Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4796 posts, RR: 9 Posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4239 times:
Hi, I'm surprised there is no thread about this movie. The most commonly discussed part on the internet is the crash, but it's too "aerobatic" to warrant discussion here in my opinion, however I'm interested by what happens during the initial climb through clouds, rain, turbulence, and how the captain disregards the heading and altitude given by the controller, overspeeds the aircraft, and generally hand-flies the thing in conditions where loss of situational awareness is very easily attained.
What are your thoughts ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 1, posted (3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4231 times:
My thoughts are that it is Hollywood, and for being Hollywood it is surprisingly realistic, meaning not very much...
Hand flying is not a problem as I see it. Any pilot with an instrument rating, let alone an ATP/ATPL, should have few issues maintaining situational awareness in that situation (aircraft control is another matter). The flight instruments are shown to be working the whole time. The autopilot, especially in a somewhat older aircraft like the MD-80, would probably do much worse than the fleshbag pilot in such conditions. The fact that he does the wrong thing (overspeeds instead of slowing down to maneuvering speed) is of course a problem. Dramatic license...
I have issues with him talking to the controllers at all while flying the aircraft in an emergency situation. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. The division of labor in the cockpit is very bad. The radio comms are awful. The fact that he tries to thread the needle between two thunderstorm cells is just terrible. But the one thing that really bugged me was how at "rotate" he grabbed the yoke and yanked.
Having said that, it illustrates the kind of person he is, and that is what the movie is about. It is not a movie about aviation. Aviation is incidental to it. Even with all the technical inaccuracies, I thought the movie was fantastic. It really shows how substance abuse can destroy a person, and it really shows what kind of personality issues can and do occur.
On a side note, I was in flight school in Kissimmee when I saw this movie. I went with another student. The line "That's a pocket of smooth air, squatting right over Kissimmee" made us cheer!
[Edited 2013-02-20 06:20:13]
[Edited 2013-02-20 06:22:00]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4199 times:
never saw it and probably because it is a movie. Very few movies are even close to being accurate. Jimmy Stewart was one of the very few actor/pilots that maintained as much accuracy as possible. eg. Spirit Of St. Louis, Strategic Air Command
Slcpilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 529 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4186 times:
As most others have properly noted, this is NOT a movie about aviation, but rather a movie about addiction. Any 121 crew member could tear it apart. Another example of Hollywood comes from the ATC transmissions where they say "THIS is National 191" (sorry, I forgot the the carrier name). You don't hear broadcasts starting with "This", but I'm willing to give Hollywood a bye to make it more understandable for the average viewer.
I bought the notion of the conflicted hero, even if the substance abuse at the scale depicted most likely doesn't happen today. It might have happened like this in the 60s and 70s with less oversight.
Cheers!
SLCPilot
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
MrCazzy From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4142 times:
When a couple of my friends and I were watching this we were pointing out the problems with it. Kind of funny when a bunch of pilots watch a movie about flying
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8753 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (3 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3987 times:
First off, I agree that the movie is about addiction and not flying.
For me, the producers left a giant plot hole in the movie. The captain and investigating board clearly state that it was a mechanical problem with the plane and not pilot error. The whole premise is that despite the drug induced state that the captain was in, he did a remarkable job. However, he oversped the airplane in what he called severe turbulence. Doing so will put excess stress on the airplane and could have caused the jackscrew to fail.
I know I am reading too far into this, but exceeding the placarded speeds in severe turbulence could cause the jackscrew to fail. So while the movie blames the plane and indicates the pilot was a hero and did nothing wrong, in reality overspeeding the airplane in turbulence could cause structural failure. I was waiting at the end of the movie for someone to bring it up, but they never did. It was an unresolved plot hole for me.
I was laughing hysterically at the whole disaster sequence. Dumping fuel on an MD80 was just comical and having the manual override be so far away that the flight attendant had to pull it. If such a handle did exist, the airplane design engineers would have been smart enough to put it close enough so that the pilot could reach it! Only in the movies is the handle/switch/lever that could save everyone’s lives just out of reach of the actor. No engineer is stupid enough to actually do that.
