Clint Eastwood to make biopic of pilot 'Sully' Sullenberger

The real questions are:
Did a CFI get mad because he forced all that cold water on the engines, thus leading to shock cooling? Or were they already cold after the descent? And how many times had he been around the block?
 
SkyDog58 said:
So not only did he carelessly fly into a flock of geese but he forgot to push a button as well as landing on water when the sim folks say he could have made the airport. Damn, what a slouch of a pilot. :confused:
Click to expand...
He had practiced that water landing in his mind numerous times, so it was natural for him.
 
Omalley1537 said:
The real questions are:
Did a CFI get mad because he forced all that cold water on the engines, thus leading to shock cooling? Or were they already cold after the descent? And how many times had he been around the block?
Click to expand...
It is no different landing in a river than flying through rain. So it is all good, plus the engines were shut down two minutes prior to water being ingested so the engine wasn't at peak temperature. This has all been scientifically proven on the poa forums.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
It is no different landing in a river than flying through rain. So it is all good, plus the engines were shut down two minutes prior to water being ingested so the engine wasn't at peak temperature. This has all been scientifically proven on the poa forums.
Click to expand...

I'll just let ya in on something here... And help you pull that hook out of your upper lip...

The question was a joke based on another thread here last week... It wasn't serious. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
I'll just let ya in on something here... And help you pull that hook out of your upper lip...

The question was a joke based on another thread here last week... It wasn't serious. ;)
Click to expand...
I am just going to have to label my posts with a sarcasm warning. I was also referring to that other post that went around the block. No worries though...
 
My flying club was invited to attend an advanced showing of 'Sully' a couple of days ago. It's good, but not great. There are two sources of conflict in the plot. Sully is shown as being near to a nervous breakdown due to PTSD after the water landing. The NTSB has a mean guy on it who seems to have it in for Sully for not returning to an airport.

Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart both produce excellent performances as Sullenberger and Skiles, they are completely believable pilots.

There are some chick flick elements to it, so your date will have something to relate to.

The movie does a good job of depicting the actual accident, and goes into more fairly accurate technical detail than any other aviation movie I've ever seen.

As usual in movies, the actual NTSB hearing has some Perry Mason moments. Did the real hearing have a lot of drama ?

I was personally insulted by the portrayal of an F-4 WSO in the pit of Sully's F-4 when he has a flashback to a flight control malfunction when he was in the Air Force. The WSO sounds like a six year old, and even though they are both captains the child-WSO puts every squeaky sentence inside a Sir Sandwich. :mad:

I need to read Sullenberger's book, I am curious as to how close the movie is to the book.

Clint Eastwood wrote a song for this movie, which I learned by staying through the credits, which are themselves interesting.

Aviation professionals and enthusiasts will enjoy this movie. Tom Hanks fans will enjoy it. I am not sure how the general public will react to the movie.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
And the ferry boats arriving quickly was a big part of a successful outcome too. Never hear anything much about them. Hopefully old Clint gives 'em some love.
Click to expand...

He does, lots of love to the ferry boats and NYPD rescue swimmers.
 
I think the engineers of the aircraft should have gotten a big thanks. But oh well.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not really. If you try flying his departure profile in the sim and kill the engines at the same point, deciding to glide to the river is a no-brainer. There was really no other choice. His background probably helped setting it down as smoothly as he did, but I think almost any airline pilot would have made the same decision.
Click to expand...

Jimmy cooper said:
There's always one or two armchair commandos saying things like this. In reality ,they would probably fold up like a cheap suit.
Click to expand...

That armchair commando is right on. Your choices in the NYC area are runways or water. If you can't make a runway (or you think you can't), you're going for the water. When I turned on the news after hearing about it the only thing that really surprised me was the fact no one died of hypothermia considering it was about 15 degrees that day. The prompt rescue of the pax and crew is almost more of a story than the ditching itself. Putting it in the Hudson, while taking balls, is a no-brainer.



Velocity173 said:
Are Sully's actions on par with an average captain in the majors, or is this an example of incredible airmanship that separates him apart from his peers?
Click to expand...

He's obviously got his sh*t together and acted in a decisive manner. As for better than average? Who knows. I definitely know a few that wouldn't be worthy of shining his shoes.




Kritchlow said:
I heard somewhere he never pushed the "ditching" button. Anyone know if that's true??
Click to expand...


The bottom of the fuse near the back was torn open pretty bad upon impact. The ditching button closing the outflow valves and a couple other openings would not have made a difference. Even so, with the damage to the a/c, it did a great job floating. There are several examples of airliners that float very well after putting put in the drink. If the tanks are full, airplanes can float for a surprisingly long time.
 
Last edited:
JimNtexas said:
The NTSB has a mean guy on it who seems to have it in for Sully for not returning to an airport.


