A USA Airways plane crashed into the Hudson River a couple days ago. So what is our interest you are wondering? BU family member X is wondering why is there no video of the crash considering that the Hudson River is located in a corridor for air travel which has become very famous (911).
What is it with the BU family and conspiracy theories on Saturday mornings?
Not sure if it will take Micro Mock Engineer to debunk this theory or if Green Monkey, Bush Tea will be their predictable selves and come to the defense of BU family member X. Whatever transpires, as is the norm on Saturday mornings, we anticipate some interesting exchanges :-).
Barbados Underground 
X, u been drinking?!!
Faking a plane crash in the middle of Manhattan would require waaaaaaayyyy too many paid and very talented actor-witnesses. There is no question about whether or not the plane failed and was skillfully ditched. But there may be questions about the geese.
The people conducting the forensics are clearly following talking points on “what went right” and are carefully avoiding any discussion about the black box, stating that other pieces of the plane need to be recovered first. Some safety authorities have, however, mentioned that geese have not yet been officially confirmed as the source of mechanical failure.
To speak the unspeakable… If there was a human hand in the engine failure, then it could have been an attempted act of terror.
The real question would then become whether it was an unsuccessful attempt by foreign-based terrorists or, perhaps, a final grasp at power through martial law.
I do believe in looking forward, though, with the confidence that we are a much safer world already <3<3<3
Where are the 2 engines? Where are the surveilance camera videos? Why haven’t we seen the pilot and crew answering questions?
And why does Airbus say – on their website – “it is practically impossible for ingested birds to shut down an engine” and “if one engine shuts down the other is quite capable of maintaining the plane on its intended course” and “the Airbus 320 can land without difficulty on one engine.”
Santa Klaus,
It is simple. The 2 engines broke off because the water was almost feezing and that would have been expected on impact. We have to thank God that the plane did not disintegrate. You expect the crew to answer questions when they haven’t spoken to the NTSB yet? There is something called protocol. Come on. Be real. Are you aware that bird strikes are regular occurrences at La Guardia Airport? Are you aware that there were 7600 bird strikes in 2007? There is no conspiracy here. This was just a freak accident where both engines sucked in geese and shut down.
At about the two minute mark you can see US Air Flight 1549 skid into the Hudson. Then, you can see the passengers climb out onto the wings. This video is 10 minutes long. Actual video of Flight 1549 skidding into the Hudson.
For your information, there IS a video and pictures of the crash… I’ve seen them several times on both CNN and Fox.
Of course, people like to believe in credulous theories… it gives them a little perk from the daily hum-drum… like “Jesus coming again soon….” etc. etc.
Here is one video that shows the plane impacting the water, but it is a long distance shot and the airbus is just a small white line kicking up some spray. Check the left side of the video at the 2 minute mark.
After the impact the camera zooms in and you can see evacuating passenger standing on the wing.
Video here too. Maybe same as Green Monkey?
@ Tony Hall
There are thousands of bird strikes every day. At most airports in the world near large stretches of water. But modern engines are designed to mash-up the birds and continue flying that’s why there are practically no air disasters caused by birds.
That’s in one engine. The chances of two engines going at the same time due to birds is in the zillions to one range.
Despite the two grainy videos here – not shown on CNN or FOX – the question remains why there’s no better video since every Manhattan and New Jersey high-rise building now has 24/7 surveillance TV since 9/11.
So what was the true story here, OYGO?
I would wonder where the feds were–and the F-16’s.The minute that plane was detected so low they should have been on the scene. It is a bit of a 9/11 scenario low flying plan over the Hudson. And again what are the chances of both engines being hit by the geese at the same time?
@ juris – for two engines to go out at the same time – sabotage. (Terrorism?)
Half the passengers on the plane were Bank of America executives returning to their Charlotte N.C. HQ after receiving a bail-out that same mrning.
“The U.S. Treasury, U.S. Federal Reserve, FDIC’s joint decision Friday to inject $20 billion into the Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and guarantee $118 billion in assets provides another case study. Bank of America’s shares fell 80 cents to $7.52 in Friday afternoon trading.”
what does this have to do with barbados and bajans?
why wunnah airing wunnah mout bout something wunna dont know bout- as usual?
As Chris H always reminds us there is nothing with asking WHY.
One of the benefits of the Internet is that the question WHY can be addressed by people in the know.
