Just saw a trailer for the Sully movie coming this fall. Did NTSB or USAir actually question his decision to ditch ? Or is just Hollywood seasoning to spice up a perfectly managed aviation crisis ?

Do you not think that the NTSB or US should know what the circumstances were from Capt Sully directly? He woudld definitely know better than anyone else

Who would know better than Capt Sully what happened?

aa87 wrote:

Just saw a trailer for the Sully movie coming this fall. Did NTSB or USAir actually question his decision to ditch ? Or is just Hollywood seasoning to spice up a perfectly managed aviation crisis ?

Without spicing it up the movie would last about 5 minutes and would be a documentary. I usually avoid this kind of movie knowing that to make it commercially viable they usually introduce unnecessary personal experiences, a love interest, and extra drama. To be a feature film it has to run at least 75 minutes. Usually much longer.

aa87 wrote:

Just saw a trailer for the Sully movie coming this fall. Did NTSB or USAir actually question his decision to ditch ? Or is just Hollywood seasoning to spice up a perfectly managed aviation crisis ?

I'm pretty sure that every investigating agency involved, including USAirways, probably asked that question in some way or another. In the end the entire crew saved lives. End of story. Personally, I'll read the official NTSB report on the incident for accuracy and watch the movie for entertainment.

Who on earth will drown the Captain with questions beyond the mandatory ones for investigations purposes if he saved all aboard?

ojjunior wrote:

Who on earth will drown the Captain with questions beyond the mandatory ones for investigations purposes if he saved all aboard?

Have you seen the movie 'Flight'?

aa87 wrote:

Just saw a trailer for the Sully movie coming this fall. Did NTSB or USAir actually question his decision to ditch ? Or is just Hollywood seasoning to spice up a perfectly managed aviation crisis ?

Yes, there were plenty of questions asked about whether or not the decision to ditch was the best one given the circumstances. Even Sully said early that a return attempt to LGA or trying for TEB might have been best.

But after detailed analysis of the data, and some simulator testing, it was determined that Sully made the ONLY decision that avoided casualties.

But also remember, that Sully, and most other aviation experts, could not believe everyone got off the aircraft and lived. Not losing anyone was simple beyond any reasonable expectation.

(Not to say that Hollywood doesn't stretches normal questions in an investigation into something completely different. Like mentioned above, I won't be in line to buy a ticket for this movie. Buck Rogers in the 25th Century will have more truth in it than any movie coming out of today's Hollywood.)

It wasn't Sully's flying skills that made the fight ending successful. Any competent airline captain should have been able to put the plane down in a survivable configuration. Even though Sully missed a lot of the Airbus parameters for ditching, it was successful.

What the investigation revealed was so critical was Sully's decision making skills. He had an extremely small window of opportunity to decide on an option, and going into the river was the only option which would have avoided massive casualties. Even then, going into the river risked a very high likelihood that some of the passengers and crew would not survive going into the water that cold. But that was a better survival chance than going down on road in a populated area.

Sully had about as much time to make the decision as it takes to read this post. Much less time than it took to write it.

Fact. Sully was (quietly) pushed out the door at US Airways.

rfields5421 wrote:

Even though Sully missed a lot of the Airbus parameters for ditching, it was successful.

This is a completely innocent question out of nothing but curiosity - what kind of parameters did he miss?

I'm going to give this movie a chance... it has at least a shred of credibility with me given all the cabin shots in the trailer I saw at least look like an A320!

Can we merge these two threads?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1336767&p=18966389#p18966389

26point2 wrote:

Fact. Sully was (quietly) pushed out the door at US Airways.

Never knew this. What's the story?

IIRC expert posters on this board (they can identify themselves if they wish to) have in the past suggested that the crew ran the wrong checklist -- I think the issue was that they ran a 2 engines failed checklist when the engines were actually still running (just not producing anywhere near adequate thrust).

ojjunior wrote:

aren't that good than Sullivan's.

Who is Sullivan?

