Very few pilots would have made the decision to attempt the river landing - simple logic
That crew took what they felt was the best / lowest risk option
As a pilot of 54 years I am glad to had never had to make decisions like that
Sully and his FO are professional well trained and extremely competent - and that gives him more right to comment than most of the rabbit droppings on this post session below

As far as the Sullenberger water landing goes, he made the right decision, and it would have been the right decision even if it hadn't turned out so well. Fortunately, he's a man of experience and talent who DID commit to that decision and maximized survival chances with flying skill and luck. He could have done the same thing and most times it wouldn't have gone that well. I would also point out that he tried to avoid the attention he got. I recall him deflecting praise to the cabin crew which he rightly cited as being mightily critical to everyone's survival. Other than that, he said that they did what they were trained to do. At some point, I think it became apparent that he had a responsibility to represent his profession a certain way, or people would just make things up. I think he had a strong opinion in this case, and he's used the bully pulpit sparingly in my opinion. As for the 737 MAX8 tragedies: I'm sure he's right that the certification process became too cozy. I also think that the complexity of these changes probably requires more interaction between the manufacturer and FAA and if something goes wrong, it looks like a conflict of interest. However, we have long bemoaned the fact that technology that could make airplane safer is being held back due to antiquated certification processes. That stagnation costs lives too, but it's not so easy to draw a straight line to blame someone.... it's a creeping problem. The statistics seem to bear out that employing technology and new ways to certify it is working. The thing about airline deaths is that they happen in bunches, so when two bunches happen, well here we are. I'm not saying that expediency hasn't played a role here, just that it's not all sinister. Certainly training played a role here. The 200 hour pilot right seat pilot was ridiculous. A great learning experience for him, but useless if anything happens. I think Sully's citation of Crew Resource Management (which he aptly described) is also very important. I hope that Boeing didn't hide what the MCAS system was doing from pilots. More likely, they underplayed its function in training because they thought it would be a training distraction, and it wasn't going to fail. And no redundancy for the AOA seems wrong. However, even if you're flying the simplest one-axis autopilot, you ask yourself: If this thing does something aberrant, how do I shut it off and hand fly it? Runaway trim, etc, are things that professional pilots are supposed to be able to cope with. The pilots have to take some responsibility for not having thought that out themselves. Even if the new engine locations made the plane less stable (and MCAS was added to reduce pilot workload), I don't think that made it un-hand flyable. The pitch deviations point to the automated pitch control going haywire and the the pilots fighting it. My understanding is that there was a way to disconnect it, and they seemed unaware of it. We all know that safety and convenience advances come with trade offs. Modern pilots are great at systems management, and they have to be. Of course, if you're getting good at that, your stick and rudder skills are deteriorating. I know in my head that autonomous cars will reduce death and injury, but that won't be convincing to the family of one of the few that are killed by a driverless car that malfunctions. It's a complicated problem, but whether you're tired of hearing about him of not, Sullenberger has an opinion. He's definitely an expert.

Totally agree with Sully.. the president had to order the planes to be grounded along with the rest of the world before the FAA or Boeing followed last..
This is a reworked 737 with enginges thst would not fit under the wings, so they moved them forward and higher on the wing. This caused an abnormal putch instability problem, so the MCAS was added.. with out it, its a tough airplane to handle.. shame on the FAA TO ALLOW BOEING TO SELF CERTIFY..

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I am flabbergasted that this one was not foreseen during the modification design stage.

Come on, that's not about Sully of the Hudson. It'about a comment on how are things for Boeing and for the FAA. IMHO,a much more important thing than what a respected retired pilot has done.

Richard, certainly you'll never get a prize for empathy! Capt. S did what every pilot (myself included) figure out a solution and act. Remember something, HE DID NOT seek all the publicity, in fact he's on the record as saying exactly what you said"...I did my job, followed my training, and it worked..." Your unforgiving indictment shows a pretty poor attitude and a lot of insecurity. I'm going to guess you are not a commercial pilot, so you really would not understand anyway.

