This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
US Airways Flight 1549 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about US Airways Flight 1549. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about US Airways Flight 1549 at the Reference desk. |
A news item involving US Airways Flight 1549 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 January 2009. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 15, 2011, January 15, 2016, January 15, 2019, and January 15, 2024. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
I award the Teamwork Barnstar to all editors who have taken part in writing the US Airways Flight 1549 article so well and so quickly. A More Perfect Onion ( talk) 03:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
Here are some of the rescuer awards http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2009_02_01_archive.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.224.140 ( talk) 03:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
From http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/03/25/sully-dont-hang-up/
"Among the new information revealed: The impact with the water ripped open a hole in the underside of the airplane and twisting of the fuselage caused cargo doors to pop open, so the plane would have filled with water from the rear regardless of whether a passenger opened an escape door in the back of the cabin."
Maybe somebody can work this information into the article? Darrell_Greenwood ( talk) 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This section seems like what Wikipedia is not: A directory. It is not the goal of the encyclopedia to provide information on when programs were on about the incident. -- Izno ( talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I reading this article:
It's long seven page article, which should read it. So could use to filling the <ref></ref> tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
My addition of a reference to the Aug 8, 2009, plane crash in the Hudson 40 blocks from 1549 was deleted here with a summary saying that discussing all other accidents in the general area would make a mess of the article. A high percentage of the Aug. 8 articles make reference to 1549. It's not a common occurence for planes to go down in the Hudson. Americasroof ( talk) 21:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In reference to the below, the official report has now been released:
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf
Is there any notability for a quote by the Air Traffic Controller about how he felt after losing contact, in a newspaper article about the third anniversary? Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Article says
"aircrew began evacuating the 150 passengers, both on to the wings through the four mid-cabin emergency window exits ..."
This is sort-of incorrect.
Passengers leaving through the overwing exits were doing so of their own volition, whereas passengers leaving through the front exits (1L and 1R) were being instructed to do so by cabin crew. So the cabin crew weren't "evacuating passengers onto the wings".
Cabin crew evacuated the passengers through the front doors (doors 1L (yellow) and 1R (red) on the diagram on page 155 of the report cited below).
Some passengers chose to leave the plane through the overwing exits (blue and red on the diagram) - but they weren't instructed to do so by the cabin crew, and the overwing exits were opened by passengers rather than cabin crew. The emergency info cards showed that the overwing exits were not intended for use in a ditching (landing on water).
This is interesting and significant from a 'human factors' view of the accident, because the overwing exits were not equipped with liferafts. Passengers leaving through these exits were more likely to end up in the water, and therefore were at higher risk of drowning or hypothermia.
Some of the passengers who initially exited through an overwing exit later re-entered the plane in order to exit through 1L and 1R, and get to the liferafts.
Source: NTSB Survival Factors Group Chairman's Report (contains detailed witness statements from cabin crew and passengers) http://www.exosphere3d.com/pubwww/pdf/flight_1549/ntsb_docket/420151.pdf
e.g. page 101 (passenger 17B):
"He went up the aisle to the overwing exits and exited through the right side in row 10. He saw a slide behind the wing that was upside down. Passenger 14A and another man were trying to flip it over. He was freezing and water was coming over the top of the wing and he knew the situation was not good. He saw the slide/raft at door 1R and there was room in it. He turned around and went back to the overwing exits telling other passengers that there was room in the front right slide/raft. Almost everyone was out of the airplane and he estimated that he spent less than 30 seconds on the wing. He went inside, walked up the aisle, and saw the captain in the cockpit doorway. The captain instructed him not to jump into the slide/raft, just slide in. He believed several other passengers followed him and got into the slide/raft after he did. The ferries arrived and he yelled for them to get the people on the wings first."
-- 93.97.113.11 ( talk) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I strongly suggest omitting the private enthusiastic opinion of that NTSB board member, because he made it without any research. He was carried away by the moment.
How do you measure the degree of success of a ditching? If everyone survives, it is a perfect ditching, which cannot be topped. There is a number of at least equally successful ditchings in aviation history. Let me mention only two of them.
