[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
US AIRWAYS FLIGHT 1549 ACCIDENT
=======================================================================
(111-10)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-866 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa SAM GRAVES, Missouri
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts Virginia
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CONNIE MACK, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin PETE OLSON, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Aviation
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
Columbia JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Virginia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii CONNIE MACK, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JOHN J. HALL, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
H.Res. 84 ``Honoring the heroic actions of the pilot, crew, and
rescuers of US Airways Flight 1549''........................... xv
TESTIMONY
Carey, Captain John, Chairman, Accident and Investigation
Committee, U.S. Air Line Pilots Association.................... 33
Dail, Flight Attendant Sheila, US Airways, Inc................... 7
Dent, Flight Attendant Donna, US Airways, Inc.................... 7
Gilligan, Margaret, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety,
Federal Aviation Administration................................ 33
Harten, Patrick F., Air Traffic Control Specialist, New York
Terminal Radar Approach Control................................ 7
Kolander, Candace K., Coordinator, Air Safety, Health, and
Security, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO........ 33
Ostrom, John, Chairman, Bird Strike Committee-USA, Manager,
Airside Operations, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport,
accompanied by Richard Dolbeer, Chairman, (1997-2008) Bird
Strike Committee-USA........................................... 33
Prater, Captain John, President, Air Line Pilots Association,
International.................................................. 33
Reis, Mark, Managing Director, Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport, Board Member, Airports Council International of North
America........................................................ 33
Skiles, First Officer Jeffrey B., US Airways, Inc................ 7
Sullenberger, III, Captain Chesley B., US Airways, Inc........... 7
Sumwalt, III, Hon. Robert L., Member, National Transportation
Safety Board, accompanied by Tom Haueter, Director, Office of
Aviation Safety, National Transportation Safety Board.......... 33
Welsh, Flight Attendant Doreen, US Airways, Inc.................. 7
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 53
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 54
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 59
McMahon, Hon. Michael E., of New York............................ 62
Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida................................... 65
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 72
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 73
Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin.............................. 76
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Carey, Captain John.............................................. 81
Gilligan, Margaret............................................... 92
Harten, Patrick F................................................ 116
Kolander, Candace K.............................................. 120
Ostrom, John..................................................... 164
Prater, Captain John............................................. 172
Reis, Mark....................................................... 192
Skiles, First Officer Jeffrey B.................................. 208
Sullenberger, III, Captain Chesley B............................. 214
Sumwalt, III, Hon. Robert L...................................... 217
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Gilligan, Margaret, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety,
Federal Aviation Administration, responses to questions from
the Subcommittee............................................... 105
Prater, Captain John, President, Air Line Pilots Association,
International, ``Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Strategies for
Pilots,'' February 2009, executive summary..................... 184
Skiles, First Officer Jeffrey, US Airways, Inc., expanded
testimony...................................................... 211
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
DeTect, Inc., Gary W. Andrews, Chief Executive Officer, written
statement...................................................... 237
US Airways Group, W. Douglas Parker, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, written statement..................................... 248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.011
HEARING ON US AIRWAYS FLIGHT 1549 ACCIDENT
----------
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry F.
Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Chair will ask all Members, staff, and everyone to turn all
electronic devices off or on vibrate. The Subcommittee is
meeting today to hear testimony on the US Airways Flight 1549
accident.
Let me mention that the three flight attendants just left a
meeting in my office, and they were delayed in the hall by
Congresswoman Foxx. She is meeting with them briefly. They
should be here momentarily.
We will go ahead and proceed. I would expect that they will
be here by the time that I finish my opening statement and the
Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, does as well.
I intend to give a brief opening statement, then I will
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for his opening
statement, and recognize other Members. We would encourage
Members to insert their statements in the record; and let all
of our witnesses know that their entire statement will be
inserted in the record as well.
I just explained to everyone here why you were a little bit
late, that you were meeting with myself and Congresswoman Foxx.
Please be seated.
I welcome everyone to the Aviation Subcommittee hearing
today on US Airways Flight 1549. I want to thank our witnesses
for being here today, especially the flight crew, the pilots,
the flight attendants, and the air traffic control specialist
that brought US Airways Flight 1549 down safely on the Hudson
River. I know my colleagues will join me and Mr. Petri in
giving them a round of applause for doing an outstanding job in
saving the lives of so many people.
As everyone knows by now, on January 15, 2009, US Airways
Flight 1549 was departing LaGuardia Airport for Charlotte,
North Carolina, and within minutes, lost engine power. Captain
Chesley Sullenberger, III and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles
realized the seriousness of the situation, and immediately
sought a safe place to land.
The Hudson River was their only option; and these two
pilots, as well as Flight Attendants Sheila Dail, Doreen Welsh,
and Donna Dent worked together to prepare the 150 passengers
for the emergency landing. The crew did an excellent job on the
controlled landing in the Hudson River.
This incident demonstrates the importance of training and
preparation, showcases the skill of our aviation workforce, and
reinforces the importance of consistent vigilance and oversight
of aviation safety.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that just a few
short weeks ago, after this incident, the entire Nation mourns
the loss of Colgan Air Flight 3407, the crew and their
passengers. Fifty people died as a result of that crash.
Information is still being gathered, and an investigation is
under way to determine the cause of that crash.
The United States has the safest air transportation system
in the world. In 2007, there was only one fatal accident in
10.9 million U.S. airline departures. However, we must not
become complacent about our past success.
These recent accidents once again place aviation safety in
the spotlight. It is the responsibility of this Subcommittee to
ensure that the Federal Aviation Administration is fulfilling
its duties to provide effective oversight of every aspect of
the aviation system; and I am interested in hearing today from
the FAA and the NTSB board on these issues.
This situation also highlights the association between
training, workforce development, and aviation safety. The
current economy has the entire workforce being asked to do more
with less, including work longer hours. To that point, we must
make certain that fatigue does not become an issue, as it
creates risks to the safety of the air traffic system.
Finally, even though the bird strikes that caused US
Airways Flight 1549 to lose both engines and land in the Hudson
River has brought greater attention to the issue, the danger
presented by avian life is not new. The Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport, in conjunction with the University of
Illinois in my home State, is using an enhanced radar system to
better deal with bird detection. O'Hare, JFK, and Dallas/Fort
Worth International Airports are all slated to receive similar
radar systems this year. I am interested in hearing more about
this technology from Mr. Mark Reis on the second panel.
Again, I thank the flight crew, the air traffic control
specialist for being here today. I commend all of you for a job
well done, and look toward to your firsthand account of the
January 15, 2009 accident, and what we can learn from the
incident for the future.
Before I recognize Mr. Petri for his opening statement, I
ask unanimous consent to allow 2 weeks for all Members to
revise and extend their remarks, and to permit the submission
of additional statements and material by Members and witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered.
At this time the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much. Good morning and welcome to
this hearing this morning.
It seems that we in Congress routinely, or at least
regularly, call up Federal officials, industry representatives,
and others in order to lambaste and criticize for some
deficiency or another. After all, that at least is part of our
job in providing oversight. I think it is also important that
we stop and take a moment to recognize when things actually do
go right.
On January 15th, a lot went right in the middle of a
horrifying situation; and I think we owe those involved to say,
"Job well done." At the same time, as we hear their
experiences, we can learn some important lessons for the
future.
As Captain Sullenberger has repeatedly pointed out, the
positive outcome of Flight 1549 was a team effort from those in
the air, on the ground, and on the water. I would be remiss if
I did not acknowledge the courageous actions of the flight
crew, air traffic controllers, rescue teams, and the passengers
themselves. Their professionalism, bravery, and calm under
pressure prevented a catastrophe. And for that, we thank them
all.
So what have we learned so far from the events of January
15th? Clearly, training played a central role. Without proper
training, even the most advanced avionic equipment is of no
value. The fact that Flight 1549 was able to make an emergency
landing and quickly evacuate--in a river, no less--without any
serious injury, proves the effectiveness of pilot and crew
training programs. The assistance provided by air traffic
controllers and quick response by rescue teams are also
indicative of the importance of quality training. So many of
them have said that when confronted with the situation their
training simply kicked in and they knew exactly what to do.
Let's not forget other factors that contributed to this
positive outcome. High certification standards ensured the
plane's survivability after the bird strike, double engine
failure, and controlled ditching into the Hudson River. Even
more, they allowed the plane to stay afloat as passengers and
crew were evacuated and rescued. These standards are
established to improve safety and enhance aircraft
survivability; and in this case, they saved lives. Procedures
were followed, standards were met, training was applied, and
rescue was immediate. It was, all things considered, a good day
for those aboard Flight 1549 and, thankfully, a learning
experience for the aviation community.
Despite the success, we must continue to promote the best
possible training and the highest equipment standards. Let's
also thoroughly analyze the cause of the accident, which
appears to be bird strikes, and seek ways to mitigate them in
the future. Dedication to safety has made our aviation system
the safest in the world, and we need to continue to work to
keep it that way.
Again, I would like to thank the Chairman for calling this
hearing and our witnesses for taking the time to join us today.
I look forward to your testimony, and yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member.
And again I would encourage Members to submit statements in
the record. But if any Member would like to be recognized at
this time, I think the Chair would recognize Mr. Hall from New
York.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my congratulations
and praise to our panel members, who, I think, inspired this
country with your actions as well as providing a great deal of
relief.
I have sailed that stretch of the Hudson River many times
in my own different vessels over the years; and if I had been
told that a commercial airliner could safely land in a busy
river--the Hudson River especially--in that temperature, and
everyone had survived, I would have thought that it was a
daydream or it was somebody's imagination.
But you made it come true. Everything had to go right, and
everything did, thanks to your training and execution.
All of us in Congress--most of us in Congress fly every
week in and out of Washington, DC, and so I am quite familiar
with the instructions that the crew give to passengers in the
event of a water landing, et cetera, et cetera. In the words of
the late George Carlin, most of us think of that as "Put your
head between your legs, and dot-dot-dot"--you know the rest.
But I think obviously you and the first responders and the
captains of the vessels that came out to meet the plane and to
rescue you and your passengers, everybody did a very difficult
job very well, and the training definitely paid off. There was
heroism and bravery as well as skill.
Captain Sullenberger, First Officer Skiles, Flight
Attendants Dail, Welsh, and Dent, when you rescued your 150
passengers, you rescued a number of my constituents from the
Hudson Valley, and I thank you for them and their families.
And Controller Harten, one of the little-known voices who
enable our airways to be as safe as they are through constant
communication with every plane in the air, as a New Yorker I
was proud of the actions of all of the people involved; and
want to thank you on behalf of my constituents and New Yorkers
in general.
I look forward to hearing your testimony, and considering
the serious issues regarding air travel and the dangers of bird
strikes, what possible remediation or changes can be made to
lessen the dangers from them. And once again, thank you for
being here.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman from New York,
and now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Coble.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, don't ever offer us a chance to
make an opening statement, because we will grab the mike
without exception.
You and the Ranking Member have already said it, but I
would like to repeat it, and I don't think we can repeat it
often enough: Captain Sullenberger, First Officer, Flight
Attendants, Air Controllers, Passengers, it appears all of you
remained calm in a very, very stressful climate; and you are to
be commended. I guess, Captain, probably the most famous quote
of 2009 will be the calmly spoken phrase, "We are going to be
in the Hudson." And you were indeed there, but you all were
heroes as far as I am concerned.
And Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Mr. Petri for having
called this hearing.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, and now recognizes the
gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Petri.
I am Mike McMahon, a new Member of Congress from Staten
Island, New York, which of course is very close to where this
miracle on the Hudson occurred. And I have a prepared
statement, but in the interests of time, I won't read it; but
just say to you, to all of you, on behalf of the people who
were on the ground, in that harbor; and through the--you know,
really as we all know through the horrors of 9/11 and then 2
years after we had the horrible ferry crash right in our
harbor--you saved not only the lives of the people on that
plane, and yourselves, thank God, but also so many people on
the ground as well.
On behalf of them, the countless many lives you saved, we
thank you as well.
And we are here today to learn from your experiences to
make air travel more safe. And certainly people talk about it
being a miracle on the Hudson, but as we know, it was no
miracle. You were well trained.
But there was something more. In your hearts there was
courage. And we know that heroes are ordinary people who do
extraordinary things in any given moment. And to all of you,
you are heroes for the lives you saved and what you did risking
your own lives.
On behalf of the people I represent, all New Yorkers and
all New Jerseyites, thank you and God bless you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
First of all, I wanted to thank you for being here. And I
am also thankful, since I am a sometime pilot, that you were
piloting that plane and I wasn't. It made all the difference in
the world, I am sure. But I also thank the Lord that all of you
are here and all the passengers, and you are safe and sound.
And thank you very much.
Yield back.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Michigan
and recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take this
opportunity to commend the unparalleled bravery exhibited by
Captain Chesley Sullenberger and his crew on US Airways Flight
1549 on January 15, 2009. You know, the cool heads, sound
judgment, and practiced safety procedures saved not only 155
lives on board, but countless more that could have been injured
or killed on the ground.
I am so proud that US Airways calls Tempe, Arizona, home,
which is also my home; and I am also especially proud of the
heroic crew of Flight 1549. I look forward to hearing more from
our witnesses on what happened on that fateful day and what we
can do to further prevent other incidences.
I yield back.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you
are looking forward to getting this under way, so I will be as
brief as possible.
First of all, I want to applaud you, Mr. Chairman. I have
been on this Committee my entire time now being in Congress,
and you always put the most pertinent issues right on the table
right away--good, bad, or indifferent. And this is no exception
in your approach to the work that we do in this Committee. So
thank you for the access and what we will be able to learn in
this hearing, in particular.
It is not uncommon that we have safety hearings, as I just
said, related to what is going on in the air. Chairman Costello
has been very aggressive in that fact. And I also look forward
to learning from something that happened right. Oftentimes, we
are looking at the wrong situations, but clearly this situation
we need to duplicate.
To the air traffic controllers who sometimes--it was--you
are the silent angels out there. When I heard the radio of what
you guys were talking about going back and forth, them giving
different options and trying to assist, I think is also worthy
of acknowledgment.
But finally, let me say to, I believe it is the flight
attendant Ms. Welsh, who I had an opportunity to watch--is that
you right here? Yes.
I had an opportunity to see several interviews. And I hope
what you will stress in your testimony is the unfortunate part
of what I think happened in the rear of the plane. And as has
been said by other people, we fly. I fly from California two
times a week. And I have never heard that if you happen to land
on water you don't want to, you know, open the rear end of the
airplane.
So to the degree that we all sit there and we hear the
instructions week after week after week, I never recall hearing
that. And so whatever you can share with us as a body of what
we can do maybe from a safety or regulation perspective to
stress to the public that not every situation is going to be
typical and how we have to adjust--and thank goodness you were
there and were able to assist us. And I look forward to your
testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you. And now we will
recognize our witnesses. Let me introduce the witnesses on our
first panel. Captain Chesley Sullenberger, III, who now is
known to America as "Sully"; our First Officer, Jeffrey Skiles;
Flight Attendant Sheila Dail, Flight Attendant Donna Dent, and
Mr. Patrick Harten, who is the Air Traffic Control Specialist,
New York Terminal Radar Approach Control.
And now I will yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Altmire, to introduce Doreen Welsh.
Mr. Altmire. And I thank the Chairman. And I didn't want to
let the moment go by without recognizing that on January 15th
the entire country saw the unmatched courage, skill, and
heroism of the entire crew. But in western Pennsylvania we were
especially proud of Flight Attendant Doreen Welsh, who is going
to testify today.