Nonetheless, as a military pilot I support your right to express yourself. That's freedom for you!

I had a pilot long time ago, 272 days that predicted as planes became more computerized and pilots become more dependent on them crashes might increase. He said there were fewer and fewer seat of your pants type pilots out there that could fly without depending on them. But when there are only electronic systems that control flying surfaces and no cable backup systems there's not a lot one can do.

In my view, the fact (if it is a fact) that the previous pilots didn't log the MCAS fault in the aircraft log book is also unconscionable. Very unprofessional.

I certainly trust Captain Sully's view.

This issue occurred with Airbus as well, with the 350, and it occurred several times. The most famous was Qantas 72, fortunately it occurred at altitude and was able to be recovered. Airbus never figured out the issue with the ADIRU generating bad data, creating a erroneous flight profile, but they did do a rewrite of the software. I find it amusing that the French and others are throwing Boeing under the bus before the analysis is completed. I wonder if they would like to push business to Airbus and take advantage of a situation, I think everyone should zip it until the study's are complete. Both Boeing and Airbus invest billions in developing these platforms and suggesting a "cozy" relationship with the manufactures and regulators so significant corners can be cut, demonstrate an interest in driving some other agenda in my opinion.

I am amazed at the continuum of Pro and Con comments posted here. As a survivor of not 1 but 2
Helicopter crashes 44 years ago I recommend to all to read Dr. Tony Kern’s “Blue Threat” to gain perspective before you post again...

The much talked about MCAS was added when Boeing recognized the fact that the new engines were causing the potential for stalling. Boeing recognized the fact that they would not be issued an airworthiness certification without the MCAS. I reckon it was sinilar to putting a band aid on a hemorrhaging wound. Both Boeing and the FAA are complicit in this horrible Max 8.

MCAS is only necessary on the MAX because the engines are too big and had to be mounted too far forward changing the stall characteristics and CG of the plane.

Honestly, Boeing cut corners and is trying to squeeze too much out of the old 737 design. Bottom line, profit won out over safety.

MCAS is a software hack to use microprocessors to put in thousands of control input corrections that wouldn't be necessary if the entire plane was redesigned to properly support the new larger engines.

I find it strange that Boeing didn't document MCAS. It makes me think they realize it's a hack and may not be accepted by the industry.

I am not an engineer, but as a laymen, looking at the original 737 and it's size and capabilities, I think the design has been stretched beyond its limits with the MAX and shouldn't rely on augmentation software for stable flight characteristics.

The Max has definitely exceeded the maximum thresholds of its base design and should be renamed the OverMax.

I don't want to fly in an aircraft that requires a pilot to have unusual skill to spend an inordinate amount of time thinking of a way to defeat an automated system that can kill everyone on board if it malfunctions during a critical period, e.g. takeoff or landing. MCAS appears to be a software solution to a flight stability problem that requires such skill, therefore a poorly executed one.

Not sure why the focus is on beating up Sully as he is not the issue or the problem.

Look at the publicly available information (i.e. gain and loss of attitude after takeoff) on both the Lion Air and Ethiopian flights that crashed and a pilot with 10 hours should have known there was something that was similar happened and there likely was a problem. The failure of both the FAA and Beeing to attend to this matter more proactively is a big black mark on aviation safety and one has to wonder why the experts failed to spectacularly. Even President Trump knew there was a problem and acted. Other input suggest manuals and other related support for pilots was generally lacking. Clearly the new Max's are not the same as the prior generation 737s so why was the aircraft certified the way it was.....