On 16-Oct-1956, a Pan American World Airways Boeing 377 "Stratocruiser" passenger plane ditched in the Pacific Ocean(!). The aft section of the fuselage broke off during the ditching, but the crew had anticipated that and moved all passengers to the forward cabin before landing on the waves. All passengers and crew members (31) survived unhurt and were rescued by a Coast Guard ship, which served as a weather ship at Ocean Station November between California and Hawaii.
On 21-Aug-1963, an Aeroflot Tu-124 passenger jet ditched on the Neva river in Leningrad (St. Petersburg). After the nose gear retraction actuator had detached during takeoff, the nose gear was dangling freely in an intermediate position. The airplane had been circling at 2,000 ft to quickly burn fuel in preparation for a landing on the gravel emergency strip at Leningrad airport, which was deemed less risky than a landing on a concrete runway. Since the fuel tank indicator was overreading at low fuel levels, the engines flamed out unexpectedly in short succession. When the second engine quit, Captain Victor Mostovoy decided quickly to land the airplane on the Neva river, where it splashed down only 14 seconds later. The airplane stayed intact and did not sink. All 52 occupants survived unhurt. Passengers remained seated(!) until the airplane had been towed ashore by a tug boat. (In 2009, Capt Sullenberger was not able to provide this high level of passenger comfort. :-) )
-- 195.246.100.57 ( talk) 14:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I updated the injury count that was here (2 serious, 3 minor) to the one in the NTSB report (5 serious, 95 minor, see http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf) but I noticed the other count was there for a while so I'm wondering if maybe there's a different source for that or you aren't using the NTSB classifications for injuries? Just want to make sure I'm changing this correctly, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.60.217 ( talk) 06:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
US Airways Flight 1549. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
US Airways Flight 1549. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could you review the criteria for inclusion of material as set out in WP:EP and linked policies, before deleting facts from this page? Like you, I am keen to make sure that articles are well written, properly copy edited, and don't contain information not appropriate to the topic. But where there is factual information relevant to the topic, that is neutral and verifiable, it should be included. In this incident the flying time of each engine and the various openings beneath the aircraft that might let in water are both relevant factual information that it is reasonable for an encyclopedia to include. Neither you or I could possibly imagine all the various reasons that might bring people to this page. Our mission is to present everything that is relevant, and to present it in the best way we can. IanB2 ( talk) 09:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The Airbus A320 has a "ditching" button that closes valves and openings underneath the aircraft, including the pressurization outflow valve, the ram air inlet, the avionics ventilation inlet and extract valves, and the pack flow control valves. It is meant to slow flooding in a water landing. Sullenberger later noted that it probably would not have been effective anyway, since the force of the water impact tore holes in the plane's fuselage much larger than the openings sealed by the switch.
The Airbus A320 has a control that closes valves and openings in the fuselage, in order to slow flooding after a water landing, but the flight crew did not activate it. Sullenberger later said this made little difference since the impact tore significant holes in the fuselage anyway.
If this could get to GA, it would make a great DYK:
Actually, what were they apologizing for? The geese? E Eng 22:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on US Airways Flight 1549. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'm thinking about taking this article to a possible GA or FA, using Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (an FA) as a point of reference. Here's what we may need to do:
If there are any other suggestions, please let me know here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 05:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. This article has been heavily copy edited by me and even more by User:EEng, and is hopefully in pretty good shape. I am not convinced the plane's prior history is of much significance given this was a bird strike that would have disabled pretty much any plane? I did review the investigation report some time back and think the principal recommendations are in the article; a further review and perhaps an itemised list wouldn't do any harm. The usual problem with leads is that editors try to pack too much in; I always saw the guidelines as maxima, and if we've said it all with fewer paragraphs, well, that's a bonus! Nevertheless we should check that the lead does cover all the most important points. MapReader ( talk) 14:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Nothing about this? I found it astonishing that crew members could behave in such a bigoted way in the 21st century. Even if you didn't it's surely worth mentioning. 105.228.103.17 ( talk) 17:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
In response to editor EEng:, who asked this question as he reverted [ [2]] my proper correction of a statement in the article, which was not accurate in the way it was quoted from the NY Post link citation that was used to support that statement:
My answer:
1) Here is the actual statement in the NY Post, which was used to support the somewhat different statement (which used quotation marks) in this Wiki article:
2) And, here is how the quotation was presented in this Wiki article, before I made a slight correction:
3) While it CAN be permissible to make only a partial quotation of some authoritative person being referenced in a reliable source news article, it is NOT proper to change wording in the Wiki article so as to make it appear that the authority person said something different than what he/she actually did say. Specifically, NTSB board member Kitty Higgins was NOT quoted as using the word "incident," -- which has an entirely different meaning than the word "accident," in all airliner accident investigations conducted by ICAO members. Thus, although probably done with good intention by the Wiki editor that constructed that line, it was not proper to imply (with the altered Wiki wording) that she referred to an airliner "accident," as an "incident." Doing so would have been highly unprofessional, considering her position as a member of the NTSB.
