X, u been drinking?!!

Where are the 2 engines? Where are the surveilance camera videos? Why haven’t we seen the pilot and crew answering questions?

And why does Airbus say – on their website – “it is practically impossible for ingested birds to shut down an engine” and “if one engine shuts down the other is quite capable of maintaining the plane on its intended course” and “the Airbus 320 can land without difficulty on one engine.”

At about the two minute mark you can see US Air Flight 1549 skid into the Hudson. Then, you can see the passengers climb out onto the wings. This video is 10 minutes long. Actual video of Flight 1549 skidding into the Hudson.

Here is one video that shows the plane impacting the water, but it is a long distance shot and the airbus is just a small white line kicking up some spray. Check the left side of the video at the 2 minute mark.

After the impact the camera zooms in and you can see evacuating passenger standing on the wing.

@ Tony Hall

There are thousands of bird strikes every day. At most airports in the world near large stretches of water. But modern engines are designed to mash-up the birds and continue flying that’s why there are practically no air disasters caused by birds.

That’s in one engine. The chances of two engines going at the same time due to birds is in the zillions to one range.

Despite the two grainy videos here – not shown on CNN or FOX – the question remains why there’s no better video since every Manhattan and New Jersey high-rise building now has 24/7 surveillance TV since 9/11.

I would wonder where the feds were–and the F-16’s.The minute that plane was detected so low they should have been on the scene. It is a bit of a 9/11 scenario low flying plan over the Hudson. And again what are the chances of both engines being hit by the geese at the same time?

what does this have to do with barbados and bajans?

why wunnah airing wunnah mout bout something wunna dont know bout- as usual?

Haven’t heard anything yet that would cause me to be overly suspicious that this was anything more than a bird strike, although apparently there were a whole bunch of Bank of Amercia executives on the flight. Of course the preliminary information available is still very sketchy as to what actually occurred.

However, if there was something more sinister behind it, don’t expect to hear about it on the nightly news or read about it in the pages of the NY Times or Washington post.

Into The Buzzsaw: 18 Tales Of Media Censorship

by Michelle Goldberg

Between them, the authors of the incendiary new book “Into the Buzzsaw,” out this month from Prometheus, have won nearly every award journalism has to give — a Pulitzer, several Emmys, a Peabody, a prize from Investigative Reporters and Editor, an Edward R. Murrorw and several accolades from the Society of Professional Journalists. One is veteran of the Drug Enforcement Administration and a best-selling author, another is a Nieman Fellow at Harvard.

And most of them are considered, at best, marginal by the mainstream media. At worst, they’ve been deemed incompetent and crazy for having the audacity to uncover evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by government agencies and corporate octopi.

Edited by ex-CBS producer Kristina Borjesson, “Into the Buzzsaw” is a collection of essays, mostly by serious journalists excommunicated from the media establishment for tackling subjects like the CIA’s role in drug smuggling, lies perpetuated by the investigators of TWA flight 800, POWs rotting in Vietnam, a Korean war massacre, the disenfranchisement of black voters in Bush’s election, bovine growth hormone’s dangers and a host of other unpopular issues.

Borjesson describes “the buzzsaw” as “what can rip through you when you try to investigate or expose anything this country’s large institutions — be they corporate or government — want to keep under wraps. The system fights back with official lies, disinformation, and stonewalling.

http://www.freedomofthepress.net/intothebuzzsaw.htm

Snip from an interview with Kristina Borjesson editor of “Into the Buzzsaw”:

BuzzFlash: In journalism, how is going into the buzzsaw different from just “spiking” a story?

Kristina Borjesson: They are two different terms. “Spiking” a story means to kill it, to not run or air it. “Into the buzzsaw” is an expression that applies to both journalists and sensitive stories. With respect to journalists, it describes a series of traumatic and destructive experiences that those who have reported, or are reporting on sensitive stories can go through: the loss of one’s job or career, long legal entanglements, financial ruin, being widely and falsely discredited in public, being attacked by one’s colleagues, death threats, etc. With respect to sensitive stories, the buzzsaw is a sophisticated system consisting of myriad elements, including self-censoring journalists, reporters who pander to powerful people and institutions, major media conglomerates with specific business and political agendas, propaganda machines both inside and outside of government, etc., which ensure that the American public remains virtually ignorant about how this nation�s–and the world’s–arenas of power really function. The buzzsaw system ensures that stories lifting the veil on what powerful institutions and people really do, and how their activities affect the nation and its citizens, never hit the mass public consciousness.