Oh well, it is just a movie about drug addiction.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3899 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5): For me, the producers left a giant plot hole in the movie. The captain and investigating board clearly state that it was a mechanical problem with the plane and not pilot error. The whole premise is that despite the drug induced state that the captain was in, he did a remarkable job. However, he oversped the airplane in what he called severe turbulence. Doing so will put excess stress on the airplane and could have caused the jackscrew to fail.
Agreed. But the objective was to make it interesting for the mainstream viewer. It's all a backdrop for his addiction and its consequences.
Thing is, Flight was more realistic than the vast majority of movies with airplanes in them. Remember "Top Gun", "Air Force One", "Starflight", "Airport" and its steadily declining sequels?
There are some good movies with planes in them. "Memphis Belle" comes to mind. I'd lump Flight in there as well. Overlooking the technical inaccuracies for a moment, the depiction of crew life (apart from actual CRM) is not so terribly off. It shows something the public rarely sees, the less than glamorous side with weird layover times, and the fact that for them the aircraft is a workplace.
Quoting MrCazzy (Reply 4): When a couple of my friends and I were watching this we were pointing out the problems with it. Kind of funny when a bunch of pilots watch a movie about flying
Quite. This is the problem with watching a movie or even a documentary on a subject you have expert knowledge about. There is simply no time to cover the subject in enough depth to be realistic, and even if there were, the mainstream viewer would not understand the nuances involved.
Books are much better. For example I am finally reading "Fate is the Hunter". It really captures the pilot psyche and I highly recommend it. But only for people actually interested in aviation.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2516 posts, RR: 45 Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3828 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 2): never saw it and probably because it is a movie.
Agreed; ditto.
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1): The autopilot, especially in a somewhat older aircraft like the MD-80, would probably do much worse than the fleshbag pilot in such conditions.
You base this critique of the MD-80 A/P on what exactly? It's not the best A/P I have ever used (A-320; L-1011) but it does a very good job and definitely is strongly recommended when dealing with complex navigation and weather. It is particularly helpful to SA and PM duties.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3762 times:
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 7): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
The autopilot, especially in a somewhat older aircraft like the MD-80, would probably do much worse than the fleshbag pilot in such conditions.
You base this critique of the MD-80 A/P on what exactly? It's not the best A/P I have ever used (A-320; L-1011) but it does a very good job and definitely is strongly recommended when dealing with complex navigation and weather. It is particularly helpful to SA and PM duties.
The complex navigation I am sure it could handle. However wouldn't the severe turbulence lead to disconnection if it couldn't stay on target?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3252 posts, RR: 14 Reply 9, posted (3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3691 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6): Quite. This is the problem with watching a movie or even a documentary on a subject you have expert knowledge about. There is simply no time to cover the subject in enough depth to be realistic, and even if there were, the mainstream viewer would not understand the nuances involved.
You don't have to have "time" to do things realistically on film. I haven't seen the movie but just speaking generally, it would take no extra time at all to show a pilot using proper procedures in the time he's on screen - you just compress things with editing so that not everything needs to be shown.
I went to a pretty good film school (NYU) and I've been working in the industry off and on ever since (and on again right now) - I still remember in my very first class, the very first thing my professor taught us was that "film is a literal medium". In other words what you as a filmmaker put on screen is exactly what viewers are going to see; you can't rely on them to use their imagination to make real what you have faked. That's always stuck with me. If you are going to tell a story about mobsters, you can't show them passing around monopoly money. If you are going to tell a story about Kurt Cobain, you can't show him playing the wrong guitar. And if you are going to tell a story about a pilot, you can't show him using the wrong procedures. Well, you *can*, it's just that in all of these cases, your film won't appear to be very authentic.
Really good filmmakers take the time to research and learn their subject matter, at least to the point that it looks like they know what they're talking about. Or if they don't, they hire an expert who does. That's why most war movies have paid military consultants advising on real-world military procedures. I don't see why it should be different with aviation movies; aviation isn't somehow exempt from all this; we've maybe just gotten used to seeing aviation depicted poorly.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3599 times:
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 9): I don't see why it should be different with aviation movies; aviation isn't somehow exempt from all this; we've maybe just gotten used to seeing aviation depicted poorly.
Fair point. And great post spacecadet.