So as a constituent, I just want you to know that I am
proud of you, and western Pennsylvania is incredibly proud of
your efforts on that day. And thank you for being here.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN CHESLEY B. SULLENBERGER, III, FIRST
OFFICER JEFFREY B. SKILES, FLIGHT ATTENDANT SHEILA DAIL, FLIGHT
ATTENDANT DONNA DENT, AND FLIGHT ATTENDANT DOREEN WELSH, US
AIRWAYS, INC.; AND PATRICK F. HARTEN, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
SPECIALIST, NEW YORK TERMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROL
Mr. Costello. And now we will recognize Captain
Sullenberger.
And let me say that for all of our witnesses on both the
first and second panel, that we will be under the 5-minute
rule. We would ask that you summarize your testimony. Your
entire testimony will be submitted for the record. And of
course after your testimony, we will get to questions from
Members.
So Captain Sullenberger, you are recognized.
Mr. Sullenberger. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking
Members Mica and Petri, and other Members of the Committee. It
is my great honor to appear before the Aviation Subcommittee
today.
I am proud of the fact that I have been involved in
aviation for the last 42 years. During that time, I have served
our country as a U.S. Air Force pilot, served as an Air Line
Pilots Association local Air Safety Committee Chairman,
accident investigator, and national technical Committee Member.
I have amassed a total flying time of almost 20,000 hours, and
flown approximately 1 million passengers in my 29 years as a
professional airline pilot.
I have served as a check airman and a Crew Resource
Management course developer and facilitator. I am also the
founder of Safety Reliability Methods, Inc.
Before I begin, I must first say that my heart goes out to
all those affected by the tragic loss of Continental Connection
Colgan Air Flight 3407. Words cannot express my sadness and
grief at the loss of 50 lives. The families of those no longer
with us are in my thoughts and in my heart.
The events of January 15, 2009, have been well documented,
and rather than recite them now in great detail, I want only to
reiterate to the Subcommittee that the successful outcome was
achieved by the actions of many. Lives were saved due to the
combination of a very experienced, well-trained crew, First
Officer Jeff Skiles, and Flight Attendants Donna Dent, Doreen
Welsh, and Sheila Dail, all of whom acted in a remarkable
display of teamwork, along with expert air traffic controllers,
the orderly cooperation of our cool-headed passengers, and the
quick and determined actions of the professional and volunteer
first responders in New York City.
The events of January 15th serve as a reminder to us all of
the daily devotion to duty of the many thousands of aviation
professionals who keep air travel safe, and also as a reminder
of what is really at stake. I, like thousands of my
professional airline pilots, know that flying a large
commercial airline is a tremendous responsibility. We clearly
understand that our passengers put their lives in our hands. We
know that we must always be prepared; we must always
anticipate; we must always be vigilant. Expecting the
unexpected and having an effective plan for dealing with it
must be in the very makeup of every professional airline pilot.
I am not only proud of my crew, I am proud of my
profession. Flying has been my lifelong passion. I count myself
fortunate to have spent my life in the profession I love, with
colleagues whom I respect and admire.
But while I love my profession, I do not like what has
happened to it. I would not be doing my duty if I did not
report to you that I am deeply troubled about its future.
Americans have been experiencing huge economic difficulties in
recent months, but airline employees have been experiencing
those challenges and more for 8 years. We have been hit by an
economic tsunami.
September 11th, bankruptcies, fluctuating fuel prices,
mergers, loss of pensions, and revolving-door management teams
who have used airline employees as an ATM have left the people
who work for the airlines in the United States with extreme
economic difficulties. It is an incredible testament to the
collective character, professionalism, and dedication of my
colleagues in the industry that they are still able to function
at such a high level.
It is my personal experience that my decision to remain in
the profession I love has come at a great financial cost to me
and to my family. My pay has been cut 40 percent, my pension,
like most airline pensions, has been terminated and replaced by
a PBGC guarantee worth only pennies on the dollar.
While airline pilots are by no means alone in our financial
struggles, I want to acknowledge how difficult it is for
everyone right now. It is important to underscore that the
terms of our employment have changed dramatically from when I
began my career, leading to an untenable financial situation
for pilots and their families. When my company offered pilots
who had been laid off the chance to return to work, 60 percent
refused.
Members, I attempt to speak accurately and plainly, so
please do not think I exaggerate when I say I do not know a
single professional airline pilot who wants his or her children
to follow in their footsteps. I am worried that the airline
piloting profession will not be able to continue to attract the
best and the brightest.
The current experience and skills of our country's
professional airline pilots come from investments made years
ago, when we were able to attract the ambitious, talented
people who now frequently seek professional careers elsewhere.
That past investment was an indispensable element in our
commercial aviation infrastructure, vital to safe air travel
and our country's economy and security. If we do not
sufficiently value the airline piloting profession and future
pilots are less experienced and less skilled, it logically
follows that we will see negative consequences to the flying
public and to our country.
We face remarkable challenges in our industry. In order to
ensure economic security and an uncompromising approach to
passenger safety, management must work with labor to bargain in
good faith, we must find collective solutions that address the
huge economic issues we face in recruiting and retaining the
experienced and highly-skilled professionals that the industry
requires and that passenger safety demands. But further, we
must develop and sustain an environment in every airline and
aviation organization, a culture that balances the competing
needs of accountability and learning.
We must create and maintain the trust that is the
absolutely essential element of a successful and sustainable
safety reporting system to detect and correct deficiencies
before they lead to an accident. We must not let the economic
and financial pressures detract from a focus on constantly
improving our safety measures and engaging in ongoing and
comprehensive training. In aviation, the bottom line is that
the single most important piece of safety equipment is an
experienced, well-trained pilot.
Despite the bad economic news we have experienced in recent
times, despite the many challenges we face as a country, I have
faith in America, in our people, in our promise. I briefly
touched upon some major problems in my industry today, but I do
not believe that they are intractable should we decide to work
collectively to solve them.
We all have roles to play in this effort. Despite the
economic turbulence hitting our industry, the airline companies
must refocus their attention and their resources on the
recruitment and retention of highly-experienced and well-
trained pilots, and make that a priority that is at least equal
to their financial bottom line.
Jeff and I and our fellow pilots will fly our planes and
continue to upgrade our education and our skills while we
attempt to provide for our families. Patrick and the other
talented air traffic controllers will continue to guide us
safely through the skies. Our passengers will spend their hard-
earned money to pay for their travel. And our flight
attendants, mechanics, ground crews, and administrative
personnel will deal with the thousands of constant details and
demands that keep our planes safely in the air.
You can help us, Mr. Chairman, honorable Members, to work
together across party lines and can demand or legislate that
labor, management, safety experts, educators, technical
experts, and everyday Americans join together to find solutions
to these problems.
We all honor our responsibilities in good faith and respect
one another. We must keep the American commercial aviation
industry safe and affordable for passengers, and financially
viable for those who work in the industry day-to-day. And for
those talented young men and women considering what to do with
their lives, we must restore the narrative of a compelling
career path in aviation with sufficient economic resources to
once again make this vision a reality.
Thank you for your kind attention and for the opportunity
to share my experiences with this Committee.
Mr. Costello. We thank you, Captain Sullenberger.
And now the Chair recognizes First Officer Skiles.
Mr. Skiles. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking
Members Mica and Petri, and Members of the Committee. I am also
honored to appear before the Aviation Subcommittee today. I am
going to summarize my statement, which I have already
submitted.
I think the word of the day today is "experience,"
obviously, looking at us. I myself have 20,000 flying hours. I
have been a captain at US Airways in the past, but due to
cutbacks, I am flying as a first officer right now. And I have
been flying for 32 years myself.
Much has been made of the cockpit crew and our
participation in this, but I think it would be remiss if I
didn't acknowledge once again the fantastic contribution that
Donna Dent, Doreen Welsh, and Sheila Dail made to the
successful outcome that day; and also the captains and crews of
the ferry boats, the first responders, air traffic controllers.
Obviously, in the press they are calling us heroes, but there
were a whole lot of heroes on that day.
Our profession carries a tremendous responsibility. And
this has brought into me a renewed appreciation for the fact
that this is a serious job for serious people. We have
dedicated our lives to this profession, and it appears as if on
that particular day we were five people in the right place at
the right time.
Sully and I have 70 years and 40,000 hours of flying
between us; and the flight attendants have many, many years
between them. In fact, if I told you, you would probably
investigate US Airways for violating child labor laws on the
date that they were hired.
One of our concerns, though, is that this is something that
is fading from our industry. Newly hired pilots at our
affiliate carriers have as little as 300 flying hours when they
start work. When I was hired, they required 3,000 hours to even
be considered for an interview.
What the country has experienced financially in the last 8
months we have experienced for the last 8 years in our industry
since 9/11. Financial turmoil, bankruptcies, layoffs, and
revolving-door management teams have decimated our airlines and
our careers. I myself make about half of what I once made, and
I have lost my retirement to a PBGC promise.
Many pilots work two jobs. I myself am a general
contractor. Sully does consulting. We work 7 days a week, and
we split our focus between our two careers to maintain our
middle-class lifestyles.
When I was hired in this business there were airline
dynasties. Whole families were employed in the aviation
business. You would fly with a captain, he might have five
children, they all were pilots, flight attendants, agents. Now
I know of no one that encourages their children to go into
aviation.
We are extremely grateful for the outpouring of support and
gratitude that we have received. But we do feel the
responsibility to our fellow pilots to advocate for them. Our
labor negotiations system does not work; we are not looking for
special privileges, but we are looking for a level playing
field.
The balance of power has shifted greatly, and the state of
the piloting profession is the proof. National Mediation Board
negotiations drag on forever. We would ask that you look at
possible reforms of the National Mediation Board, and also the
Railway Labor Act that we work under.
Our colleagues have rallied around us in this. And we
believe that we showed what well-trained professional crews can
do in times of crisis. And we are gratified that our colleagues
in aviation seem to look at us as a positive reflection of
themselves and our shared professions.
We ask that Congress take seriously the challenges that we
aviation professionals face. And we ask that Congress work with
us to protect our profession so that in the future we can
attract the best and the brightest to be pilots and flight
attendants in America.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Skiles, and now
recognizes for any testimony, comments that the flight
attendants would like to add, and now recognizes Sheila Dail.
Ms. Dail. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and fellow
Congressmen of the Committee. I do not have a prepared
statement. But I will be happy to answer any questions or
comments concerning my profession, my training, my experience.
I am open to anything today.
Mr. Costello. We thank you, and we thank you for being
here. The Chair now recognizes Donna Dent for any comments that
she would like to offer.
Ms. Dent. Mr. Chairman, I, as well, do not have a prepared
statement, and I also would be--I feel very honored to be here,
and am more than ready to answer any questions that anyone may
have for me.
Mr. Costello. Ms. Welsh?
Ms. Welsh. Same thing, Mr. Chairman. We did not prepare
statements, the flight attendants, but we are willing to answer
questions. And it is an honor to be here. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. We thank you. We thank all three of you for
being here. And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Harten for his
testimony.
Mr. Harten. Good morning, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member
Petri. My name is Patrick Harten. I have been an air traffic
controller at the New York TRACON, and a proud Member of the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association for the past 10
years.
While January 15, 2009, is forever etched in my memory, it
began unremarkably. I arrived at work at 12:30 p.m. to begin my
8-hour shift. At 3:12 p.m., I was assigned to work LaGuardia
radar position. This position handles all departures from
LaGuardia Airport. At 3:25 p.m., the LaGuardia tower control
advised me that Cactus 1549 was the next departure rolling for
takeoff. Just for clarification, Cactus is the call sign for US
Airways. It was a routine, westbound departure off Runway 4,
traveling due north on a 360-degree heading and climbing to
5000 feet.
I instructed Cactus to climb to 1-5000 and turned my
attention to another aircraft to give him instructions under my
control. I then turned back to Cactus 1549 and instructed him
to turn left to a heading of 270, heading the aircraft towards
its destination. That is when the captain advised me that they
suffered a bird strike, lost thrust in both engines, and needed
to return to LaGuardia for an emergency landing.
When a pilot tells a controller he needs to make an
emergency landing, the controller must act quickly and
decisively. I made a split-second decision to offer him Runway
13, which was the closest to his current position, and turned
him left to a heading of 220 so he could return to the airport.
I then immediately contacted LaGuardia tower and asked them to
stop departures and clear the runway for an emergency return.
While I have worked 10 or 12 emergencies over the course of
my career, I have never worked an aircraft with zero thrust
capabilities. I understood how grave the situation was. After I
gave him his instructions, the captain very calmly stated, "We
are unable." I quickly vectored another aircraft that was still
in my airspace, and gave 1549 a second option, land on
LaGuardia Runway 31. Again the captain said, "Unable."
I then asked the captain what he needed to do to land
safely. At this point, my job was to coordinate and arrange for
the pilot to be able to do whatever was necessary. The pilot
told me he could not land on any runway at LaGuardia, but asked
if he could land in New Jersey and suggested Teterboro.
I had experience working traffic into Teterboro from my
time working in the Newark sector. And after coordinating with
the controllers in Teterboro, we were able to determine that
Runway 1 was his best option. It was an arrival runway and
clearing it for an emergency landing would be easier and
faster. It also meant 1549 would be landing into the wind,
which could have assisted the pilot in making a safe landing.
I called Teterboro and explained the situation. The
controller at Teterboro reacted quickly, and prepared Runway 1
for the emergency landing. I then instructed the captain to
turn right to a heading of 280 to land Runway 1. The captain
replied, "We can't do it."
I replied immediately, "Which runway would you like at
Teterboro?" The captain replied, "We are going to be in the
Hudson." I asked him to repeat himself, even though I heard him
just fine. I simply could not wrap my mind around those words.
People do not survive landings on the Hudson River, and I
thought it was his own death sentence. I believed at that
moment I was going to be the last person to talk to anyone on
that plane alive.
I then lost radio contact with 1549, and the target
disappeared from my radar screen as he dropped below the tops
of the New York skyscrapers. I was in shock. I was sure the
plane had gone down. Less than a minute later, 1549 flickered
back onto my radar scope. The aircraft was at a very low
altitude, but its return to radar coverage meant there was a
possibility 1549 had regained use of one of its engines.
Grasping at that tiny glimmer of hope, I told 1549 that it
could land Newark, 7 miles away, on Runway 29, but I received
no response. I then lost radar contact again, this time for
good.
I was relieved from my position a few moments later, as
soon as it was possible. I was in no position to continue to
work air traffic. It was the lowest low I have ever felt.
I wanted to talk to my wife, but I knew if I tried to speak
or even heard her voice I would completely fall apart. I
settled for a hasty text message: "Had a crash. I am not okay.
Can't talk now." When I got home, she told me she thought that
I was in a car accident. Truth was, I felt like I had been hit
by a bus.
It took 6 hours before I could leave the facility. I had to
review the tapes, fill out paperwork, and make an official
statement. It may sound strange, but for me the hardest, most
traumatic part of the entire event was when it was over. During
the emergency itself I was hyper-focused. I had no choice but
to think and act quickly and remain calm. But when it was over,
it hit me hard. It felt like hours before I learned about the
heroic water landing Captain Sullenberger and his crew had
managed.
Even after I learned the truth, I could not shake the image
of tragedy in my mind. Every time I saw the survivors on
television, I imagined grieving widows. It has taken over a
month for me to be able to see that I did a good job. I was
flexible and responsive; I listened to what the pilot said and
made sure to give him the tools that he needed. I stayed calm
and in control.
I returned to work this week. And while it may take some
time for me to regain my old confidence, I know I will get
there.