@another view
Last time we checked Bajans were not living in a shoe box 🙂
@Tony Hall
Thanks for the email we will have a read!
Haven’t heard anything yet that would cause me to be overly suspicious that this was anything more than a bird strike, although apparently there were a whole bunch of Bank of Amercia executives on the flight. Of course the preliminary information available is still very sketchy as to what actually occurred.
However, if there was something more sinister behind it, don’t expect to hear about it on the nightly news or read about it in the pages of the NY Times or Washington post.
Snip from an interview with Kristina Borjesson editor of “Into the Buzzsaw”:
“Half the passengers on the plane were Bank of America executives returning to their Charlotte N.C. HQ after receiving a bail-out that same mrning.”
Conspiracy: A warning from God!
hi,
I found this latest video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7835497.stm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/16/brace_for_impact/
‘I am certainly glad that pilot Chesley Sullenberger was at the helm. Like so many pilots at American Airlines, he’s an ex-fighter pilot. He’s also a consultant in aircraft and airline safety and the former safety chairman for the Airline Pilots Association. And, perhaps most importantly, he’s a glider pilot in his private life.
The fact that he was an expert pilot with gliding skills was key, as was having a great co-pilot, Jeff Skiles (a 23-year US Airways veteran) and a fast-acting flight attendant crew.’
—————————–
One of the major contributing factors to the success of the landing was in the design of the engines. They are designed to ‘snap off’ on impact without affecting the integrity of the wing.
Good update – http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/video-captures-jet-splashing-down-in-hudson/?
And the plane lost only the left engine. The right engine is still attached.
Just for the record, I am a retired Air Canada captain with just under 23,000 hrs experience. Of those 23,000 hours, some 4,000 hours are on Airbus aircraft [A319/320/330/340].
What Airbus Industrie allegedly states, quoted by Santa Klaus, about the impact of birds being “practically impossible” to shut down an engine is inaccurate. Most testing is done with frozen chicken carcasses, not with fully grown Canada geese. I can assert, without any fear of contradiction, that if an A320, the type that US Airways 1549 was flying, hit a flock of Canada geese and the birds were ingested into the engines, the first thing that would happen is that the turbine blades in the fan-stage would either have separated or have been twisted by the impact. Furthermore, as the debris continued through the core of the engine, the turbine blades would have been severely damaged by the bones and gristle. This in turn would have caused an immediate and severe over-temperature condition and vibration, something like when a washing-machine got out of balance on the spin-dry cycle and begins to vibrate violently. This in turn would have registered on the ECAM [Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring] in the flight deck as either an “Overtemp,” “High Vibration,” or “Engine Fail” condition, all of which require an immediate shutdown of the affected engine[s] to remove fuel from the engine[s] which would continued to be injected and ignited until the Fuel Control Switch was moved to the OFF position.
A dual engine failure, which I have practised in the simulator many times, would cause the immediate deployment of the emergency Ram Air Turbine [RAT], but in the video the RAT does not appear to be deployed. This leads me to believe that either the crew were able to start the APU [Auxiliary Power Unit], or that one or both engines were at idle power. I would suspect the former, but I will not speculate further.
A jet turbine engine is such a finely-tuned machine that although, in theory, the ingestion of a foreign object into the engine may not cause an immediate and catastrophic failure of the engine, the most likely scenario is that which I mentioned above: overtemp, high vibration resulting in the shutdown of the engine to avoid fire and possible uncontained explosion. The engine pylons functioned as they were supposed to, to shear off on impact.
All foregoing is by way of explanation and is my own hypothesizing of the incident, based on my experience as a captain of Airbus A320 aircraft. We will have to wait for the accident report to get the definitive reason.
Meantime, great credit goes to the Captain, the First Officer and the Flight Attendants for saving 155 lives. They simply did what their training and experience had prepared them for. Outstanding work.
One final thought. Having been on the receiving end of several bird-strikes during my career, I can state definitively that there is nothing quite so terrifying, and one that gives such a feeling of helplessness, as a bird strike. To be the victim of multiple geese-strikes in a single incident is unimaginable.
Happy New Year to all BU readers!
At last !
A comment from some one that actually knows what he is talking about……..instead of all the stupid talk by folk who know absolutely nothing about the issue.
Thanks Ian
Thanks AV!