I find that Apollo 13 is a great movie that is both very faithful to the actual mechanics of spaceflight in the 60s, while still being riveting. The filmmakers went to ridiculous detail to make it true to history. It is worth noting, however, that they changed events here and there for the story.
Perhaps aviation is a bit of a special case. Most people in the west have flown and so they think they know the details of this rather intricate endeavor. I get asked a lot of questions, but I notice most people aren't really interested in the true answers. They just want their preconceptions validated.
By the way the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3500 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6): There are some good movies with planes in them. "Memphis Belle" comes to mind.
As much as I love the M.B. story the later movie was not considered very accurate by most. Sadly the old William Wyler footage from a M.B. mission was definitive. In the movie they had to wrap 25 missions into 1 1/2 hrs which didn't work.
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 9): Well, you *can*, it's just that in all of these cases, your film won't appear to be very authentic.
True but 99% of the people won't notice and won't care. That's sad but even my wife has told me not to point out the inaccuracies of aviation movies. I'm sure this holds true to police movies, doctor movies or lawyer movies. I heard from a reliable source that when they were making Castaway the director wanted the crew to throw their hands up and snap back as the plane hit the water. Our tech advisor (pilot) pointed out that when hitting something hard like water everything goes forward not backwards. He then said "ok on three everyone go forward"! It's only physics, sad sad sad.
One of the best aviation books.
Should have a look at "Castles in the Sky", which reads like a thriller on one of the events he talked about in just a few pages of "Fate is..." It gives you a very nice iodea of Great North naviogation problems at a time when neither Loran or GPS were available. Funny that these trwo books made it into Hollywood, but alas, failed to bring the atmospheres... even with the Duke at his prime .
For history buffs, a series of books by Ray Rosenbaum "Falcons" /" Hawks" / "Eagles" / "Condors" portrays the USAF from Pearl Harbor to the cold war through the career of an officer, Ross Collier with some vivid cockpit actions. A very enjoyable read.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3456 times:
I remember reading "Fate" and loved it. When the movie came out I ran to see it and was so disappointed to find nothing associated to the book at all. Thanks again Hollywood.
tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1375 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3433 times:
I went in knowing that the aviation side was gonna suck, which of course it did, but the rest of it wasn't too bad.
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6): Books are much better. For example I am finally reading "Fate is the Hunter". It really captures the pilot psyche and I highly recommend it. But only for people actually interested in aviation.
moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2009 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3383 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 13): True but 99% of the people won't notice and won't care. That's sad but even my wife has told me not to point out the inaccuracies of aviation movies. I'm sure this holds true to police movies, doctor movies or lawyer movies.
I have a friend who is retired from the NYPD (patrol, and later helicopter mechanic). When NYPD Blue premiered, he complained about how unrealistic it was. I told him nobody would watch an hour of cops sitting around filling out reports and eating donuts. I don't think he's forgiven me for that comment to this day.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 18, posted (3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3377 times:
moose135, well that is true and I know where your friend comes from too. It's very similar to some posters that hear of an abnormal situation and start jumping to all kinds of emergency situations and possibilities when in reality most alerts and abnormal indications are solved without much fanfare.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4796 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3306 times:
On the contrary I found a better end would be for him to lie till the end and continue with his flying drunk/high, letting us wonder about what will finally stop him. But Hollywood has to be moral.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8753 posts, RR: 52 Reply 22, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3283 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 19): If you listen the early dialogue of the CVR, it is incriminating and he deserved a death penalty just for his reckless flying.
I doubt the producers of the movie know what a CVR is for. Apparently they think it is used for saying goodbye to your children during an imminent accident.
[Edited 2013-02-21 15:05:49]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 597 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3276 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 22): I doubt the producers of the movie know what a CVR is for. Apparently they think it is used for saying goodbye to your children during an imminent accident.
It's overdone in movies, but it comes for the real life PSA182 that crashed in San Diego, when the FO said "Ma I love you" before they hit the ground.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
Senchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3261 times:
Movie was quite good, but as others stated before: It's kind of an aviation topic but actually about alcohol and/or drug abuse.
Thing is: Movies about very deep topics mostly are stuffed with Hollywood while not taking care about details. There are like SO many movies with aviation involved and i just keep shaking my head or even can't watch them 'till the end.