I would like to end by personally recognizing the captain
and crew of Flight 1549 for their professionalism, skill, and
heroic efforts that day. I would like to recognize the
professionalism of the other controllers who helped clear the
skies and the runways for 1549, as well as the engineers who
helped ensure that the aircraft itself could survive landing in
the Hudson, and that those inside would be safe. Finally, I
want to thank my wife Regina. She has been my rock these past
few weeks, as she always has and always will be. I couldn't
have survived this without her.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to answer any
questions you might have.
Mr. Costello. We thank you, Mr. Harten.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sullenberger.
I would like you to respond to a few questions from the
Chair, if you would.
Mr. Sullenberger. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. As Mr. Harten just walked us through his
experience from the moment that he knew that you were in
trouble, I wonder if you would do the same for the Committee
members as well, from the moment that you realized that you had
a problem, and walk us through the events that took place until
you landed in the Hudson.
Mr. Sullenberger. Yes, of course.
First, Patrick, I want to say I am grateful for your
assistance that day and since. And this is the first time I
have heard the detail of your experience, and I am greatly
touched by it.
It was, as Patrick said, a completely unremarkable flight.
It was First Officer Skiles' turn to fly the airplane. We had
been alternating legs. The takeoff and initial departure were
normal, up until the point when the wind screening was filled
by birds. We saw them just a matter of seconds before impact,
with no time to react.
At the point of impact, we heard the thumps of the birds
striking the aircraft. It was obvious that they were large, and
there were many of them. I immediately began to feel
vibrations, abnormal, rough vibrations coming from both
engines. I began to hear loud, abnormal noises coming from the
engines, indicating severe damage. And I quickly began to smell
in the cabin's circulated air what I have experienced before,
and that is a burned bird smell going through the engines.
After a few seconds, we had a nearly complete, immediate,
bilaterally symmetrical loss of thrust that I had never
experienced before. I knew immediately that the situation was
dire. At that point, I thought the best plan was for me to fly,
since I had the greater experience in this particular aircraft
type, and that the division of duties was for Mr. Skiles to run
the checklist, since he had so recently been through training
on the airplane and knew the checklist intimately, which is
what we did.
I said, "My aircraft," and took control; and following the
correct protocol, Jeff immediately said, "Your aircraft." At
that point, I lowered the nose to maintain and attain a safe
flying speed, and Jeff immediately turned to the appropriate
checklist, and began working valiantly and desperately--
ultimately vainly--to restart the engines.
We quickly assessed the situation. We quickly considered
and then rejected the nearest runway alternatives as being
unattainable. I knew that I could not afford to choose
unwisely, that the cost for attempting to land on a runway I
could not quite make could well be catastrophic not only for
those on board, but for everyone on the ground.
It was clear early on that the only place that was large
enough, wide enough, smooth enough to land a jet airliner was
the Hudson; and we began to plan the landing and take the
appropriate steps to make it happen. And I would just reiterate
what Jeff has said, that it was a team effort from start to
finish. It required a highly experienced, highly trained crew
of pilots and flight attendants. It took highly experienced
travelers in the cabin, business travelers who had traveled
many times before, taking the lead from our flight attendants,
who remained calm and professional at all times, acted
admirably, and of course the first responders in New York.
By the time I left the airplane there were already boats
around the aircraft rescuing passengers.
Mr. Costello. First Officer Skiles, would you like to add
anything?
Mr. Skiles. Well, it was 3 minutes of my life, not very
long, and I do have a--not that great a memory of it, to start
with. But certainly I think that Captain Sullenberger covered
all the high points and the low points.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
For the flight attendants, we heard what took place from
the air traffic control tower, and we have heard what took
place from the cockpit. I wonder if you might tell us, as soon
as you discovered that there was a problem, what you did; and
walk us through it. Whoever would like to lead.
Ms. Welsh, would you like to go?
Ms. Welsh. Well, like I said before, we heard a thump,
which was the birds, which we didn't know at that time. And it
was kind of like hitting something in the air. And then in the
back, where I was, the smell was pretty strong. And I thought,
for some reason, there might have been an electrical fire. That
was just my guess at the moment.
So I got up and I looked for Sheila, saw Sheila up front,
but our interphones didn't work. So really, in that time span,
I thought, well, we probably lost an engine, and we were going
to go back and land at LaGuardia and that would be that. So I
got back in my seat, and not long after that I heard, "Brace
for impact." And--you want me to go on with that?
Mr. Costello. Please.
Ms. Welsh. Well, you know, it is words you don't want to
hear as a flight attendant, but I didn't know, I think Jeff
said it was 3 minutes. I have always wanted to know from start
to finish, because at some moments it seemed long and at some
moments it seemed like a snap.
But it seemed--after the "Brace for impact," it seemed
quick to me that we did hit, which I assumed we were on the
ground for some reason. I thought we attempted to go back to
LaGuardia--I might have just thought this in my head, and I
don't know why--and we were on the runway and didn't make it.
So after getting out of my seat and going to the--because
my doors are behind me--after going to the door and looking out
and seeing water--Whoa, like I said, that was the biggest shock
ever. So I gave it one second thought, Can I get one--because
we landed in the back, but we still weren't down; like we saw
the plane--I thought, Do I have one second to get a raft out of
here? And that water was rising.
And I thought, No. And as I turned around, passengers
shoved by me and just started grabbing everything on the door
and cracked the door. So that is when the water started coming
in rapidly.
And I went back to try to close it, and then it was coming
in just--I don't know the time, but it was just rising like
crazy. I went back again with both hands and tried to close it,
but it just wasn't going to happen, and turned around and saw
there were so many people.
I assumed for some reason, like I said before, that the
whole plane was even. So I thought we were all going to be
under that water. It is just how I thought.
And then, at the last minute, I just got this burst and
started--people were in shock like I was, or had accepted that
this was pretty much it, because the water was just about
there. And I just went crazy and started ordering people to go
to the wings, and having them climb--we never would have all
made it down that aisle.
So I started having people that were able to climb over the
seats, I said, "Just make your goal get to the wings; that is
our only hope. Get to the wings. We have seconds." So the few
people that were in front of me, looking back, they had to be
in shock like I was for a second there with that water.
And then I screamed and snapped them out of it, and got up
to the wings, and like I said before, I thought, might make it.
So after everybody there, it might have been one or two people
that followed me, I saw Sheila and went up to the 1-R door and
went out on the raft.
And that is when I realized I was injured, because I didn't
know until then.
Mr. Costello. And can you describe for the Members of the
Committee your injury, what happened to you?
Ms. Welsh. Well, I don't know. But--I mean, I didn't
realize until I got to the front door that I felt the pain and
everything. I obviously walked into something or--I had heard
that something had come up from the floor. But my guess is that
I did it after entering that ice water, because I wouldn't have
felt it.
So I have no idea what--I couldn't even begin to guess what
I did it on. It is like an angle iron, it is like an L-shape,
so I can't even imagine.
Mr. Costello. If I can ask the same question of you, Ms.
Dail.
Ms. Dail. When we were sitting in our jump seats and heard
the thump, Donna and I had just a moment to whisper. I
whispered to her, "What was that?" And she said, "I think it
was a bird strike." I never experienced such a bird strike. The
few moments between then, it was eerily quiet. I smelled the
smell. There was a little bit of smoke when I looked down the
aisleway. But actually, we just sat there waiting. We knew the
guys were busy up front. At some point they would tell us what
to do. And when we heard the command, "Brace for impact," our
training just kicked in and we began our commands.
And then, when we hit the water, we just followed through
with what we yearly--we have a yearly recurrent training. And I
was due for mine the following week, and had my workbook filled
out; so I had looked over the information. And Donna had
recurrent the next week after me.
But the training, I only have to say, the recurrent
training that I have gone through for 28 years prepared me to
do what I did.
Mr. Costello. Ms. Dent?
Ms. Dent. We did have a very different experience up front.
It was much calmer, I think, and very civilized. When we
realized that--when we heard the "Brace for impact," as Sheila
said, we began our commands. And when we heard the evacuation
command, we started yelling our evacuation commands. But at
that point we didn't know we were in water.
So when I assessed, I looked out my window and saw that
there was movement, I thought we were still on land. And I
thought we were moving. So I yelled for Sheila to wait, not to
open her door yet.
And then I yelled, "We are in water," and opened my door,
inflated my slide, and just started evacuating the passengers.
Mr. Costello. We thank you. And we will have--I will have
other questions, and I am sure other Committee Members will as
well.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee who has joined us, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Costello, for holding this
hearing. Mr. Petri also. And I see Mr. Oberstar, our Chairman,
who has joined us.
I had a few questions.
First of all, the whole country, you know, is enamored with
you all, the crew, and air traffic controllers who did such a
great job. So I join in praising you. We are very proud of you.
And it is a picture of success and the way things should
have worked. And the good Lord gave us a great day and a lot of
people we can be proud of. So I thank you in that regard.
But our job, too, is to look at what happened, and also see
if we can improve on what occurred. And the questions I ask are
in that vein, to--hopefully, a positive vein.
First of all, last night I was Googling somebody, a little
thing that somebody said that ``Mica is as crazy as a bed
bug,'' that this wasn't birds, it was defective engines.
Captain Sullenberger, First Officer, do either of you
know--first of all, what was the plane, the aircraft?
Mr. Sullenberger. The aircraft type was an Airbus 320.
Mr. Mica. Was there any defect that you are aware of in the
engines of any of those aircraft, Captain or First Officer?
Mr. Sullenberger. No.
Mr. Skiles. No.
Mr. Mica. Nothing was related to an engine failure. And it
was interesting the first time I heard you say, Captain, that
you saw not just one bird, you saw many birds. You said, "many
birds," Captain?
Mr. Sullenberger. Yes. When I first noticed the birds, they
completely covered our view out the front window.
Mr. Mica. Did you see many birds, First Officer?
Mr. Skiles. Yeah, I probably saw them a little bit before
Sully. And there was a large number of birds all flying in a
line, as you would normally see geese fly.
Mr. Mica. Okay. He gave you permission to go to 1500. When
you hit the birds, were you at 2000 or something? What was
the--do you know the estimated altitude that the strike
occurred?
Mr. Sullenberger. Our initial altitude clearance was to
5,000. We were given clearance to 15,000.
Mr. Mica. Okay. I am sorry.
I heard 2900 feet at the bird strike. Is that about right?
Mr. Sullenberger. I have not seen the data from the flight
data recorder.
Mr. Mica. You were above 1500, though?
Mr. Sullenberger. I think that that range of 2900 to 3000
is probably a good place to start.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Let me talk to the air traffic controller,
Mr. Harten.
You were at a panel, and you had a radar screen that could
detect, you could detect any obstacles to flight and also
aircraft, correct?
Mr. Harten. Yeah. I could see aircraft.
Mr. Mica. Was that the latest technology or was it old
technology?
Mr. Harten. I mean the radar scopes we work with, I think
we have had for about 8 years, 7 years.
Mr. Mica. Adequate. Now, I am told that sometimes air
traffic controllers dumb down the equipment, the radar
equipment to eliminate some of the clutter. Do you know if the
equipment that you had was dumbed down in any way to eliminate
any of the clutter?
Mr. Harten. It was not. I am not familiar--what do you mean
"dumbed down"?
Mr. Mica. Well, that you couldn't detect certain objects.
What they do is, there is clutter on the screen; and I am
told----
Mr. Harten. Well, what we can do is, we can adjust our
filter limits. And that will get rid of some data blocks----
Mr. Mica. Right.
Mr. Harten. --transponders, altitude, low aircraft----
Mr. Mica. Had you adjusted your equipment in any way to----
Mr. Harten. Well, working LaGuardia departure, we look from
the ground up to----
Mr. Mica. Are you able to ever detect--now, these are, I am
told, Canadian geese, 12 to 24 pounds. And I am told by the
crew that there was a flock. Is that normally detectable?
Mr. Harten. Not often. Sometimes you can see a primary
target on the scope with the large----
Mr. Mica. NTSB has seen the records of the--and they now
have the records.
Mr. Harten. My scope, yes.
Mr. Mica. Do those records also record the level at which
any clutter is removed from the screen?
Mr. Harten. Yes, they would have that information.
Mr. Mica. Okay. So that is with them now.
There was not any avian hazard detection equipment at that
site; is that right?
Mr. Harten. No, there is not.
Mr. Mica. Are you aware of the equipment that they do have
that the Air Force and NASA use?
Mr. Harten. No, I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Mica. You aren't. Okay. Because I do know that there is
equipment. You are aware of that.
Have you ever been able to detect on any radar screen any
avian activity?
Mr. Harten. On occasion, if it is a large enough flock of
birds, and they are at an altitude where we can see them, we
will get what is called a primary target. And that is just
basically a dot on the radar scope. There is no way of telling
if that is a bird or not.
Mr. Mica. And you did not see that that day?
Mr. Harten. There was nothing on the scope.
Mr. Mica. We will find out what the screens--or what the
radar detection was set for. Now, as an air traffic controller,
too, you have a limited number of options to send them out of
LaGuardia. And you are aware that for some 30 years, we still
have the same routes out of the New York airspace. Correct?
Mr. Harten. Yes.
Mr. Mica. The last 18 years, we have been trying to
redesign that. So the choices for Sullenberger to take that
U.S. Air aircraft out of LaGuardia are basically what is shown
up there--the color. Is that correct? Those are your choices of
airspace exit for him?
Mr. Harten. That looks like a 360 heading off 4 runway
heading and 155 heading.
Mr. Mica. But those are your choices?
Mr. Harten. Those are coordinated ahead of time with all
four departures.
Mr. Mica. Are you aware that we are trying to enhance some
of the departure by redesign of the airspace--put that one up
there--which would give you a few more choices. You don't have
these choices now, do you?
Mr. Harten. No, we do not. I can tell you right now, some
of those wouldn't work.
Just being honest.
Mr. Mica. But my point is you are limited in your choices
of departure. Is that correct?
Mr. Harten. Yes.
Mr. Mica. And that the design of the airspace is still
limited to what was done some nearly three decades ago. And my
point is that we haven't redesigned that airspace in some--we
have been working on it 18 years, and we still don't have it.
So you have limited choices, you have limited technology. I
am just trying to look at what our options are to make certain
that this doesn't happen again, or that you have the tools to
make certain that you have options. Okay.
Mr. Harten. Okay.
Mr. Mica. Let me just ask you one more question for
everyone and I will be through. Experience is a key to
everything here. Go down again and tell me again how much
experience for the record each one of you had.
Captain.
Mr. Sullenberger. I learned to fly 42 years ago, but at the
airline, 29 years. I have just about 20,000 hours of flying.
Mr. Mica. First Officer.
Mr. Skiles. I have 32 years of flying, and I have slightly
more than 20,000 flying hours.
Mr. Mica. Ms. Dail.
Ms. Dail. Twenty-nine years.
Mr. Mica. Ms. Dent.
Ms. Dent. Twenty-six years.
Mr. Mica. Ms. Welch.
Ms. Welch. Thirty-eight years.
Mr. Mica. Lastly, Harten.
Mr. Harten. I have 10 years' experience.
Mr. Mica. One final question for you. And this is important
because we get a lot of criticism about the aging or
demographics of our air traffic controllers. You are fairly
young, but you have got good experience. Were there backup
personnel at your experience that had adequate experience?
Mr. Harten. Yeah, there were experienced controllers around
me, yes. There wasn't a backup for my position. There wasn't
someone standing behind me.
Mr. Mica. Again, we have to know, were you properly staffed
and backed up?
Mr. Harten. I am not sure what the staffing was that day,
to be honest with you.
Mr. Mica. But when you went off, some junior guy that was
just wet around the ears was going to take over. That would not
be happening, right?