Saw the trailer today. First mistake: A WN 738 at LGA a full 2 years before they were in WN's fleet

What? He did what was right. Think about it. You are flying an Airbus A-320 with an almost full load of passengers out of an extremely crowded airport. The engines then hit a flock of birds which we still do not have the technology to detect. Now you are flying a plane with dead engines on takeoff. You can not turn back, and fly to your original airport since you are too far. Going to the other airport might not give you enough time to land it. There is a real risk that if you do take that chance you may crash the plane killing everyone on board alongside possibly 8 million others below so he thought about it realizing the best thing to do was land in the river. Unless if you are a masochist this was the right move, and if you do the water landing just right you might save everyone on board. He did what was right.

ltbewr wrote:

Yes, I am quite sure Capt. Sully as well as the co-pilot, local ATC, were thoroughly questioned by the NTSB and US Air as they should be. This was a major crash event, investigators needed to figure out how to prevent, figure out what Capt. Sullenberger did right, how to train pilots if ever in such an unlikely scenario.

I totally agree with you here. Assuming they were 'questioned' as to why they took certain decisions, actions, etc., it's not only what might have been done 'wrong' that the investigators would stand to discover. They would also stand to discover what was done 'right', if not by the book, and therefore could make recommendations about where the QRH, checklists, etc. could be improved.

26point2 wrote:

Fact. Sully was (quietly) pushed out the door at US Airways.

Seems to have been pushed out of the door in loud, festive fashion.
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/SullySulle ... id=9997647

aa87 wrote:

Just saw a trailer for the Sully movie coming this fall. Did NTSB or USAir actually question his decision to ditch ? Or is just Hollywood seasoning to spice up a perfectly managed aviation crisis ?

As soon as I saw the "US Airways" name used I knew the answer to what the "investigation" in the movie would show...

Saw the trailer today. First mistake: A WN 738 at LGA a full 2 years before they were in WN's fleet

I asaw that also. Didn't really notice that it was a 738, my thought was, was WN serving LGA at all on 1/15/09? Those things happen when you have to get footage for something that happened years ago.

At least the 738 wasn't in the new Heart livery

Yeah the aerial shots of LGA, while spectacular, bug me a big because not only do you see the Heart livery, and Southwest 738, you also see the new American and a United 738 with scimitars! Very minor annoyances but I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Also, they did an incredible job with the interior shots. I wonder if they actually filmed inside a US Airways A320, because the seats, the bulkheads, even the carpet looked spot on!

They indeed used a USAirways ex AWA A320 . They also got the uniforms correct . Right down to the crew badges. They really did their research on this film with the details.

I think the movie is going to be good - it's going to highlight the over-regulated FAA, lack of transparency, and hyper PC administration that Obama was all about

piedmont762 wrote:

I think the movie is going to be good - it's going to highlight the over-regulated FAA, lack of transparency, and hyper PC administration that Obama was all about

Some people cannot help themselves, they have to act an uneducated fool for attention. Did Fox News close their comment section so you come here? Or did all your Facebook friends block your comments?

rfields5421 wrote:

It wasn't Sully's flying skills that made the fight ending successful. Any competent airline captain should have been able to put the plane down in a survivable configuration. Even though Sully missed a lot of the Airbus parameters for ditching, it was successful.

What the investigation revealed was so critical was Sully's decision making skills. He had an extremely small window of opportunity to decide on an option, and going into the river was the only option which would have avoided massive casualties. Even then, going into the river risked a very high likelihood that some of the passengers and crew would not survive going into the water that cold. But that was a better survival chance than going down on road in a populated area.

Sully had about as much time to make the decision as it takes to read this post. Much less time than it took to write it.

Amen-
The movie should be above average, Eastwood did a good job with American Sniper trying to keep the material as factual as possible. Looking forward to it.

26point2 wrote:

Fact. Sully was (quietly) pushed out the door at US Airways.

I'm sorry what? Do you have even a shred of evidence to back that claim?