4) Here is my correction of that part of the Wiki article:
I used the word "feat," instead of "incident," because that is the word used by the writer of the NYPost (our RS) article. I also included "Thursday's" because that too is more accurate as to what the NYPost author said about Kitty Higgins' comments. I then went on to make one adjustment to the quotation itself, because it is obvious the NYPost writer made a typo by leaving out the word "as." I added that word in the proper way [within brackets] to indicate what was clearly implied by that quotation.
It appears to me, editor EEng, that your reversion of my proper correction of wording for that passage, was generated by an improper use of Twinkle. Please read the cautions given to those who use TW to find and revert deliberate vandalism.[ [3]] One of those cautions is:
"Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."
Your edit summary, given as the reason for reverting my proper correction of the wording, indicates you did not bother to read what the NYPost writer actually said about Kitty Higgins. Had you done so, you would have quickly understood why I made that revision and why it was proper. It appears you improperly relied upon TW to revert some alleged vandalism. If that is what caused you to revert my proper edit, then it is clear that TW was wrong in this case. EditorASC ( talk) 09:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the incident "the most successful ditching in aviation history."
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member said Thursday’s feat "has to go down [as] the most successful ditching in aviation history."
X said Y "has to go down [as] the most successful ditching in aviation history"
X called Y "the most successful ditching in aviation history"
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history"but that's awkward.) If you don't like that, you'll need to wait to see whether others are convinced by your wall of text above.
X said Y "has to go down as Z"is just a verbose way of saying
X called Y "Z"– they mean the same thing.
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history".
NTSB board member Kitty Higgins said Thursday’s feat "has to go down the most successful ditching in aviation history." But to Sullenberger and his brother pilots, it’s just another day’s work.
An NTSB board member said what the pilots did "has to go down [as] the most successful ditching in aviation history." The New York Post called it a "feat".We're not gonna do that, obviously. What do you think of my earlier proposal,
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history".
OK, try it your way. Fix it without using the words "feat" or "incident." Let's see if that will work as a reasonable compromise. EditorASC ( talk) 22:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
In response to Editor EEng, and your editing comment of: " (doesn't matter exactly when and where she said it, nor her precise position, nor (when you think about it) her name; that she's in a position to make such a judgment is what matters)" AND "(And now we come to the heart of the problem: what do we call "It"? Well, she certainly called it a ditching)" [ [7]]
Those are not appropriate editing summary comments at all. To the contrary, the name and position of the NTSB Board member who functioned as the public spokes person in their news conferences related to this accident, is highly notable, relevant and proper information to include in the article, especially when she made a statement that was a real "attention getter."
I recommend you take a look at the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article and note how many times it mentions comments by Deborah Hersman, the public spokes person for the NTSB, during that accident investigation. Mentioning Higgins in this article, along with the actual comments she made, is quite consistent with the same format in the Asiana 214 article.
I am going to put that information back into the article. Please do not remove it again. I remind you that removing such legitimate, relevant and notable information from a Wikipedia article, without very good reasons, is often viewed as not being for a constructive purpose.