Right on sully

captain Sullenberger,as a retired airline captain,is most certainly entitled to give an educated opinion with regard to the faa,crashes, and specific types of aircraft,just as many who are in or retired from aviation do on this site,flightaware..he does consulting now, and is often called upon to voice his opinion..when he did the now famous "landing in the Hudson",for which he has received many accolades,he was doing his job as a captain,making a decision which he and his co pilot knew was an alternative to crashing into buildings,their only other option,as he could not make it back to any airport..he is not a saint,nor a knight in shining armour,nor are those who respect the man "general public sheep"..he is a man who did the job he was paid to do,which was to be responsible for his aircraft,crew and the people on board..some are better at it than others,whether its luck,circumstances,training or years of experience..the faa and boeing are both under scrutiny at this time,because that aircraft is manufactured in the united states,and new information is coming to light as to how it was approved...

Something tells me Max is gonna get scrapped.

Hand flying skills will NOT save one life in a malfunction such as this one. The focus must be on system knowledge and procedures to use in order to eliminate the malfunction in order to fly the airplane. The day before the Lion Air crash, the same malfunction occurred and by luck, a jump seating pilot in the cockpit recognized the problem and instructed the crew in order for them to perform the necessary action to regain control of the airplane. Modern jets all have "Pushers" and if anyone thinks they can override the device by hand flying skills they should go to the flight simulator and try it. System knowledge and Memory Items are the only two things that will restore an aircraft to a flyable state.

Any particular reason for changing "FAA, Boeing" to "Boeing and FAA"?

There must be some reason.

Good Point

Amen - about time some said this, Thanks Capt

I don't care if it was Sullenberger or Daedalus making a criticism. WHAT was the criticism?

With Lion Air's crash, I read of a forced and uncorrected pitch down that made me wonder why it was uncorrected.

With Ethiopian's crash, I read of a forced and uncorrected pitch down that made me wonder why the FAA hadn't grounded the Max 8's the day after Lion Air's crash.

Autopilots sometimes do funny things. A pilot flying's first (and should be only) instinct is to simply put down the coffee and grab the yoke. The autopilot objects but obeys. Anything otherwise is just plane (!) wrong. That's what rang my bells when I read of Lion Air's demise. In Air France's Atlantic Ocean (AF-447) crash, it was the pilot flying who screwed up but that's why we have human pilots. The command BELONGS to a human, not two switches buried near the pilot's knees.

I agree with Sullenberger (if I may): FAA should have had their own bells ringing after Lion Air.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I've read that the black box data from the Ethiopian Airlines' 800 Max showed that this "Danse Macabre" began when the MCAS somehow swapped an altitude input (37,012 feet ) with an AOA input indicating that there was a severe up angle. It automatically corrected the latter with a big down trim order to the elevators. The pilots had NO idea why their airplane had suddenly pitched down and they were being told told:"Stall."

Boeing 800 and 900 Max airplanes have been operating successfully world wide for two years now. To the best of my knowledge, this problem hadn't happened until these two accidents (three, if you take into account the jump seat pilot's suggestion on the flight on the day before the Lion Air crash.)

I'm not an aviator, but my engineering background in submarines tells me that President Trump was onto something when he said that airplanes have become too complex. I think he meant that pilots don't really know what their automated computerized flight systems are doing and so aren't are not sufficiently savvy to overcome software-generated anomalies that they don't comprehend, but nevertheless demand immediate resolution.

As a USNA Midshipman back in the 1950s we had the unique experience of flying N-3N "Yellow Peril bi-wing float planes during our final two years. I'd paid close attention to a WWII Navy training film in which Robert Taylor had emphasized putting on rudder as you chopped the power just before touching down.

I'd made what I thought was picture perfect landing approach on Chesapeake Bay, so when I judged myself to be about 5-7 feet above then water I chopped power -- and applied right rudder. If it had been a ground landing it would've been a ground loop because the port wing tip would've hit the ground. The port wing float went under but it saved us from anything more serious.

My instructor pilot was upset, to say the least. He jumped out of his forward seat, turned aft to me and said: "Mister Steiner, you were making a great approach. Why did you kick the rudder on? (He was more demonstrative and colorful, to be sure). I meekly responded."Sir, that's what Robert Taylor said to do when we chopped the power."