Pacific wrote:

26point2 wrote:

Fact. Sully was (quietly) pushed out the door at US Airways.

Seems to have been pushed out of the door in loud, festive fashion.
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/SullySulle ... id=9997647

Nothing in your citation backs up your claim. It would be nice if this place could be prevented from turning into Fox News but I guess some people are okay with that.

b747400erf wrote:

Pacific wrote:

26point2 wrote:

Fact. Sully was (quietly) pushed out the door at US Airways.

Seems to have been pushed out of the door in loud, festive fashion.
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/SullySulle ... id=9997647

Nothing in your citation backs up your claim. It would be nice if this place could be prevented from turning into Fox News but I guess some people are okay with that.

Please leave your political opinions and TV channel suggestions at the door, there is no need for that here. Plenty of other forums for that stuff. Your posts contribute nothing.

b747400erf wrote:

Factual? That movie was based on the paranoid rantings of a ptsd suffering sociopath.

That movie was one man's view of his life. Yes, like most biographies, it was one sided and ignored a lot of issues which impacted the individual.

Personally, I've never been a fan of Chris Kyle, when he was alive and public in promoting himself as a PTSD expert, and a national hero, in the Dallas area, nor do I think his book tells the whole story. Neither does Winston Churchill's history of WWII, nor Bill Clinton's or George W. Bush's biographies. Every person who writes about his own life leaves out important stuff.

But calling him a sociopath is a bit much.

------------------------

Sullenberger was at the end of his piloting career. He was 59 years old when he retired. At the time of the ditching, the Age 60 Mandatory Retirement was still in effect. The change to age 65 did not go into effect until July 2009.

I've seen nothing on whether or not Sully intended to retire in January 2011 when he turned 60. Even after the age limit changed, many pilots had already made their retirement plans, purchased retirement homes, etc, still retired at age 60.

Sullenberger, for what ever reason, never returned to actively flying for the airline. His 'celebrity' allowed him to quickly increase his savings/ retirement nest egg. His speaking, book writing career would be incompatible with being an active airline pilot.

Plus, his retirement when he was recognized at the symbol of perfection in piloting was like retiring after winning the Super Bowl or World Series.

One last comment on turning back to LGA. When I was learning to fly over 35 years ago we were taught that unless you have a ton of altitude never try to return to the airfield. Always look for a landing spot ahead of you. When you turn an aircraft, you lose altitude pretty quickly, the steeper the turn the more altitude you lose. Plus in the area where they were flying there are obstacles around.
So I think Sulley did the only thing left to do considering his positioning to the airport and the environment the A320 was flying in. The NTSB archives are full of stories of pilots who have unsuccessfully tried to turn back.

n92r03 wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

Pacific wrote:

Seems to have been pushed out of the door in loud, festive fashion.
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/SullySulle ... id=9997647

Nothing in your citation backs up your claim. It would be nice if this place could be prevented from turning into Fox News but I guess some people are okay with that.

Please leave your political opinions and TV channel suggestions at the door, there is no need for that here. Plenty of other forums for that stuff. Your posts contribute nothing.

You should be mad at the person for lying about a claim and giving a citation that doesn't prove what they said it did. Why are you mad at the wrong person? Your post, ironically, contributes nothing.

rfields5421 wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

Factual? That movie was based on the paranoid rantings of a ptsd suffering sociopath.

That movie was one man's view of his life. Yes, like most biographies, it was one sided and ignored a lot of issues which impacted the individual.

Personally, I've never been a fan of Chris Kyle, when he was alive and public in promoting himself as a PTSD expert, and a national hero, in the Dallas area, nor do I think his book tells the whole story. Neither does Winston Churchill's history of WWII, nor Bill Clinton's or George W. Bush's biographies. Every person who writes about his own life leaves out important stuff.

But calling him a sociopath is a bit much.