Mr. Harten. We have one guy that has only about a year and
a half experience.
Mr. Mica. Would there be a possibility of him taking over?
Mr. Harten. Taking over for me? During the event?
Mr. Mica. At any point.
Mr. Harten. He could have worked departure.
Mr. Mica. That is what I need to know because our air
traffic controllers express concern about the backup that they
have, and I need to know who was there and how we man those
important positions with qualified personnel.
Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. Yield back.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
recognizes the distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee,
Chairman Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the witnesses
before us, you represent the very best of aviation. Lindbergh
would be proud of you. Your management of the immediate impact
and the aftermath of that impact, and the tragedy, are
testimonial. They are exemplary of what we expect and what
America sets forth for the world in excellence in aviation
service. Captain Sullenberger, I think you've got jet fuel in
your veins.
I think the lesson of this experience is not which route,
what we are doing with the east coast departure and arrivals,
routing systems can be a very complicated thing and go on for
many years; whether we can do it or not, whether it impacts
people's lives and livelihoods or not. The lesson is CRM: Crew
Resource Management.
The communication between captain and first officer, the
instant, to me, it's like the Harlem Globetrotters. The ball
goes in the air. Somebody else knows what to do with it. That
is what you did. Immediately you knew what to do. You didn't
haul out a manual in the cabin, you didn't haul out a manual
and look at things. You knew exactly what to do.
In the cab, the air traffic control tower, you knew what to
do. Your calm, steady voice offering options, offering choices
for the flight deck crew, is what we expect the best of air
traffic control.
It wasn't always so. In 1985, in January, at Reno, Nevada,
a Lockheed Electra took off with 94 passengers on board. In a
minute and four seconds after departure, the crew heard a
thunk, thunk. Thunk, thunk. Both the captain and first officer
began troubleshooting. They forgot to fly the aircraft. It
crashed. Ninety-three people died. One 14-year old lad
survived.
The NTSB investigation found that the proximate cause of
the thunk was an open door on the hull of the aircraft. An
access door, just a little one like this, that hadn't closed.
It was flapping back and forth. But the immediate cause was the
failure of the crew to fly the aircraft. And they began this
very long, intense renewal of heightened attention to the
communication in the flight deck and in the cabin.
A few years later, in Sioux City, Iowa, a United DC 10 was
in route, and suddenly it too lost all power. Lost all control
of all wing surfaces, all control surfaces. As it turned out,
the disk in the tail engine just blew out, just gave out, and
flew right through and severed the hydraulic lines, and landed
in a cornfield, as it turned out later.
But there too the flight deck crew were communicating with
each other constantly and using their combined experience and
resources and understanding and knowledge of the aircraft. Each
had a role, each played that role, each carried it forward and
saved 110 lives. There were fatalities on that tragic instant.
And time and again we find the training.
There was another incident, however, in December of 1993,
actually, in my district, between my hometown and our nearby
community, Hibbing, a Metroliner of Mesaba Airlines, en route
to a landing in Hibbing, with 16 passengers on board, and the
captain realized he was too high on approach, and made an
excessively rapid descent.
As it turned out, the first officer was much junior, with
less skill, less experience, less training, and in the flight
data recorder reported his concern about the rate of descent.
But this pilot had a reputation of being an imperious person,
and his right-hand partner was frequently intimidated from
raising a voice, raising a concern. That was a failure of CRM.
All persons died as that aircraft descended way too fast,
came down below the level needed for approach and ran slam into
an abandoned mine dump that we call manmade mountains in our
area.
We have all this wonderful technology aboard aircrafts;
Mode C transponders and GPS and GPWS and TCAS and ground
proximity warning systems. But, in the end, people fly the
aircraft.
You had the right pairing. A very seasoned first officer,
very seasoned pilot; pilot in command and first officer. And it
worked beautifully.
The cabin crew. Next time, I suspect you will trip any
passenger who tries to get up and run to the door. But, again,
performing professionally. And our air traffic control system.
I wonder, Mr. Harten, were you in an air traffic control
facility on September 11?
Mr. Harten. I was employed then, but I wasn't working that
day. I had the day off.
Mr. Oberstar. I have talked with controller after
controller who said when they finally got all 5,430 aircraft
out of the sky and looked at that blank screen, the hair stood
on the back of their necks. Every one of them has had the same
feeling.
There is something about this aviation. You know, you have
everyday 2 million of our fellow citizens in the air somewhere
in the continental United States. And you are responsible for
their lives. And when there is nothing on that screen, it sends
shivers up your back because you have that attachment, that
care. That is the lesson of the survival of this incident.
Keep it up. Thank you for your example, for your courage,
and for your professionalism, all of you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much. I really just have a couple
of questions. I wonder if any of you have had experience on
previous occasions ditching aircraft or close calls and evasive
action. You talked of all the years you have been flying.
Certainly, I guess part of pilot training is to train for
unanticipated emergencies. Could you discuss that a little bit?
Clearly, your experience is a big asset. But what does that
mean?
Mr. Sullenberger. I think the essence of the airline
piloting profession is preparation, experience, and training,
education. It's an interesting mix of confidence and caution,
and it's working very hard never to be surprised. We have to be
aware. We have to be alert and vigilant and ready at any moment
to meet some ultimate test that we never know if or when will
ever occur.
This crew was tested on January 15. We didn't see it
coming, but we used our experience and our skill and those of
our colleagues and the first responders to make it a successful
outcome.
Mr. Petri. I have sort of a slightly unrelated question.
Being from Wisconsin, I represent a place called the Horicon
Marsh. We have an enormous number of geese. They used to
migrate. They are called Canadian geese. They are supposed to
go down south. Unfortunately, in recent time, for a variety of
reasons, including hatching these geese and releasing the
hatchlings into the bog to supplemental it, thinking they would
migrate with the others. They don't. They don't know how to
migrate, many of them. They stay around.
Do you think as part of this we should be thinking about
clearing the ones that don't migrate off the land? They are a
mess for aviation, they are bad for golf courses and
recreation, as long as these creatures are turning into
enormous pests and they are a huge danger to life, or is that
overkill from the goose's point of view? Any of you have any
comment on that? Have you seen--is this a really rare
experience or are these creatures around a constant threat?
They are pretty big. They are not just small birds.
Mr. Skiles. As you know, sir, I am from Wisconsin as well,
and I drive by the Horicon Marsh several times a year on
camping trips up to the Dorr County area. You are right, you do
see an awful lot of geese in that area. But you see geese
everywhere. There are so many of them. They seem to really have
exploded in population lately.
But I guess personally, I still do think that this was an
extremely rare event that may never recur. Just the chance of
hitting them, them being in just the wrong place and us just
being in the wrong place. I think it is just a fluke. This may
never recur again, even if we do nothing about them. Frankly,
there are so many of them, I don't know what we would do at
this point.
Mr. Petri. I think, finally, I would be remiss if I didn't
give you an opportunity. Several of you in your prepared
statements talked about the pressure that the airline industry
has been on since 9/11, and really before, since deregulation,
and the implications for the profession of being a pilot and
for the airlines and so on. Do you have any particular
suggestions or areas you think we should be looking on to help
increase the chances that we will maintain professionalism in
the industry, going forward, which, as you pointed out, has
been--is under pressure right now.
Mr. Skiles. Well, the two things that I would suggest is,
as I mentioned in my statement, contract negotiations seem to
go on absolutely indefinitely, and of course the bankruptcies
have just decimated the contracts that we used to have. What we
really need is to have a finite timetable within the National
Mediation Board process so that they cannot just go on
interminably the way they do now, to allow us to rebuild these
professions, to make it something that people will aspire to
and that people want to do again.
The other suggestion I might have is the Railway Labor Act
itself, which we have to work under, actually protects
railroads much better than it does airlines. In our case, while
we have all the disadvantages of the negotiated process within
the Railway Labor Act, we do not have the protections to our
contracts that the Railway Labor Act does provide for
railroads, in that it is very easy just to abrogate our
contracts as aviation professionals. If we were working for a
railroad, they would actually have to negotiate any kind of
changes to the contracts, even under the Railway Labor Act.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member, and now
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr.
Harten for your testimony. It seems to me that you describe
some of the symptoms of post-traumatic stress. And I would
guess that all the crew may have experienced some of the same
things, although maybe in different degrees.
As one who worked as a musician most of my professional
adult life before I came to Congress, I am used to the term or
the saying, "Don't quit your day job." But I am shocked to
learn that the captain and first officer are both working a
second job so that you can keep flying. I am just shocked, is
all I can say.
First Officer Skiles, what you just talked about in terms
of the railroad agreement giving the pilots the disadvantages
but not the advantages in terms of negotiation and mediation,
et cetera, I think is something that we will probably want to
look at on this Subcommittee, and rectify. And we have had
representatives, by the way, of Pilots Association, the Flight
Attendants Association, and the Mechanics Union, the Air
Traffic Controllers Association, even the attorneys for the FAA
come before this Subcommittee and talk about the difficulty
they have had in the last 8 years working with the FAA during
that time. I trust and hope that this year we will see a new
management that will be working in a more cooperative manner
with all of you and your colleagues.
Captain Sullenberger, based on your experience, are there
any aircraft design issues that could be reexamined perhaps to
make water landings safer or more feasible?
Mr. Sullenberger. Yes, Congressman. There are many aircraft
that fly domestically that are not required to have life vests
on board, or life rafts, and instead rely upon seat cushions.
Had we had one of those airplanes and not an airplane equipped
for over water use, this would have been a much more
challenging situation.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. And I assume based on the
conversations here, and other ones you probably already had,
that there will be at least a regulatory or perhaps an airline
decision to routinely instruct passengers not to open the aft
decks. That is in the case of a water landing.
And, Captain Skiles, in your testimony--or in U.S. Airways
testimony, it states that you performed the dual engine failure
emergency checklist in an attempt to restore thrust to the
engines. Could you take us through some of the items on that
checklist?
Mr. Skiles. There are a number of items you have to go
through. It is actually designed more for doing at high
altitude. If you just had a dual flameout for whatever reason,
maybe you flew through volcanic ash or you had a fuel
interruption. So it is actually very long, very lengthy, and of
course, given the time frame, we were only able to get about to
the bottom of the first page. But the items that we did
accomplish all basically to ensure that we had electrical and
hydraulic power to the aircraft even while we are in a glide.
Actually, we have an engine master switch which resets some of
the computers. It is a lot like your computer at home. When it
starts to act up, you reboot it. That is essentially what you
are doing there. You are trying to reboot the engine because it
is actually controlled by computers.
But that is about as far as we got before we actually
performed the ditching.
Mr. Hall. Have either you or Captain Sullenberger been in
the cockpit of flights that had bird strikes previously that
were survivable?
Mr. Skiles. Well, a bird strike is rare, but it is not a
particularly unusual circumstance. I would imagine that just
about any pilot that has flown for any length of time has
encountered bird strikes. But normally it is a seagull or small
bird that maybe doesn't even dent the air frame. It might
just--the mechanic might just come out and clean the blood off
the nose. That is normally the kind of bird strikes that you
have.
Mr. Hall. But geese in both engines are unlikely to leave
the turbines functioning.
Mr. Skiles. That is something for the NTSB to determine in
their investigation. But it is certainly a bigger bird than I
have ever hit before.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, once again, and congratulations. The
country is very grateful to you all. I yield back.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first question, I
assume you get training on how to ditch an airplane. Is that
correct? Is that in a simulator? Was it helpful to you? I
assume you got it and I assume it was helpful.
Mr. Sullenberger. The pilots and flight attendants are
taught in ditching. And we do have a procedure in our manuals
to follow. What was unique about this situation were the many
things we had to confront, the many problems in such a short
period of time. But I think ditching would be a difficult thing
to practice in the current level of simulation that is
available to us in the pilot flight simulators.
Mr. Ehlers. Oh, really. Does it describe to you what angle
you should try to hit the water at?
Mr. Sullenberger. There is guidance on those kind of
parameters, yes.
Mr. Ehlers. So you are well-trained on that as well. You
mentioned the problem with the airlines. The labor agreement
and so forth. And Congress doesn't normally like to get in the
middle of labor management battles, but it has always seemed to
me particularly inappropriate to have the airline personnel
represented under a law that is designed for railroads. Do you
think your union would be in favor or in support of attempting
to write a specific law for aviation, just as many, many years
ago a specific law for railroads was written? You were just
stuck in there because railroads move people, planes move
people. Therefore, you are both in transportation. It didn't
make sense to me. What are your comments on that?
Mr. Sullenberger. What we need is a level playing field.
What we need is an impetus for both sides to negotiate in good
faith in a reasonable timetable. My concern is for the safety
and the integrity of the air travel system. That we continue to
be able to attract and to keep highly experienced, highly
qualified people.
Mr. Ehlers. Part of the problem--in fact, I think a major
part of the problem nowadays is the sorry state of the
airlines. And we had a small meeting with the CEOs of the major
airlines a few months ago and I said, I just don't understand.
I mean, your planes are so full that I now have to make
reservations 2 and 3 weeks in advance to get the flights I
want. And every plane I am in is filled. Gas prices or fuel
prices are back down. And you are still losing money.
So there is something wrong with the business model that
says you are as busy as you can be, and you should be making
money. And you are losing money. I really think that is a good
share of the problem. That given the present state of
competition, or lack of competition because of restrictions on
the airlines. If they don't get a better business model, if
they are not able to make sufficient funds, that is going to
reflect on your salaries because airlines can't give you
salaries that they can't afford to pay.
Do you have any words of wisdom in how you think the
airlines should run their business? Not so much the business
aspect of it, but what can they do to be more competitive and
to make money, which is their principal objective?
Mr. Sullenberger. I can only give testimony from my direct
personal experience. However, I have in this airline industry,
I have 29 years of direct personal experience, and it is the
direct personal experience not only of myself but of my family.
As I said in my remarks, my decision to remain in this
profession that I have loved and had a passion for my entire
working life has come at a great kind of financial cost for me
and my family.
What I would say in answer to your question is that to
those who say that they are paying market wages because they
still fill the pilot seats, that if these trends continue, we
probably will find people to do this job. It just won't be the
same ones doing it now.
Mr. Ehlers. I think that highlights the problem. I am
concerned, as you expressed the concern earlier, about the
younger, inexperienced pilots. And I remember they have to
start somewhere. But I fly, because we fly so much in our work,
I fly on a number of planes that are piloted by quite young
people. I sometimes joke that it looks like they barely got out
of high school.
I really want them to have a job, but I do get a little
nervous about flying with someone who has that much experience.
And the Buffalo Continental experience illustrates that. It is
too early to tell exactly what happened, but it does look as if
the pilot may have gotten rattled, and forgot.
When I learned to fly, one thing I never forgot, the first
thing you always do is fly the airplane. And it appears he may
have lost that in the concern about the icing. I hope it is
not--I don't want to blame the pilot. But if that is true, that
is a good example of how lack of experience could result in a
disaster situation.
I don't ask you to comment on that, but this is my
editorializing. We really have to have adequate training and
high standards and, above all, they have to remember how to fly
the airplane, no matter what happens.
The last question is: Is there something we can do about
the bird instead of just detecting them. I have noted, for
example, I fly out of National a lot very frequently, and I am
driving down there I see the Canadian geese eating grass in the
park at the end of the runway. That, to me, is a highly
dangerous situation. In your pilot circles are you talking
about any solution to the bird problem?
Mr. Sullenberger. Many of the warnings that we get now
about bird activity are routine, are general. They are not
specific. I look forward to the industry as a whole working
together with technical experts to find ways to detect and to
give pilots more specific warnings about specific groups of
birds at specific areas.