I actually had a turbine blade separate from the turbine in flight and it acted like a bird-strike: it went through the engine and cleaned it out like a knife through butter. The results were immediate and spectacular: compressor stalls [2] which felt and sounded like major explosions. The violent yawing of the aircraft was unbelievable. Fortunately, my co-pilot was a cool-as-ice Bahamian [nickname “Conchman”], and we shut the engine down immediately, and landed safely and uneventfully on one engine.
I would not be surprised if the geese-strike on the US Airways A320 was immediately followed by violent compressor stalls, in which case an immediate engine shutdown would have been required. But that is speculation.
My incident was on a Boeing 767-300 with Pratt and Whitney engines.
All the Best,
IE.
Fox News ~ http://www.foxnews.com/
Stunning Video of Plane CrashSurveillance camera captures US Airways jet making ‘miracle’ landing in the Hudson River. | PHOTOS | VIDEO
@IE
Thanks for your terrific insights.
Could you tell us in the instances you have described what would be the state of the passengers on descent.
Thank You Mr. Edghill! I was killing myself laughing at the “Big Conspiracey” experts. Bring on the NEXT conspiracey please do…..omg……killin muhself here.
Hello David!
I would only be speculating as to the state of the passengers on descent on board the US Airways flight, but in my particular incident that I described above, after the initial shock of the compressor stalls, which can be very dramatic, all of the passengers on my flight were very cool. One passenger even described to one of my flight attendants what he had seen since he was looking out the window at the very moment it occurred.
Once we had completed the emergency procedures and secured the aircraft, I made a PA announcement which stated briefly that we had had an engine failure and the engine was now shut down, that the thrust-to-weight ratio of the Boeing 767-300 was one of the best in the industry and the aircraft was entirely capable of flying comfortably on one engine [note the positive terminology], and that we were returning to Montreal and would be landing in 25 minutes. During that time I was communicating with the Purser frequently and he advised that the passengers were all very calm.
After landing, I was at the door to speak to all the passengers as they deplaned and I saw no evidence of fear or trauma. They were all very calm and collected.
Part of every such incident is an immediate crew de-briefing, and the flight attendants all said that the passengers were cool, no problem. Everything went so well that all I could find to mention to my cool-as-ice co-pilot “Conchman” was that his initial comments when the compressor stalls occurred were non-standard: he had said, “Wha’ de a$$ dat wuz skippah?” [in a strong Bahamian accent]. We both had a good laugh over that. “Conchman” is now a captain himself.
Once you get over the initial shock, the “this-can’t-be-happening-to-me” stage [usually lasts about 1-2 seconds], training and experience take over and you do what you’re trained to do.
Being an airline pilot has been defined as hours and hours of sheer boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror! I would speculate that events on board AWE 1549 occurred so rapidly that no one, least of all the pilots, had too much time to think of anything other than getting that airplane down safely. After all, the first rule of aircraft emergency handling is AVIATE – NAVIGATE – COMMUNICATE. From all accounts it seems that everything was done textbook style, or rather SOP [Standard Operations Procedures] style. Kudos to all concerned!
Pied Piper, you’re welcome!
Best to all,
IE.
@ PiedPiper – there’s no doubt an Airbus landed on the Hudson River yesterday. There’s even a strong possibility geese disabled one engine.
But please don’t kill yourself laughing until we know why the second engine failed. (It’s still attached to the wing.) And the original question on this post is still not answered. Why no real video of the crash? All we see is grainy footage taken from a distance.
Somewhere there is video as clear as if Hollywood shot it. Why aren’t we seeing it?
What difference will it make when we know why the second engine failed?
So its still attached to the wing. So what? What do you know about planes? Do you more than IE?
Why should there be a video of the crash? How will that make a difference? The video will show what? that the plane was descending and crashed?
Has it occured to you that the reason that you are only seeing grainy footage taken from a distance is because thats all that is available?
Why should any clear video be made available to satisfy the whims and fancies of aviatin illiterates like yourself?.
How do you know that somewhere there is video as clear as if Hollywood shot it? Did you shoot it? Did you see someone shoot it?
hahahohhhh Lord….too funny…..keep those conspiraceys coming …….
All Bonny kno’ is dat I plannin a trip to U-York a lil’ lata wid de fam-bily an’ dis incident in de Hudson got Bonny shiv’rin. De ol’ hart can’ tek na kine a drama a’ tall. Ef I did pun dat plane, de announcement to ‘brace fa impact’ alone wudda bus’ me ol’ hart. Lord a mercy.
Anyway, God bless de Pilot, de crew and mostly de passangers. It cudda bin any a we.
Never believe anything you’re told by anyone after a passenger plane crashes.
On November 12 2001 American Airlines Flight 587 crashed in Belle Harbor, Queens, killing 265 people.
Eyewitnesses say they saw the plane explode in flames before its tail sheared off.
At the time many people who saw the incdent accused crash investigators of ignoring their eyewitness accounts and prematurely ruling out a terrorist attack.
Ultimately however, the government blamed the crash on pilot error and improper pilot training.
After releasing an intermediate report blaming structural wing failure which they later retracted.
As for the relevant witness accounts, they were all but ignored.
Whether or not terrorists brought down Flight 587, the near unanimous dismissal of the idea by all relevant government agencies is troublesome for two reasons: 1) that no sufficient analysis of the wreckage had yet begun; and 2) that many witnesses reported seeing an airborne explosion before the crash.
Since that first day, the mainstream media has more or less reported uncritically on the crash and the government’s investigation. However some (most notably former NTSB board member Dr. Vernon Grose) have spoken out against the government’s quick thinking. The website USRead.com has been following the case closely and contains original research and analysis from independent experts. USRead concludes that there is more to the crash than the government is admitting.
From reviewing the official eyewitness reports, USRead reported that most of the witnesses who were looking at Flight 587 before its fateful descent saw an explosion or fire on the aircraft prior to any other signs of distress. Some saw objects separate from the plane, one part striking the tail section and ripping it off.
And never forget these are the people who insist a large passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon on September 11 2001.
Wolf, if memory serves me correctly, the cause attributed to the AA crash in Queen’s was extreme manual inputs to the rudders by the co-pilot, who was the pilot-flying.
I believe what happened was that they encountered wake-turbulence from a preceding aircraft and the AA aircraft yawed violently. The co-pilot applied immediate and, the investigators surmised, excessive rudder-pedal force which over-stressed the vertical stabilizer [tail], causing it to separate from the aircraft. Control was lost and the aircraft crashed.
After the crash, Airbus issued an airworthiness directive recommending that all crews apply firm but not excessive rudder-pedal inputs when attempting to recover from unusual flight attitudes.
IE,
Was the cause of the turbine blade failure determined? Fatigue or stress corrosion?
Did you ever fly the famous Gimli Glider?
MME, the cause was metal fatigue.
I flew the famous “Gimli Glider,” fin #604, many times, both as co-pilot and as captain. She didn’t suffer any after-effects and flew beautifully, like all of Mr. Boeing’s products!! She was recently retired to the ‘boneyard’ at Marana, Arizona but on her last flight they reunited Captain Bob Pearson and F/O Maurice Quintal and they were on board for her last flight, flown by a good friend of mine, Capt. Jean-Marc Belanger.
All the Best!
IE.
The first official reaction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane.html?
Thanks for sharing those experiences IE.
The Gimli Glider story is fascinating. Here is part of a NG documentary and dramatization of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaHtgpJv9e8
The similar story of Air Transat 236 that ran out of fuel half-way across the Atlantic is equally fascinating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7pbYkVe4e4&feature=related
It all seems such a PERFECT, landing that, in these days of amazing occurances, ANYBODY could be forgiven for having their suspicions! However, suspicion alone is n’t proof that anything untoward, occured and, I daresay, it’ll all ‘come out in the wash’ i.e. during the investigation, or not?!!
Meanwhile, hail Captain Sullenberger!!
@Captain Edghill et al
Please confirm that flying in slide mode is part of a commercial pilot’s training.
don’t you mean “glide”??
Hi Iain, have you checked out PilotsFor911Truth.org?
Here are just a few of their members:
After a FOIA request, PF911Truth got the raw flight data recorder released to them from the NTSB for AA Flight 77, the one that allegedly hit the Pentagon, and they say the data as per what was released to them does not corroborate the official “conspiracy theory” as to the aircraft’s flight path into the side of the Pentagon. One of the most glaring and obvious anomalies seems to be that the flight path as per barometric altimeter and radar altimeter data would have put the aircraft much too high to have taken out the lampposts on the highway before it hit the Pentagon building.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4801
David, part of the training from Private Pilot’s Licence standard onwards includes what is called “forced landings.” IOW, for whatever reason, the aircraft is no longer powered and the pilot has to find a place to get it on the ground before it stalls and spins in.
