Amazing! The pilot(s) are hero's!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480078,00.html

No deaths and no major injuries. From what I've heard the worst injuries were a couple of broken legs and some hypothermia!

Again, amazing!

I wonder if any atheists were aboard?
Yes...truely an amazing event in our world today...and a lot more stories coming.

If there were, I bet they weren't atheists for about 30 min or so!!!

I bet the pilots ignored the advice of the nutty religious nuts in this forum and FLEW THE PLANE instead of praying for God's help.

Speaking of God, why did he help the terrorists who took over flight 93? No doubt everybody on board were praying. Were these people not worthy of God's help? Why are the Hudson river survivors more worthy? Hmm? You don't get to choose when you think God intervened. FOR HEAVENS SAKE, keep God between YOU and HIM, eh?

I'll bet there are just as many atheists now as before the flight among the passengers on that plane.

Ya, cause the plane was going down and god heard the prayers and decided not to end it in a blazing inferno.

Every other plane that ever crashed was full of atheist. Obviously

Pull your head out of your asses, if there is a "god" he certainly does not control freak accidents like this.

>>I bet the pilots ignored the advice

I'll be waiting to hear what they say about the crash

>>just as many atheists now as before the flight

again...let's hear the upcoming interviews...film at 11.

Is there any video (yet) of when the plane actually touched down on the water?

If what I'm hearing is true regarding his split-second decision making ( which may have been to decline advice from the tower on where to try and land - it doesn't sound like he had much of a choice ) and training implementation, and how he conducted himself during and after the landing, this guy and his team deserve to be rewarded to an extent that should be unparalleled, in my opinion.

I know he was doing his job. I know that others may have the same abilities to rise to such a crisis. I bet they would prefer to not be tested on that front though.

I say this pilot and co-pilot be allowed to never pay taxes again and retire with millions of dollars. Whatever they want. I say give it to them.

As far as the God thing; Great! You want to believe this was God? Super. Go for it. I believe this was human action at a supreme level. I'm not saying the pilot is a saint. I'm saying that it's awesome to have, for once, to have a story like this end the way it looks like it's headed. I credit the human in charge in this instance. Much in the same way I blame the humans involved for the bad stuff. There is nothing supernatural about it, to me.

Frankly, I don't know or care where God fits into airline related crisis'. I don't think anyone knows.

Now if a pilot had a heart attack and there was nobody at the controls and it landed itself with this kind of outcome, then I would have to consider that a miracle. As it is now, there was a human being in control today.

And for THAT, I thank God.

CJ, well put. And whether God had a direct hand in this or not, NOBODY knows.

But certainly God can and does give us humans the knowledge and skills to do whatever it is we are destined to do. We are all given gifts (skills) to do the things we are best at.

It was human action. All his training and training and training for exactly this type of situation paid off!

The flight crew ALL deserve to be well taken care of. The Flight Attendants too. I'm sure they were very instrumental in getting everyone off the plane safely.

It was the pilot's training and his superb approach to flying that saved the day.

Like with Flight 93, all God did was watch and muttered to himself.

I rather fly with a skilled not-relying-on-God pilot like Sullenberger than as half-assed God-fearing man in a plane full of praying nuns.

And whether God had a direct hand in this or not, NOBODY knows.

Yep. Like the devil too. NOBODY knows.

Spagetti Monster. NOBODY knows.

Charles Darwin. NOBODY knows.

Eddie Izzard. NOBODY knows.

>>God had a direct hand in this or not, NOBODY knows.
How do you know NOBODY knows?

Still looking for video of the plane going down

stay-tuned!!

Broadway asked " How do you know NOBODY knows? "

I don't know that for sure. But I can say that I have faith that nobody knows. Can you?

Captain Sullenberger is a former safety chairman, accident investigator and national committee member for the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA).

I think the people on the plane can be thankful that a pilot with 40 years of experience was at the controls, and had not been replaced by someone who would have worked for half as much.

Absolutely amazing. These planes aren't gliders; once power cuts out, they drop like a brick. The fact that he was able to glide it, into the Hudson River and away from a busy street, people, etc. and land it safely, well that shows on his training, and his skill and ability.

The fact that he made darn sure EVERYONE was off that plane, crew included, walking back and forth twice to check himself, before exiting the plane, shows what kind of a human being he is.