The other issue is some birds are resident, some are
migratory. As Jeff has testified, the migratory birds can be
anywhere. They may be large.
As to what happened in our experience, I think it is
reasonable for those in the industry to reevaluate the engine
certification standards which currently require that during
certification testing only an engine be capable of sustaining
an impact of a single 4-pound bird and not producing useful
thrust but simply not having an uncontained failure or catching
on fire.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. Good point. In my area, we worry more
about deer strikes than bird strikes. But that is perhaps a
little unusual.
One last comment to the air traffic control specialist. I
listened several times to the entire transcript of what
happened, and you did a very commendable job. It was
interesting to me to hear. You sounded totally unflappable. And
I was impressed by the way you handled all the other planes in
between your calls to this flight. And so I commend you for
that.
Mr. Harten. Thank you very much.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Michigan,
and now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I echo the sentiments
of my colleagues, and thank you for putting together this fine
hearing. Again, thank you for coming and providing your
insights.
I guess I take from this hearing two grave concerns. Really
one is the overall condition of the airline industry itself and
the notion that we can lose people who are so experienced. And
then the issue on the birds itself.
Let's talk about the birds first because I know that there
was also the case in Louisiana where a helicopter recently went
down--I think it was in Louisiana--because of the impact with
the birds. How serious is this problem, in your opinion,
Captain Sullenberger?
Mr. Sullenberger. As Jeff stated, anyone who has been in
the aviation business for a while has had a bird strike. But,
typically, they are a single bird, a small bird, that strikes
the airplane in a noncritical area, and often does no damage.
This was a very different situation. This was atypical, but the
risk needs to be adequately assessed.
Mr. McMahon. Was it atypical, and we are not bird experts
here, but just from your visual observations, do they normally
avoid the airplane or was this unusual because there was
contact with such a large flock?
Mr. Sullenberger. As Jeff said, I think what made this
unusual is the fact that our flight path intersected the birds'
flight path and that there were so many large birds that
happened to strike the entire aircraft, including both engines.
Mr. McMahon. Okay. And on the industry itself, it is very
alarming. And I really thank you, all of you, for coming in and
sort of taking a very public stand on this very important
issue. Do you see, because I know you work as a consultant as
well--how imminent do you think the problem is? Is it critical
today? Do we have the level of experienced piloting and
staffing for our airplanes today, and is this a problem that
will come down the road? Or is it at a critical mass now?
Mr. Skiles. The first thing, I think it was critical 5
years ago. I think if you look at the state of the airline
industry today, it needs to be rebuilt immediately. It is not
something that is going to happen down the road. I mean,
certainly it will get worse as experienced pilots retire. But
it is something that is occurring right now, today.
Mr. McMahon. And you both mentioned in your testimony that
the deterioration began right after 2001, 9/11. Is that because
of the dramatic loss in air traffic volume at that time and the
impact on the industry, or were there other factors?
Mr. Sullenberger. I think this began earlier. I think it
really began in 1978 with the deregulation of the airlines.
That set the stage for all of us to follow. Certainly, it has
been greatly exacerbated by the perfect storm of events since
September 11. SARS, the economic downturns, the bankruptcies,
the mergers. The bankruptcies, I think, were used by some as a
fishing expedition to get what they could not get in normal
times.
Mr. McMahon. Again, thank you all very much for what you
have done and coming here today and presenting your testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, the former Chairman of
this Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for calling this hearing. I don't intend to take much time.
I do want to join with my other colleagues and commend the
crew. And I happen to have had three constituents from my
district in east Tennessee who were on the plane. And there was
a very lengthy article about the two women from my district in
this past Sunday's Knoxville News Sentinel. One woman was on
the very last row and one woman was on the 13th row. That
article brought home to me how scary this event was even after
you had ditched because they described waist high water and
some problems in attempting to get off the airplane.
So certainly you all did a great job. And, Captain
Sullenberger, they even had an article several weeks ago about
a distant cousin of yours from east Tennessee. So maybe a lot
of people are claiming relationship to you now. I don't know.
Mr. Sullenberger. There is a branch of our family that was
in Tennessee, and I have been reacquainted with some distant
relatives whom I had not seen since a very early age.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I was going to ask what the odds were of
something like this happening. Again, Mr. Petri covered that.
And First Officer Skiles said it was just a real fluke. I
didn't know whether this was something that was a billion to 1
or once in 500 years or whatever. Apparently, it was extremely,
extremely unusual. I do wonder.
We have been given these statistics about 7,500 bird
strikes reported in 2007, and the number since 1990. Is this a
growing problem, in your minds, or has this been going on
pretty much at the level that it is at now, and are there any
airports where it is worse than others?
Mr. Skiles. One of the reasons that you are seeing that it
appears to be a growing problem is the reporting requirements
for bird strikes have increased dramatically just in recent
years. Last week though, I did actually tour my local airport.
And the airport manager took me around. And I had no idea what
they actually have to go through to combat birds and bird
strikes on their airport.
I am no expert on it. You are certainly going to have
experts who are going to testify. But, in many ways, the
airports are somewhat hamstrung by a lot of regulations;
environmental regulations, for instance, that prevent them from
handling these specific instances.
For instance, the airport manager where I live, they
extended the runway. Where they extended it happened to be in a
little bit of a marshy area. And they were required by Federal
regulations to actually recreate another wetland right next to
one of the runways because they had to recreate it on their
property. And, of course, wetlands actually attract birds.
It is a much more difficult problem too because every bird
species seems to have their own thing that they don't like. For
instance, some don't like sound. But, for instance, seagulls,
they don't care about sound. The little propane cannons that
they use at airports don't affect them at all. But what
apparently affects seagulls mostly is if you shoot one of them,
because if they see a dead seagull, they disappear.
And, in some areas of the country, for instance, I believe
California was the one that the airport manager mentioned where
I live, it is actually illegal to shoot any kind of bird. They
have to either trap them and take them someplace else or use
some other sort of mitigation techniques.
So I am sure you are going to get testimony on that. But
perhaps some of the rules do need to be refined around airports
to give them more latitude.
Mr. Duncan. So it is not a one-size-fits-all situation
then. Apparently some of the environmental rules and
regulations need to be looked at in regard to this situation.
Since this has happened and you have heard all that you have
heard about this, do most of you feel that most of the airports
in the country are doing everything they can to combat this, or
do you think this is something that they need to do a lot more
about?
Mr. Sullenberger. I think one thing is that most airports
in this country are locally controlled and operated. There are,
of course, Federal standards. But it is really up to each
individual airport operator to determine whether or not and to
what extent and how they will control the birds that happen to
be in that particular area.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Boccieri.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
hosting this Committee. Let me just say to this panel who has
assembled here how proud I am of you. I am just in awe of the
professionalism and conduct that you have displayed both in the
cockpit and in the air traffic control tower to what you have
done in the events that have led after.
Captain Sullenberger, you and I share some things in
common. I am an Air Force-trained pilot. I have 15 years in the
military, 13 in aviation, and they engrained from the
beginning, Maintain aircraft control, analyze the situation,
take appropriate action. I think what you and your crew did was
exemplary. So I just wanted to tell you how proud I am. And the
poise that you showed in the tower I think is exemplary as
well.
I have many of my buddies who fly for the airlines, and
they speak the same language that you do about the uncertainty,
both as a career, and the uncertainty of whether their job is
going to be there. And it is just tragic because I have flown
all over the world and I can tell you that the professionalism
that we have before this panel, Mr. Chairman, and what we have
in our control towers, is exemplary. I have been around the
world. I can speak to that as a C-130 pilot.
In our research here they tell us that research and NTSB
recommendations have led to airlines designed to be more
resilient to disasters. I know on the Airbus that they have a
ditching switch. And from your testimony here, you suggested
that you were only able because of time and altitude and the
likelihood of a ditching that you were only able to get partly
through the dual engine failure checklist.
My question is: When this airplane landed in the water and
you weren't able to perform that checklist, did you have the
situational awareness to close the ditching switch that closes
all the holds below the waterline? Can you speak to how that
transpired?
Mr. Sullenberger. The answer is there was not time. We did
not get that far in the checklist. The bottom line is, in this
case it was irrelevant because the ditching push button, while
theoretically it is a good idea, and I understand why the
engineers and designers included it in the airplane, it only is
designed to close some small openings that are normally open in
the bottom of the airplane.
Upon first contact with the water, larger openings occurred
in the airplane much larger than any of the vents that the
ditching push button was designed to close. It wouldn't have
mattered even if we had gotten through it in this case.
Mr. Boccieri. Do you think the design of the Airbus lent
itself to staying afloat for as long as it did?
Mr. Sullenberger. I cannot speak to that. I would hesitate
to speculate. I can only say that we are very happy that it
stayed afloat as long as it did.
Mr. Boccieri. We are too. I can tell you that your
passengers are very proud of the efforts that you gave there. I
want to follow up with one other thing here. The industry as a
whole is going through a flux and, with the raising of the
retirement age to 65 now, and the quality of the training that
you go through, it is important that we understand that at some
point those Baby Boomers who are flying right now are not going
to be there. And is it appropriate to require more training
with simulation?
I remember going through our simulator flights and
experiencing every aircraft mechanical emergency that you can
ever experience. Is the training adequate, from your
perspective as a flight check pilot, to what we give to those
with lower number of hours?
Mr. Sullenberger. It is important as one generation gives
up the profession and hands it over to the next that the body
of knowledge of what we do and why we do it continues. There
must be a continuity. You have to know the history, you have to
know about the seminal accidents that Chairman Oberstar talked
about, and others, that are really the reasons for much of what
we do. You have to know not just what to do, but why we do it,
so that when you are in a time critical situation and there
isn't time to use every checklist or consult every reference,
that you know what clearly you must do. You have a very clear
idea about what your priorities are and, in the limited time
you have available to you, what steps you must take.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you. I will close by saying that in our
reports also they say that the flight attendants and cabin crew
are trained within 90 seconds to evacuate the aircraft. I know
those seconds probably seemed longer than that. But you truly
were able to help this be a success story. So I want to thank
you again.
I am proud of what you stand for, what you have done both
in the cockpit and outside of it. I think you have been
extremely professional and humble. And, thank you.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too just want to
express my congratulations to all of you and collective
gratitude on behalf of this Committee and the American people
for what you did on that day.
If you will indulge me on a personal moment. I took a great
deal, almost a vicarious thrill in what you all did because my
late uncle, for whom I was named, was a senior captain at
United Airlines. His name was Charles C. Dent.
And he was the first pilot to land a plane, a commercial
plane, on experimental foam in the 1950's during a crisis. It
was quite an ordeal for him, as was his crew, at the time. He
had to jettison his fuel over the Pacific Ocean. Took him about
an hour or two to land and do a belly landing because the
landing gear wouldn't come down. He did it successfully.
He was momentarily famous and the actor Jimmy Stewart
actually did a tape recording of this whole event. It is on
video. I have seen it. I would be happy to share it with the
Committee at some point. It was really quite a thrill for him.
He passed away a few years ago. And it is ironic a Dent was on
the plane too on this occasion.
I just wanted to share that with you. It just gave me a
real thrill to see what you were able to do, all of you were
able to do, with that belly landing on the Hudson River. It
made me think of his experience back in the 1950's. He was
asked at the time by the tower, How much foam do you want down
on the runway? Nobody had ever done this before with
passengers. And he said, Well, whatever is appropriate for
occasion. So that is what happened. Everybody walked off.
My only question for Captain Sullenberger is this: When he
got off the plane, the Chairman of United Airlines handed him a
$5,000 check in the 1950's, which was a lot of money back then.
Did anybody hand you a check, or any of the crew?
Mr. Sullenberger. Interestingly, US Airways gave everyone,
passengers and crew, $5,000 very shortly after the incident to
replace personal items lost. And we appreciate that.
Mr. Dent. Well, he got $5,000 just for landing the plane.
So I just wanted to share that with you. But, thank you again
for all that you have done. Again, it was just a remarkable
experience you probably would rather not have participated in
but, nevertheless, just an extraordinary occasion and
achievement and you should all be very proud of what you did.
Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair recognizes the gentleman, and now
recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all of you.
Again, I just want to pile on additional thanks, and just
really remarkable actions that we have heard about today and
witnessed in the media. Your discussion about the team approach
certainly is evident throughout the description we hear. But,
Captain Sullenberger, you were certainly the captain of this
team, and I think your calm and cool hand in this situation has
certainly emanated throughout your team.
I, again, just want to congratulate all of you. This really
was a testament to your training, a model of professionalism,
and for those 150 people that were on that plane, you certainly
made a difference in their lives, and all of the families of
those folks, yours included, certainly is remarkable.
I want to ask Captain Sullenberger, if you were talking to
a group of pilots here today, what would be your advice in
terms of lessons learned from this flight; anything that could
be done better, different, or continued, in terms of your
training for instances like this.
Mr. Sullenberger. Well, I wouldn't presume to talk to my
colleagues in an instructional fashion. I think I would just
share my experiences and just say that flying has been a
passion for me literally since I was 5 years old. I have always
paid attention, I have always devoted a great deal of care to
it. It matters to me. And it has been a source of great
satisfaction for me to continue to improve and try to excel.
I would also say that I feel a great obligation, since we
have been chosen by circumstances temporarily to represent the
profession, to represent them in a way that will not disappoint
them.
Mr. Carnahan. I don't think you have disappointed anyone. I
think certainly anyone who is in your profession, and certainly
a new generation of people thinking about going into the
profession, certainly will be inspired by your actions. Thank
you all very much.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Two quick questions. Captain Sullenberger, you heard me
mention in my opening statement about the technology that is
now being used at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in
conjunction with the University of Illinois, and they are using
an enhanced radar system to better deal with detection. Are you
familiar with that technology?
Mr. Sullenberger. I had not heard about that until I read
about it after the event of January 15.
Mr. Costello. Very good.
Mr. Harten, let me ask you. Obviously, it is very clear
that the experience that all of you, the entire crew and you as
an air traffic control specialist, experience paid off. I would
hate to think, and I said this in an earlier hearing, what the
outcome would have been had someone with an entry level
experience as First Officer Skiles said earlier about 300 hours
versus 3,000 hours of experience. And the same thing with the
flight attendants. I would hate to think of what may have
happened in this situation with a pilot and first officer and
flight attendants that were new to the job, so to speak.
You heard Mr. Mica mention earlier that there have been
concerns about the rapid retirement of the most experienced air
traffic controllers. We have had hearings on it. We have talked
about fatigue as a factor, we talked about--I have said I was
in a tower recently in Florida just a few months ago and, I
forget how many, but I think there were, out of the 10
controllers there, the most experienced one at the time when I
was there had 1 year of experience. The rest of them had less
than a year.
I just want you, if you would, to explain from that day
your position on what experience meant to you versus someone
who may have been in the tower for the first day, or less than
a year.
Mr. Harten. In that case, experience was everything. I
mean, I have 10 years of working busy traffic. And just the
experience of working that traffic for so long gives me the
tools to be able to react to a situation the way I did. You
can't substitute experience in a case like that.
Mr. Costello. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr.
Petri, for a question.
Mr. Petri. I forgot to ask this of Captain Sullenberger.
The news stories indicated, and I guess other reports, that
when this was all over, before leaving, you walked up and down
the aisle a couple of times to make sure that everything was in
order. Is that part of protocol? What was going through your
mind? Why did you do that?
Mr. Sullenberger. I had the time. And I could leave no
possibility that there would be anybody left behind.
Mr. Petri. We thank you for setting a fine example. Thank
you all.