The idea is to set up a “glide path” and pick your landing spot. You have to trade height for speed, but you have to keep the speed above the stall speed.
In the case of the Gimli Glider, Capt. Pearson had plenty of altitude which he “traded” to keep the speed at a minimum. He was able to make it to Gimli. In Capt. “Sully’s” case, he did not have the altitude [the highest the aircraft got on the airport tracking readouts was 3100 ft], so he had to look for a suitable landing zone immediately which, in his judgement, and I think it was the absolutely right decision, was the Hudson River.
It seems that he too, like Capt. Bob Pearson, had flown gliders so that helped immensely.
Make no mistake about it, however, a total power loss on a commercial aircraft is a catastrophic event, and that makes the outcome of the US Airways Flight 1549 even more miraculous.
Best to All,
Iain Edghill.
The plane in question was hit by a U F O
Asiba!! Stop being silly!!
LOL!!
GM, I have just “favourited” the site. Looks good. Thanks for the link.
IE.
Asiba, that’s not as far-fetched as you think. On landing once in Vancouver, we took a direct hit from an UFO – Unidentified Flying OWL. Spread blood, feathers and $h!? all over the windscreen. It was offal!!
Iain Edghill,
I thank you for the explanations from a professional point of view, thus debunking these conspiracy theorists. Someone mentioned about grainy videos. I accept that cameras are situated on buildings coming down the Hudson River but one must take into consideration the weather conditions. It was 20 F and as one who has a working knowledge of CCTV equipment in conditions like what transpired that evening the quality sometimes can be degraded, so to the person who questioned the clarity of the video feed there is nothing sinister about no having very clear quality.
Google Video Presentation:
THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
The Great Depression of the 21st Century
with Michel Chossudovsky (Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa)
Causes and consequences of the financial meltdown;
The speculative onslaught;
Financial fraud and the “bank bailouts”;
Bankruptcy of the real economy;
Impacts on employment, wages and social services;
Towards a spiralling public debt;
The economic crisis and its relationship to the Middle East war;
The centralization of corporate power;
The concentration of wealth;
The globalization of poverty.
What are the policy alternatives?
Watch it here (some introductory comments in Spanish but lecture is in English approx 1hr 18min):
http://www.globalresearch.ressourcequebec.com/Lecture/January_14-2009.htm
Look at this story just off CNN to further complicate the issue!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hudson.plane.folo/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Ian Edghill wrote
Unidentified Flying OWL. Spread blood, feathers and $h!? all over the windscreen. It was offal!!
LOVE THE PUN SIR!
@ PiedPiper & Ian Edghill – As I wrote earlier “Never believe anything you’re told by anyone after a passenger plane crashes.”
Two days before US Airways Flight 1549 crashed into the Hudson River, passengers on the same route and same aircraft say they heard a series of loud bangs and the flight crew told them they could have to make an emergency landing, CNN has learned.
Steve Jeffrey of Charlotte, North Carolina, told CNN he was flying in first class Tuesday when, about 20 minutes into the flight, “it sounded like the wing was just snapping off.”
“The red lights started going on. A little pandemonium was going on,” Jeffrey recalled.
He said the incident occurred over Newark, New Jersey, soon after the plane — also flying as Flight 1549 — had taken off from LaGuardia Airport in New York.
“It seemed so loud, like luggage was hitting the side but times a thousand. It startled everyone on the plane,” Jeffrey said. “We started looking at each other. The stewardesses started running around. They made an announcement that ‘everyone heard the noise, we’re going to turn around and head back to LaGuardia and check out what happened.’
“I fly about 50 to 60 times per year, and I’ve never heard a noise so loud,” he said. “It wasn’t turbulence, it wasn’t luggage bouncing around. It was just completely like the engine was thrown against the side of the plane. It just — it didn’t shake the plane but it shook you out of the seat when you’re drifting off, it really woke you up. And when it happened again, everyone just started looking at each other and there was a quiet murmuring around the plane, and you could feel the tension rising just in looking.
“I remember turning to my [business] partner and saying, ‘I hope you got everything in order back home, life insurance and everything, because that didn’t sound good.’ ”
Jeffrey said he sent a text message to his wife about a “scary, scary noise on the plane. Doesn’t sound right. They’re flying back to LaGuardia to check it out. I’ll call you when we land. I love you.”
