'Sully' the movie about landing on the Hudson River NYC [SPOILERS]

[Wingin..it]

I know it's not your intention, but just the thought of a scenario where pilots are punished after the event as a lesson to others is scary.

If there is some actual incompetence - perhaps alcohol or drugs - then sure, some punishment is merited.

But far better to employ people with the mental ability and the experience to be an airline pilot, and to train them to do the job. Give them the resources they need. Test them regularly and pull their ticket if they aren't up to the task.

Depending on actual incidents and accidents as the driving force in pilot motivation is a terrible way to arrange things. The pilot shouldn't be thinking in a moment of crisis, Geez, I'd better do the right thing or they'll fine me and maybe throw me in prison. He should be thinking, here's the drill I've practiced, here's the procedures I've been taught, how can I make the best use of the limited resources and time I've got. Thoughts of punishment and future courtroom scenarios are the last distraction he needs at that time.

It's probably easy, once the forensics are in and all the facts available, to pick some optimum route through the crisis that might have led to a different outcome. But the pilot isn't sitting at a table with every fact laid out neatly, charts spread open, leisure to examine every alternative. He's got a few seconds of limited knowledge to make crucial decisions. Life and death decisions, in this case. And certainly there will be alarms and alerts and interruptions.

This is combat level, personal survival stress the pilot is going to be feeling. And pretty much coming into it cold.

From a Hollywood point of view, where the audience knows the ending already, it's a difficult tale to structure effectively. The climax is obviously Sully's crisis in the coughpit, but how do you fill the eighty minutes before that point without boring the audience rigid? Rearranging the story to give the investigation more prominence seems to be the solution chosen here, but I find that course a little shallow. Sullenberger did the best job he could, he relied upon his training, he achieved a good outcome. Nit-picking and criticising his performance afterwards for the sake of drama rings a little false to my ear.

But hey, a Tom Hanks movie is going to put bums on seats and eyeballs on screens, and that's what counts, right?

Yes and that's the point .The real life investigation would have had to question and investigate the findings but not be in attack mode straight off the bat.For safety they are supposed to be looking into everything but it's main point is to improve safety ,maintenance ,and training procedures, not to act as scare tactics.Sure it happens (the critics and should have been part of the movie ).The investigation and procedure wasn't the villain but the people that can be doing it .What people are saying outside the investigation is /could be the real villain.

 

[Wingin..it]

Perhaps it's a case of having to be drunk to go flying with them.....

The old song what shall we do with the drunken sailor ..............what shall we do with the drunken pilot hang him/her in the hanger until their sober early in the morning ....hic..hic..hiccup....

 

[PLANT]

I watched the head cut off version.... Gee it was short... They could run sequels about all the back stories\perspectives of people involved hey?
Probably best to just turn into telemovie series?

 

[Skyring]

The old song what she we do with the drunken sailor ..............what she we do with the drunken pilot hang him/her in the hanger until their sober early in the morning ....hic..hic..hiccup....

Some of the comments above remind me of other official investigations. Sometimes the facts are not compatible with the outcome.

Our last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, twice ran over and sank or severely damaged a destroyer. Both times the captain and crew of the Melbourne were doing exactly what they were supposed to. In one case, the drunken captain of HMAS Voyager miscalculated his course, and in the other two unqualified junior officers were in control while the captain slept.

Both times, the destroyer's officers ignored or disobeyed orders, going against procedure by turning into, rather than away from the carrier. Both times, the blameless captain of the Melbourne was found to be partially at fault, effectively ending his career.

I think that we are all aware of miscarriages of justice. The trappings of uniforms, wood-panelling, lawyers and law books do not necessarily ensure a just outcome. Audiences watching this film would be aware of the potential for Sullenberger to be found to have made an error. After all, there are always powerful interests keen to lay blame on the pilot, rather than the aircraft, the engines, the airline, ATC, and so on.

This, I think, is where the writers sought to place the movie's drama. The accident, and its relatively casualty-free outcome, is well known. The subsequent inquiry, less so. We're rooting for the heroic pilot against the investigators, and we don't know if they'll get it right.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Okay, I saw it today. 10 out of 10.

Personally, I found it quite stressful. I'll bet Sully has trouble watching it.

Same and I'm not a pilot but also ultimately accountable in my role if lives are lost.

Given have to try to learn out of each event - it's just the way it needs to be done. Could that be made simpler when interpolating the human element?

Movie showed the genius of Eastwood in getting the key messages across.

 

[Wingin..it]

Some of the comments above remind me of other official investigations. Sometimes the facts are not compatible with the outcome.

Our last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, twice ran over and sank or severely damaged a destroyer. Both times the captain and crew of the Melbourne were doing exactly what they were supposed to. In one case, the drunken captain of HMAS Voyager miscalculated his course, and in the other two unqualified junior officers were in control while the captain slept.

Both times, the destroyer's officers ignored or disobeyed orders, going against procedure by turning into, rather than away from the carrier. Both times, the blameless captain of the Melbourne was found to be partially at fault, effectively ending his career.

I think that we are all aware of miscarriages of justice. The trappings of uniforms, wood-panelling, lawyers and law books do not necessarily ensure a just outcome. Audiences watching this film would be aware of the potential for Sullenberger to be found to have made an error. After all, there are always powerful interests keen to lay blame on the pilot, rather than the aircraft, the engines, the airline, ATC, and so on.