BuzzFlash: Why do you think there is such gullible acceptance of government explanations and policies among the mainstream press? As you point out in your essay within the book, many of the government’s explanations of dramatic events amount to conspiracy theories themselves. Just look at the Bush propaganda campaign before the invasion of Iraq and how Saddam Hussein was allegedly associated with everything from Al Qaeda to 9/11 to WMD that were supposed to be on the verge of being launched against us. But the mainstream media didn’t question THAT conspiracy theory, did they?

Kristina Borjesson: The press’ acceptance of the government’s explanations had nothing to do with the mainstream press being gullible. Post 9/11, news executives got the message from the American public that it was time to rally around the president and that asking tough questions about 9/11 or the decision to go into Iraq would not play well and would result in lower ratings. Lower ratings mean lost revenue. It’s nothing personal; it’s just business. Most journalists will tell you that a reporter’s job is to tell people what they need to know, not what they want to hear, or what the government wants them to hear.In the news business, however, upsetting the government or the public makes no sense for the bottom line and should be avoided. Don’t expect to be well informed if you rely on mainstream media alone. As some of the stories in Buzzsaw clearly illustrate, mainstream media’s limitations are extensive. There’s no point in getting upset at the mainstream media. It’s better to just move on to better news sources–and there are lots of them. (emphasis added /GM)

SNIP

BuzzFlash: Finally, is there any hope that the tacit coupling of our media and our national government can be derailed by the truth seeping out through new media outlets? Is there a chance of resurrecting a free media, the kind which our founding fathers used to foment the ideas for the American Revolution? Today, who would give Tom Paine a second on one of the news talk shows? Bill O’Reilly would tell him to just shut up.

Kristina Borjesson: Sure there’s hope. A new news paradigm is being created as I write this. First of all, you have to appreciate how revolutionary the Internet has been as a development that is giving the mainstream media a real run for its money. Lots of great reporters, bloggers and otherwise average citizens are taking full advantage of the Internet as a place to exchange information. The Internet is also raising awareness and serving as a powerful antidote against American provincialism, which can only help to create large-scale demand for real, unvarnished reporting. Network and cable news programs today have a fraction of the audience that each network used to have, and they’re fighting to hang on to that.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05002.html

hi,
I found this latest video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7835497.stm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/brace_for_impact/

‘I am certainly glad that pilot Chesley Sullenberger was at the helm. Like so many pilots at American Airlines, he’s an ex-fighter pilot. He’s also a consultant in aircraft and airline safety and the former safety chairman for the Airline Pilots Association. And, perhaps most importantly, he’s a glider pilot in his private life.

The fact that he was an expert pilot with gliding skills was key, as was having a great co-pilot, Jeff Skiles (a 23-year US Airways veteran) and a fast-acting flight attendant crew.’
—————————–

One of the major contributing factors to the success of the landing was in the design of the engines. They are designed to ‘snap off’ on impact without affecting the integrity of the wing.

Just for the record, I am a retired Air Canada captain with just under 23,000 hrs experience. Of those 23,000 hours, some 4,000 hours are on Airbus aircraft [A319/320/330/340].

What Airbus Industrie allegedly states, quoted by Santa Klaus, about the impact of birds being “practically impossible” to shut down an engine is inaccurate. Most testing is done with frozen chicken carcasses, not with fully grown Canada geese. I can assert, without any fear of contradiction, that if an A320, the type that US Airways 1549 was flying, hit a flock of Canada geese and the birds were ingested into the engines, the first thing that would happen is that the turbine blades in the fan-stage would either have separated or have been twisted by the impact. Furthermore, as the debris continued through the core of the engine, the turbine blades would have been severely damaged by the bones and gristle. This in turn would have caused an immediate and severe over-temperature condition and vibration, something like when a washing-machine got out of balance on the spin-dry cycle and begins to vibrate violently. This in turn would have registered on the ECAM [Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring] in the flight deck as either an “Overtemp,” “High Vibration,” or “Engine Fail” condition, all of which require an immediate shutdown of the affected engine[s] to remove fuel from the engine[s] which would continued to be injected and ignited until the Fuel Control Switch was moved to the OFF position.

A dual engine failure, which I have practised in the simulator many times, would cause the immediate deployment of the emergency Ram Air Turbine [RAT], but in the video the RAT does not appear to be deployed. This leads me to believe that either the crew were able to start the APU [Auxiliary Power Unit], or that one or both engines were at idle power. I would suspect the former, but I will not speculate further.

A jet turbine engine is such a finely-tuned machine that although, in theory, the ingestion of a foreign object into the engine may not cause an immediate and catastrophic failure of the engine, the most likely scenario is that which I mentioned above: overtemp, high vibration resulting in the shutdown of the engine to avoid fire and possible uncontained explosion. The engine pylons functioned as they were supposed to, to shear off on impact.

All foregoing is by way of explanation and is my own hypothesizing of the incident, based on my experience as a captain of Airbus A320 aircraft. We will have to wait for the accident report to get the definitive reason.

