Confirmed: Canada Geese Hit Flight 1549

After the Smithsonian's analysis of feathers and organic material left in the engines of US Airways Flight 1549, the National Transportation Safety Board said a flock of Canada geese did hit the plane on January 15. With its engines compromised, the Airbus A320 was then forced to land in the Hudson River, with all passengers and crew surviving. However, the NY Times reports it's unclear whether the birds were migratory birds or more native ones from the NY area: "Those that migrate typically weigh from 6 pounds to nearly 11 pounds, the safety board said, but nonmigrating geese are fatter and 'can exceed published records.' Either kind is too much for the engines to handle, however." The NY Post, which basically called war on Canada geese, seems pleased with the identification.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on February 13, 2009 12:45 PM

Comments [rss]

NannyState

Maybe after Thanksgiving, I'll send what's left of the turkey carcass to the Smithsonian to see what type of carving knife struck it.

FelixtheCat & Christine Quinn'

The Post likes to start wars.

Future Taliban

Scientists have recently found some of GW Bush's azz-hairs in the American economic machine, clearly indicating his responsibility in bringing down the U.S. financial system.

babyhitler

don't fall for it! This is what the government wants you to think. The real reason flight 1549 went down is cause of Aliens from the future sent back in time by jesus christ. Yes, jesus christ is really evil. Dan Brown needs to write another book.

Neil Epstein

This just in - sky blue and water is wet.

radomako

Flight 1549 and Geese blamed on Canada!

jt10000

Don't mess with geese, because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

.... Just wanted to say it. Ahhhh....I've got nothing. OK I'll shut up.

Ed

Geese didn't hit Flight 1549, Flight 1549 hit the Geese.

Amanda Harletsch

Funny, some might think that because the human brain is "bigger" than a birds brain there is an intrinsic advantage and the result automatic abuse of those birds life.

Well, lets say that if humans are that smart, perhaps finding a mechanical solution for the planes could be a good use of the extra brain. But yeah killing the defenseless always makes sense for the "smarter" portion of humans. Easy thought doesn't mean smart.

JenChungsBaby

The Post calls for Goosicide!

A goose's brain is the size of a raisin. It probably saw the plane from miles away (birds have great eyesight and are always aware of predators) and thought it was its mother or something and flew right towards it.

jaycjay

Both were moving, and they collided. What determines which hit which? Why is one way to put it correct and the other not?

Future Taliban

My clients (the geese) were going about their legitimate business when suddenly out of nowhere this speeding aircraft hit them and then continued on its way without stopping immediately to render assistance and/or exchange insurance information.

We will be suing to seek compensation for bodily injury, psychological trauma and lost migration time.

jibbly

Within context, I contend that the faster moving airplane is the hitter and the slower geese the hit(tee?).

The geese obviously were not attempting hari-kari by jet turbine. If they could, they would have avoided getting sucked into a jet engine's turbine.

Perhaps we can see it this way: Your car suddenly catches a flat on a highway and you don't have a spare. There is a tire shop on the other side of the road. It seems completely clear so you jog across the lanes, but suddenly a giant truck that's taking up all four lanes comes barreling towards you at 200mph. You see it and you try to reach the divider, but inevitably you're not fast enough and get squashed.

jaycjay

Well in that first explanation I'd say that intent doesn't matter and the plane also wasn't attempting to hit the geese.

But the truck/pedestrian analogy makes sense (and again makes the point that intent isn't relevant).