He exploded and shouted something at me that millions of American women would've done in a heartbeat.,
He said: "F%&# Robert Taylor. Just fly how it feels!"

Then he calmed down and said: "Wanna try its again?" I did and this time I aced it. He gave me 4.0 for the afternoon and taught a lifetime lesson in the process that has worked well in all environments -- "Just fly it how feels."

Back to the point of all this. It appears that the cockpit crews of both planes tried to fight something their indicators had told them -- something that they didn't comprehend -- instead of relying on their experience and instincts that should've told them they weren't stalling and to take control manually.

It appears that the penultimate pilot of the crashed 737 Max 8 had the same failure as had the pilot during the fatal flight. Was this griped on the aircraft logs? Did the pilot down the aircraft for inspection? Was the last pilot informed of the inflight incident? Lots of ignored flags.

Yet another example of a government agency not doing their job. Should we be surprised? Of course not. Will anyone be fired or held accountable? Probably not.

Well said Ian McDonell. Without the help the well-experienced co-pilot, I fear the outcome could have been worse. Kinda lucky and unlucky on the same day.

In reference of the Class A Mishaps involving the two 737 Max8s, what are the unofficial details? I have heard uncommanded Pitch Down (A/P engaged). FCAS/MCAS issue?

Post is gpne....

I'm sorry, while Sully has

For an interesting perspective from AOPA:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/march/21/aopa-safety-expert-weighs-in-on-boeing-crisis

Mr Sully and Mr Nance should head to Hollywood. Statements about nothing for a fee

It is sad to read all news and comments about this avoidable tragedy. Boeing was fully aware of the potential problem of its stall prevention system and chose to hide it with the hope that a fix would be made while pilots were mostly not aware of its potential danger. Of course, one would say that "simply disconnecting the system" and returning to hand flying could have prevented these disasters but why did Boeing omitted to publicly inform the airlines and their pilots about the imminent non-recoverable danger for lack of warning system and providing urgent and adequate training to cope with this technological shortcomings. And please, let's not put the blame on the training of foreign pilots who are receiving as good if a training as any pilot in the USA. As many have already said, Boeing has put profits ahead of safety and it is as criminal as it gets in these days and age. There are no excuses for this type of behavior. Capt. Martial

I'm sorry, while Sully has my utmost respect for landing his flying video game in the Hudson, unless he has inside access to the NTSB and other info....maybe he ought to keep his mouth shut. And if he does, he should disclose before he starts popping off and poisoning the water. Definitely sounding like someone with a bone to pick.

Let's first ask how it is that all these other airlines flying these airplanes seem to be doing fine. Maintenance, training, etc.? Plenty of questions to go around before Anyone jumps to the conclusion. If AOA sensors are not properly maintained and checked, they will fail...maintenance could play a key part in all this. Ethiopia anxious to "fast track" the investigation....of course they are. They don't want their precious national airline to take any heat. The conventional wisdom and tabloid media along with many politicians of course, are anxious to lay it all at the feet of the FAA and Boeing. Not saying you don't look into it and turn over all the rocks, but this thing is about to get tried and sentenced in media hearsay. Absolutely despicable.

Everything I’ve read says that if the pilots had shut the system off and fly the plane it would have worked. It seems to be maybe a training issue with low time Boeing pilots. An inoperative trim or runaway trim seems to be the consensus.

As a layman I'm curious as to why the pilots couldn't simply turn off any automated control "app", simply by pressing a button, just as they would disengage from the autopilot...

In a nutshell the profit over safety and the "In bed with corporations" and symbiotic relationship the FAA a.k.a the "Tombstone agency" has with the airlines and aircraft manufactures is glaring and obvious. We should have a independent watchdog formed to just watch over the FAA. Don't trust the Tombstone agency one bit with Air Safety. Form the watchdog agency using just pilots and technicians and aeronautical engineers who have no political history or bias with the FAA or Congress.