Examples:
Flightplan ("Did you build this aircraft mummy?" - "Yes, it's a 474")
Snakes on a plane (no words)
Air Force One (whole Lowerdeck is basically cabin and crew rest)
Con Air (don't get me started)
However, i could see a certain "good will" to make it look nice and at the same time bring in non-boring details. But as spacecadet said:
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 9): Really good filmmakers take the time to research and learn their subject matter, at least to the point that it looks like they know what they're talking about. Or if they don't, they hire an expert who does
I never understand why they never hire someone who knows what he's talking about.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5): Dumping fuel on an MD80 was just comical and having the manual override be so far away that the flight attendant had to pull it.
Didn't quite understand what she had to pull there, thanks for that one. At first i thought it was some kind of "manual gear override".
On a side note:
Aviator was a GREAT movie for me. Covering all kinds of areas of aviation, quite detailed, but also mixed with psychology and the trouble Mr. Hughes had to go through.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 25, posted (3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3418 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 13): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
There are some good movies with planes in them. "Memphis Belle" comes to mind.
As much as I love the M.B. story the later movie was not considered very accurate by most. Sadly the old William Wyler footage from a M.B. mission was definitive. In the movie they had to wrap 25 missions into 1 1/2 hrs which didn't work.
Should have been more clear. I am aware it is not very accurate. But I still think it is a great movie. Also unlike most (even Flight which I enjoyed) it doesn't make me cringe every time there is a flying scene. Then again, I don't know very much about bomb sights and so forth.
[Edited 2013-02-21 16:05:32]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 26, posted (3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3377 times:
starlionblue, yeah the flying scenes were good, the Sally B based at Duxford was the Memphis Belle. it's still carries the logo on the right side and Sally B on the left. My problem is Hollywood's insistence at making every moment tense, dramatic and emotional. Those guys were doing their jobs and I don't think there was a lot of time for emotional chit-chat. I asked one of the waist gunners, Cass Nastal, a few yrs ago how they managed to workout the moving about with the other guy in the waist gun position considering they were directly opposite each other on the early models. his reply was "we never thought about it". What he was saying was when being shot at you did what you needed to do and didn't talk about it. The movie had too much talk.
Fabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1111 posts, RR: 1 Reply 27, posted (3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3324 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11): By the way the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.
Quoting SAAFNAV (Reply 12): Yeah, so much for parsec being a unit of distance not time.
FWIW I dont think it was ever told what a Kessel run is, specifically. Maybe it does make sense as a distance measurement - for example, how long does it take for a smuggler to evade pursuit? Normally 15 parsecs, the Falcon can do it in less than twelve.
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 24): I never understand why they never hire someone who knows what he's talking about.
They probably do, just never bother actually listening.
The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
SAAFNAV From South Africa, joined Mar 2010, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (3 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3198 times:
Quoting Fabo (Reply 27): FWIW I dont think it was ever told what a Kessel run is, specifically. Maybe it does make sense as a distance measurement - for example, how long does it take for a smuggler to evade pursuit? Normally 15 parsecs, the Falcon can do it in less than twelve.
I agree with your point, but according to the Star Wars canon, the Kessel Run is a route of 18 parsecs.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 29, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2873 times:
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 24): Flightplan ("Did you build this aircraft mummy?" - "Yes, it's a 474")
In this case its intentional to avoid problems with trademarks. The Bond movie Casino Royale also modified a 747 and called it a Skyfleet S570 for plot and trademark issues.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 30, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2824 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 29): Quoting Senchingo (Reply 24):
Flightplan ("Did you build this aircraft mummy?" - "Yes, it's a 474")
In this case its intentional to avoid problems with trademarks. The Bond movie Casino Royale also modified a 747 and called it a Skyfleet S570 for plot and trademark issues.
That very plane can be seen in the background during Top Gear's track sessions.
But I digress.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1501 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2799 times:
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 24): I never understand why they never hire someone who knows what he's talking about.
Because that costs money. You have to pay for a consultant. Filming takes longer (= more $$$) as more planning and rehearsal needs to be done. Not worth it when the only people who will notice and care are aviation geeks; movies are already expensive for the studios to make.
EVERY movie is inaccurate, as mentioned by someone earlier. We notice all the aviation stuff because we are aviation fans. I'm a chemist- I notice all the inaccurate uses of scientific terminology, chemical instruments, and science in general in movies/TV shows. If you don't know you are perfectly happy believing in what they say/do. I have never seen Flight, but a trained psychologist could probably bring up a ton of points on how addiction was mishandled in this movie that none of us realize.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 33, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2790 times:
Ha! Ha! right. Just a couple of very silly moments I remember from movies. In The Battle of Britain, as good as it was for flying scenes, the Germans are approaching the field which was mostly filmed at Duxford and the spitfires and Hurricanes are going up to meet them. Well they crank up and taxi down the field at a nice slow taxi as the bombers finally fly over and bomb the crap out of them. Absolutely wrong! The would have gone to take-off power right from the blocks, no taxi.
This is hilarious, once in an episode of Mannix, the private detective, the bad guy gets in a Bonanza to get away. He cranks up and again taxis nice and slow to the take off runway while Mannix is chasing the plane on foot. He catches it, opens the luggage compartment door and climbs in. Somehow he makes it in to the cabin and as the bad guy is FINALLY adding T/O power Mannix reaches over his shoulder, grabs the control yoke and gives it a twist and the Bonanza ground loops! End of bad guy escaping. funny but so not true.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4796 posts, RR: 9 Reply 34, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
Personally it's computers that get me, and you don't have to be into computers to realize that only in movies/TV series computers do strange bip bip noises and somehow you do everything with the keyboard, never using a mouse or similar device.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
flymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6298 posts, RR: 6 Reply 35, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2728 times:
I just saw Flight last night. I liked the movie. Aviation was not as big as a part of the movie which is probably a good thing.
To the movie the flight deck was realistic besides for the 737NG Engine Instruments. I also noticed that when fires broke out in both engines the FO pulled the fire handle but then a minute later the engines failed. Last time I checked when you pull the fire handles the engine shut down.
The GPWS turned on too early.
I did not notice him over speeding the aircraft. I am sure the plane went over turbulent air speed but the speed indicator stayed right below the red line as the line he said in the movie about being right on the red line.
That climb scene was fairly dramatic.
I liked how they never discussed him sleeping at the controls, that would have been on the CVR.
As for the NTSB hearing, NTSB hearings and reports can never be used in the court of law and have no criminal authority or really any type of authority at all. But its a movie, they can't go through the criminal case after too.
Overall I thought it was a good movie.
Quoting Senchingo (Reply 24): Flightplan ("Did you build this aircraft mummy?" - "Yes, it's a 474")
It was meant to be a fake airplane in that movie.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
SAAFNAV From South Africa, joined Mar 2010, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2703 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 34): Personally it's computers that get me, and you don't have to be into computers to realize that only in movies/TV series computers do strange bip bip noises and somehow you do everything with the keyboard, never using a mouse or similar device.
Yeah, these movies are so unrealistic.
I mean, they hack an Alien Starship's computer, and not once does the computer ask if they want to update Adobe!
Quoting flymia (Reply 35):
To the movie the flight deck was realistic besides for the 737NG Engine Instruments. I also noticed that when fires broke out in both engines the FO pulled the fire handle but then a minute later the engines failed. Last time I checked when you pull the fire handles the engine shut down.
The GPWS turned on too early.
I only saw the 'crash scene' once. But to me it looked like he pulled the Fire Handles as if in a B737 (behind the throttle quadrant), and when they zoomed out, the Fire Handles relocated to where they should be in a Md-80 series/B717.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 37, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2620 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 34):
Personally it's computers that get me, and you don't have to be into computers to realize that only in movies/TV series computers do strange bip bip noises and somehow you do everything with the keyboard, never using a mouse or similar device.
Bleep bloop bleep! Hate that! Star Trek TNG was particularly bad.
