuations, particularly ditchings, are one of the most ignored safety facets of U.S. airline flying. Despite the regulations, the FAA gives cursory treatment to the subject for even trans-oceanic flight. The 'modern' approach assumes that aircraft only ditch on calm water - during the daytime - with tropical water temperatures.

Actual and near-ditchings are more common than most realize.

One of the major factors in any emergency is "panic." What training is there? If any, it's hardly worth mentioning.

Foreign carriers are usually very well trained on evacuations and ditchings. Why not in the U.S. environment?

The other question to be addressed is the factual content of the flight attendant operations manual. Common sense aside, was there anything in the manual (unique to the airline) which advised against opening the rear door? Did the FAA let the matter slide? Did the manufacturer offer a procedure, which the company ignored?

Did the Captain know what attitude the aircraft would assume, once in the water? Should he have known to order "Forward doors and wing exits only!" If not; why not?

Between the pilots' and flight attendants procedures; was there a practical coordination element, relative to ditching?

Was there the arrogant assumption that a domestic flight was immune from ditching in a large lake - or river? Did Darwin's & Murphy's Laws converge?

The matter should not be treated lightly! If one can forgive the bias, please see -

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/persemer.htm
Reply to this comment
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook