At a press conference several new facts came to light:

One engine still attached to plane and the other has been located

They are planning to raise the plane tonight or tomorrow am

Pilot reports seeing a long line of large dark brown birds (presumably Canada geese) across the sky in front of him, which then hit the windshield

Immediately both engines went out simultaneously

He knew trying to put the plane down on land would have been "catastrophic"

He deliberately aimed for an area of the Hudson where he could see large boats already out in the river so rescue would be as fast as possible

NTSB credits the experience of the flight and cabin crews. Pilot is 57, and like most US Air pilots joined the airline after being an air force fighter pilot in Viet Nam. Chief flight attendant - one of the last out, moving in waist high water to make sure passengers were not caught in the back - had 38 years experience.

And the airlines are still fighting to reduce mandatory retirement age for pilots.

Reading a few articles from late 2007 when the age limit was raised, the strongest opponent seem to be Allied Pilot Association (APA), one of the two largest pilot unions. [The other, ALPA, supported it.] I can't find any reference that the airlines opposed the rule change.

If this were on the Lounge, we could have a good discussion.

One thing which is somewhat overlooked--In any place other than New York, this would have been a MAJOR tragedy. Only in the Big Apple could you have gotten the swift response given by the various agencies. New York is in a class of its own in that respect. I'll always remember the quote from a knowledgable source when JFK was assassinated. "This would never have happened in NY". WC Fields was correct when he said, "Once you leave New York, everyplace else is Philadelphia".

Oh for petesake! The New York-centricity is just ridiculous - but it's not the Lounge so I won't go any further other than to say yes, it was lucky the pilot set it down near ferry terminals and yes, it was lucky there were ferry terminals nearby. But to imply it wouldn't happen anywhere else? What about Seattle, just for starters - which has an airport near water and ferries nearby? The same pilot would probably have done the same stellar, unbelievably fantastic job there.

Oh for petesake! The New York-centricity is just ridiculous -

There was a landing in San Francisco Bay on approach to SFO in 1968. Everyone survived. In fact, the story is that most didn't even get their feet wet.

Check this out. Landing short of the runway at SFO in 1968, as sf7307 mentioned above:

http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Shiga-SFBay.htm

No, the moral of the story is that you don't want your flight hijacked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopi...nes_Flight_961

This is not NY-centricity. It's simple facts. If the plane had been going in the other direction and had to land in the North Atlantic off of Long Island it's likely few people would have lived long enough for rescue vessels to arrive.

You could have the same good result in any river/harbor that is filled with commuter/tourist ferries (but this is very few) and with another pilot who managed to land a powerless jet liner like a waterplane with pontoons.

First of all--I'm not a New Yorker. I wrote my post because I know that the New York responders are PROS! No place in the WORLD has the abilities to match those of the Big Apple.

To the Pilot,Crew and Passengers ... Well Done !!!

It sounds like the SF Bay landing was an accident due to poor visibility during a landing approach, not an emergency ditching:

When they broke out below the fog, the first officer called, "Breaking out of the overcast, I cannot see the runway light ." He then called out, 'We are too low - Pull up, pull up!"

Asoh applied power to the engines, and started to rotate the aircraft when water contact was made. At a speed of 137 knots, the right main gear hit the water first, followed immediately by the left gear striking.

...What about Seattle, just for starters - which has an airport near water and ferries nearby?

<Third and final brag here>

Well... perhaps it's fortunate that our son, who wrote most of the response plan used on Thursday, and his co-worker, who was the one commended by Mayor Bloomberg, are both Northwesterners (Seattle in his case, not sure about hers, but locally educated) working for NYC OEM.

</brag>

Seriously, though, the Hudson is recognized as a water landing alternative for LGA and EWR depending on weather conditions, etc. One thing that helped was that the plane ditched in slack water at high tide; had the tide been going out there might have been ice floes in the river, or waves that could have caught the plane. It also probably helped that the plane was quite heavy with unburnt fuel (right after takeoff) that would have helped keep "skipping" to a minimum.

But NYC (and neighboring jurisdictions) are extremely well versed in these kind of rescue/recovery plans and procedures - much, much more so than most other localities.

It stretches credulity to say unequivocally that no other city is able to deal as well with an emergency. You have no way of knowing until it happens.

It would make no more sense to point at the flock of geese and say that no city other than NYC would pose the same hazard.... it cuts both ways.

In any case, I will say that New Yorkers have long understood the value of infrastructure, including police, fire, etc., and don't gag on paying for it the way people in more rural areas do.

But that doesn't mean NYC is the only city up to a challenge like the USAir crash. In addition to Seattle, I'm thinking of Sioux City and even DC (Air Florida) and some of the amazing efforts put forth there. (I hope, by the way, that DC won't be tested in the next 3 days.)

Again, it was the pilot and his training that should take first kudo, the responsiveness of the ferries and tugs should take second kudo, the responsible reactions of most of the passengers third - and then you really do have to talk about a certain amount of dumb luck.