Meantime, great credit goes to the Captain, the First Officer and the Flight Attendants for saving 155 lives. They simply did what their training and experience had prepared them for. Outstanding work.

One final thought. Having been on the receiving end of several bird-strikes during my career, I can state definitively that there is nothing quite so terrifying, and one that gives such a feeling of helplessness, as a bird strike. To be the victim of multiple geese-strikes in a single incident is unimaginable.

Happy New Year to all BU readers!

Thanks AV!

I actually had a turbine blade separate from the turbine in flight and it acted like a bird-strike: it went through the engine and cleaned it out like a knife through butter. The results were immediate and spectacular: compressor stalls [2] which felt and sounded like major explosions. The violent yawing of the aircraft was unbelievable. Fortunately, my co-pilot was a cool-as-ice Bahamian [nickname “Conchman”], and we shut the engine down immediately, and landed safely and uneventfully on one engine.

I would not be surprised if the geese-strike on the US Airways A320 was immediately followed by violent compressor stalls, in which case an immediate engine shutdown would have been required. But that is speculation.

My incident was on a Boeing 767-300 with Pratt and Whitney engines.

All the Best,

IE.

@IE

Thanks for your terrific insights.

Could you tell us in the instances you have described what would be the state of the passengers on descent.

Hello David!

I would only be speculating as to the state of the passengers on descent on board the US Airways flight, but in my particular incident that I described above, after the initial shock of the compressor stalls, which can be very dramatic, all of the passengers on my flight were very cool. One passenger even described to one of my flight attendants what he had seen since he was looking out the window at the very moment it occurred.

Once we had completed the emergency procedures and secured the aircraft, I made a PA announcement which stated briefly that we had had an engine failure and the engine was now shut down, that the thrust-to-weight ratio of the Boeing 767-300 was one of the best in the industry and the aircraft was entirely capable of flying comfortably on one engine [note the positive terminology], and that we were returning to Montreal and would be landing in 25 minutes. During that time I was communicating with the Purser frequently and he advised that the passengers were all very calm.

After landing, I was at the door to speak to all the passengers as they deplaned and I saw no evidence of fear or trauma. They were all very calm and collected.

Part of every such incident is an immediate crew de-briefing, and the flight attendants all said that the passengers were cool, no problem. Everything went so well that all I could find to mention to my cool-as-ice co-pilot “Conchman” was that his initial comments when the compressor stalls occurred were non-standard: he had said, “Wha’ de a$$ dat wuz skippah?” [in a strong Bahamian accent]. We both had a good laugh over that. “Conchman” is now a captain himself.

Once you get over the initial shock, the “this-can’t-be-happening-to-me” stage [usually lasts about 1-2 seconds], training and experience take over and you do what you’re trained to do.

Being an airline pilot has been defined as hours and hours of sheer boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror! I would speculate that events on board AWE 1549 occurred so rapidly that no one, least of all the pilots, had too much time to think of anything other than getting that airplane down safely. After all, the first rule of aircraft emergency handling is AVIATE – NAVIGATE – COMMUNICATE. From all accounts it seems that everything was done textbook style, or rather SOP [Standard Operations Procedures] style. Kudos to all concerned!

Pied Piper, you’re welcome!

Best to all,

IE.

What difference will it make when we know why the second engine failed?

So its still attached to the wing. So what? What do you know about planes? Do you more than IE?

Why should there be a video of the crash? How will that make a difference? The video will show what? that the plane was descending and crashed?

Has it occured to you that the reason that you are only seeing grainy footage taken from a distance is because thats all that is available?

Why should any clear video be made available to satisfy the whims and fancies of aviatin illiterates like yourself?.

How do you know that somewhere there is video as clear as if Hollywood shot it? Did you shoot it? Did you see someone shoot it?

All Bonny kno’ is dat I plannin a trip to U-York a lil’ lata wid de fam-bily an’ dis incident in de Hudson got Bonny shiv’rin. De ol’ hart can’ tek na kine a drama a’ tall. Ef I did pun dat plane, de announcement to ‘brace fa impact’ alone wudda bus’ me ol’ hart. Lord a mercy.
Anyway, God bless de Pilot, de crew and mostly de passangers. It cudda bin any a we.

Wolf, if memory serves me correctly, the cause attributed to the AA crash in Queen’s was extreme manual inputs to the rudders by the co-pilot, who was the pilot-flying.

I believe what happened was that they encountered wake-turbulence from a preceding aircraft and the AA aircraft yawed violently. The co-pilot applied immediate and, the investigators surmised, excessive rudder-pedal force which over-stressed the vertical stabilizer [tail], causing it to separate from the aircraft. Control was lost and the aircraft crashed.

