Flight 1549 crash flight path

(version with '2009' and final ping corrected to 3:31 pm at www.flickr.com/photos/imjustsayin/3201623730/)

Approximate flight path of US Airways Flight 1549 prior to crash / water landing on the Husdon River in New York City on January 15, 2008.

Discussion of the flight path, the "ditch switch", and where will the plane be moved to for the NTSB investigation at imnotsayin.blogspot.com/2009/01/us-airways-fight-1594-cra...

Map compiled using tracking data from flightaware.com, mapped onto Google Maps.

Note that the plane GAINED 100 FEET of altitude after pilot centered on the river in preparation for water landing. Was one of the engines still working?

PDF of map above available on request.

To take full advantage of Flickr, you should use a JavaScript-enabled browser and
install the latest version of the Macromedia Flash Player.

Comments

sxates says:

Gained altitude, but lost speed.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

Orin Zebest says:

January 15, 2009.

I do that too, every new year. Best be presentable if you're gonna be on all the world's blogs today.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

MHBster says:

I live in Washington Heights and heard the plane as it passed (north to south) over my apartment building. I had never heard any plane make those kinds of awful sounds before. I knew something very bad was happening. The engines sounded very very very distressed (and sounded very close). I looked out my window as the sound got really loud but i think it went just over or just west of the building so I couldn't see anything. But the sound was terrifying.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

Jeremy C. says:

In a nutshell, as long as you're above the stall speed, you can gain altitude without having power. You lose speed as you climb, though.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

Clashmaker says:

Anybody knows the acft's US' 'N'#?
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

Mithras_99 says:

Last ping is timestamped 3:21. I think you mean 3:31.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

scott4long says:

The gain in altitude + loss of speed are either because the pilot deliberately trimmed he airplane up to bleed speed, or because he lowered the flaps. Both actions are a normal part of landing an aircraft, and both actions can result in a minor gain in altitude while the aerodynamic forces rebalance themselves, so both are plausible explanations. I have no information on how the plane was configured when it landed in the water, but given that it landed at a pretty typical landing speed for an airliner, it was likely that the flaps were down. Hope this helps explain the mystery.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

twomets says:

The tail number is N106US (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Fligh t_1549).
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

BCPipes says:

Nice work. I wonder if Sullenberger momentarily contemplated bringing it in on Harlem River Dr.?
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

k-ideas says:

Thanks for posting your plot of the flight path.

P.S. Minor typo: Mithras_99 had pointed out this typo re the timestamp already.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

i'mjustsayin says:

Thanks for catching the typos...put this together in a hurry! Corrected version posted at www.flickr.com/photos/imjustsayin/3201623730/ Feel free to reuse / repost this graphic.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

Clashmaker says:

twomets,
thank you for the 'Tail #" info.
Last summer we went through Charlotte on the way to Costa Rica (on US Airways' A-319). Here's a picture taken inside concourse 'D' at Charlotte

Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

jagenigma says:

I thought that it came within 900 feet from the top of the George washington bridge.
Anyways, it probably gained altitude because the pilot probably lowered the flaps. When the flaps are lowered, they cause the plane to lose speed due to more lag being introduced and gain altitude because lowering the flaps introduces more lift.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

petroeljed says:

@BCPipes

I doubt he was thinkinh of using Harlem River Drive. He was trying to make it back to LaGuardia, but realized he wouldn't make it, so opted for the river- no ground fatalities possible, no buildings in the way, probably a softer landing, too.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

Li'l Wink says:

I was at 170 and Fort Washington when it went over. I did not see it but sure sounded like it had some power.
Posted 10 months ago. ( permalink )

Would you like to comment?

[?]

	i'mjustsayin's photostream
		2,767 uploads

9 people call this photo a favorite

Additional Information

Some rights reserved Anyone can see this photo

Taken on January 15, 2009
Viewed 20,243 times

Add to your map

Yay location removed

...

(Some formats are OK.)

Or, remove it from the map.

Go to the map

You	Sign in \| Create Your Free Account
Explore	Places \| Last 7 Days \| This Month \| Popular Tags \| The Commons \| Creative Commons \| Search
Help	Community Guidelines \| The Help Forum \| FAQ \| Sitemap \| Get Help

Flight 1549 crash flight path

Comments

sxates says:

Orin Zebest says:

MHBster says:

Jeremy C. says:

Clashmaker says:

Mithras_99 says:

scott4long says:

twomets says:

BCPipes says:

k-ideas says:

i'mjustsayin says:

Clashmaker says:

jagenigma says:

petroeljed says:

Li'l Wink says:

Would you like to comment?

i'mjustsayin's photostream

Tags

Additional Information