Writing on the MarketWatch website for the commentary series Barron’s Group Experts, Sullenberger says both Boeing and the FAA “have been found wanting” in an “ugly saga that began years ago but has come home to roost with two terrible fatal crashes.”

Asa former colleague of sullyinberger, I have to take issue with him on his criticism of the FFA and Boeing. They did not cause these 2 crashes but piss poor piloting and training surely did. God help us if we no. need a computer to tell us when we are stalling. Maybe we really do need pilotless aircraft. Hope American pilots get their extra sim time so they can recognize when their computer is working or not

Are world wide pilots forgetting basic airmanship and basic flying skills?

I agree as a former airline employee for 32:years. I find that negligence is the worst form action. FAA is there to protect travelers from imminent danger and after 2 incidents with hundred of people now dead it it incomprehensible they did not act rifght away. Shame on them and thanks to the Captains raising their concern.

I wonder who will sue Boeing first. An airline or one of the victim's family...

SUlly knows what hes talking about. Dont know what people are saying on here that they are sick of him.. The guy pulled off a WATER landing and he knows what hes talking about obviously

I typically don't comment on any of these sites but I've long since tired of Sully in the media. He did what EVERY OTHER professional pilot w/similar skills/experience would have done that day. Luck was huge part of the outcome... A dual engine flameout out of his control and the only logical option was the water, where else would one go in that situation, into downtown?? Unfortunately the media has latched on to him as a "Hero" and, by no fault of his own, Sully has ridden that wave to a unique position, consulting and giving his professional opinion on everything. I guess the sheeple general public need that person in shining armor. As far as the Max, everyone should stand back and let the investigation run its course. Continuous speculation only hurts our industry, often with irreparable damage.

I'm not sure I understand why Capt. Sullenberger feels compelled to offer his "armchair" opinion on these tragedies. To my knowledge Capt Sullenberger never worked for the FAA, flown this aircraft, or been involved in aircraft engineering system design for any manufacturer.

Yes, Capt. Sullenberger performed admirably in his, spectacularly, successful water landing which was achievable because of his extensive flying experience. In turn, the FAA, Boeing and other domestic aircraft manufactures have built a tremendous air safety record. I think the all-inclusive domestic airline industry, that provided Capt. Sulenberger a career and nice pension, deserves some respectful benefit of the doubt.

Capt Sully did the only thing you can do after loosing all power. You sure couldn’t land on some street in NJ. Most Pilots would have done the same. It was nothing heroic or in need of an immense abundance of skill..
Afterwards he has been anointed as a consultant on everything important. He sure doesn’t have the wisdom to advice the FAA OR Boeing on how to do their jobs. He just proved that with his mundane critique.

I personally stand behind the MAX and would be 99% confident if I were to fly it. But I do understand why most people don't.

Not so I believe
As you may have seen from the hearing most authorities at the time, including other pilots would have tried for the nearest airfield

Let's wait until Jane Fonda and Madonna have had their say.

Sully you are retired, enjoy it. A. We are talking about options here and B. Untrained pilots. Boeing still makes the finest aircraft ever known to mankind!

Pure speculation but it appears that the system ran full nose down trim on the tail ( based on jackscrew position) prior to the crash .

In that position and with full up force on the controls would the horizontal stabilizer /elevator or even just the elevator experience flow separation ( stall) , reducing the downforce and causing the nose to respond only to the trimmed horizontal stabilizer. As airspeed increased the stall would end and control effectiveness would bring the nose up again . The scenario seems to match the vertical flight path

Or simply the CG of the aircraft with power reduced.

Presumably in climb the climb power set on the engines would add to the nose up force (which may be why Boeing added the system) .

If he was watching outside the aircraft flight path instead of the river, he might just be another pilot. You can see a flock of geese ahead of you. Done it several times.