Aircraft noise in PGA golf tournaments

[Ferguson]

8 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Sully. So overrated.

 

Look at me, I landed a 747 in the river. Saved hundreds of people blah blah blah

 

 

🤣

 

An investigation showed he could have made to the airport. 

 

 

[sui generis]

34 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

An investigation showed he could have made to the airport. 

 

 

 

Old pilots know better than to try a 180* return.

[bscinstnct]

53 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

An investigation showed he could have made to the airport. 

 

 

 

But ya gotta give him credit for landing a jumbo jet on a river with a stewardess on his lap and while drinking a Campari. 

[Ferguson]

21 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Old pilots know better than to try a 180* return.

 

In those conditions, a 180 degree return is difficult but something that has been replicated in the simulator by several pilots.  Pilots practice this maneuver.  Landing in a river is not a common practice.  Had he avoided the birds, this would have never happened.  He got lucky. 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

Ha! I just remembered flying to Europe as a kid in the 70s and seeing people grooving in the lounge on the plane like

 

 

[sui generis]

26 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

In those conditions, a 180 degree return is difficult but something that has been replicated in the simulator by several pilots.  Pilots practice this maneuver.  Landing in a river is not a common practice.  Had he avoided the birds, this would have never happened.  He got lucky. 

 

 

 

I'm an "old pilot." I might have got away with it in my F4 or GV, but never in my MTOW Boeing or L-1011.

[Ferguson]

2 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

I'm an "old pilot." I might have got away with it in my F4 or GV, but never in my MTOW Boeing or L-1011.

 

Sully was operating an Airbus A320, a proven aircraft.   

 

 

[sui generis]

Just now, Ferguson said:

 

Sully was operating an Airbus A320, a proven aircraft.   

 

 

 

When you elect to argue with anonymous strangers on the internet, it should come as no surprise that once in awhile one of them has the knowledge and experience which outweighs what you think you know from having read about in a magazine. 😉

[Ferguson]

26 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

When you elect to argue with anonymous strangers on the internet, it should come as no surprise that once in awhile one of them has the knowledge and experience which outweighs what you think you know from having read about in a magazine. 😉

 

I am arguing with no one.  Simply stated, I do NOT support Sully's decision to dump in a river and therefore would not favor hearing his opinions when it comes to aircraft noise at golf events.   

 

 

Were you primarily involved with the investigation? 

Respectfully, just because a guy works in a foundry doesn't make him a metallurgist. 

[sui generis]

36 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

I am arguing with no one.  Simply stated, I do NOT support Sully's decision to dump in a river and therefore would not favor hearing his opinions when it comes to aircraft noise at golf events.   

 

 

Were you primarily involved with the investigation? 

Respectfully, just because a guy works in a foundry doesn't make him a metallurgist. 

 

I didn't work in the foundry. 🙂

[BNGL]

3 hours ago, Ferguson said:

 

In those conditions, a 180 degree return is difficult but something that has been replicated in the simulator by several pilots.  Pilots practice this maneuver.  Landing in a river is not a common practice.  Had he avoided the birds, this would have never happened.  He got lucky. 

 

 

Agreed he did get lucky, but that whole incident was kinda unprecedented. Sure flight crews have checklists for problems like dual engine flameout, but it’s meant to happen at cruising altitude not 3000 AGL, if they hit the birds earlier they probably blow up on impact with the ground because there’s no chance to work the problem. At that height they had enough to glide for a bit, while the NTSB simulations did show that a percentage of pilots were able to make it to LGA, once they factored in the human element of evaluating the problem, formulating a plan, and implementation of that plan, it was too late. Those that made it back, were turned around immediately. Ditching in the river was legit the absolute best option. Coming back to LGA would have been very tough to pull off, jet is full of fuel and without engines it probably overshoots and runs off creating other problems to people on the ground. Also not that this was in his mind, but a jet full of fuel will float for a bit (gas is lighter than water) ditching in the Hudson was close to multiple ferries, plus the A320 is rated for extended overwater operations which means it is stocked with a life vest and life rafts. 
 

long story short you’re cemented in your opinion of 1549, but it’s wrong… he got extremely lucky but ditching was the best option among bad options.

 

for the record my father was a pilot former Air Force, commercial aviator, and worked for Flight Safety. While every opinion is my own this one comes from questions I asked and answers I’ve researched. 

[MUNIGRIT]

4 hours ago, Ferguson said:

 

In those conditions, a 180 degree return is difficult but something that has been replicated in the simulator by several pilots.  Pilots practice this maneuver.  Landing in a river is not a common practice.  Had he avoided the birds, this would have never happened.  He got lucky. 