This, I think, is where the writers sought to place the movie's drama. The accident, and its relatively casualty-free outcome, is well known. The subsequent inquiry, less so. We're rooting for the heroic pilot against the investigators, and we don't know if they'll get it right.

I just want to know why the BIRDS were not interviewed ,after all they were the cause !!!!!! lol
Agree the main aim of the movie came across .A heroic Pilot and no injuries .The miracle on the Hudson!

 

[PLANT]

Yeah would have been good to have a chick perspective

 

[ermen]

what struck me was the lack of life rafts on the plane? are there just not enough capacity in the lift rafts that people need to go on the wing?

 

[Skyring]

what struck me was the lack of life rafts on the plane? are there just not enough capacity in the lift rafts that people need to go on the wing?

The escape slides are life rafts. Not that I'd be keen on spending long in one. Some aircraft have actual life rafts, stowed in a bulge in the ceiling. Typically narrow-body planes will have them towards the front, often with eye-catching markings to warn tall buggers like myself to duck their heads.

But aircraft don't have an abundance of room inside the pressurised tube, and someone has thought long and hard about every centimetre. Like, whether they can squeeze in another seat or three. Life rafts are big, heavy, expensive things that add no passenger amenity, and are very rarely used.

If the plane goes down in the open ocean, it's unlikely you'll survive the crash and escape the wreckage. You've got a lifevest for that outcome, and maybe the escape slides.

More likely, if the plane is controllable for any length of time and no suitable landing place presents itself, is being able to ditch in a river or lake, or in the ocean close to shore. You'll be within reach of land, and very likely rescue. Again, lifejackets should be enough to keep you afloat for a while.

Some domestic flights in the US don't even carry lifejackets. Instead, the seat cushion is your floaty. Just turn it over and there are straps.

In this case, there was basically no time to prepare for the ditching. The crew went with their training and what they had. The fuselage remained intact, more or less, and not only did the wings stay on, they were full of fuel, which is lighter than water. Quite apart from the fact that, as we have seen from MH370, significant portions can float. One of the heavy engines had been ripped off in the ditching, and there wasn't much in the way of wind or waves to speed disintegration.

Being so close to a metropolis, rescue is only minutes away. It's like ditching in Sydney Harbour. Ferries, police boats, private vessels - they'll all be reasonably close. Go stand on the wing and wait for a ferry. Don't forget to tap on and tap off.

 

[Captain Halliday]

I found this clip https://youtu.be/pWpSAfF6elI that appears to be from the NTSB overlaying ATC with FDR data from the aircraft. Some questions for jb747 or others with relevant knowledge:

The aircraft descends to 208 feet, then briefly gets back up to 360 feet during this 'climb' the airspeed drops from 182kts to 139kts. Would this very slight climb be due to selecting flaps 2, the start of a flare, or a bit of both?

I recall from the ask the pilot thread that the flare happens much later for a normal landing. Given the higher nose up required to attempt something like this, would you flare earlier?

 

[Skyring]

[video=youtube;tE_5eiYn0D0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE_5eiYn0D0[/video]

 

[jb747]

I found this clip https://youtu.be/pWpSAfF6elI that appears to be from the NTSB overlaying ATC with FDR data from the aircraft. Some questions for jb747 or others with relevant knowledge:

The aircraft descends to 208 feet, then briefly gets back up to 360 feet during this 'climb' the airspeed drops from 182kts to 139kts. Would this very slight climb be due to selecting flaps 2, the start of a flare, or a bit of both?

I recall from the ask the pilot thread that the flare happens much later for a normal landing. Given the higher nose up required to attempt something like this, would you flare earlier?

It's hard to say why he climbed there, or even if it was intentional. Watching this shows just how limited the time was, and how very little could really be done.

In theory the flare should be normal, but continued for much longer. Personally (in a normal landing), I just break the rate of descent and then let it land immediately. That gives the earliest touchdown possible, but not necessarily the smoothest. The training manual version of the ditching is the exact opposite.

When teaching new pilots to fly at Pt Cook, we used to give many, many engine failures after take off. One thing that was pushed was that turning back was almost always a bad idea. That carried right through to my conversion to the A-4G. This is a classic example...the only places you can reasonably go are almost always within your view, and in front of the wings.

 

[cosi]

This review of Sully, the movie by Richard de Crespigny QF32, is enlightening reading.

http://qf32.aero/2016/09/28/review-sully-movie/

 

[Mattg]

I finally got around to seeing this movie yesterday and would have to echo the thoughts of everyone who's posted in this thread so far - I absolutely loved it.

I did have a bit of a laugh at the rudeness of the LGA ground staff - I thought it captured the true level of customer service provided by US carriers perfectly!

 

[Wingin..it]

Also Skiles would have made it July ................summer (no cold water )
Thanks Cosi for link to Richards review .Enjoyed reading what he had to say .

Wonder what it would be like in 3D ?

I just went and saw (slightly off topic)secret life of pets in 3D and at the start (sitting very close to the screen )some birds are flying .It feels like they are flying over you and the scene continues as you feel like you are flying with it .Just brings the joy of aviation to mind and how we are lucky to experience it .Even if someone fears flying everyone has to try it at least once in their lifetime .

 

[whatmeworry]

Tom Hanks spoofs Sully.

[video=youtube;sdpmgPp2RnU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdpmgPp2RnU[/video]

 

[Warks]

I was a bit disappointed to find it wasn't on my inflight entertainment on VA1/2 over the past two weeks! I wonder why...