Why Did Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 Crash While US Airways Flight 1549 Survived a Hudson River Landing?

The contrasting outcomes of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 and US Airways Flight 1549 during their emergency landings can be attributed to several critical factors, including the nature of the emergencies, the aircraft types involved, the pilots' actions, and environmental conditions. Understanding these differences offers valuable insights into the nuances of emergency aviation scenarios.

Factors Influencing the Outcomes

Circumstances of the Emergency

**Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961:***

The flight was hijacked, leading to a chaotic situation with the pilots forced to make an emergency landing in the Indian Ocean, when the aircraft was already running low on fuel. The aircraft, a Boeing 767, was not designed for water landings due to its larger wingspan and weight, making it inherently more challenging to control during such an emergency. Pilots faced extreme stress and had limited options, resulting in a poorly controlled approach to the water, leading to a high-speed impact and disintegration upon landing.

**US Airways Flight 1549:***

The dual engine failure was caused by a bird strike shortly after takeoff, providing the pilots time to assess the situation and select a suitable landing spot. Pilots had a more controlled situation, choosing to land in the Hudson River, which required careful planning and execution.

Aircraft Type

**Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961:*** The Boeing 767 is a large aircraft with a greater risk of breaking apart upon impact with water. The risk of structural failure during a water landing is significantly higher with heavier airplanes.

**US Airways Flight 1549:*** The Airbus A320, while also not designed for water landings, is smaller and lighter, making it somewhat more manageable in such situations. The smaller size and weight allowed for better control and stability during the landing attempt.

Pilot Actions

**Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961:*** The pilots faced an extremely stressful and chaotic situation, with no time for a controlled approach. The lack of options and the poor control contributed to the high-speed impact and lack of structural integrity upon landing.

**US Airways Flight 1549:*** The pilots were able to calmly assess the situation, directing the aircraft towards a section of the Hudson River that offered better chances for a controlled landing. Their actions were critical in minimizing damage.

Water Conditions

**Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961:*** The ocean surface conditions were unpredictable, adding to the risk of a high-speed impact and disintegration.

**US Airways Flight 1549:*** The Hudson River was relatively calm, which contributed to a smoother and more controlled landing. The pilots aimed for a section of the river that increased their chances of a survivable landing.

Summary of Differing Outcomes

The key differences in outcomes can be summarized as:

The nature of the emergencies (chaotic hijacking vs. controlled dual engine failure). The aircraft types involved (heavier Boeing 767 vs. smaller and lighter Airbus A320). The pilots' decision-making and control during the landings. The environmental factors (unpredictable ocean surface vs. relatively calm river).

Thorough analysis reveals that while Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961's uncontrolled impact led to its disintegration, US Airways Flight 1549's careful and strategic 'ditching' resulted in a survivable landing with minimal damage. This stark contrast underscores the critical importance of both pilot training and situational awareness in emergency landing procedures.