Re: Air Crash
QC, just a couple of points that might answer your questions ....
I saw a plot of the glide path of the aircraft a couple of days ago, which indicated that the apex of the flight was at 4,000 feet. I have since read that the data recorder indicates that it was only 3,200 feet. From that altitude, there is no way that he could have come back around to land on Runway 4 at Laguardia (LGA). He might have been able to make Runway 13 (heading of roughly 130), but that would have involved a 270 degree turn, which would have resulted in more altitude loss, and flight over a good portion of Manhattan. It also would have required a crosswind landing and would have required landing gear extension, which causes a lot of drag.
Teterboro (TEB) would have been his next, best bet. Given the distance that he flew (I plotted it with the distance function in Google Earth), its not impossible that he might have made it there. The problem in that case is similar to a LGA landing, however, in that the surrounding area is heavily populated. When you landed on Runway 22 at Newark (EWR), you may have noticed both the density of the area, and TEB under you during final approach.
The biggest problem that I see with TEB is that the only runway that he could have used, due to runway configuration and manuerving considerations, would have been runway 24. That would have required an approach from the east on what is referred to as a base leg, which is perpendicular to the landing runway. Because of this, he would been required to make a 90 degree left turn (or nearly so) to line up on final approach, at low altitude. Given that an unpowered aircraft will lose much more altitude in a bank than it does in level flight, this would have been precarious, at best.
There is also an issue with runway length. Runway 24 at TEB is only 6,013 feet long. While I have seen DC9-30s (about the same size as an A320) use it, that's not much runway when you have no thrust reversers to stop the aircraft. Landing on this runway also would have been with a tailwind, which increases ground speed, thus making it even harder to stop before the end of the runway.
I think what went on in this pilot's head, is that he had to quickly assess his options, and just didn't think he could make either airport. Also, as an airline pilot, he would have known that TEB was there, but probably had never flown out of it, because TEB is primarily a General Aviation airport, which caters to anything from light, single engine aircraft to large business jets. As such, I would guess that the US Airways pilot also worried about being able to use visual cues on the ground, to fly to absolute shortest path to a runway there. The problem that he would have had is that, as he got very low in the last stages of the approach, he would not have had very good forward perspective. All things considered, he had to make a decision at a high enough altitude to be able to make his intended point of landing. In an emergency landing, once you get to that point, your thought process becomes focused on putting the airplane where you need to, in order to survive - everything else is unimportant at that point.
I hope I've been able to offer some insight. I don't pretend to be an expert at flying A320s, but I do have a Commercial Pilot certificate, and worked/flew in the area for many years.
As for large birds, yup, they're very scarey. I once watched an aircraft called an Aerostar (light twin engine) land at TEB, with a broken windshield and pieces of a Canada Goose hanging out of it. The pilot was severly injured and was blinded by both the bird and pieces of windshield. Fortunately, he had been teaching his son how to fly, and the kid was with him. The son landed the aircraft from the right seat, because his dad couldn't.
Who knows? Just seems odd.
