Hudson River Accident - Case Study Example

Hudson River Accident Report On 15th January, us Airways flight 1549 that was travelling from LaGuardia to Charlotte lost its thrust midair and fell into the Hudson River. Despite this incident occurring midair and the plane coming down, all the 155 passengers survived this accident. It was established that the engine failure was caused due to the plane encountering some birds as it climbed higher after its take off. Analysis of some of the feathers from the crash site has confirmed that the birds that caused the crash were the Canada goose type. These birds are huge and weigh between 8 and 9 pounds each. This analysis was done by the Smithsonian National museum of natural history. The Airplane The airplane that was involved in the crash was an Airbus A320-200 that had been delivered to the United States airways company in 1999. As of the date of the accident, the plane had an accumulated 25241 flight hours and had completed 16299 total cycles. The Plane Engines The CFM International CFM56-5B4/P dual rotor turbofan plane engines were manufactured by the General Electric Company and Snecma in France (Copperwaite, 26). It had met all the joint aviation authorities’ standards and regulations and was certified as being safe for use. Both engines were manufactured separately and were installed on the plane on different days. At the time of installation, the left engine had an accumulated 19182 flight hours while the right had 17916, both of these had been maintained according to aviation regulations. the structure of the engine comprises an inlet area that has a ducted fan that is driven by a gas turbine, a low pressure compressor, a high pressure compressor, a combustor, a high pressure turbine, a 4 stage low pressure turbine and an exit exhaust nozzle. Bird Engine Certification Each of the engines on the plane had to have a bird injection engine certification. This test involves volleying of birds of various sizes into the engines of a plane during takeoff to determine the effects of such an event. In both these cases it was established that such a move could not lead to engine failure (NTSB, 16). Such a scenario is known as a bird strike and the engines are usually manufactured in a manner that ensures the plane is not damaged from such an incident. A report approved by the Federal Aviation Administration and the DGAC (Direction Generale de L’Aviation Civile) showed that the engines had passed all the required tests. In 2007 there was an amendment to these rules and a new class of rules was introduced to test the fan blades, this ensured there was a harmonization in the bird ingestion standards for turbine engines by the FAA and European Aviation Safety Agency. This was to be fulfilled by only new engines and by the time of the accident, these standards were not to be met by these planes’ engines. Airspeed displays The plane had primary flight displays that were fitted on the instrument panel where they could easily be accessed by either of the pilots. Each was bordered by an air speed scale. The airspeed scale shows the speed of airplane and other additional speeds such as the green dot speech, F speed, the alpha protection speed, the alpha maximum speed and the VLS speed which measures the stall speed. All the appropriate markings were available as per the requirements of the law. Flight Envelope Protections This type of plane is a fly-by wire airplane; the pilot control airplanes on the planes side sticks are processed by its control computers before the electrical signals are sent to the hydraulic actuators which control the roll and pitch flight control surfaces. These include the elevators, the ailerons and the spoilers (NTSB, 12). According to this design, there are flight envelope protections that prevent the safe flight envelope from exceeding required standards as long as the plane is in normal operating conditions. There are there control systems, the other two being the alternate and the direct law that depend on the peripherals, the computers and the hydraulic generation. The A320 has high –AOA protection that enables the pilot to maintain maximum performance and minimize of control all risks that might result to loss. Plane crew The captain of the plane was 57 year old Shully Shullenberger. Before flying for the airline, he was a pilot with the United States army and had attained an airplane transport pilot certificate in 2002 with the possibility of flying a wide range of planes such as the A320, Boeing 737, Learjet and McDonnell Douglas DC-9 planes. Until the accident the pilot had a total of 19663 hours with 4765 hours in A320 airplanes (NTSB, 7). According to his testimony, he was in good health and sober at the time of the accident. The first officer on this flight was 49 year old Jeff Skiles. As at the time of the accident, he had a total of 15643 flight hours (NTSB, 8). He had been awarded a multiengine ATP certificate and was able to operate various types of planes such as the Boeing 737, A320 and the Fokker 100. He had only had 37 hours in the A320 airplane before the accident. Both of these pilots had no accident history or had ever had their licenses revoked or suspended at any time. There were three flight attendants on board the plane and all had undergone extended overweight training with all receiving recurrent training in 2008. Accident Response There were 150 passengers on the plane who were instructed by the attendants on how to brace for the accident and upon impact they were quickly evacuated to the planes wings’ which acted as rafts. Upon the accident, the FAA activated a crash alarm and a request for emergency services was relayed to various emergency responses, the Fire department and Emergency Medical Services. Upon this notification seven NY vessels came to the scene of the accident and helped to evacuate the occupants of the airplane. A fire department ferry was also present at the scene of the accident. On their part, the air traffic controllers maintained the composure and attempted to guide the airplane to the nearest airport, the LaGuardia airport. All departures were stopped at the airport and other airports were also kept on call such as the Teterboro airport. The crew had undergone training on how to deal with dual engine failure during the initial training. They had undergone ditching training that enabled all the crew and the passengers have time to prepare for impact before an accident (NTSB,45). The report shows that the crew did not have adequate trainings in regards to visual illusions that would have best helped in such a scenario. Recommendations There were several recommendations that were made by the National Transport and Safety Board. Firstly, all aircraft have to receive certification to show their ditching parameters and that this is possible when the aircraft has lost power and does not require the pilot to use exceptional strength or skill. Secondly, manufacturers of turbine powered aircrafts are now required to develop new checklists and procedures for dual engine failures that occur at low altitudes. Lastly, there should be an amendment in the code of federal regulations in regards to the medium and small flocking bird certification test standards which require these tests to be conducted while also using the lowest expected fan speed instead of the normal tests that require the fan to be running at full power. Works cited Copperwaite, Paul. The Mammoth Book of Air Disasters and Near Misses. , 2013. Print National Transport Safety Board. "Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on thr Hudson River." AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT (2009): 5-213. Print. Read More