------------------------

Sullenberger was at the end of his piloting career. He was 59 years old when he retired. At the time of the ditching, the Age 60 Mandatory Retirement was still in effect. The change to age 65 did not go into effect until July 2009.

I've seen nothing on whether or not Sully intended to retire in January 2011 when he turned 60. Even after the age limit changed, many pilots had already made their retirement plans, purchased retirement homes, etc, still retired at age 60.

Sullenberger, for what ever reason, never returned to actively flying for the airline. His 'celebrity' allowed him to quickly increase his savings/ retirement nest egg. His speaking, book writing career would be incompatible with being an active airline pilot.

Plus, his retirement when he was recognized at the symbol of perfection in piloting was like retiring after winning the Super Bowl or World Series.

Boasting about shooting Americans in New Orleans and other crazy stories doesn't make him a sociopath? Ok.

Pacific wrote:

26point2 wrote:

Fact. Sully was (quietly) pushed out the door at US Airways.

Seems to have been pushed out of the door in loud, festive fashion.
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/SullySulle ... id=9997647

Hi, the citation shows Sully was not quietly pushed out of the door by US Airwyas as 26point2 originally claimed. The citation implies he was pushed out of the door due to age, with full honours. Thank you for your understanding.

So some actually think he could have made it back to LGA? Interesting, not sure he would crossed Manhattan even if he approached from the northeast.

In the Airbus simulators - six of 14 attempts to get back to LGA were successful.

However, those pilots knew what was coming and turned back immediately.

When they made the simulator pilots wait 35 seconds before attempting to turn back - none made it back successfully.

That is one reason simulator reviews of accidents are a bit unrealistic - because the pilots they put in the simulator know what is coming/ going to happen. As I said before - it was Sully realizing that TEB, LGA, EWR were unreachable, that the plane was going down, that the only place to put it was in the river which would avoid landing on a highway covered with cars and surrounded by occupied buildings.

And making that decision within a few seconds. He even adjusted his landing and came in a bit fast and hard so he would hit the water near some ferry boats.

(Engine out landings that cross the 'threshold' fast and high seem to be the norm. The Air Canada Gimli Glider, the Air Transat A330, and this flight were all high, all faster than the published glide numbers. But conserving altitude and speed are two things you can never get back in an engine out situation. Scully didn't have to sideslip the plane to get down like the Air Transat guys did.)

DeltaB717 wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

Even though Sully missed a lot of the Airbus parameters for ditching, it was successful.

This is a completely innocent question out of nothing but curiosity - what kind of parameters did he miss?

Airbus aircraft feature a ditch button on the overhead panel which closes valves and openings underneath the aircraft. The crew never pressed the button.

It is always important to remember the investigation findings

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the ingestion of large birds into each engine, which resulted in an almost total loss of thrust in both engines and the subsequent ditching on the Hudson River. Contributing to the fuselage damage and resulting unavailability of the aft slide/rafts were (1) the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) approval of ditching certification without determining whether pilots could attain the ditching parameters without engine thrust, (2) the lack of industry flight crew training and guidance on ditching techniques, and (3) the captain's resulting difficulty maintaining his intended airspeed on final approach due to the task saturation resulting from the emergency situation.​

From the NTSB Report section on how the A320 was certified - ditching parameters were determined by over 200 tests with scale models. The preferred parameters were:

The January 21, 1988, Airbus certification test report stated that the fuselage of an A320 would “undergo no destruction liable to create a water passage” if the airplane ditched with the following parameters:

• landing gear retracted,
• 11° pitch,
• -0.5° glideslope, and
• flaps in landing configuration for minimum speed.

According to Airbus, the ditching certification criteria also assumed that engine power was available, that the descent rate was 3.5 feet per second (fps), and that the airplane landed longitudinal to any water swells. These criteria are consistent with the test results published in the NACA reports.

The US Airways flight hit the water at 5,500 lbs over the test data, 9.5 degrees pitch, 125 kts vice 111 desired, negative 3.5 glideslope, a descent rate of 12.5 FPS vs 3.5 FPS test data.