As usual in movies, the actual NTSB hearing has some Perry Mason moments. Did the real hearing have a lot of drama ?
Click to expand...
I think that is just typical Hollywood BS. I noticed that in the previews, but the NTSB was very supportive of Sully's decision to land in the river.

I think the basis of that part was the Airbus testing where they had test pilots run the scenario in the sim. Even being briefed on the maneuver and action to take and doing it immediately, the test pilots only made it back 8 out of 15 times. NTSB, in the report, pointed out that the test was not realistic.

I don't think anyone with a brain could truly second guess Sully's decision.
 
I may have this associated with the wrong crash, but when I was still flying the line the rumor going around was that the FA at the back freaked out and opened the back door allowing water to flow inside the cabin. Wouldn't surprise me.
 
d7d22068994dd480ff6966438682f248.jpg
 
They are saying that in a simulator they have proven that he could have made it back to the airport. If he knew it was coming like they told those in the simulator. and started immediately to turn back. Were schooled what to try to do and it was in a simulator, so if you landed short and killed a few hundred imaginary folks, what to hell. He wasn't in a simulator it was a real live air bus. with real live geese. well to start with!
 
Second guessing, love it. Here's what The Dude says about that:

 
I was interested when I heard Clint was making the flick. Then I found out that Hanks was in it and putting even one penny of mine in his pocket will never happen in this lifetime. Now let me say he is a good actor. But supporting someone who is flat out determined to turn this country into another european style socialist sheet hole, I cannot do.
 
Good review up stream.
 
Last edited:
Bob Bement said:
They are saying that in a simulator they have proven that he could have made it back to the airport. If he knew it was coming like they told those in the simulator. and started immediately to turn back. Were schooled what to try to do and it was in a simulator, so if you landed short and killed a few hundred imaginary folks, what to hell. He wasn't in a simulator it was a real live air bus. with real live geese. well to start with!
Click to expand...

I'm looking for the hard links to the references Bob, but the "could have made the runway in the sim" was supposedly only successful for a portion of the crews that tried it, and NTSB said the idea was generally daft, in their analysis... In kinder gentler Washington PC terms than my paraphrase. Heh.

I'm kinda curious to see how they treat that information in the movie.

If anyone wants to dig up the links to the above, cool. I saw them referenced by someone last week and lost them.
 
Mutts said:
I think the engineers of the aircraft should have gotten a big thanks. But oh well.
Click to expand...
The engineers are Bad Guys, because they are the ones blaming Sully for not returning to the airport.
 
Dr. O said:
I was interested when I heard Clint was making the flick. Then I found out that Hanks was in it and putting even one penny of mine in his pocket will never happen in this lifetime. Now let me say he is a good actor. But supporting someone who is flat out determined to turn this country into another european style socialist sheet hole, I cannot do.
Click to expand...


Yeah I don't get that guy. He did something like John Adams and From the Earth to the Moon and then supports people that are bass ackwards from all that. Strange man.
 
On the set, I wonder if Clint talked to his empty director's chair... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

On the Sully decision-making front, if given a choice between definitely making the river or maybe making the airport,

River. Every. Time.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
On the Sully decision-making front, if given a choice between definitely making the river or maybe making the airport,

River. Every. Time.
Click to expand...
I was explaining this to some folks today. Given what Sully knew and believed at the time, landing in the river was the right call. It was a decision between maybe killing 155 people and maybe killing them plus a lot more. But I have no doubt there are many pilots who would have looked at the freezing river and turned back. It took courage to put the plane there. But the really amazing part is that everyone survived.
 
Lindberg said:
I was explaining this to some folks today. Given what Sully knew and believed at the time, landing in the river was the right call. It was a decision between maybe killing 155 people and maybe killing them plus a lot more. But I have no doubt there are many pilots who would have looked at the freezing river and turned back. It took courage to put the plane there. But the really amazing part is that everyone survived.
Click to expand...
^^This^^

My first flight lesson was from TEB, down the Hudson and back.
Those of us who have flown in the area (Hudson corridor, East river, etc) have no doubt that his decision was the best possible one. In fact, this was one of the things that woke me up to the fact that my passengers and I should be wearing a PFD every time I fly the Hudson and East River corridor!

Hard to believe how many times I've flown it as a private pilot, alone and with family and friends, without having any. Don't know what I was thinking before, but if I lose an engine, we're going for a swim!

They call it the "Miracle on the Hudson" and it truly was a miracle that all the cards lined up in their favor that day (well except the bird strike:D). I can't help but reflect on how a ship could have been in the right place at the wrong time! We took a few vacation cruises out of NY harbor, including our wedding cruise after getting married on the ship.
 
Just got back from the movie.

It is well done, and done with a high sense of respect to both what happened and the flight crew. It would have been too easy to do a reality TV spin but they didn't.