After the crash, Airbus issued an airworthiness directive recommending that all crews apply firm but not excessive rudder-pedal inputs when attempting to recover from unusual flight attitudes.

MME, the cause was metal fatigue.

I flew the famous “Gimli Glider,” fin #604, many times, both as co-pilot and as captain. She didn’t suffer any after-effects and flew beautifully, like all of Mr. Boeing’s products!! She was recently retired to the ‘boneyard’ at Marana, Arizona but on her last flight they reunited Captain Bob Pearson and F/O Maurice Quintal and they were on board for her last flight, flown by a good friend of mine, Capt. Jean-Marc Belanger.

All the Best!

IE.

Thanks for sharing those experiences IE.

The Gimli Glider story is fascinating. Here is part of a NG documentary and dramatization of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaHtgpJv9e8

The similar story of Air Transat 236 that ran out of fuel half-way across the Atlantic is equally fascinating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7pbYkVe4e4&feature=related

@Captain Edghill et al

Please confirm that flying in slide mode is part of a commercial pilot’s training.

Hi Iain, have you checked out PilotsFor911Truth.org?

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts — since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today — and the United States Government doesn’t seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.

Here are just a few of their members:

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Has time in:
– N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
– N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
– N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
– N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
http://www.AviationExperts.com

John Lear
Son of Bill Lear
(Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
More than 40 years of Flying
19,000+ TT
23 Type ratings
Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
–USAF Accident investigation Board President
–Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
–Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
–Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
–Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

After a FOIA request, PF911Truth got the raw flight data recorder released to them from the NTSB for AA Flight 77, the one that allegedly hit the Pentagon, and they say the data as per what was released to them does not corroborate the official “conspiracy theory” as to the aircraft’s flight path into the side of the Pentagon. One of the most glaring and obvious anomalies seems to be that the flight path as per barometric altimeter and radar altimeter data would have put the aircraft much too high to have taken out the lampposts on the highway before it hit the Pentagon building.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4801

The plane in question was hit by a U F O

GM, I have just “favourited” the site. Looks good. Thanks for the link.
IE.

Iain Edghill,
I thank you for the explanations from a professional point of view, thus debunking these conspiracy theorists. Someone mentioned about grainy videos. I accept that cameras are situated on buildings coming down the Hudson River but one must take into consideration the weather conditions. It was 20 F and as one who has a working knowledge of CCTV equipment in conditions like what transpired that evening the quality sometimes can be degraded, so to the person who questioned the clarity of the video feed there is nothing sinister about no having very clear quality.

Look at this story just off CNN to further complicate the issue!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hudson.plane.folo/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

@ PiedPiper & Ian Edghill – As I wrote earlier “Never believe anything you’re told by anyone after a passenger plane crashes.”

Two days before US Airways Flight 1549 crashed into the Hudson River, passengers on the same route and same aircraft say they heard a series of loud bangs and the flight crew told them they could have to make an emergency landing, CNN has learned.

Steve Jeffrey of Charlotte, North Carolina, told CNN he was flying in first class Tuesday when, about 20 minutes into the flight, “it sounded like the wing was just snapping off.”

“The red lights started going on. A little pandemonium was going on,” Jeffrey recalled.

He said the incident occurred over Newark, New Jersey, soon after the plane — also flying as Flight 1549 — had taken off from LaGuardia Airport in New York.

“It seemed so loud, like luggage was hitting the side but times a thousand. It startled everyone on the plane,” Jeffrey said. “We started looking at each other. The stewardesses started running around. They made an announcement that ‘everyone heard the noise, we’re going to turn around and head back to LaGuardia and check out what happened.’

“I fly about 50 to 60 times per year, and I’ve never heard a noise so loud,” he said. “It wasn’t turbulence, it wasn’t luggage bouncing around. It was just completely like the engine was thrown against the side of the plane. It just — it didn’t shake the plane but it shook you out of the seat when you’re drifting off, it really woke you up. And when it happened again, everyone just started looking at each other and there was a quiet murmuring around the plane, and you could feel the tension rising just in looking.

“I remember turning to my [business] partner and saying, ‘I hope you got everything in order back home, life insurance and everything, because that didn’t sound good.’ ”

Jeffrey said he sent a text message to his wife about a “scary, scary noise on the plane. Doesn’t sound right. They’re flying back to LaGuardia to check it out. I’ll call you when we land. I love you.”

He added, “About 10 minutes later when we never made the turn, we kept going, that’s when the pilot came on and explained — I wish I could remember the words — I remember him using air, compression and lock — I’m not sure the right order, but he made it sound like the air didn’t get to the engine and it stalled the engine out, which he said doesn’t happen all the time but it’s not abnormal.”