Sure people were praying to their God (don't be so full of it please Broadway, I am sure any Muslin persons on the plane weren't praying to your God, they were praying to Allah for example), but the actions of Captain Sullenberger are from years of training, and compassion for his fellow humans. He obviously takes his responsibility of the safety of his passengers very seriously, and risked his own life to make sure they were out first.

So does God have a hand in all those other plane crashes where those on board aren't so fortunate to escape without injury?

Also, a plane crashing on the very day of Bush's farewell address is the perfect symbol for his 8 years in office. We may've survived but his "flight" was a crashing failure.

It completely drowned out his farewell speech.

LOL

Maybe God had a hand in it afterall.

If I was flying that plane. I would retire after this close call.

I'm with you Steve. I hope he had a clean pair of underwear in the glove box, mine would be soiled by far less.

"I am sure any Muslin persons on the plane . . ."

Even Satin, Flannel, Chenille & Jacquard persons!

>>his "flight" was a crashing failure

but America was saved...priceless...

Yesterday evening, I heard some interviews on KOMO 1000 with passengers and witnesses. I think that this might be the best that we can do, before the results of the official FAA investigation are released, to figure out what happened on the flight.

The stories given yesterday were that the plane hit two flocks of birds very shortly after takeoff. This made the engines inoperable. The pilot was able to work with the relatively small amount of altitude that the airplane had gained, and was able to steer it parallel to the Hudson River. Using the river as a runway, he lowered the plane as gently as possible into the water.

All I can say is, the crew of this flight, especially the pilot, are heroes. I am not taking Pascal's wager because of this, and I think that it is presumptive and disrespectful to assume that non-believers on the flight "chickened" their way into the religious belief system that you believe to be the correct one.

A miracle...

http://apnews.myway.com/image/20090115/APTOPIX_Plane_in_River.sff_NY149_20090115 212432.html?date=20090116&docid=D95OF2Q80

I'm a bit concerned here about the claim of "multiple bird strikes" . . .

In the first place, they are rare and don't usually require an engine shutdown -- in fact, jet engines are designed to ingest birds and continue to run -- this is a requirement for engine certification.

Secondly, the plane in question is a modern Airbus -- a plane not known for crappy engines and flight systems.


So what we have here folks is an improbable ultra-rare event where BOTH engines on a twin engine plane had to shut down.

If this possibility existed, the FAA would not have certified twin engine jets for overseas flights. Boeing had to petition the FAA for decades to get this certification for their twin jets. They had to show that losing BOTH engines during a flight was next to impossible.

I'm proposing that something else went on here. I've a nagging feeling that perhaps there was ONE bird strike, but perhaps one of the pilots shut off the wrong engine . . .

Shutting off the wrong engine is more plausible and has happened in the past a number of times resulting in hundreds of fatalities.

A double bird strike? I'm skeptical.

We shouldn't have any problems finding the black box. Even I know where it is.

Case in point:

In 1978 an United Airlines jet crashed in NE Portland and the pilot, Capt. McBroom was deemed a hero for expertly landing the "disabled" plane with the loss of only a few lives.

Ultimately, it was discovered the pilots were distracted with another matter and let the plane run out of fuel. No real hero as it turned out.

No miracle. Not any more so than all the numbers showing up on only one of a billion powerball tickets. If it's the one I have, then that's a miracle!!

Science is the miracle.

No pilot error.

Improbable, but not impossible.

Multiple birds in both engines.

You know the feeling you get when your computer shuts down your engine when you're overwinding 3rd gear at ninety something mph, eyes glued to the road, trying to watch the tach ... the sudden shutdown of power lurches you forward ...
raised by several power of 10 ...

that's probably exactly what the pilot experienced and recognized from his engine failure drills in an F4.
The impact of a flock of birds in a direct collision with the jet.

A scary left bank and glide down.

A U.S. Navy carrier top landing, sans hook.


That quick. That succinct. That simple.

A skilled jet fighter pilot with multiple decades of commercial experience ferrying civilians around and taking the lead on safety.

What is wrong with you guys?

Is reality and mathematics too much for you to process??

Mission accomplished.

Improbable, but not impossible.