If you nevertheless insist upon decimating that information again, you should state clearly on this page why you don't think any kind of consensus is necessary. We are not here to make jokes out of the editing process. We are here to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. EditorASC ( talk) 15:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
An NTSB board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history.
An NTSB board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history. These people knew what they were supposed to do and they did it and as a result, no lives were lost.
Re this recent edit to the lead: The text says: ".. the crew made its first report after becoming airborne at 3:25:51" and "At 3:27:11 the plane struck a flock of Canada geese.." So that looks to me like 1 minute and 20 seconds later? Meanwhile, the main graphic gives "3.26 takeoff" and "Bird Strike 13:27:11" and that's actually only 1 minute and 11 seconds. Any suggestions? Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Who agrees it's time to take an axe to the popcult section? E Eng 22:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The goal of this article is not for it to be as short as possible. While the story summarizes as "A plane landed on water and all hands survived," there is more to the story.
It is a sad moment that I see all the vandalism to this article removing various referenced facts, especially those surrounding what firms and individuals performed the rescue.
Deleting the names and ages of the people involved, as well as quotes from the various air and sea pilots, reduces the quality of Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has its qualities, there are too many "deletionists" who seem to derive excessive self-pleasure from removing facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.215.141 ( talk) 15:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
In terms of the opening sentence, does this incident relate to an aircraft or a flight? Martinevans123 ( talk) 07:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
US Aurways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 which, on January 15, 2009, struck a flock of Canada geese...
US Aurways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 flight which, on January 15, 2009, struck a flock of Canada geese...
US Airways Flight 1549 was a flight in which, on January 15, 2009, an Airbus A320 struck a flight of Canada geese...
"Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article".(Emphasis in original.) Since "flight" is mentioned in the title, we should not repeat it in the first sentence. - BilCat ( talk) 21:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
^I would think that "US Airways Flight 1549 was operated by an Airbus A320-214 ...." appears a lot better than the current or alternate versions. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The World Cup was won by the members of the team competing for Brazilwhen you could simply say
Brazil won the World Cup. Everyone knows that the country of Brazil can't itself kick a ball, but they understand nonetheless. Operated by is excess verbiage that adds nothing to the reader's understanding, even if it does bolster airfans' warm inner glow at the feeling of having mastered industry lingo. E Eng 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Sidebar says destination was Sea-Tac: Seattle Tacoma. It was not It was Charlotte, North Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelschuyler ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Here, I've removed some content from the article and inserted a {{ fv}} tag. The direct quotes immediately preceding the tag aren't supported by the (moved) cite, and I don't have time to try to track down usable sources for those. The source does not support the removed content either. That content was:
A further simulation, conducted with the pilot delayed by 35 seconds, crashed.
... which doesn't seem to make sense. I'm guessing that this meant to say that the turn by the pilot was delayed, but some quick googling didn't turn up clarifying information, a quick look at earlier article versions (e.g., [10]) didn't clear this up and I don't have time to pursue this further just now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
As a first time reader of this article, I was left with a couple of unanswered questions. If you guys know the answers, you may want to consider adding this info to the article.
Hope that helps. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus against this proposed move ( non-admin closure) b uidh e 18:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
US Airways Flight 1549 → Miracle on the Hudson – This incident would seem to fall into an exception of the relevant naming conventions, as this incident has acquired an accepted popular name and therefore the article should have that name. I would argue more people recognize the proposed name than the flight number. Obviously, the issue is somewhat academic as both names will bring readers to the target article, and both are already present in the lead in bold font. There appears to have been some edit warring over the proposed title when the page was first being developed before settling on the current name. Now over a decade removed from the event, I think it would be appropriate to revisit the issue; I merely wish to generate discussion and consensus and would be fine with either title. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we at least mention that a few innocent geese had their lives taken by "hero" Sullenberger in this fateful event? These geese had families, and a bright future (that was not Rolls-Royce foie gras). 2600:1012:B027:972:28FE:1C8E:FCE:CBD0 ( talk) 17:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, one of my Facebook friends posted this in the past 24 hours.