 

 

No and no. Commercial pilots do not practice this maneuver. Throw in the seconds you lose trying to figure out WTF happened he would have had a minimal chance. He made the right call. The whole goal is to save lives at that point and he sure did. Now you can question what type of guy he is and has parlayed the situation into a nice book deal, CNN job and critic of his Co workers if you want. Reading a bunch of your comments makes me realize you aren't much of a pilot if one at all.

[CaseyC]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sully_Sullenberger#:~:text=The National Transportation Safety Board ruled that Sullenberger made the,altitudes%2C not immediately after takeoff.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board ruled that Sullenberger made the correct decision in landing on the river instead of attempting a return to LaGuardia^[

[Ferguson]

1 hour ago, sui generis said:

 

I didn't work in the foundry. 🙂

 

You're alright by me. 

 

[Ferguson]

58 minutes ago, BNGL said:

Agreed he did get lucky, but that whole incident was kinda unprecedented. Sure flight crews have checklists for problems like dual engine flameout, but it’s meant to happen at cruising altitude not 3000 AGL, if they hit the birds earlier they probably blow up on impact with the ground because there’s no chance to work the problem. At that height they had enough to glide for a bit, while the NTSB simulations did show that a percentage of pilots were able to make it to LGA, once they factored in the human element of evaluating the problem, formulating a plan, and implementation of that plan, it was too late. Those that made it back, were turned around immediately. Ditching in the river was legit the absolute best option. Coming back to LGA would have been very tough to pull off, jet is full of fuel and without engines it probably overshoots and runs off creating other problems to people on the ground. Also not that this was in his mind, but a jet full of fuel will float for a bit (gas is lighter than water) ditching in the Hudson was close to multiple ferries, plus the A320 is rated for extended overwater operations which means it is stocked with a life vest and life rafts. 
 

long story short you’re cemented in your opinion of 1549, but it’s wrong… he got extremely lucky but ditching was the best option among bad options.

 

for the record my father was a pilot former Air Force, commercial aviator, and worked for Flight Safety. While every opinion is my own this one comes from questions I asked and answers I’ve researched. 

 

46 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

No and no. Commercial pilots do not practice this maneuver. Throw in the seconds you lose trying to figure out WTF happened he would have had a minimal chance. He made the right call. The whole goal is to save lives at that point and he sure did. Now you can question what type of guy he is and has parlayed the situation into a nice book deal, CNN job and critic of his Co workers if you want. Reading a bunch of your comments makes me realize you aren't much of a pilot if one at all.

 

 

It's easy to support Sully's decision after things turned out well.  

 

[bscinstnct]

Could have all been avoided if he didn’t run into the birds in the first place yo!

 

I thought pilots supposed the see good smh

[Soloman1]

Reading the Internet can make you stupid.

[oughtaquit]

This may be the strangest angry non-golf digression ever on WRX. 

[bscinstnct]

1 minute ago, oughtaquit said:

This may be the strangest angry non-golf digression ever on WRX. 

 

It will end up with…

 

18>15

 

; )

[Krt22]

I love how a 7 year old topic has been resurrected into an arm chair debate about landing commercial airliners in shallow bodies of water.

[MUNIGRIT]

22 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

 

 

It's easy to support Sully's decision after things turned out well.  

 

How many hours do you have?

[Krt22]

Here is a real question. Lets say we live in the a hypothetical world where an airport runway is instead a giant treadmill. Let's say this treadmill can match the speed required for an Airbus A320 to take off (~180mph). If the Airbus were to attempt to take off while the treadmill matched it's speed, but in reverse, what would happen? A) The plane would remain stationary B) The plane would take off. C) The plane would crash into the river at the end of the giant treadmill

Edited January 13, 2022 by Krt22

[thevaporz]

[TiScape]

I just hope they make a movie about Sully! Then I can watch it and make an educated assessment 😊

[Ferguson]

2 hours ago, MUNIGRIT said:

How many hours do you have?

 

Piloting or Posting here at WRX? 

[Ferguson]

2 hours ago, Krt22 said:

Here is a real question. Lets say we live in the a hypothetical world where an airport runway is instead a giant treadmill. Let's say this treadmill can match the speed required for an Airbus A320 to take off (~180mph). If the Airbus were to attempt to take off while the treadmill matched it's speed, but in reverse, what would happen? A) The plane would remain stationary B) The plane would take off. C) The plane would crash into the river at the end of the giant treadmill

 

What brand of treadmill? 

 

[Break68]

On 1/10/2022 at 3:28 AM, Ferguson said:

Often times you'll hear a Scorpion Attack Helicopter in the background.   It's one of the many security measures added since 2018.

This has got to be a joke!!

[TiScape]

16 minutes ago, Break68 said:

This has got to be a joke!!

[Krt22]

23 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

What brand of treadmill? 

 

Peloton, duh

[bscinstnct]

I got tone!