Multiple birds in both engines.

The engines are pretty far apart. For BOTH engines to consume enough birds to shut them down while the rest of the plane escapes damage requires a miracle of Biblical proportions.

I'm betting that pilot error brought the plane down secondary to one bird strike which by itself was no major threat.

I guess we'll find out the facts soon!

Perhaps not so soon . . . the FAA is notorious taking its time. I'm hoping an insider will leak something.

Here's where the plane HIT the water
(credit: Roy Gates in New York via cell phone)

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5966/planehitswaterinnyhudsovj1.jpg

Man, that's some wild surfing!

Here's new video - THE ACTUAL SPLASH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPkkQn_eH4s

"Eddie Izzard. NOBODY knows."

NEW YORK – A jetliner that crash-landed in the Hudson River had lost power simultaneously in both engines after reaching an altitude of only 3,200 feet, the plane's black box recorders revealed Sunday.
The details that emerged confirmed the harrowing circumstances under which the pilot of the US Airways flight carrying 155 people maneuvered the plane over New York City and safely into the water after striking a flock of birds Thursday afternoon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090119/ap_on_re_us/plane_splashdown_113

So much for Skeptical's theory of the wrong engine being shut down by the pilot

So much for Skeptical's theory of the wrong engine being shut down by the pilot

Hold on man . . . one engine isn't even out of the river yet, much less a completed investigation of the entire accident!

But there has been a few recent "aha!" disclosures that raises eyebrows . . .

1) The copilot was flying the plane at the time of the event. The captain IMMEDIATELY commanded that the copilot turn control of the plane over to him. While this in itself is permitted, it is not exactly normal circumstances. Usually whoever is flying the plane at the time of the incident stays in control for a while, if not toward the end.

I'm not second guessing the decision, however, I suspect something else is going on (or happened) that hasn't been disclosed yet which prompted the Captain to order the copilot to yield control immediately! Most certainly the Captain did not have much time to fully assess the situation, yet he deemed it would be better to forego that and start flying the plane himself even though there was a fully trained and fully qualified pilot already in control. For all we know the co-pilot could made a just-as-impressive, or better, landing.

I'm not sure why the Captain would immediately burden himself with flying the plane when he could keep his mind clear for decision making.

2) The pilot cancelled some public appearances at the request of the pilot's union. While I won't speculate too much, but it could be that they had the concerns of the copilot on their minds. They may not want Capt. Sullenberger to say anything that US Air could use against the co-pilot.

3) The copilot spent the remaining time trying to restart the engine(s). This wasn't a typical flameout -- the engine(s) were supposedly destroyed at full throttle. While I don't know exactly what's in the emergency checklist for this kind of event, but it appears that they knew something prompted the flight crew to keep trying to restart engine. Did the copilot punch the existingish engine fire button prematurely? Flick a kill switch? Turn off fuel pumps? Close fuel lines? All good reasons to keep trying to restart engines to the very end.

Stay tuned . . .

The black box don't lie.

I know. That's why I'll wait for the FAA's final report.

I was saying earlier: (From the Washington Post)

While bird strikes are common in aviation, commercial jet engines are fortified against them. They seldom disable an engine, let alone two. Archie Dickey, who teaches aviation environmental science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, says bird strikes that cripple both engines are "extremely rare."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/18/AR2009011802297.html

This is why I'm hedging my bets.

Maybe the pilots were playing "lets see how many geese we can scoop up".

Check out this video:

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/coast_guard_cameras_capture_hudson_rive r_plane_crash/

What kept this flight from just falling from the sky, Chesley Sullenberger.

He got his pilot's license at 14, flew fighter jets in the Air Force, investigated air disasters, mastered glider flying and even studied the psychology of how cockpit crews behave in a crisis.

"something prompted the flight crew to keep trying to restart engine"

OK, I know NOTHING about flying, but could keeping the engines turning with the starter reduce the drag? and perhaps give the plane a few additional seconds of precious flight time?

Another thing we know is that the Pilot is an expert pilot of non motorized fixed wing aircraft. He is a glider pilot. He learned the trade in the Airforce and then kept up on that particular area of aviation after he got out of the service, mainly as a hobby and a contributor to an association of glider pilots and their machines.