Mr. Costello. Let me, again, thank all of you on our first
panel for your testimony, for being here today. Obviously, I
won't repeat what has been said many times. But we thank you
all for what you did and how you reacted superbly. Your,
obviously, training, your experience paid off not only for you
but for the 150 people that were on that flight that day.
So we are very proud of you and we appreciate everything
that you have done and that you continue to do to keep the
flying public safe every day.
That concludes the testimony from the first panel. We
appreciate your being here, and your entire statements will be
entered into the record. Thank you very much.
The Chair now will ask the second panel to come forward.
And I will introduce the panel as the first panel is leaving.
If you would please take your Chairs as soon as you can.
The Honorable Robert Sumwalt, III, Member of the National
Transportation Safety Board, accompanied by Mr. Tom Haueter,
the Director of Office of Aviation Safety with the NTSB; Ms.
Margaret Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety
with the FAA; Captain John Carey, Chairman, Accident and
Investigation Committee, U.S. Air Line Pilots Association; Ms.
Candace Kolander, Coordinator, Air Safety, Health, and
Security, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO;
Captain John Prater, President of the Air Line Pilots
Association, International; Mr. Mark Reis, Managing Director,
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Board Member, Airports
Council International of North America; Mr. John Ostrom,
Chairman, Bird Strike Committee-USA, Manager, Airside
Operations, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport,
accompanied by Dr. Richard Dolbeer.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT SUMWALT, III, MEMBER, NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, ACCOMPANIED BY TOM HAUETER,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF AVIATION SAFETY, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD; MARGARET GILLIGAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; CAPTAIN JOHN
CAREY, CHAIRMAN, ACCIDENT AND INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, U.S. AIR
LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION; CANDACE KOLANDER, COORDINATOR, AIR
SAFETY, HEALTH, AND SECURITY, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-
CWA, AFL-CIO; CAPTAIN JOHN PRATER, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS
ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; MARK REIS, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, BOARD MEMBER, AIRPORTS
COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL OF NORTH AMERICA; JOHN OSTROM, CHAIRMAN,
BIRD STRIKE COMMITTEE-USA, MANAGER, AIRSIDE OPERATIONS,
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, ACCOMPANIED BY
RICHARD DOLBEER, CHAIRMAN, (1997-2008) BIRD STRIKE COMMITTEE-
USA
Mr. Costello. The Chair will now recognize the second panel
for their testimony. Again, we appreciate you being here for
this important hearing.
We look forward to hearing your testimony. We will operate
under the 5-minute rule, which means that your entire statement
will be entered into the record. We would ask that each of you
try and summarize your testimony within 5 minutes or less.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Robert Sumwalt, III, who is a
member of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Mr. Sumwalt. Well, it is still morning. Good morning,
Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony on behalf of the NTSB. I would like to give a brief
summary of the Safety Board's investigative activities thus far
of the US Airways Flight 1549 accident.
The investigation is still in its early stages, and we are
continuing to gather factual information regarding the
circumstances of this accident.
Our goal is to learn from this accident so that we can
prevent future accidents, and to further improve aviation
safety. Information from the flight data recorder revealed that
the elapsed time from takeoff to the bird strikes was a little
over 1-1/2 minutes, and the time from the bird strikes to
touchdown in the water was about 3-1/2 minutes. The bird
strikes occurred at an altitude of about 2,750 feet mean sea
level. Additionally, the flight data recorder revealed no
anomalies in the operation of the two CFM56 engines until the
time of the bird strikes.
Under the Safety Board's supervision, the engines were
disassembled at the CFM manufacturing facility in Cincinnati.
Bird remains, including feathers, were found in both engines;
and with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the Smithsonian Institution, a determination was made that
the bird remains were that of the Canada goose.
In spite of positive determination of species, we may never
be able to determine the precise number of birds ingested. Most
often, engine bird ingestion, does not result in the loss of
thrust. Even less likely are multiple engine failures.
Our investigation so far has uncovered issues that
complicated the evacuation effort. For example, the cargo
compartment structure had been pushed up through the rear floor
of the airplane, and the aft pressure bulkhead of the fuselage
was compromised, thus allowing water to enter the rear cabin
area. This caused the fuselage to float in a tail-down
attitude, which precluded the use of the two aft slide rafts.
As part of the continuing investigation, the Safety Board
will conduct a fact-finding public hearing of this accident.
Topic areas to be examined will include turbine engine bird
ingestion capability, the joint JAA and FAA certification of
the Airbus A320 regarding water landings, the effectiveness of
bird detection mitigation efforts at or near airports, and the
current state of training at airlines regarding ditching
scenarios.
In addition to the US Airways accident, the Safety Board is
currently investigating or assisting in the investigation of
three accidents where bird strikes may have occurred. For
example, in January of this year, a Sikorsky S-76 helicopter
crashed near Morgan City, Louisiana. That accident claimed
eight lives and caused one serious injury. At this time, the
Safety Board's investigation is focusing on a possible bird
strike.
The Board is also assisting the Italian government in their
investigation of a Ryanair Boeing B-737-800 that crashed in
Italy in November of 2008. Fortunately, there were no
fatalities or injuries. Additionally, the Safety Board is
investigating the crash of a Cessna Citation that struck birds
near Oklahoma City on March 4th of last year, resulting in five
fatalities.
Since 1973, the Safety Board has issued 32 recommendations
to the FAA and other government agencies regarding bird
strikes, bird ingestion by aircraft engines, and bird hazard
mitigation. I want to underscore that the Safety Board is very
concerned with the issue of bird strikes and related hazards.
We are eager to learn more about these issues in our efforts to
help improve the safety of air transportation. From a personal
perspective, that of a former airline captain at US Airways
with more than 32 years of flying experience, and one who flew
for about 1,300 hours in the Airbus aircraft, I am extremely
interested in seeing that the Safety Board follows through with
a thorough and comprehensive investigation.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my testimony, and I will be
glad to answer questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you for your testimony, and
now recognizes Mr. Haueter.
Okay. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Margaret Gilligan.
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Congressman
Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. We thank you for
including FAA in the discussion of the events surrounding US
Airways Flight 1549's emergency landing in the Hudson River.
The circumstances of Flight 1549 were simply unprecedented,
and we, just as the rest of the world, are awed by the quick
thinking and consummate professionalism of the entire crew, as
well as the air traffic controllers involved. But before going
on, I must note that as we celebrate the outcome of Flight
1549, Mr. Chairman, as you stated, we also mourn the tragic
loss of life on Colgan Air Flight 3407 in Buffalo. We are fully
supporting the ongoing NTSB investigation, and I want to assure
you we will keep you and your staff posted on our progress.
NTSB is also still investigating Flight 1549, so I just
want to touch on FAA's efforts in three areas: first, our work
with airports to reduce the probability of bird strikes; our
standard for aircraft design to increase survivability in
crashes; and our requirements for flight crew training when
encountering emergency situations.
Our statistics on bird strikes indicate that the closer the
aircraft is to the runway, the higher the risk of a bird
strike. About 73 percent of all reported strikes occur at the
airport, from the airport surface up to 500 feet above the
ground. As you have just heard from Member Sumwalt, Flight 1549
had reached an altitude of about 2,700 feet when it encountered
a flock of Canada geese. Only about 5 percent of reported
strikes occur between 2,000 and 3,000 feet.
Since the data indicate the greatest risks for strikes
occur at the airport, the FAA has focused its bird strike
mitigation efforts in that area. We require commercial service
airports to conduct wildlife hazard assessment and, if
necessary, prepare a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to reduce
the possibility of bird strikes in and around the airports. We
work closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Smithsonian to help airports with wildlife mitigation efforts.
For the aircraft, we have design requirements for flight
into a flock of birds, for loss of engine power, and for
emergency landings on land and in the water. What occurred on
Flight 1549 indicates that in this emergency situation, all of
our safety standards were met. The engines reacted exactly as
was intended: They shut down, they remained intact, they did
not shed any parts that might have damaged the aircraft or
injured any of the passengers, they remained on the wing. After
ditching, the aircraft floated as it was required, the exits
remained available, and there was sufficient time for
successful evacuation of everyone on board.
In addition to our design requirements, we require airlines
to develop and train on ditching procedures. Flight training
includes reviewing the ditching checklist to acquaint crews
with this rarely used procedure. And flight attendant training
includes a hands-on drill to ensure the proper use of emergency
flotation equipment. At US Air, they conduct initial flight
attendant training in a pool to assure experience with rafts
and flotation devices. All these efforts contributed to the
extraordinary acts of this incredible crew.
Captain Sullenberger's training, as noted by Congressman
McMahon, enabled him to control the aircraft skillfully. First
Officer Skiles's training, as Chairman Oberstar pointed out,
assured that they worked as a team. And the incredible
professionalism of Flight Attendants Welsh, Dent and Dail, made
sure that everyone got out. But the fact remains that for all
the training and technological advances we might make, the
human element is where it can all fail or where it can astonish
all of us, as it did in this case.
Equally admirable is the work of Patrick Harten, the air
traffic controller who communicated with Captain Sullenberger
during those harrowing moments. He and the team at the New York
TRACON and LaGuardia tower were a crucial part of this
incredible story; and joining with controllers at the Teterboro
tower, they did a great job of coordinating the emergency
response notifications.
This event proves what safety professionals in aviation
have always known: It takes all of us--aircraft designers,
airlines, pilots, flight attendants, airport managers, and yes,
the Federal Government--to accomplish our outstanding safety
record.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, that concludes my
remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Ms. Gilligan.
And now the Chair recognizes Captain Carey.
Mr. Carey. Chairman Costello, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking
Members Mica and Petri and Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon.
Most importantly, I would like to acknowledge the crew of
Flight 1549, whose bravery and heroics combined with
exceptional airmanship in saving the lives of the passengers.
This has given our country a chance to proudly celebrate their
bold actions.
They have also given us the opportunity to reflect on the
current state of aviation safety. Because we are party to the
ongoing NTSB investigation, we will not comment on specific
areas that would compromise the investigation.
The Safety Board, in our opinion, has put a very
appropriate emphasis on this investigation, and we are pleased
to be a party. The reason we are a party and the reason we are
here today is to work toward preventing future accidents and to
promote aviation safety.
Airline pilots have a long tradition of safety advocacy.
Captain Sullenberger is a prime example. It is one thing to
talk about being a safety advocate, but airline pilots walk the
walk. Pilot safety volunteers work tirelessly, while dues-
paying members reach into their pockets each month to support
these ongoing safety activities. Even now, while working under
bankruptcy era contracts, our pilots continue to fund these
all-important safety projects. Each and every budget contains
significant funding for safety. Nothing could be more
gratifying than to see our colleagues from other flight crew
unions here today.
On the afternoon of January 15th, every airline pilot in
the world put themselves in the cockpit of Flight 1549. We have
all thought the ultimate: What would I do if I was at the
controls that day? We all share the feelings.
And in a very real way, Jeff and Sully have united us.
Their professionalism in the cockpit, the poise that they have
displayed during and after the event, and their personal
demeanor has been an inspiration to every pilot.
In all of the hangar flying that has taken place since this
event, nobody has second-guessed the actions of our crew. Not
many would predict a similar outcome had they been faced with
the same dilemma, which is extremely unprecedented. Airline
pilots are their own worst critics; however, this case is one
where there was no training, and almost all agree that a
successful outcome would be, at best, a long shot.
Many things went into the successful outcome of Flight
1549. Clearly, we had the vast experience of the flight deck
that day. What is also evident is that the pilots and flight
attendants, as individuals, are among the best and the
brightest that our aviation society has to offer. In addition,
our industry has built on many core safety principles, which
continue to serve us well. This crew has embraced these
principles, and successfully demonstrated them during Flight
1549.
Regarding crew experience, the industry contraction had an
unintended positive effect. In our opinion, First Officer
Jeffrey Skiles is a primary example. Having been with the
airline in excess of 20 years and previously served as a
captain, his presence on the flight deck significantly
contributed to the successful outcome of Flight 1549. Due to
attrition, however, this will not last. The greatest hope that
we have of ensuring experience on the flight deck in the future
is to promote and support a thriving airline industry.
A successful airline industry is the most important factor
in attracting and retaining qualified pilots. Competitive
salaries and benefits are central to attracting and retaining a
qualified pilot workforce. And Congress must also step up to
ensure that pilot employee pensions are protected. By
protecting their pensions, you ensure that new-hire pilots
remain in the cockpits of our airliners andbecome the Captain
Sullenbergers of the future. The Akaka amendment will go a long
way toward attaining that goal.
When we talk about core safety values, FAA oversight and
regulation is critical. FAA leadership in developing regulatory
guidance for the implementation of our Safety Management System
has stagnated to some extent the advancement of the industry
safety agenda. FAA needs to commission an aviation rulemaking
committee to push the agenda forward. Although some in the
industry have voluntarily begun programs, the standards are not
uniform, and the quality can largely be debated. Without a pure
SMS standard, such as those developed by the International
Civil Aviation Organization, individual elements such as FOQA,
ASAP, and AQP and LOSA are all administered differently, thus
making airline safety irregular at best.
Talking specifically about issues which may be germane to
Flight 1549, bird mitigation seems to be a very elusive
problem, especially the farther from the airport and the higher
the altitude. Although much has already been done, further
funding and study will be necessary to develop additional means
for mitigation. An FAA interview of FAR 139 relating to
wildlife hazards should be undertaken immediately.
The failure of engines on Flight 1549 should prompt a fresh
look at engine design and certification standards. Although the
investigation is ongoing, it seems clear from the facts in the
public domain that we have new data now by which to look at
bird ingestion. FAA leadership will also be critical towards
this effort.
The evacuation and rescue phase was unprecedented. Although
training in ditching is conducted, it has never been tested in
this arena. To safely evacuate 155 people in this environment
is a miracle in itself. The fact this was all done with two
rear exits and two rafts unavailable made the success almost an
impossibility.
One thing is clear, the entire crew performed heroically
throughout the entire evacuation and rescue. They are true
heroes, and should be recognized as such. Additionally, all of
those who operated the rescue watercraft and many who performed
heroically and unselfishly on the Hudson River that day should
also be recognized.
Open questions remain on the survivability of the aircraft.
Due to the actions and rapid response of all involved, the
sustainability of the aircraft did not become a factor;
however, the fact that the aircraft sank to the point where the
rear exits and rafts were unusable and did not remain afloat
very long after the rescue should be a concern for future
accidents. Hopefully, the investigation will shed light on the
issues as facts are discovered.
As we further analyze the accident, we should realize our
brief 5-minute testimony here today this afternoon has lasted
as long as Flight 1549. With a normal takeoff and climb, we
should realize how little time our pilots had to analyze the
situation, make a critical decision on where to land in one of
the most heavily populated areas of the world, all this while
attempting to restart failed engines, prepare the aircraft for
ditching, communicate with ATC and flight attendants, and
prepare the passengers in the cabin.
I would like to reiterate our commitment to enhancing
aviation safety as this investigation goes forward, and I want
to thank the Committee once again for the opportunity to
testify today. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Captain Carey.
And the Chair now recognizes Ms. Kolander.
Ms. Kolander. I want to thank the Committee for giving AFA
the opportunity to testify today and giving our members from US
Airways Flight 1549 the opportunity to tell their story. They
are a true testament to the strength and resilience of all
flight attendants that love this profession and take seriously
our role as aviation safety professionals.
At the same time, our thoughts and prayers go out to our
fellow flight attendants and everyone affected by the
Continental Connection Colgan Airways crash outside of Buffalo,
New York. We are sadly reminded by this accident that our
chosen career does pose a daily risk.