https://www.facebook.com/flyhighdreamhigh3223/videos/826921944162133
I see a lot of external links, but is this something we can use here?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
US Airways Flight 1549 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about US Airways Flight 1549. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about US Airways Flight 1549 at the Reference desk. |
A news item involving US Airways Flight 1549 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 January 2009. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 15, 2011, January 15, 2016, January 15, 2019, and January 15, 2024. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
The Teamwork Barnstar | ||
I award the Teamwork Barnstar to all editors who have taken part in writing the US Airways Flight 1549 article so well and so quickly. A More Perfect Onion ( talk) 03:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
Here are some of the rescuer awards http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2009_02_01_archive.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.224.140 ( talk) 03:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
From http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/03/25/sully-dont-hang-up/
"Among the new information revealed: The impact with the water ripped open a hole in the underside of the airplane and twisting of the fuselage caused cargo doors to pop open, so the plane would have filled with water from the rear regardless of whether a passenger opened an escape door in the back of the cabin."
Maybe somebody can work this information into the article? Darrell_Greenwood ( talk) 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This section seems like what Wikipedia is not: A directory. It is not the goal of the encyclopedia to provide information on when programs were on about the incident. -- Izno ( talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I reading this article:
It's long seven page article, which should read it. So could use to filling the <ref></ref> tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
My addition of a reference to the Aug 8, 2009, plane crash in the Hudson 40 blocks from 1549 was deleted here with a summary saying that discussing all other accidents in the general area would make a mess of the article. A high percentage of the Aug. 8 articles make reference to 1549. It's not a common occurence for planes to go down in the Hudson. Americasroof ( talk) 21:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In reference to the below, the official report has now been released:
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf
Is there any notability for a quote by the Air Traffic Controller about how he felt after losing contact, in a newspaper article about the third anniversary? Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Article says
"aircrew began evacuating the 150 passengers, both on to the wings through the four mid-cabin emergency window exits ..."
This is sort-of incorrect.
Passengers leaving through the overwing exits were doing so of their own volition, whereas passengers leaving through the front exits (1L and 1R) were being instructed to do so by cabin crew. So the cabin crew weren't "evacuating passengers onto the wings".
Cabin crew evacuated the passengers through the front doors (doors 1L (yellow) and 1R (red) on the diagram on page 155 of the report cited below).
Some passengers chose to leave the plane through the overwing exits (blue and red on the diagram) - but they weren't instructed to do so by the cabin crew, and the overwing exits were opened by passengers rather than cabin crew. The emergency info cards showed that the overwing exits were not intended for use in a ditching (landing on water).
This is interesting and significant from a 'human factors' view of the accident, because the overwing exits were not equipped with liferafts. Passengers leaving through these exits were more likely to end up in the water, and therefore were at higher risk of drowning or hypothermia.
Some of the passengers who initially exited through an overwing exit later re-entered the plane in order to exit through 1L and 1R, and get to the liferafts.
Source: NTSB Survival Factors Group Chairman's Report (contains detailed witness statements from cabin crew and passengers) http://www.exosphere3d.com/pubwww/pdf/flight_1549/ntsb_docket/420151.pdf
e.g. page 101 (passenger 17B):
"He went up the aisle to the overwing exits and exited through the right side in row 10. He saw a slide behind the wing that was upside down. Passenger 14A and another man were trying to flip it over. He was freezing and water was coming over the top of the wing and he knew the situation was not good. He saw the slide/raft at door 1R and there was room in it. He turned around and went back to the overwing exits telling other passengers that there was room in the front right slide/raft. Almost everyone was out of the airplane and he estimated that he spent less than 30 seconds on the wing. He went inside, walked up the aisle, and saw the captain in the cockpit doorway. The captain instructed him not to jump into the slide/raft, just slide in. He believed several other passengers followed him and got into the slide/raft after he did. The ferries arrived and he yelled for them to get the people on the wings first."
-- 93.97.113.11 ( talk) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I strongly suggest omitting the private enthusiastic opinion of that NTSB board member, because he made it without any research. He was carried away by the moment.
How do you measure the degree of success of a ditching? If everyone survives, it is a perfect ditching, which cannot be topped. There is a number of at least equally successful ditchings in aviation history. Let me mention only two of them.