No doubt he made a snap decision relative to his skills flying a fixed wing airplane with no power. In essence an 80 ton glider, ditching it in the Hudson river. And after all, he is the Captain !

And of course you would keep trying to restart the engine ! Now, that could be accomplished by the copilot while the pilot is flying this 80 ton glider and clearing the George Washington Bridge by only 150 feet ! If you can restart one engine, that Airbus is desgined to fly on one engine BTW, you can get enough airspeed to continue on for an emergency landing at Kennedy, instead of ditching the airplane in the Hudson River.

It will be interesting if the FAA releases any audio recordings of the interaction between the plane and the tower and also audio of the crew interacting during the crisis.

If this turns into a TV movie who would play Capt. Sully?

This whole thing happened so fast , I doubt we would have enough for a 2 hour movie. Then again I suppose they can string out just about anything with enough background and commercial breaks.

Open the movie with Sully flying his glider somewhere in No. California riding the thermals over the Sacramento Valley. James Brolin? or is he too old now?

> lost power simultaneously in both engines after reaching an altitude of only 3,200 feet,

I wonder how many seconds the pilot and co-pilot had to react after they realized that the engines had gone out? This question might not be so easily answered. I was surprised, after watching the Coast Guard videos, to see how quickly the plane loses altitude over the river, suggesting to methat the time window that the pilot and co-pilot had to start steering the plane into its descent path over the river was very short! Note, however, that I am not a pilot.

It all has to do with maintaining minimum forward airspeed in order to create the lift needed to keep the jet from falling like a brick. "Stalling" an airplane is not the same as an engine stall. When the plane stalls it simply falls from the sky because it fell below the needed speed to generate lift. No doubt his glider skills saved that flight from just such a fate. He probably had to nose over into a slight decent in order to do that and then just before hitting the water pulled the nose up.

The term "Flying Brick" from the movie "Space Cowboys" is a better description of the plane at that point.

And for who should star as Sully for the movie, my vote is for "Clint Eastwood".

There may even be more to this story.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/19/hudson.plane.folo/index.html

If there was indeed a problem with this plane, then the story kind of changes tone. And not in a good way. Still a miracle though.

ahhhhh . . .

another "aha"!

Let me add a few more things to the mix . . .

As pointed out earlier, a commerical aircraft is also a darn good glider that can easily brought to a (no power from engines) landing. It is no falling brick -- the space shuttle, on the other hand, IS a falling brick.

Back to the restarting engine thing -- the copilot spent all his time starting an engine(s) that was(were) destroyed in flight, INSTEAD of other things that would help preserve the lives of passengers -- like closing all the vents that would help the aircraft stay afloat upon landing.

They KNEW they were gonna ditch in the Hudson, but didn't close the vents -- the captain was too busy flying and the copilot starting engines that would never have time to even spool up, let alone start.

Again, something (yet undisclosed) prompted the pilots to keep trying to start the engine instead of preparing for a water landing.

If not, then this is botched cockpit management and I bet one or the other pilots get reprimaned for for this.

If this turns into a TV movie who would play Capt. Sully?

I vote for either Harrison Ford or John Travolta.

Actually, if an aircraft stalls, it's not going to just "fall out of the sky".

Generally, the nose of the aircraft will drop (assuming the aircraft does not enter a spin) and it will pick up speed and try to right itself.

When I was taking flight training we actually did that in a Cessna 172. We pulled back on the yoke until the plane stalled then let go of the controls. The nose dropped then the plane picked up speed until it was flying again.

If the controls are left alone, usually the plane will then start to climb again until it stalls and repeats the cycle until it has an unscheduled ground incursion!

A jet like the A320 probably wouldn't act quite like that, but it does have a "Best Glide Speed" that is published in the pilot's operating handbook.

Here is a couple of websites with some cool information on the A320;

http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/airbus/A320/

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a320/a320/specifications.html

The ditch switch was thrown. That was reported early on.

A320 engines are rated for 1 four pound bird strike.

Those Canadian geese a block away at Westmoreland Park all look like about twice that weight. I'll bet one 10 lb bird would goober up a jet engine, two would shut it down for sure.

This just in . . .

. . . According to Jeffrey and other passengers, the pilot said the Airbus A320's right engine had experienced a "compressor stall" - an infrequent but resolvable problem that occurs when airflow into a jet engine is disrupted somehow, aviation experts said. . . .

