I appreciate this post by Dan.  He was able to disagree with my opinion and state his opinion is a nice way and I see his points. 

I did, however, get a few "offline" emails where I got slammed simply for stating an opinion.  I never said the accident was avoidable.  I said it "may" have been avoidable.   We are all thankful for the way it turned out.  I personally know 2 people on the flight and can tell you they are thankful. 

I am proud of the pilot for making decisions and going with them.   I am also thankful this happened in the Hudson whereby boats were standing by and were seconds away.  Had this happened in the middle of Lake Superior, no matter how smooth the water landing, rescue boats would not be standing by.  Then Rose (on the Titanic) who said she'd "never let go" of Jack - would let go. 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I welcome anyone's opinion because I learn from all of them.   But, if you don't agree with my opinion, please do it nicely like Dan Schaefer just did, and state yours.   If you don't like my opinion, instead of slamming me, just hit delete!!   I'm really a nice guy and love constructive discussion. 

I guess my point is to let people say whatever they want.  If you slam them and have mean intentions, they will be less likely to post in the future when their experience or opinions may really be most valuable by sharing.

Matt

P.S.  I know the Airbus was flying around 250 mph and the birds were going about 7 mph - so c'mon - it is really a "bird strike?"  :)  Who really struck who?

All I'm really saying is please - lighten up.  It's good news for a change!!

 

Dan Schaefer <dfs155@roadrunner.com> wrote:

I seldom comment on such things on the list as it falls into the realm of
speculation about what might have been, but (you knew that was coming) I
have to respectfully disagree with Matt Reeves in some respects.

In many instances, by the time a pilot becomes aware of a flock of birds -
even as large as geese - the mass of an airplane as large as an airliner
precludes the sudden evasive action required to miss them even if you know
which way to jink - you just can't escape physics. Couple that with the
facts that the first few minutes immediately following takeoff is a high
work-load flight regime, birds are difficult to see against a city
background and unlikely to maintain a constant course once they get near an
airplane in their vicinity, making awareness and avoidance even more
problematic.

The old saw that birds will generally dive or climb to avoid an airplane on
a collision course is in most cases merely wishful thinking. Flying for many
years in the LA basin (with way too many seagulls near the airports) I've
had them fold up their wings and drop right toward me when I was sure I had
them cleared or just scatter - great if you're an adrenalin junkie but lousy
for a pilot. Ask the crew of one of our B-1's that scooped up a flock of
migrating geese back in the 60's - they were at a relatively high cruise
altitude and the geese took the bomber down. The B-1 is agile enough to do
consecutive aileron rolls but sudden flight-path changes, severe inough to
miss a bunch of geese, ain't gonna happen due to it's mass. Same thing for a
loaded Airbus 320.

I doubt if the flight crew on the USAir Airbus had much of a chance of
missing them. More a case of extremely bad timing, in my view. A few minutes
earlier or later and the birds would have likely not been in thier way.

Regards,

Dan Schaefer
LNC2 N235SP



--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 5.8 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 443 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message



--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html