The test data resulted in a calculated average external impact PSI of 7.3, a maximum of 10.9 PSI. The US Airways generated an average of 15.1 PSI with a maximum of 22.6 PSD. So basically, it hit the water twice as hard as the test/ certification plan.

The aft cargo door frame fractured in several places. Several sections of the fuselage skin were broken and open to water, some were completely broken off by the water impact. Portions of the cargo floor were completely missing and the cabin floor was broken and penetrated in several places. Not closing the valves with the ditch control would not have kept the aircraft afloat any longer, though as noted - the crew did not activate that control even though it is on the ditching checklist - which the crew did not run.

The pictures we have all seen of the aircraft floating falsely imply a very easy water landing. Those do not show that the landing was hard, violent, and the structural integrity of the aircraft was badly damaged - as the accident report clearly demonstrates.

Sully didn't break the aircraft in half - but his landing did major damage which contributed to the aircraft sinking so rapidly. He and his co-pilot missed several things which might have mitigated damage and the resulting injuries.

I'm not criticizing their actions. As noted above from the NTSB findings - their saturation with multiple critical decisions, tasks, courses of action was incredible. Sully and Skiles did a great job of performing the most important tasks under great pressure.

Some times people who write checklist and procedures don't understand what it is like to be in an aircraft in an emergency.

One thing neither Sully nor Skiles did which is prominent on the checklist and emergency procedures training. Neither one of the set the parking brake.

Because as Sully said - he realized many of the checklist/ procedures didn't apply in their situation.

The tests and procedures were developed for ditching *with engine power available*? That seems seriously broken...

Am I the only person who noticed that there's planes with the new AA and UA/CO liveries and even a Boeing 737-800 with Split Scimitar Winglets, even though this was suppose to be set in 2009?

No . Read the posts above . This was already mentioned . Don't be so nit picky . They paid a lot of attention to detail here . They couldn't get everything correct 100% . It's impossible .

tommyarias wrote:

Am I the only person who noticed that there's planes with the new AA and UA/CO liveries and even a Boeing 737-800 with Split Scimitar Winglets, even though this was suppose to be set in 2009?

Unless they do the airports completely by CGI, there is no way to repaint all the aircraft and setup an active airport to show only a previous time period aircraft. They would have to use an alternate somewhere to stand in for LGA.

A complete CGI movie would be almost as expensive as repainting actual older aircraft and using a non-busy airport to stand in for LGA.

Likely it would triple the cost of the film. Eastwood probably made the movie for $40-50,000,000 in production costs. Where a film like Transformers with heavy CGI cost about $200,000,000.

The movie is about the humans, not about the technology and such. Most of the movie time wise will be in a hotel room, investigation questioning in a meeting room. The aircraft portion should be maybe 1/4 of the film time wise.

Yes, there will be a lot of details not technically correct.

swacle wrote:

Saw the trailer today. First mistake: A WN 738 at LGA a full 2 years before they were in WN's fleet

You expected the movie crew to travel backwards in time to shoot footage at LGA two years ago? And here I thought the fanboys were the only nuts on this site.

rfields5421 wrote:

Yes, there will be a lot of details not technically correct.

I agree with you re CGI and cost. Sure the SWA 738 and the new AA livery is unfortunate, but if that is all we have to complain about then what an awesome effort and result by those involved in the film's making. We have to allow for the fact a lot has changed in the industry since the crash.

With Eastwood and Hanks involved, both of whom have accurately portrayed events in other films and tv series, for once I've actually got faith that this one will be as accurate as filmmaking allows with aviation. According to Avweb Sully signed off on all the technical and post flight/crash interviews for accuracy.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Su ... 497-1.html

Cheers,
Boof

b747400erf wrote:

Boasting about shooting Americans in New Orleans and other crazy stories doesn't make him a sociopath? Ok.

Whoa, what's the story here? Is this a like out of the book his handlers on Facebook quote for Motivation Monday?