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyplan2012377301jan20,0,192092.stor y

Aha!

The plane had ENGINE trouble 2 days prior . . . While there are some that are denying there is a connection, logic says how can there NOT be a connection.

Bird strikes don't bring down commercial planes . . . however, bird strikes triggering compressor stalls in faulty engines will!

The list of folks getting repremands from the NTSB, FAA and US Air is growing!

Stay tuned!



edit update:

two would shut it down for sure.

While we don't know that for a fact, it may just damage the engine, but still produce power. But keep in mind then that BOTH engines had to swallow enough birds to kill both engines entirely at the same time if these were properly functioning engines.

The ditch switch was thrown.

I read a recent report that all the vents were not closed. I'll keep an eye out for this.

The Tragic Downfall of Chesley B. Sullenberger III

Jan. 15, 2009 - Veteran Air Force/US Airways pilot Chesley B. Sullenberger III successfully lands an Airbus A320, Flight 1549 from New York to Charlotte, North Carolina, onto the Hudson River after birds fly into its engines; 155 passengers are rescued, unharmed.

Jan. 16, 2009 - Media report spotless record of Sullenberger, who is hailed as a hero; copies of Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" and Ibsen's "The Wild Duck" are burned en masse, along with photos of relief pitcher Rich "Goose" Gossage.

Jan. 19, 2009 - Episode of "24" is quickly reshot to include Sullenberger-like pilot avoiding deadly mid-air plane collision caused by terrorists; Jack Bauer salutes him before torturing an 8-year-old blind girl.

Jan. 20, 2009 - Nation celebrates "Chesley B. Sullenberger III Day"; Obama inauguration is carried only on CTI Zhong Tian Channel.

Jan. 22, 2009 - Oscar nominations are postponed as Paramount, Universal, Warner Brothers, and 20th Century Fox launch joint production of Sullenberger's life story; Judd Apatow and Eric Roth hired to write screenplay, Clint Eastwood to star and direct before actors go on strike.

Jan. 23, 2009 - Sullenberger reluctantly does interviews; he is five minutes late for "Late Show with David Letterman," causing Letterman to do 50-minute rant on airline food, chew off Paul Shaffer's leg; Sullenberger is unable to answer Charlie Gibson's question about providing specific mechanics to create a warp bubble according to the Alcubierre theory involving waves of contracting and expanding space.

Jan. 26, 2009 - Screening tests show Sullenberger had .00000001 percent blood alcohol level at time of Flight 1549 landing, suspected of being caused by undigested rum cake Sullenberger ate at New Year's Eve celebration; Senatorial commission is formed to form a Senatorial commission to investigate criminal misconduct on Sullenberger's part.

Jan. 28, 2009 - Looking for evidence of more rum cake, reporters find half-eaten sandwich in Sullenberger's garbage; nation shocked at his wastefulness during difficult economic times.

Feb. 1, 2009 - Passenger from Flight 1549 sues US Airways, Sullenberger for "infliction of Post-Traumatic Avian-Effectuated Hydro-Disembarkation Distress," claims resulant emotional damage from landing safely on Hudson is worse than "if he had died." Other passengers join in suit; Sullenberger forced to stay in US Airways Club until legal matters can be sorted out.

Feb. 2, 2009 - PETA sues US Airways on behalf of families of the ducks and birds sucked into the Flight 1549 Airbus A320, claims Sullenberger had lifelong animosity toward flying creatures and waterfowl; Sullenberger locked in guarded US Airways bathroom for ''his own safety."

Feb. 3, 2009 - Old video footage of Sullenberger telling Marx Brothers' "Why a duck?" routine at party becomes widespread hit on YouTube; Sullenberger claims to have never seen "The Cocoanuts" but, ironically, has seen "Duck Soup."

Feb. 4, 2009 - Religious groups claim Sullenberger interfered with God's natural order by saving people on Flight 1549; he is subsequently excommunicated by Pope.

Feb. 7, 2009 - Tina Fey does riotous Chesley Sullenberger impression on "Saturday Night Live," ordering Duck a l'Orange in restaurant, then stabbing it with fork, beating it with crowbar, tossing it into huge fan; followed by hilarious Andy Samberg digital video, "Plug Up My Ass."

