Tous
← Back to Squawk list
Crash Investigators Pan Their Casting as Villains in ‘Sully’
In promotional clips for the movie “Sully,” which portrays the so-called Miracle on the Hudson water landing of a jetliner in 2009, there is little doubt about who the villains are: the accident investigators hounding the pilot after his splashdown. That’s news to the actual investigators at the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, who gave Captain Chesley Sullenberger high marks in their accident report and credited his quick action that saved lives. (www.bloomberg.com) Plus d'info...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Thank you WIlfred. A pilot has just a split second in time of crisis to make a decision. In the case of the A320, while they "claim" he could have made the field, if he had fallen short, he would have wound up in a populated area (if very short) or went down into the ALS at approach end of 22, which would have been devastating and definitely caused lives. He decided he couldn't make it based on what he saw and felt, and continued working the problem until splashdown. He didnt stop to second guess his decision - and all of that is why everyone survived.
He might have made the field with an immediate turn, but that is NOT how we train. Simulator training builds in pilots an expectation that we can solve a problem as long we do not react stupidly, making things worse. In other words, we are taught to analyze before reacting to a systems problem. Sully's failure looked initially like a single engine failure -- one of the most practiced failures in aviation: fly the airplane, run the engine shutdown and single-engine approach and landing checklists, go find maintenance. The expectation of success is ingrained.
[This poster has been suspended.]
Are you still breathing, I thought they turned off your life support!
[This poster has been suspended.]
Also while I do agree on some of your critique, it's how lay it on thick that's annoying to all here. Simple truth, movie is ignorant of the facts, total work of fiction to create a drama. Best way to deal with it, don't put bums on seats watching the drivel. All said in a couple of simple lines.
[This poster has been suspended.]
Unless you are blind the topic of this post is not the aircraft aspect but the human one, what you seem to be avoiding, probably stepping outside your comfort zone. The movie is blatantly villianising pilot and NTSB to sell a movie. Something I'd abhor when it is certainly NOT the truth! The plane has a mechanical failure, the pilot water lands it without loss of life, NTSB investigate, pilot not at fault for plane failing, why try and destroy their character in this vulgar piece of celluloid?
How bout not acting like a lawyer? Not a pilot myself, can't be due to poor health, always wanted to fly helicopters. But just cause I can't be pilot, only a passenger, does that mean I can't enjoy aircraft and communicating with like minded individuals. Or are you going to make another defamatory comment to someone here? Ever wonder why you get so many down votes??
[This poster has been suspended.]
And with that timed and dated court transcript you prove my point!!
[This poster has been suspended.]
Witty comeback, how many years of law school did you waste to think of that one?
---------
Anyone remember the British Airlines [BA] B777 crash at Gatwick a year prior to this accident?
The B777 Aircraft had departed China [Beijing?] and flown one of the coldest routes ever… but flight data confirmed the flight crew made appropriate adjustments and met the intent of the flight manual for these conditions. Copilot was flying the approach, pilot acting as copilot; when the engines failed to respond to ‘throttle-up’ command the aircraft crashed short on the grassy threshold [also, no loss of life].
The subsequent BA, Rolls Royce, Boeing and British Air Investigation folks began to immediately question and crucify the crew for inappropriate actions… especially pilot not taking controls at the last second and mismanagement of airframe temperature [hence extreme cold fuel temperature] in flight, … etc. This underhanded treatment, thru direct comments and innuendo before the facts were in, destroyed the reputations of the traumatized pilots and killed their careers. Crews even refused to fly with them.
When the investigation was completed, it was discovered that Rolls Royce design and certification of their B777 system for cold weather operations failed to identify the threat of freezing fuel in the condition experienced by this crew. When a slow extremely-cold fuel flow [engine idle] was suddenly ‘accelerated’ due to thrust demands, the ‘venturi-effect’ thru the fuel inlets created a low-pressure zone that also reduced the fuel temperature instantly. At this point the jet-fuel froze [moisture and fuel ice] at the pump inlets blocking them and flaming-out the engines. Compounding the problem was questionable Chinese fuel which may, or may-not, have met the rigorous requirements for extreme low temperature operations [-70F]… IE may not have complied with requirement to be virtually moisture free.
When the Airbus A320 ditched in the Hudson, there was another ‘rush-to-judgment’ by airline, engine, FAA and NTSB authorities that was aimed squarely at the traumatized crew, Sully and copilot(?).
The two BA pilots from the B777 immediately contacted ALPA and explained in excruciating detail how they were beaten-up, publicly and privately [innuendo, etc] for their accident… and how after it was all over, and the real cause defined, and their cockpit actions were exonerated as ‘professional crew airmanship/coordination’, a simple grudging/non-apology was issued clearing them of all negligence… but their reputations were already stained forever. The BA crew strongly recommended ALPA stand firmly behind the A320 crew as making the best possible judgment in the few seconds they had to respond to the crisis… over the hostile landscape of NY City. Also, In the A320 event, it became evident, after deep inspection of both bird-damaged engines, that there was truly no hope for a successful divert to a nearby runway. This was proven in several simulations with the true/realistic engine condition was added to the sim scenario… not the imagined scenario used initially that one engine was still producing good-enough thrust for a divert.
In both cases, these crews faced the inevitable hostile/cold inquiries when ‘something went wrong that shouldn’t have gone wrong’… and manufacturer’s [engine/airframe] and airlines reputations are up for critical/public examination. As a former USAF mishap investigator, I can understand how the NTSB guys undoubtedly/unintentionally ‘fed’ the engine, airframe and airlines investigators with confidential speculation, that later proved wrong based on the cold-hard facts.