"The Flight crew did not activate the "ditch switch" during the landing."
Wikipedia
The function of the ditch switch is to close all external outlets and
openings in the event of a crash landing on water, to prevent the aircraft
from sinking too quickly. In all the coverage of the event immediately
afterwards, I never heard this mentioned even once. For all the
accolades Sullenberger received, he apparently forgot to do something
important: hit the ditch switch. Had there been loss of life, because
the aircraft sank quickly after ditching, and had the cargo doors not been
ripped open anyway, this fact would probably have been pivotal to our
assessment of Captain Sullenberger's performance.
It wasn't his only mistake: he initially gave Air Traffic Control the
incorrect flight number. None of this alters the fact that
Sullenberger performed extremely well doing the one thing he is really paid
to do: land the plane safely.
June 15: I just saw a documentary on Flight 1549 which noted the issue of
the "ditch switch" and claimed that the air plane was sinking quickly at
least partly because of that mistake.
May 18, 2009
I have not read anywhere that anyone thinks the crew of Flight 1549 should have
been able to avoid the flock of Canadian Geese. Can they do that? Do
they watch for flocks of geese, from the air traffic control tower for this
reason?
I do know that they do take some measures to discourage birds from hanging
around near the runways. Would that be the basis of a lawsuit? They
didn't do enough to stop the geese from flying into the path of an airliner?
Passengers who have received some of their
luggage say they are grateful, but not all of them are ready to absolve US
Airways of responsibility for injuries, emotional distress and losses they
claim to have suffered.
The airline’s insurance company, A.I.G. Aviation Adjustment Services,
has started offering each of the passengers $10,000 in exchange for agreeing
not to sue the airline, some passengers said. Ms. Lightner, who lives in
Tega Cay, S.C., said she had received a two-page contract from the insurer
but had not decided whether to sign it.
NY Times, May 18, 2009
Everybody has heard how the heroic captain, Chelsey Sullenberger, landed
his crippled Airbus A320 safely into the Hudson River, January 15 this year.
The Airbus320 struck some large birds-- Canada geese-- as it was taking off
from LaGuardia Airport, New York City. The geese were sucked into both
engines causing catastrophic failure. The jet was not high enough to
glide for any distance and, after a brief, hair-raising exchange with the
LaGuardia air controllers, Sullenberger safely glided the A320 to a landing
in the Hudson River. All passengers and crews were rescued by ferry
boats and other craft that reached the plane within four minutes.
Nobody is suing the geese.
The passengers have been offered $10,000 by the airlines. For what?
I don't know. It sounds to me very much like an accident.
Usually, passengers sue an airline if a plane crashes due to some
incompetence or negligence. On the surface, it appears, to the
contrary, that the cause of the crash was an unavoidable accident, that the
crash was not caused by any deficiency in the Airbus 320, and that the
crew of Flight 1549 performed extremely well. Who do you sue?
Well, if you're a lawyer, I imagine you could make the case that the
airline should be responsible for the general existence of risks and
accidents.
It doesn't seem to matter nowadays. For one thing, lawyers
seem to believe that every lawsuit, no matter how frivolous, should be
negotiated and settled with an undisclosed amount of cash and a
confidentiality agreement. This is usually cheaper than going to
court. The lawyers suing on behalf of the passengers know this and
hope to score a big fat settlement quickly and bloodlessly, because the
negotiators for the airlines are other lawyers.
All Contents Copyright
© Bill Van Dyk
2009 All Rights Reserved
Font: Verdana