Feb. 10, 2009 - The Clint Eastwood version of Sullenberger's story is put in turnaround as Eastwood instead directs a film adaptation of "The Wild Duck" with himself in role of Hedvig. A cheaply made TV-movie "Brace for Impact" appears on Spike TV, with Sullenberger played by Michael Dudikoff; it is beaten in ratings by "Willie Aames' Old Skool Bible, In Your Face!"

Feb. 12, 2009 - Teacher reveals Sullenberger was unable to attend daughter's piano recital in 2001; parents' groups call him unfit father.

Feb. 15, 2009 - US Airways declares bankruptcy, Sullenberger is fired, wife files for divorce, daughter becomes fifth judge on "American Idol." Michael Bloomberg takes city keys away from Sullenberger, gives them to man who can stuff five billiard balls into his mouth.

Feb. 23, 2009 - Sullenberger stars in VH1 show "I'm With Chesley"; in premiere episode he waits to travel on Southwest, is recognized, forced into stand-by line while he is strip-searched by Gary Busey.

Feb. 28, 2009 - Veteran Air Force/American Airlines pilot Markham Polliratham successfully lands damaged Boeing 757 Flight 234 onto Emerald Dunes Golf Course after children's kites are sucked into its engines; media report spotless record of Polliratham, who is hailed as a hero.

-- Spencer Green in the Huffington Post

Interesting bit of info here:

. . . Here is the pilot of a Boeing 767 that was struck by a flock of ducks in March 2007, causing him to return to the airport, where the remains of nine ducks were found. Between 1990 and 2007, there were 79,972 reported bird strikes on aircraft.

http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/8160/5m/images.newsday.com/media/acrobat/2009-0 1/44549509.pdf

There was also this:

The Airbus A320 has a “ditching switch” that closed all of the open ventilation ports in the bottom of the fuselage, allowing the plane to float. The switch is unique to Airbus planes.

I was just thinking that noise abatement procedures probably keeps throttle up at a less than full boogie as they get some elevation right after takeoff, lending to the scenario a possible reason why the engines were choked on unknown poundage of liquified goose. The first part of their ascent is right over heavily populated areas, the hit happening so soon into the flight.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=lga&ie=UTF8&source=embed&ll=40. 840048,-73.833275&spn=0.176621,0.364609&t=h&z=12

We can parse all we want. We know the FAA will take forever to issue findings and that a good half or more of what is supposedly leaked to the media will not be true.

A compressor stall is not a malfunction of the engine. As you mentioned, it's a disruption of the airflow into the engine.

It could be a strong cross wind gust that disrupts the flow or something similar.

I was on a United flight out of O'Hare back in the early 90's on a Boeing 737-200 and just as the aircraft rotated there was a compressor stall in the right engine. It was real loud "bang", like a car backfiring.

It didn't disrupt the take off at all and we continued on to our destination.

I doubt that this had anything to do with the ditching of the plane.

Here is some neat information on the General Electric CFM-56 engines that are used on the Airbus A320's.

http://www.vbird-va.nl/airbus/CFM%20Flight%20Ops.pdf

Look at page 52 for the information on the "Ingestion Tests".

They call a large bird a "6 pound bird". I'd bet that a Goose weighs more than 6 pounds.

I don't know what their definition of "No Hazard To The Aircraft" is but I would suspect that it means the engine won't come apart and cause physical damage.

If you look at the spec above that one, it says that after ingesting three 1.5 lb birds and one 2.5 lb bird the engine must run for 20 minutes at less than 25% thrust loss.

2 geese in an engine surely would trash it! (IMHO)

When you consider a 25% (or more) thrust loss after a big bird meal and Andy Brown's point about less-than-full throttle conditions, I'd say maybe we're looking at a "popped the clutch" situation?

Perhaps the copilot just throttled back a bit too far? Hmm . . .

Perhaps we're looking too hard for a slip-up?

Perhaps the very unlikely scenario of sucking in several Canadian Honkers killed both engines, and a top-notch pilot saved the day.

(Actually they are CANADA Geese, not Canadian.)

The true reason for the incident has been released;

http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/showthread.php?t=52494