It's one of the very few movies I have seen in the last few years where I didn't feel like I would have been more entertained by setting fire to thirteen one dollar bills.

As pilots, you'll definitely have a better appreciation of what happened, how it developed, and what occurred afterwards. But for non-pilots, you won't get lost in any techno-jargon or bad plot actions.

Two good quotes from the movie. "ALWAYS fly the airplane." "A delay is better than a disaster."
 
Last edited:
Good to hear your review. I'm gonna see it for sure.
 
Just got back from the movie. Well done, but it is Hanks and Eastwood. You would not expect anything less.

Walking out, an oldster at the movie, older than I, commented. That NTSB guy was mean, he wanted to hang Sully out to dry.
 
The text of my FB post for the uninitiated tonight ... Reality vs Hollywood. I'll still see the flick and enjoy it, but don't believe everything Hollywood makes, of course.

-----

For those headed out to see "Sully", keep in mind that there's the real world, and then there is Hollywood drama.

For those interested in what the NTSB actually does after an accident, the report is available here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf

Most interesting line for non-pilots and folks seeing the Hollywood drama:

"Simulation flights were run to determine whether the accident flight could have landed successfully at LGA or TEB following the bird strike. The simulations demonstrated that, to accomplish a successful flight to either airport, the airplane would have to have been turned toward the airport immediately after the bird strike. The immediate turn did not reflect or account for real-world considerations, such as the time delay required to recognize the extent of the engine thrust loss and decide on a course of action. The one simulator flight that took into account real-world considerations (a return to LGA runway 13 was attempted after a 35-second delay) was not successful. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the captain’s decision to ditch on the Hudson River rather than attempting to land at an airport provided the highest probability that the accident would be survivable."

You decide how much "dramatic license" Director Clint Eastwood took. I'll leave that line direct from the NTSB above for you to compare to the movie.

Most interesting line for pilots:

"Although the flight crew was only able to complete about one-third of the Engine Dual Failure checklist, immediately after the bird strike, the captain did accomplish one critical item that the flight crew did not reach in the checklist: starting the APU. Starting the APU early in the accident sequence proved to be critical because it improved the outcome of the ditching by ensuring that electrical power was available to the airplane. Further, if the captain had not started the APU, the airplane would not have remained in normal law mode. This critical step would not have been completed if the flight crew had simply followed the order of the items in the checklist."

Your systems training happens for a reason. Starting the APU was critical. They never got that far down the checklist. Good thing it wasn't deferred that day, but they still had the RAT after that...

Enjoy the read. It's over 100 pages and the simulations of a return to a runway, gets a single paragraph about 90 pages in.
 
BigBadLou said:
True.
I believe the movie will portray the investigative aftermath of the incident. Practically like Flight did.
So this should not be an aviation movie, morelike a drama about everybody doubting the public hero's actions.
We'll have to wait for the reviews.
Click to expand...
No, it makes up drama to make the movie interesting that really didn't happen. The government investigators are really torqued about the misportrayal of the investigation.
 
flyingron said:
No, it makes up drama to make the movie interesting that really didn't happen. The government investigators are really torqued about the misportrayal of the investigation.
Click to expand...

I read a review that mentioned this. In actuality the NTSB intentionally did not pressure the crew and their (not just Sully) decisions. I think the NTSB was aware of the high profile their report would bring and investigated appropriately. But it is Hollywood and all, but usually Eastwood doesn't put out too much BS in his movies.

So if that's the only part/portrayal they got wrong, it's a pretty good day overall.
 
Yes, a should see movie on the big screen. Interesting in that while they portrayed the NTSB guys as "hardcases" in hindsight, I think they portrayed them more as getting to the details. I disliked them initially (actually, I'm from the gov't and am here to help you) but now believe they were just investigating the incident and not trying to pass judgement, bad cop, worse cop. Their approach (as portrayed) seemed to add stress to Sullenberger and Skills which was unnecessary.
The movie showed landing in the Hudson both the best idea and the luckiest people alive. If it weren't for the ferries in the immediate area, it would not have turned out so well.
They took an event that lasted 208 seconds, turned it into a pretty good movie that lasted 90 minutes. It could have been a whole lot worse.
Stay through the end titles. You won't be disappointed.
 
Velocity173 said:
Are Sully's actions on par with an average captain in the majors, or is this an example of incredible airmanship that separates him apart from his peers?
Click to expand...
When you can keep your head when all around you are panicing, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
.
or Fight like you train. Which in other words, train for the exception. As pilots, we might never have an engine out with forced landing but we practice them. I hope I never have to do a forced landing or an autorotation, but if the motor ever quits, it's that training that will save my butt. I've had several alternator failures, didn't lose my head, and had a successful outcome. Stuff happens. I hope the guy on the stick is as cool as Sully and Skiles appeared to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top