He added, “About 10 minutes later when we never made the turn, we kept going, that’s when the pilot came on and explained — I wish I could remember the words — I remember him using air, compression and lock — I’m not sure the right order, but he made it sound like the air didn’t get to the engine and it stalled the engine out, which he said doesn’t happen all the time but it’s not abnormal.”
Wolf, you quote a Mr. Jeffrey:
“The red lights started going on. A little pandemonium was going on,” Jeffrey recalled.”
FYI, Apart from the “No Smoking” and “Fasten Seat Belts” signs, which are amber on the A320, and the “washroom occupied” symbol, which is red, there are no red lights visible to the passengers in the cabin of the A320.
I would be highly suspect of that testimony.
Best Regards,
Iain Edghill.
Sorry, wrong words. I meant to say, “I would be highly suspicious of that testimony.”
My old HC teachers would not approve of incorrect use of English.
Iain, what a trying way to spell, Ian!! How do u cope with it, my man!!
Well 199, my mother was a Scottish war bride [Dad volunteered for service in WWII and served as a pilot in RAF Bomber Command] and when I was born, my father went to the Registrar of Births to register me and my Mum’s wish was that I be named after her Grandfather [John Donald MacPherson], but my cousin Rusty had just been born and had been named John. So it was supposed to be “Iain”, the Celtic spelling of “Ian” [same pronounciation]. Apparently the registrar of births, a Police Sergeant, couldn’t get his brain around “Iain” either so he wrote down “Ian.” When my Mum noticed the mistake, she sent Dad back to the registrar, but he got a Pontius Pilate response to the request to change it to “Iain.” He said, “What I have written, I have written.” And that was that until a few years ago when I started writing it “Iain,” in response to a challenge from my mother.
That’s the short answer 199. Works OK for me, no problems. An extra “iota” is cool!
All the Best,
Iain E.
Ian or Dissident – I caan worry to figure-out which, but thanks for the story. Made me laugh!! I had to return to the Registrar for a similar error, too, but was sorted without a problem!!
Iain, I think u just like causing angst, among the people!!
lol!!
The Barbados Advocate Sunday June 21,2009
Bad weather to blame for low-flying plane
“BAD weather contributed to American Airlines flight 651’s unusually low approach over Simmons Land Rendezvous, Christ Church ….”
It worries me that the Civil Aviation Authority appeared to have taken the pilots word,and thats the end of the investigation followed with the usual apology.
I heard that plane on the night it came in and from descriptions of residents in Simmons Land and Amity Lodge, it reminds me of an incident that I have witnessed some years ago.
On a military exercise somewhere on continental Europe a whole division was encamped on a wide opened section of the training area.One foggy morning around 4.30 am, the whole camp was awoken by the noise of a heavy commercial aircraft scrambling to regain height. The excess thrust shook every tent and cause severe vibrations in every man’s stomach.
(1)This camping area was on old war time military air field.
(2) It was directly under the flight path of a nearby international airport.
(3) The stretched out tented camp was ,regimentally laid out and lighted.
The pilot of this aircraft in that early morning fog mistook the lighted camp for the runway of the nearby International airport, realising his mistake at the last moment and regained height sharpish.
It is my opinion that in the bad weather the night the AA plane came into Barbados that the pilot mistook the lights on the ABC,between Graeme Hall roundabout and Kingsland for the GA Runway,hence the low approach over the Christ Church residential districts,and as he regained height he was now almost parallel with the GA Airport which now came into view, He could not turn sharply then and make a regular landing, but had to fly past, about turn and make a landing.
Most of the plane coming into GA approach the island from Rocklye/Oistins. Simmons land and Rendezvous is somewhat off the normally used flight path.
A further investigation is necessarey to prevent a further occurence.
Did the pilot pulled the wool over the CAA eyes?
Thanks for raising this matter BU has gotten some email about it. Again a case for the local media to highlight this problem. Is this another case where are we timid because of the fear the airline in this current environment is holding the upperhand?
Let us call the talk shows, write letters to the press and blogs etc. There maybe something more to come about this story.
It would be interesting to know who makes up the board of the CAA, and how many of those officers were present at the investigation,and when was the investigation was carried out,given the fact that AA651 comes in to GA at between 2200 -2300 hrs at nights and by next morning around 0700-0800 hrs its on its way back to Miami.