On 16-Oct-1956, a Pan American World Airways Boeing 377 "Stratocruiser" passenger plane ditched in the Pacific Ocean(!). The aft section of the fuselage broke off during the ditching, but the crew had anticipated that and moved all passengers to the forward cabin before landing on the waves. All passengers and crew members (31) survived unhurt and were rescued by a Coast Guard ship, which served as a weather ship at Ocean Station November between California and Hawaii.
On 21-Aug-1963, an Aeroflot Tu-124 passenger jet ditched on the Neva river in Leningrad (St. Petersburg). After the nose gear retraction actuator had detached during takeoff, the nose gear was dangling freely in an intermediate position. The airplane had been circling at 2,000 ft to quickly burn fuel in preparation for a landing on the gravel emergency strip at Leningrad airport, which was deemed less risky than a landing on a concrete runway. Since the fuel tank indicator was overreading at low fuel levels, the engines flamed out unexpectedly in short succession. When the second engine quit, Captain Victor Mostovoy decided quickly to land the airplane on the Neva river, where it splashed down only 14 seconds later. The airplane stayed intact and did not sink. All 52 occupants survived unhurt. Passengers remained seated(!) until the airplane had been towed ashore by a tug boat. (In 2009, Capt Sullenberger was not able to provide this high level of passenger comfort. :-) )
-- 195.246.100.57 ( talk) 14:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I updated the injury count that was here (2 serious, 3 minor) to the one in the NTSB report (5 serious, 95 minor, see http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf) but I noticed the other count was there for a while so I'm wondering if maybe there's a different source for that or you aren't using the NTSB classifications for injuries? Just want to make sure I'm changing this correctly, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.60.217 ( talk) 06:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
US Airways Flight 1549. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
US Airways Flight 1549. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Please could you review the criteria for inclusion of material as set out in WP:EP and linked policies, before deleting facts from this page? Like you, I am keen to make sure that articles are well written, properly copy edited, and don't contain information not appropriate to the topic. But where there is factual information relevant to the topic, that is neutral and verifiable, it should be included. In this incident the flying time of each engine and the various openings beneath the aircraft that might let in water are both relevant factual information that it is reasonable for an encyclopedia to include. Neither you or I could possibly imagine all the various reasons that might bring people to this page. Our mission is to present everything that is relevant, and to present it in the best way we can. IanB2 ( talk) 09:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The Airbus A320 has a "ditching" button that closes valves and openings underneath the aircraft, including the pressurization outflow valve, the ram air inlet, the avionics ventilation inlet and extract valves, and the pack flow control valves. It is meant to slow flooding in a water landing. Sullenberger later noted that it probably would not have been effective anyway, since the force of the water impact tore holes in the plane's fuselage much larger than the openings sealed by the switch.
The Airbus A320 has a control that closes valves and openings in the fuselage, in order to slow flooding after a water landing, but the flight crew did not activate it. Sullenberger later said this made little difference since the impact tore significant holes in the fuselage anyway.
If this could get to GA, it would make a great DYK:
Actually, what were they apologizing for? The geese? E Eng 22:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on US Airways Flight 1549. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'm thinking about taking this article to a possible GA or FA, using Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (an FA) as a point of reference. Here's what we may need to do:
If there are any other suggestions, please let me know here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 05:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. This article has been heavily copy edited by me and even more by User:EEng, and is hopefully in pretty good shape. I am not convinced the plane's prior history is of much significance given this was a bird strike that would have disabled pretty much any plane? I did review the investigation report some time back and think the principal recommendations are in the article; a further review and perhaps an itemised list wouldn't do any harm. The usual problem with leads is that editors try to pack too much in; I always saw the guidelines as maxima, and if we've said it all with fewer paragraphs, well, that's a bonus! Nevertheless we should check that the lead does cover all the most important points. MapReader ( talk) 14:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Nothing about this? I found it astonishing that crew members could behave in such a bigoted way in the 21st century. Even if you didn't it's surely worth mentioning. 105.228.103.17 ( talk) 17:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
In response to editor EEng:, who asked this question as he reverted [ [2]] my proper correction of a statement in the article, which was not accurate in the way it was quoted from the NY Post link citation that was used to support that statement:
My answer:
1) Here is the actual statement in the NY Post, which was used to support the somewhat different statement (which used quotation marks) in this Wiki article:
2) And, here is how the quotation was presented in this Wiki article, before I made a slight correction:
3) While it CAN be permissible to make only a partial quotation of some authoritative person being referenced in a reliable source news article, it is NOT proper to change wording in the Wiki article so as to make it appear that the authority person said something different than what he/she actually did say. Specifically, NTSB board member Kitty Higgins was NOT quoted as using the word "incident," -- which has an entirely different meaning than the word "accident," in all airliner accident investigations conducted by ICAO members. Thus, although probably done with good intention by the Wiki editor that constructed that line, it was not proper to imply (with the altered Wiki wording) that she referred to an airliner "accident," as an "incident." Doing so would have been highly unprofessional, considering her position as a member of the NTSB.
