Incredible. The pilots did an amazing job landing it on the water with everyone still alive, hats off to them.

the pilot reported a "double bird strike"

 

 

 

lol, double bird strike :lol:

 

Sounds like something off one of the Worms games. :lol:

It's pretty awesome how no one died...it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and the only injuries were impact related and also relating to hypothermia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason the plane floated was because all planes have shutoff valves(Like ships) that close off hollow areas in the underbody and seal the air inside so the compartments don't get flooded

They posted a video today on the New York Time's website of the plane crashing into the river caught by a US Coast Guard camera.

 

 

 

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/01/17/multimedia/1231545530718/coast-guard-video-of-plane-crash.html

They posted a video today on the New York Time's website of the plane crashing into the river caught by a US Coast Guard camera.

 

 

 

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/01/17/multimedia/1231545530718/coast-guard-video-of-plane-crash.html

 

 

 

Thanks. I've been looking for a video of it.

It's quite interesting, I saw in the news this morning that stocks for US Airways and several other airlines actually went UP after the crash. I'm no economist, can anyone explain how that happened?

 

I would guess because so many things went wrong (none of which where the carriers fault) and things still turned out very well. A plane crashes into a river and the worst injury is two broken legs? That says a lot about the planes and the people flying them. Airplanes are already incredibly safe, but this made them seem god-like.

Flew into a flock of birds apparently, no doubt will have been muslim birds.

 

LOL! :lol:

 

 

 

I think it's amazing that nobody died. Apparently the pilot's been given the 'key to New York' for it.

Very nice, better than a plane crash. Although way too close to where I live.

Heard about it, apparently it was supposed to land in the airport right across the highway from my highschool in Teterboro, NJ, but the pilot didn't think he'd make it or something, so he went for the next best option: on the Hudson River. I also heard he missed the G.W. Bridge by like 900 feet, which really isn't a lot, I seriously wish I saw it.

 

 

 

And also, it wasn't a "crash", it was more of a landing since the plane hit the water similar to how it would land in an airport. The plane remained in tact, and no one was hurt, which already tells you it wasn't much of a crash.

 

 

 

Regardless, kudos to the Pilot.

Heard about it, apparently it was supposed to land in the airport right across the highway from my highschool in Teterboro, NJ, but the pilot didn't think he'd make it or something, so he went for the next best option: on the Hudson River. I also heard he missed the G.W. Bridge by like 900 feet, which really isn't a lot, I seriously wish I saw it.

 

 

 

And also, it wasn't a "crash", it was more of a landing since the plane hit the water similar to how it would land in an airport. The plane remained in tact, and no one was hurt, which already tells you it wasn't much of a crash.

 

 

 

Regardless, kudos to the Pilot.

Plus the plane was designed to float, but people were hurt. People weren't killed, but I heard a guy broke both his legs?

The plane didn't crash.

 

 

 

The pilot was in full control over the plane. That's not a plane crash.

A crash doesn't have to cause severe damage. A crash technically means landing in an abnormal way.

A crash doesn't have to cause severe damage. A crash technically means landing in an abnormal way.

hardly. Yes, technically the 5th definition on dictionary.com says that, but it also says usually causing severe damage, to break or fall to pieces with noise, or to make a loud, clattering noise, as of something dashed to pieces. As far as I know, the plane was completely intact and smoothly landed in the water

But in general people would call it a crash.

An aviation accident [crash] is defined in the International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 13. It is roughly defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, in which a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure and/or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

 

I would say that qualifies as a crash. Just because everyone in a 10 mile radius didn't die in a fiery explosion doesn't mean it wasn't a crash. :roll:

Common sense would call it a crash, was the intended landing area for the end of the flight the river? No, did a person break 2 legs in the "landing"? Yes.

 

 

 

It wasn't the intended landing zone, easily could have been much worse and 2 legs were broken as a result. Pretty sure that counts as a crash. Shame how TIF has become this pessimistic were arguing about this.

Common sense would call it a crash, was the intended landing area for the end of the flight the river? No, did a person break 2 legs in the "landing"? Yes.

 

 

 

It wasn't the intended landing zone, easily could have been much worse and 2 legs were broken as a result. Pretty sure that counts as a crash. Shame how TIF has become this pessimistic were arguing about this.

 

But what pisses me off is when people try to say it was a crash for dramatic effect, as if hundreds of of people died in a fiery explosion. Its being called a crash by the media to get attention, when it really wasn't severe or dangerous at all compared to a typical crash.

Actually, I read somwhere that something like a third of the people on the plane didn't even got wet when it "hit the water".

 

 

 

When they opened up the doors water gushed in and the plane did start to sink into the river. The point is not that it was a crash or not its that the people made it out alive from this dangerous scenario. The plane clearly took damage when the claimed birds flew into the engine making the pilot land in the river to save life's. In relation to the media what sounds better, "Plane crashes into Hudson." or "Plane lands into Hudson." I think the choice is pretty clear on which option you would choice if you were to title the article. Crash indicates that there was something wrong with the plane, where land could come off as a sea plane landed there was nothing wrong with the plane, and at the time of the articles release it wasn't 100% if there were any casualties.

Pilot was a brillant airman. And was a miracle, no on on board hurt.

 

Brillant piece of airmanship. This has only been dont once before.

 

Ditching is not taught in flying schools instis.

 

Nose needed to be perfectly level, and he needed to reduce speed immeadiatley.

 

Kudos to the man.

 

 

 

EDIT: Spell check.

They should make an "Air Crash Investigation" Episode because from whta I hear the landing was pretty epic.

Crash=/=land.A crash involves smashing,and actual sound effects.

 

 

 

Like "lasers"?They go pew pew pew.You sit on lasers in churches.

Jesus Christ, how does no one die in a plane crash.

 

Boeing kicks [wagon], that's why!

 

 

 

Go airplanes! I have to get hyped up because I'm going to be flying (alone) a lot next summer.

 

 

 

I'm scared :c

 

 

 

Hi Lenty. Good luck on your flying and such.

 

 

 

I was skiing when this happened. I don't know the details, but it was pretty close to me. My friend's mom saw it happen. From what I hear, the landing was spectacular, and the pilot was a hero.

Plus the plane was designed to float, but people were hurt. People weren't killed, but I heard a guy broke both his legs?

 

 

 

...But he's alive :? I know I'd rather break both legs than crash into a building or something.