For decades, AFA has been at the forefront of calling for
and helping develop improvements that have been made to ensure
that our workplace, the passenger aircraft cabin, is as safe as
it can be. We have been an integral part in accident
investigations going back to the mid-1950s and played a key
role in developing recommendations from these investigations.
Over the years, we have seen a number of changes in design
standards that have improved survivability and decreased
injuries. Among them are less flammable cabin materials, floor-
level emergency escape lights, and requirements for 16-g seats
in all newly manufactured aircraft. My written testimony
provides greater detail on these and other improvements, but
many more still need to be done and need to be addressed, such
as aircraft air quality and evacuation certification standards.
The evacuation of Flight 1549 reminded everyone in the
world in stunning fashion just exactly what the role and
purpose of flight attendants are: in-flight safety
professionals. On that day, each member of this senior crew did
their jobs as trained; had they not done so, we would be
talking about a completely different outcome.
The aircraft landed at the right angle and was evacuated
quickly, with minimal injuries. There were also a number of
fortunate circumstances that day, such as the weather
conditions, readily available watercraft to provide assistance,
and time of day that lined up perfectly for a successful
outcome.
But we cannot always rely on luck. For that reason, we
build redundant safety systems into the aircraft design to
address potential failures, that is, if one of the safety
protections fails, another layer of protections in the aircraft
design will assist in mitigating continued failure or damage.
When things start to fail in the cabin, we are left to rely
solely on our training. Just because the crew did their jobs
successfully in this case doesn't mean that we should stop
building in additional operational layers in the flight
attendant world to enhance safety.
One of those layers is training. Training is crucial, just
as crucial as redundant systems in design, yet we continue to
look to enhance design. Why not look to enhance training?
Years of cultural attitudes have often relegated flight
attendants to nothing more than servers in the sky in the eyes
of some. In fact, airline management is more than willing to
spend money to add more and more customer service and sales-
type training for flight attendants, yet at the same time the
trend has been to squeeze all the required emergency safety and
security training into as little time in the classroom as
possible. Flight attendant classroom emergency training hours
have been reduced to the bare minimum allowed by the
regulations.
Now, we don't disagree with the duties associated with
customer service, but our primary role on board that aircraft
is safety. I think we can all agree it is more important for a
flight attendant to know how to properly use safety equipment
than a credit card swiping machine. But we have observed a
disturbing trend in reductions in the amount of time spent on
required emergency training. Currently, some of the regional
airline operators are providing a 2-day recurrent training for
their flight attendants.
A regional airline typically has only one or two aircraft
types, with similar configurations of the cabin, similar
locations of emergency equipment, and similar procedures for
emergency evacuation. A major operator, in contrast, has
multiple aircraft types and multiple aircraft configurations,
and is conducting only a 1-day recurrent training. And sadly
enough, we just recently learned that one of our regional
airlines is now planning to reduce their 2-day to a 1-day
emergency training. That is because the majors are doing it,
the regulations allow it, and the FAA approves it.
Training is not our only concern. My written testimony
highlights other areas; and in fact, one of those areas is
fatigue. Our President, Pat Friend, has on several occasions
addressed this Committee on that issue.
In conclusion, we have been fortunate to see an overall
decrease in commercial airline accident rates over the last few
years, but we cannot rest on our laurels. We cannot stop
researching new design standards that could further improve the
accident survival rate. In addition, we must continue to
evaluate and improve current operational procedures that would
further enhance the ability of all crew members to fulfill
their duties as safety professionals.
Mr. Costello. Ms. Kolander, we appreciate your testimony.
Now the Chair recognizes Captain Prater.
Mr. Prater. Good morning, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member
Petri. Thank you for inviting ALPA to testify before this
Committee.
Before I begin my remarks, I want to express our heartfelt
sympathies to the families and friends of those lost so
recently in the Continental Connection Colgan Flight 3407
accident. It is ALPA's privilege to support them in their time
of need.
Over a span of 78 years, ALPA has been a part of nearly
every significant safety and security improvement in the
airline industry. Today, we run the largest nongovernmental
aviation safety organization in the world, powered by hundreds
of professional airline pilots. This morning we will explore
the various safety issues associated with this accident,
including the value of having well-trained professional men and
women in the front seats of our airliners.
It is clear that Captain Sullenberger dedicates his
professional life to improving aviation safety, and we are
proud to say that ALPA provided him with that safety structure
for more than 20 years. Year after year, pilots who have
performed routinely under critical conditions deflect the
praise, just as the crew of US Airways Flight 1549 just did. We
call it "doing our jobs." But this crew provided the aviation
industry with the extraordinarily rare opportunity to analyze a
relatively intact airliner that not only successfully landed on
water, but also retained enough structural integrity to give
all the occupants time to safely evacuate.
We must learn everything we can from this ditching. ALPA
urges the FAA, working with the NTSB investigation, to conduct
a thorough analysis of the requirements for and capabilities of
the various water survival provisions on airliners, from life
jackets, which some airliners are removing, to landing in
bodies of water other than the ocean, such as the Hudson River.
As for the birds, you have to understand that the potential
for bird strikes is something that every pilot is aware of,
concerned about, and generally powerless to avoid, especially
when faced with an entire flock of Canada geese on takeoff.
Aircraft manufacturers have made great strides in designing
airplanes to withstand bird strikes. Pilots train for wildlife
avoidance. Airport operators administer Wildlife Hazard
Management Plans and are testing new technologies that the FAA
will develop into an airport Bird Strike Advisory System.
We are trying to do our part, as well, by furthering our
pilots' training with educational materials about wildlife
avoidance techniques. In fact, ALPAis releasing a publication
today which makes a number of recommendations on this issue. We
will be sure to share it with all airline pilots, including the
105-member International Federation of Air Line Pilots'
Associations.
In the end, however, the most important safety issue that
emerged from this accident involves the human element--not the
birds, not the airplane. After both engines failed, Captain
Sullenberger, First Officer Skiles, and the flight attendants
used their training and worked as a team to make split-second
life-or-death decisions that literally determined the fate of
155 souls. First Officers Derek Alter with Colgan Air and Susan
O'Donnell with American Airlines, both jump-seating on this
flight, also assisted in the evacuation. Derek even gave a
passenger the shirt off his back. All professionals.
The air traffic controllers calmly described the pilot's
emergency landing options at various local airports. The ferry
boat pilots and first responders' swift reaction enabled an
almost immediate rescue from the frigid waters.
The truth is that these individuals do this job day in and
day out, 24-7, 365 days of the year, without recognition.
Captain Sullenberger told Katie Couric that the most important
words he has heard have been from his peers. He said, I have
made them proud, that they feel pride in themselves, a pride in
their profession they hadn't felt for many years, sometimes
decades. His words stuck with all of us.
See, we know that many of our airline pilots have lost
pensions, their wages, medical benefits over the last 8 years.
Furloughs, bankruptcies, near bankruptcies further damaged many
of our contracts. The toll it has taken on our pilots and on
the future of our industry and on its safety and security: You
heard it from Captain Sullenberger and his crew earlier today.
What troubles us most is that these conditions have eroded
the pilot profession to the point where our union has raised
legitimate questions about whether the industry is capable of
hiring and retaining the next Captain Sullenberger. While the
traveling public might appreciate cheap fares in a downturned
economy, they need to know it comes with the hidden fees of
losing quality pilots and making it nearly impossible to
attract the next generation of pilots to fill the shoes of the
crew members before them.
The bottom line is that airline safety depends on many
variables, but ultimately a passenger's life is in the hands of
a highly qualified, trained, and experienced flight crew.
As the President of the largest pilots' union in the world,
I want to ensure that the kids that have been motivated by the
actions of this crew and who want to enter aviation have the
opportunity to follow in Sully's footsteps and do what we love
to do for a decent living. As professional aviators who help
keep this industry safe, together with the strong support of
Congress and certainly this Committee, we are confident that we
can turn their dreams into reality. Our success in this mission
is vital to our Nation, our industry, and the safety of the
traveling public.
Thank you very much. I would be prepared to take any
questions.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Captain Prater, and now
recognizes Mr. Reis.
Mr. Reis. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Petri, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of Airports
Council International. I am the Managing Director of Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport and am here today to describe how
airports work to reduce the risks of aircraft-wildlife strikes
and to highlight the challenges we face in doing so.
The Flight 1549 accident has dramatically highlighted the
threat posed by wildlife strikes. The number of these strikes
reported to the FAA has more than quadrupled, from 1,759 in
1990 to a record high of 7,666 in 2007. FAA strike data also
indicate that most strikes take place at or near airports.
Airports are important partners with the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Department of Agriculture's Animal and
Plant Inspection Service and Wildlife Services in mitigating
the risks that wildlife pose to aircraft operations. The FAA
requires commercial service airports to undertake immediate
action to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are
detected.
Airports are also required to have a qualified wildlife
biologist conduct a wildlife hazard assessment in the event
that an air carrier aircraft ingests wildlife into its engines,
is substantially damaged by a wildlife strike, experiences
multiple wildlife strikes, or if wildlife were observed in a
manner that could cause an aircraft to experience one of those
situations.
Often times airports then develop a Wildlife Hazard
Management Plan. These plans contain specific actions to
minimize or eliminate wildlife hazards through habitat
modifications, land use changes, and wildlife population
management. The costs of wildlife management programs vary
considerably from airport to airport, but some airports spend
$250,000 or more per year on their programs. Funds from the
Airport Improvement Program can be used to pay for a portion of
the costs associated with habitat modification projects and
wildlife management equipment; however, ongoing operating
expenses associated with these programs are typically not
eligible for Federal funding and are borne by the airports
themselves.
At Sea-Tac, we have had an extensive program to manage
wildlife hazards in place for over 30 years. Sea-Tac is located
in a highly urbanized area of western Washington, about 2 miles
east of Puget Sound, and in one of North America's four major
migratory bird flyways. Sea-Tac has implemented a number of
measures to prevent wildlife strikes. For example, our
landscaping includes only plants that do not produce fruits,
nuts, or berries. Grass is kept at an optimal height to
decrease wildlife use of the airfield for food and cover. We
have also developed our own specialized grass mix that is
wildlife resistant.
We also actively work to harass and relocate problem
species we find on the airport. The airport holds permits
issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that allows us to
harass certain bird species, relocate raptors, and lethally
remove individual migratory birds that lose their flight-fright
response.
We have incorporated wildlife management considerations
into our wetland mitigation efforts and our storm water
facility designs. For example, storm water ponds were designed
with liners and netting, specifically to exclude wildlife and
the aquatic vegetation that attracts it. We have recently
created within a few hundred yards of our new runway 60 acres
of wetlands that are specifically designed so as not to attract
birds.
In cooperation with researchers at the University of
Illinois, we are exploring enhanced wildlife monitoring through
the use of an avian radar system that was installed in August
of 2007. This system acts like a powerful pair of eyes capable
of seeing farther and higher than a human observer 24 hours a
day. Data from the system is being used to help confirm that
hazardous bird activity is not increasing near the airport's
storm water ponds and to help identify wildlife trends.
However, avian radar is not yet a silver-bullet solution that
can be used by pilots and air traffic controllers to avoid
birds in real time.
I want to address three key challenges that airports face
in our efforts to manage wildlife hazards: off-airport land
use, conflicting and overlapping regulations, and funding.
First, local zoning and permitting practices can result in
the construction of wildlife attractants near airports. Our
aviation system would benefit if airports had stronger
mechanisms to control land uses in their vicinity when safety
is at stake.
Another issue involves complex and often contradictory
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding
wildlife management and habitat protection. In some cases,
State laws restrict the type of trapping methods that airport
officials can use to manage wildlife and the use of lethal
removal even when such actions are permitted under Federal law.
In the case of Sacramento International Airport, the risk
of criminal prosecution by airport officials resulted in the
airport's ceasing certain wildlife removal and harassment
activities. Airports in Florida have encountered a similar
situation, and are working with the State legislature to remedy
it.
The Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act
requirements relating to wetlands can make it difficult,
expensive, and time-consuming for airports to modify wildlife-
attracting wetlands on and near airports and to reduce wildlife
strike risks. Providing simpler, streamlined permitting and
environmental review processes when safety is at stake would
help airports manage wildlife hazards more consistently with
Federal aviation regulations.
Finally, airports, especially smaller airports, need
funding to implement and maintain effective wildlife management
programs.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to share a little
about airports' efforts to manage the risks associated with
wildlife strikes. I am happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you for your testimony, and
now recognizes Mr. Ostrom.
Mr. Ostrom. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, and
Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Aviation, thank you for inviting me to
participate in this hearing. My name is John Ostrom, and I am
the Manager of Airside Operations for the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport. I am also proud to serve as the Chairman
of Bird Strike Committee-USA, and I am testifying on behalf of
this organization.
Bird Strike Committee-USA was established in 1991 as an
independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing
leadership to the aviation wildlife hazard management
community. Our focus is on the exchange of information,
training and education, and the promotion of research and
development to reduce the threat of wildlife hazards to
aircraft operations.
Bird Strike Committee-USA is directed by a steering
committee comprised of representatives from the Department of
Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, the United States
Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services, the aviation
industry, and U.S. airports.
From the dawn of aviation to the present day, wildlife has
posed a significant threat to aircraft and to the passengers
they carry. However, the threat has significantly increased in
recent years as a result of highly successful environmental
programs during the past 40 years that have resulted in
dramatic increases in populations of many bird species in North
America that are hazardous to aircraft. For example, 24 of the
36 largest bird species in North America have shown significant
population increases in the past 30 years, and only three
species have shown declines. The nonmigratory population of
Canada geese has quadrupled from 1 million to 3.9 million birds
in the USA from 1990 to 2008.
Over the past 18 years, our organization and its members
have worked diligently to bring awareness of this increasing
problem to the forefront of the aviation industry. We have made
significant progress, but have much still to do to realize our
vision fully.
On August 22, 2007, then Chairman of Bird Strike Committee-
USA, Dr. Richard Dolbeer, sent a letter to Vice Chairman Robert
Sumwalt of the National Transportation Safety Board. In it, Dr.
Dolbeer expressed grave concerns regarding continuing hazards
to aviation from conflicts with wildlife, especially birds. We
asked for a further review of National Transportation Safety
Recommendations A-99-86 through -94 that were issued on
November 19, 1999. In the letter we identified five significant
strike events that occurred between September 2005 and June
2007 that were at least as serious as those encounters which
triggered the board's recommendation in 1999.
We also acknowledge the work done by the Federal Aviation
Administration to improve wildlife control at airports by the
then-recent update of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part
139, which included increased guidance on how airport operators
must mitigate wildlife hazards.
Some of our specific concerns then and now are that there
has never been a joint industry-government body established to
address or even define the issue. There is no recognized metric
or standard to judge whether conditions are improving or
worsening, and there is no comprehensive industry-government
plan to address the hazard to aircraft and human life.
In 2008, Bird Strike Committee-USA reorganized to better
address the changing needs of the aviation safety and wildlife
management industries. As part of that effort, we identified
seven goals. For the sake of brevity, I would like to focus on
three of those goals, specifically 2, 6, and 7: No. 2, serve as
the liaison to national and international bird strike
committees and to other professional aviation and wildlife
organizations; 6, promote the collection and analysis of
accurate wildlife strike data for military and civil aviation
in the USA as a foundation for, A, understanding the nature of
strike hazards, B, developing effective and appropriate
management programs, and C, evaluating the efficacy of
management programs; goal 7, anticipate future wildlife
challenges to aviation and provide leadership in promoting
education, research and development of effective methods for
reducing wildlife hazards to aviation.