4) Here is my correction of that part of the Wiki article:
I used the word "feat," instead of "incident," because that is the word used by the writer of the NYPost (our RS) article. I also included "Thursday's" because that too is more accurate as to what the NYPost author said about Kitty Higgins' comments. I then went on to make one adjustment to the quotation itself, because it is obvious the NYPost writer made a typo by leaving out the word "as." I added that word in the proper way [within brackets] to indicate what was clearly implied by that quotation.
It appears to me, editor EEng, that your reversion of my proper correction of wording for that passage, was generated by an improper use of Twinkle. Please read the cautions given to those who use TW to find and revert deliberate vandalism.[ [3]] One of those cautions is:
"Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."
Your edit summary, given as the reason for reverting my proper correction of the wording, indicates you did not bother to read what the NYPost writer actually said about Kitty Higgins. Had you done so, you would have quickly understood why I made that revision and why it was proper. It appears you improperly relied upon TW to revert some alleged vandalism. If that is what caused you to revert my proper edit, then it is clear that TW was wrong in this case. EditorASC ( talk) 09:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the incident "the most successful ditching in aviation history."
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member said Thursday’s feat "has to go down [as] the most successful ditching in aviation history."
X said Y "has to go down [as] the most successful ditching in aviation history"
X called Y "the most successful ditching in aviation history"
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history"but that's awkward.) If you don't like that, you'll need to wait to see whether others are convinced by your wall of text above.
X said Y "has to go down as Z"is just a verbose way of saying
X called Y "Z"– they mean the same thing.
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history".
NTSB board member Kitty Higgins said Thursday’s feat "has to go down the most successful ditching in aviation history." But to Sullenberger and his brother pilots, it’s just another day’s work.
An NTSB board member said what the pilots did "has to go down [as] the most successful ditching in aviation history." The New York Post called it a "feat".We're not gonna do that, obviously. What do you think of my earlier proposal,
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history".
OK, try it your way. Fix it without using the words "feat" or "incident." Let's see if that will work as a reasonable compromise. EditorASC ( talk) 22:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
In response to Editor EEng, and your editing comment of: " (doesn't matter exactly when and where she said it, nor her precise position, nor (when you think about it) her name; that she's in a position to make such a judgment is what matters)" AND "(And now we come to the heart of the problem: what do we call "It"? Well, she certainly called it a ditching)" [ [7]]
Those are not appropriate editing summary comments at all. To the contrary, the name and position of the NTSB Board member who functioned as the public spokes person in their news conferences related to this accident, is highly notable, relevant and proper information to include in the article, especially when she made a statement that was a real "attention getter."
I recommend you take a look at the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article and note how many times it mentions comments by Deborah Hersman, the public spokes person for the NTSB, during that accident investigation. Mentioning Higgins in this article, along with the actual comments she made, is quite consistent with the same format in the Asiana 214 article.
I am going to put that information back into the article. Please do not remove it again. I remind you that removing such legitimate, relevant and notable information from a Wikipedia article, without very good reasons, is often viewed as not being for a constructive purpose.