Another computer pet peeve of mine (I've worked with computers for 20 years) is when "security experts" will see an "attack" and start typing furiously on the keyboard ("he's bypassing the firewalls!"). Now, I use keyboard commands more than most people I know, but I do understand that the mouse adds value once in a while.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
I am a major, major Star Wars geek, so I will try to keep this brief. lol
The more or less "official" explanation is that, normally, craft have to travel a route that is 18 parsecs long. However, the way the Star Wars universe treats hyperspace travel makes a route of fewer than 18 parsecs possible. As Han says when they are blasting off of Tatooine in episode IV, "you could fly right through a supernova and that'd end your day real quick," in reference to proper hyperspace navigation. It indirectly brings up, though, that flying NEAR a celestial body is possible. The faster your hyperdrive, the closer to a gravity mass you can skirt. So, if a normal craft has to take the 18 parsec route, steering clear of bodies that would pull the craft out of hyperspace, the Millenium Falcon, with one of the fastest hyperdrives in the galaxy, can "cut corners," so to speak. In fact, the Falcon is so fast, that it can cut an entire 1/3rd of the distance off of the route, making the run in significantly shorter time frames than others can.
You may now return to your regularly-scheduled discussion of a depiction of real-life.
As for Flight itself... I thought it was so-so. One thing for me that seemed odd, and I was thinking of it the other night for no real reason, was the speed with which the NTSB held a hearing. Now, I saw the movie when it was released, so I may be remembering things incorrectly, but I feel like the NTSB had everything "solved" more or less in a matter of a couple weeks! That's what really got me.
Stabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 487 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2025 times:
As an enthusiast and a pilot. I refuse to watch this film. Its just so ridiculous. What pilot does drugs and drinks then decides "I'll do a barrel roll!! Lolz". Oh Hollywood...
So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
cjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 169 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2016 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 41): As an enthusiast and a pilot. I refuse to watch this film. Its just so ridiculous. What pilot does drugs and drinks then decides "I'll do a barrel roll!! Lolz". Oh Hollywood...
But wasn't this based on the Alaska Air crash where the pilot actually did try to invert the aircraft to counteract the horizontal stabilizer's severe, frozen angle?
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 43, posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1934 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 41):
As an enthusiast and a pilot. I refuse to watch this film. Its just so ridiculous. What pilot does drugs and drinks then decides "I'll do a barrel roll!! Lolz". Oh Hollywood..
Minor spoilers below.
.
.
.
.
.
He doesn't "decide to do a barrel roll". After the failure of an engine and control issues, he finds that he does not have nose up elevator authority. So he decides to do a roll (not barrel) in order to be able to pitch up by using pitch down elevator while inverted.
For what it's worth, I found the movie to be great. If you can look past the inaccuracies (and it wasn't bad for Hollywood), it is a great movie. Denzel Washington nails it.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
SAAFNAV From South Africa, joined Mar 2010, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1935 times:
Quoting cjg225 (Reply 39):
The more or less "official" explanation is that, normally, craft have to travel a route that is 18 parsecs long. However, the way the Star Wars universe treats hyperspace travel makes a route of fewer than 18 parsecs possible. As Han says when they are blasting off of Tatooine in episode IV, "you could fly right through a supernova and that'd end your day real quick," in reference to proper hyperspace navigation. It indirectly brings up, though, that flying NEAR a celestial body is possible. The faster your hyperdrive, the closer to a gravity mass you can skirt. So, if a normal craft has to take the 18 parsec route, steering clear of bodies that would pull the craft out of hyperspace, the Millenium Falcon, with one of the fastest hyperdrives in the galaxy, can "cut corners," so to speak. In fact, the Falcon is so fast, that it can cut an entire 1/3rd of the distance off of the route, making the run in significantly shorter time frames than others can.
Still more realistic than the crash scene in Flight!
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12562 posts, RR: 64 Reply 45, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1500 times:
I recently saw "Flight" courtesy of our cable provider's on-demand service. A few points:
They actually managed to depict the same plane that took off being the same one that crashed. That alone put it MILES ahead of most Hollywood films about aviation.
Any movie that gives you gratiutous full frontal female nudity in the first 10 seconds is A-OK in my book.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7451 posts, RR: 2 Reply 47, posted (2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1335 times:
You know how they edit plane crashes out of in-flight movies (i.e. GoldenEye?)
Yeah, something tells me Flight won't be shown at all. Never mind the drunk coked out pilot who breaks every rule. Actually our maintenance problems will be the main factor!
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4796 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2214 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Mar 2010, 206 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 104 posts, 
From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1111 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