In conclusion, significantly reducing the aircraft wildlife
strike will require a collaborative effort by all aviation
stakeholders, with a major investment in education and research
and development.
Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, and Members of the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on
Aviation, I would like to thank you again for allowing me the
opportunity to testify about the work being done by the
volunteers of Bird Strike Committee-USA to reduce the hazards
to aviation posed by wildlife. We welcome the opportunity to
continue working with you to ensure that our skies remain safe.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Ostrom, for your testimony.
Mr. Sumwalt, you indicated in your testimony that the
engines on Flight 1549 on the aircraft exceed today's
standards, but they still failed; and that is of great interest
to the NTSB.
I wonder if you might elaborate on that.
Mr. Sumwalt. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The certification standards are extremely complex and, as I
mentioned in the testimony, we will have a public hearing
regarding this accident. And certification standards will be
something that we will look at to try and get our hands a
little bit better around.
Mr. Costello. And the reporting requirements, the FAA did
not think that they should be mandatory, the NTSB does. Is that
still the NTSB's position?
Mr. Sumwalt. Let me take a look at that recommendation. Mr.
Haueter has it right here.
Mr. Haueter. That recommendation is "closed_unacceptable
response," and so we are still looking at that issue.
Obviously, from this accident, we will revisit it again.
Mr. Costello. Very good.
Ms. Kolander, you said--you touched on the training, what
some airlines are doing, other airlines are cutting back.
I wonder if you might elaborate and tell us just how much
training should flight attendants and flight crews receive and
how often should they receive in-service training?
Ms. Kolander. I think right now the regulations, we do have
to attend training every 12 months, which we are in agreement
with. The difference now is flight attendants are not required
under the regulation to have hands-on emergency training every
12 months; and that is basically that they would use the
emergency equipment.
Currently, they are allowed every 24 months to do hands-on
emergency equipment; and our concern is that the reality is,
our environment is this emergency equipment. This is the most
important tool that we have besides the training in the cabin.
So we would like to see that addressed further.
I can't necessarily say how many hours. The regulations
currently stipulate hours, but what happens is, the regulations
also allow the carrier to reduce those hours, using computer-
based training or distance education. While there are some
merits to distance education or computer-based training, the
reality is, those types of training are relevant only to facts.
They are not a training that would teach psychomotor skills or
performances; and those are things that are very important in
the flight attendant world--real-life scenario training, not
just taking a piece of equipment out and knowing the location,
operation, and function, which is required in the regulation.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Captain Prater, you indicate in your testimony that you are
unaware of any airline that provides wildlife avoidance
training. Is that correct?
Mr. Prater. No. In fact, there is not extensive--basically,
it is limited to keep your landing lights on below 10,000 feet.
It used to be, keep your radar on, under the assumption that
maybe a beam of radar might send a signal. And then the last
one is probably climb, because the birds will hopefully dive.
Mr. Costello. In your opinion, what would your
recommendation be to airlines as far as wildlife avoidance
training? Should they in fact provide that type of training to
pilots?
Mr. Prater. I am not sure there is that much that can be
done to train. It is like anything else, it is--if it hits a
propeller, if it hits a windshield and breaks a windshield you
are going to deal with the situation that is caused.
I believe that the wildlife mitigation will help quite a
bit. I think we need to concentrate our efforts on that, as
well as the things we discussed several weeks ago. Even the
introduction of NextGen that can keep airplanes out of those
low altitude environments for long periods of time would
certainly reduce the risk.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Last question: Mr. Reis, we talked about in my opening
statement, and of course you touched on what you are doing at
the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in conjunction and
cooperation with researchers at the University of Illinois as
far as developing enhanced monitoring through the use of an
avian radar system.
One, at this stage, exactly where are we with the research,
and is it working, and what is the cost of the equipment at
this point?
Mr. Reis. Well, it is working to the degree or if you
measure working by, are we able to accurately track the birds?
Absolutely.
As one of the slides indicated, the slide was almost
completely red over a 72-hour period, indicating the ability to
track the fowl. We will be getting the first three reports from
the researchers this June. They will be preliminary in nature
and address the nature of the equipment, its effectiveness in
mapping birds, how we can enhance bird detection, and analysis
of the impacts of the storm water ponds around the airport in
attracting birds.
So I think we are in early stages of the research and would
imagine it would be some years before we and the FAA and other
airports would be ready to recommend any specific long-term use
of it.
Mr. Costello. Do you know the approximate cost of the
equipment?
Mr. Reis. We contributed $70,000 to the equipment. I
believe, all told, it was about $2- or $300,000 to bring the
equipment in and install it.
Mr. Costello. Very good. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony. And I particularly want
to thank Mr. Ostrom and your organization for your persistence
and the important job of drawing people's attention to this
growing threat.
We came very close to losing 150 lives; and it ought to be
a warning, because it won't be the last time this happens, and
it is a growing threat. And we talk about all kinds of safety
procedures on planes--and guides and so on and so forth--but if
we are putting 24-pound balls of bone and flesh into engines,
there is nothing that is going to save someone along the way
from a serious fatal accident.
So this should be greater priority to get these--these
things are supposed to be migrating along about Thanksgiving or
a little later, but unfortunately because people feed them,
because birds have been injected into the flock that have been
nested by human beings and never knew how to migrate, they are
staying year 'round around airports and so on.
I have a question really. I wonder if--especially if the
people who are knowledgeable, especially knowledgeable about
piloting, could comment on this.
It is my impression that this is almost a miracle and that
Captain Sullenberger, particularly--and everyone, of course,
deserves plaudits. But talking about ditching an airplane--I
mean, with some power, with some altitude, yes. But at 3,000
feet with no power?
And I have seen pictures of water landings. You say, Oh,
well, that is great. If you catch a wing, it flips. And in this
cold weather, everyone would have perished in all likelihood;
even in regular weather, people probably would have perished.
I wonder if you could just comment on the odds of this sort
of thing and what was involved to pull this off successfully.
He made it look almost easy, and quietly and coolly walked down
the aisle twice to check, like the captain of a sinking ship.
We forget they sometimes have hours; here is a matter of 2
minutes.
And maybe, Mr. Sumwalt, you would like to start. And I know
Captain Carey and Captain Prater may have a comment as well.
Mr. Sumwalt. Well, thank you.
I certainly don't want to take anything away from the
notion of a miracle, because it really is quite amazing that
the outcome was as positive as it was. So there is a lot of
that involved in this.
I also do want to point out what appears to be the
exceptional flying skills of the crew, as we heard from the
first panel, in addition to scientific reasons, such as the
greater crash survivability of the aircraft and the training
that crews undergo. I think that the Board will find_as part of
its investigation_that there were a number of factors that
caused this accident to have a positive outcome.
We at the Safety Board look forward to exploring those
issues and producing a comprehensive product so that we can
learn as much about what went right in this case as,
oftentimes, what went wrong. Thank you.
Mr. Carey. Thank you, Mr. Petri.
I will tell you one other kudo for Captain Sullenberger.
Not only did he make those last two swipes checking for any
survivors or making sure he had his work complete, he went back
into the cockpit as the airplane was sinking and took the
logbook out, and--I mean, that is unheralded. As a matter of
fact, when we saw him at the hospital and then back at the
hotel, he handed it to me. It was dry as a bone.
So this man's job never stopped. And I think that is just
part of his experience, as I think the miracle equals the
experience, because I think what he did was remarkable.
And you know, when he talked about--he made a very candid
comment prior, in other venues. And he said that he had been
making deposits his entire career, that maybe 1 day he would
have to make a withdrawal.
And one time when we were talking to him during the
investigation he made a comment that he had seen--when Mr.
Costello was bringing up previous experiences, he had seen the
cartwheeling of that 767 in the Philippines. And he was making
mention that all he concentrated on is keeping those wings
level.
So not only did he go back in the cockpit and go get the
logbook for us, which is remarkable, he had visions from his
experience and vast things that he has become acquainted with
in aviation and remembered the cartwheeling of that 767. All
that came together and created the miracle.
Thank you.
Mr. Prater. Congressman, I would like to add a few words to
that.
I think all the words will never adequately give Captain
Sullenberger and his crew the credit that they deserve. But
each one of our passengers, just like each Congressman,
Congresswoman that gets on the back of any one of our airplanes
would expect their crew to do the same thing if it happened.
Our professionalism is based upon sharing, openly sharing with
other pilots, other unions; all of our administrators and our
regulators share everything. The more we do that, the safer we
make this industry. It is the foundation of our seniority
systems that we use.
When I was a young pilot 35 years ago and I would fly with
a captain, he wasn't worried about me taking his job because he
taught me too much. He shared everything that he could. In
fact, the words that I remember the most are, You will fly with
a lot of captains, son, before you get your own command; take
the best of every one you fly with, throw the worst out, and
become your own commander. Because of our systems--that we
trust our first officers, they are not trying to take our job,
they are not trying to steal our job, they are in a seniority
system. So we share everything.
The system that we talked about earlier and the concern
that we have with the experience of many of the new pilots
coming into the system and whether we can retain the old,
experienced ones is based upon the fact that now US Airways,
Continental Airlines, United Airlines have laid off many of
their pilots. Our industry is losing those pilots. Many of
those pilots have 10, 12, 15 years' experience, yet many of our
other airlines, called our regional carriers, they can't afford
to go to work there, quite simply. You can't go to work when
you are 30, 40 years old for $18,000 a year. We lose that
experience.
Those are some of the things that we have to address and we
need to address in the near future.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you and now recognizes the
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Boccieri.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you
again for assembling this panel.
And Captain Prater, I couldn't agree with you more. I see
some of the buddies I fly with out of my Air Force Reserve unit
who go and fly and are making 12 to 15,000 bucks a year; and if
they didn't have that second income of being a Reserve pilot,
they would never be able to maintain their duties as a first
officer on some of these regional jets.
And I guess I want to hear from Ms. Gilligan, do you concur
with the testimony that we have heard today from these very
experienced and well-trained individuals that we are
approaching a crisis in our aviation industry?
Ms. Gilligan. We certainly share the concern about where
the professionals for the next generation are going to come
from, not just in the piloting ranks, but in the mechanics
ranks, in the engineering ranks.
Unfortunately, the reality of the United States is that we
are not attracting people to those kinds of technical areas. We
need to work as a community. And we certainly have had our
conversations and our forum sessions, but no one has really
come up with the sort of fundamental solution that will attract
young people into these particular areas. Having said that, we
need to continue to focus on it.
But I do want to comment that, you know, we can't replace
experience, and you can only gain experience with time. But we
can make sure that anyone who enters the flight deck is trained
and competent to perform those functions. And I think what you
are hearing here is that even for those entry-level pilots,
they are coming in with that kind of training.
We have a proposal out now actually to strengthen our
training requirements as well. That final rule will help us
continue to move forward, trying to supplement experience with
sufficient training.
Mr. Boccieri. Can I add, too, that, you know, the military
is putting stop-loss on critically manned fields so there is
not an overflow of military pilots into the field. And when it
costs maybe $5- to $15,000 just to obtain a private pilot's
license to get an entry level job with, you know, 100, 200, 300
hours into these, is it just a matter of money? Is it a matter
of money in terms of where the FAA is going to make their
assessment?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, again I think it is also attracting
skilled and interested young people. We have got to get the
pool. We have to build the pool larger so that we have the
skills to draw from.
The economics of both the industry and generally will
certainly play a role in where young people choose to go to
make their careers. I think we at FAA agree that this is an
exciting industry to be a part of. It has a lot that should
attract young people into it, and we need to be able to take
advantage of that.
Mr. Boccieri. Captain Prater, did you want to comment?
Mr. Prater. Just a quick comment. Last year I spent 5 days
with General Renuart doing a six-base tour, and at every air
base was met by pilots flying F-15s,-16s,-18s,-22s, C-17s.
Asked every one of them when you complete your duty are you
considering the airlines? Very, very few said--"I can't afford
it. I will be 32 when I fill my commitment. I may put in my 20,
but I am not going to go work for those wages. I will use my
education and training to take care of my family, as much as I
love flying."
Mr. Boccieri. There is no question that they are making
those kinds of decisions. And the high-skilled training that we
received in the Air Force is, in my opinion, unmatched. We have
folks from other countries that come and train with the United
States Air Force.
But I guess I am very concerned about this because I hear
from air traffic controllers that they have equipment that is
outdated and that they have equipment that could be a real
jeopardy in terms of making sure that we have a success story
like we have and we are hearing today.
And we have got to--and this panel, this Committee, will be
charged with the responsibility of making sure we have a 21st
century aviation industry not only from the highly skilled and
highly trained, but also that we have the right equipment. And
I guess I want to just hear publicly that we are at this crisis
mode and that the time to act is now.
Do you have a comment?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, again, I think we agree that we need to
be upgrading the air traffic system. This Committee will have a
hearing on the Next Generation Air Transportation System
shortly. You have had other hearings in the past.
And again, as an industry I think you are seeing that we
are coming together and we are dedicated to making those kinds
of improvements. I think the system that we have in place now
will hold us in good stead while we move toward that
modernization. But we need to move in that direction.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Ohio and
now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to focus in
on the bird radar. It is very interesting.
As an engineer, I know it is not an easy thing to detect
birds. So it is interesting to me, Mr. Reis, your testimony on
this. I am just wondering how close are we, or are there things
that still need to be worked out with the bird radar to make it
effective? I know there are issues beyond detecting them. It is
what you do once you detect them.
But how close are we to saying we do have this system,
radar system, that we need?
Mr. Reis. Well, I think from the perspective of, is the
system working to detect birds, the simple answer is, yes, that
system does exist. It is working every day at Sea-Tac. The
question is, what can you do with that data?
I mean, at this point, we probably have too much data. The
key thing for operations is, how do you filter that data down
to the critical data that would be important to air traffic
controllers and to pilots or, frankly, long term for airports
to better understand the dynamics of the bird populations
around the airport and what we can do about them.
I think we are closer to the second set of challenges than
we are the first. We are learning about bird population habits
beyond what we already knew. We are learning with greater
accuracy. We can track movements 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year, as opposed to when people are available to observe it
manually. So in that way we are going to be better able to
design our wildlife management plans, our wildlife mitigation
programs, et cetera. And the bird radar will help us do that in
the short term.
I think it would really be more for airline and FAA flight
experts to offer an observation once we provide them more data
about the radar as to how readily we would be able to use that
data in real time to assist air traffic control and/or pilots.
I would imagine trying to avoid a flock of birds with an
aircraft is not an easy thing to do. And so I think it is--I
would want to lower expectations that somehow or another this
data will be available anytime soon in real time to advise a
pilot what to do on approach.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I want to ask Ms. Gilligan, I know
that O'Hare Airport in Chicago has been slated for--information
I have that came out in the middle of January--one or two radar
systems are slated for deployment at O'Hare. Where is that
right now?
Ms. Gilligan. Mr. Lipinski, I believe that deployment is
due within the next couple of months, but I will confirm that
back to you.
Mr. Lipinski. Has there been an issue with that? Because I
think January 16th I have a fact sheet that said it would be 6
weeks from then. I was just wondering, have there been problems
with the deployment?
Ms. Gilligan. No, sir. Not that I am aware. Let me make
sure that I can confirm to what exactly what the scheduled plan
is.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you and thanks our witnesses
for appearing here today and offering their very thoughtful
testimony. We appreciate your testimony and look forward to
continuing to monitor as the investigation moves forward with
the NTSB, not only on Flight 1549, but also on the avian issue
that we are dealing with here, and no doubt will be dealing
with in the future. So we thank you for your testimony.
That concludes the hearing. The Subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7866.210