If you nevertheless insist upon decimating that information again, you should state clearly on this page why you don't think any kind of consensus is necessary. We are not here to make jokes out of the editing process. We are here to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. EditorASC ( talk) 15:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
An NTSB board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history.
An NTSB board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history. These people knew what they were supposed to do and they did it and as a result, no lives were lost.
Re this recent edit to the lead: The text says: ".. the crew made its first report after becoming airborne at 3:25:51" and "At 3:27:11 the plane struck a flock of Canada geese.." So that looks to me like 1 minute and 20 seconds later? Meanwhile, the main graphic gives "3.26 takeoff" and "Bird Strike 13:27:11" and that's actually only 1 minute and 11 seconds. Any suggestions? Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Who agrees it's time to take an axe to the popcult section? E Eng 22:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The goal of this article is not for it to be as short as possible. While the story summarizes as "A plane landed on water and all hands survived," there is more to the story.
It is a sad moment that I see all the vandalism to this article removing various referenced facts, especially those surrounding what firms and individuals performed the rescue.
Deleting the names and ages of the people involved, as well as quotes from the various air and sea pilots, reduces the quality of Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has its qualities, there are too many "deletionists" who seem to derive excessive self-pleasure from removing facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.215.141 ( talk) 15:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
In terms of the opening sentence, does this incident relate to an aircraft or a flight? Martinevans123 ( talk) 07:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
US Aurways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 which, on January 15, 2009, struck a flock of Canada geese...
US Aurways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 flight which, on January 15, 2009, struck a flock of Canada geese...
US Airways Flight 1549 was a flight in which, on January 15, 2009, an Airbus A320 struck a flight of Canada geese...
"Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article".(Emphasis in original.) Since "flight" is mentioned in the title, we should not repeat it in the first sentence. - BilCat ( talk) 21:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
^I would think that "US Airways Flight 1549 was operated by an Airbus A320-214 ...." appears a lot better than the current or alternate versions. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The World Cup was won by the members of the team competing for Brazilwhen you could simply say
Brazil won the World Cup. Everyone knows that the country of Brazil can't itself kick a ball, but they understand nonetheless. Operated by is excess verbiage that adds nothing to the reader's understanding, even if it does bolster airfans' warm inner glow at the feeling of having mastered industry lingo. E Eng 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Sidebar says destination was Sea-Tac: Seattle Tacoma. It was not It was Charlotte, North Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelschuyler ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Here, I've removed some content from the article and inserted a {{ fv}} tag. The direct quotes immediately preceding the tag aren't supported by the (moved) cite, and I don't have time to try to track down usable sources for those. The source does not support the removed content either. That content was:
A further simulation, conducted with the pilot delayed by 35 seconds, crashed.
... which doesn't seem to make sense. I'm guessing that this meant to say that the turn by the pilot was delayed, but some quick googling didn't turn up clarifying information, a quick look at earlier article versions (e.g., [10]) didn't clear this up and I don't have time to pursue this further just now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
As a first time reader of this article, I was left with a couple of unanswered questions. If you guys know the answers, you may want to consider adding this info to the article.
Hope that helps. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus against this proposed move ( non-admin closure) b uidh e 18:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
US Airways Flight 1549 → Miracle on the Hudson – This incident would seem to fall into an exception of the relevant naming conventions, as this incident has acquired an accepted popular name and therefore the article should have that name. I would argue more people recognize the proposed name than the flight number. Obviously, the issue is somewhat academic as both names will bring readers to the target article, and both are already present in the lead in bold font. There appears to have been some edit warring over the proposed title when the page was first being developed before settling on the current name. Now over a decade removed from the event, I think it would be appropriate to revisit the issue; I merely wish to generate discussion and consensus and would be fine with either title. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we at least mention that a few innocent geese had their lives taken by "hero" Sullenberger in this fateful event? These geese had families, and a bright future (that was not Rolls-Royce foie gras). 2600:1012:B027:972:28FE:1C8E:FCE:CBD0 ( talk) 17:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, one of my Facebook friends posted this in the past 24 hours.
https://www.facebook.com/flyhighdreamhigh3223/videos/826921944162133
I see a lot of external links, but is this something we can use here?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)