Sully: liked it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/b...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

"There is no question that the film’s version of the inquiry veers from the official record in both tone and substance, and depicts the investigators as departing from standard protocol in airline accident inquiries. The N.T.S.B. released a statement saying the agency regretted that the filmmakers had not asked them to review the movie for accuracy.

Moviegoers are led to the conclusion that the N.T.S.B. team was prosecutorial and closed-minded and that, without guidance from Captain Sullenberger, played by Tom Hanks, the facts of what happened that afternoon might never have been known.

“We weren’t out to hose the crew,” Mr. Benzon said..."

That said, the film is probably accurate in how it feels to be interrogated by the NTSB.
 
[QUOTE="Cogito, post: 2137829, member: 14692"
That said, the film is probably accurate in how it feels to be interrogated by the NTSB.[/QUOTE]

No probably about it. When you lose an engine at 50' agl over the departure end of a mountain-top (aircraft-carrier style) runway, find a road that you can set down on, clip a bridge to avoid a car with three kids in it, tear off a wing, go upside down over the center divider into the opposite lane of traffic on a busy Sunday afternoon, and have all three passengers walk away with a video camera being the only casualty and then go through a VERY minor version of the same depicted investigation to prove that the potential open dirt field had horses in it, that at 50' agl return to the runway was not an option was a bit un-nerving.

What was even worse, after submitting all the requested documentation, to have the NTSB to pronounce that it was improper maintenance without so much as a question asked of the mechanic just wasn't right. All the inspections, including the OPTIONAL NON-REQUIRED Service Bulletin inspections of the double-failed magnetos being disregarded just wasn't right, especially as we documented the mag coil internally failed and wouldn't show up on ANY inspection.

The actual "fault" if there is to lay, is Cessna's O-300 ignition design that fires all the top plugs on one mag and all the bottom plugs on the other mag. That and a failed Slick coil ... but shucks, ALL parts can fail.

And, there is no avenue to challenge an NTSB finding after the final pronouncement. Not without a bucket of money to hire lawyers that the NTSB gets at taxpayer expense.

Why am I so upset as the exonerated pilot? Because I was the mechanic as well, and it was my airplane that I kept in pristine shape. Nobody could have predicted the chain of failures that this airplane had, just like nobody had ever thought about what would happen with a double engine failure out of LaGuardia at low altitude.

The NTSB needs to allow the finding that "$#!t happens".

Jim
 
Last edited:
MassPilot said:
...I think it's a safe assumption that the pilot's word that the engine wasn't making thrust carries much more weight than some data on a memory card.
Click to expand...
I don't. "[T]he pilot's word" certainly gives the forensic engineer a place to start looking but if there's data available and that data can be validated then no competent investigator is going to take the subjective opinion of someone in a high stress situation over quantitative, objective data. Ideally they agree, as they did in this case, but that doesn't always happen.

Nauga,
with records on
 
P.S. Worth the extra $7 to see it in IMAX. Not particularly for the visuals, you can sit close enough to a regular screen to see it similarly...

But for the AUDIO. Holy crap the Foley artists deserve a pat on the back for their work. My lord that was cool.
 
weirdjim said:
You've never (a) been an engineer at a design review or (b) in a contested discussion with the FAA/NTSB. Data, whether it be on a memory card or on mag tape or other semipermanent recording trumps verbal testimony 100% of the time. When they conflict, then there has to be some sort of tiebreaker, and if not, the data prevails. That's just the way it is, sonny.

Jim
Click to expand...
Actually I am an electrical engineer and I've been to plenty of design reviews. I would normally agree that data trumps testimony but not in this case. I just would have trouble believing that an experienced airline pilot would end up ditching rather than pushing the power levers forward and seeing if the thing would still fly. I would think the more likely possibility is that something is wrong with the data and I would be correct.

Data produced by a system designed by humans is subject to the same human error that testimony is and definitely doesn't automatically trump testimony. I say that as someone who works as an FAA contractor on an Air Traffic Control system we all fly under regularly and I've personally worked on the Critical Data Recorder for that system.
 
Last edited:
weirdjim said:
When you lose an engine at 50' agl over the departure end of a mountain-top (aircraft-carrier style) runway, find a road that you can set down on, clip a bridge to avoid a car with three kids in it, tear off a wing, go upside down over the center divider into the opposite lane of traffic on a busy Sunday afternoon, and have all three passengers walk away with a video camera being the only casualty...
Click to expand...

tumblr_inline_o9f81g0H1m1sc1icr_500.gif
 
Last edited:
weirdjim said:
Ah, no sir. To ASS U ME is to make an ASS out of YOU and ME.

Jim
Click to expand...

Yup. Had my Chief Flight Instructor mentioned that to me a few times.... :D

Arnie Odegarrd from Minnesota if anyone knew him. Great guy. Flew the hell outa of a Skybolt.
 
I have not seen it yet. I wanted to see it this weekend but we decided to spend the weekend bumming around the Charleston area. I will still see it soon regardless of the BS about the NTSB trying to blame him or take away from what he did. I believe the story put forth by the NTSB investigators. I do not know if the manner in which the NTSB was portrayed in the movie was the fault of the screenwriters, Eastwood or was actually Sully's opinion of how they were towards him. The latter is indeed possible as investigators can ask very pointed probative questions that some people being interviewed do not like and many airline captains do not like having their actions being questioned by anyone. No one has that right in their opinion. Though from what I have seen from Sullenberger on TV he does not come across that way. Still, I think it is unfair to the investigators and I imagine many moviegoers will leave the theatre with an even greater dislike or distrust for our government than they already have. Afterall, Americans love their heros and damn anyone who tries to tarnish them. Unfortunately in this particular case, it will most likely be unwarranted
 
SkyDog58 said:
I have not seen it yet. I wanted to see it this weekend but we decided to spend the weekend bumming around the Charleston area. I will still see it soon regardless of the BS about the NTSB trying to blame him or take away from what he did. I believe the story put forth by the NTSB investigators. I do not know if the manner in which the NTSB was portrayed in the movie was the fault of the screenwriters, Eastwood or was actually Sully's opinion of how they were towards him. The latter is indeed possible as investigators can ask very pointed probative questions that some people being interviewed do not like and many airline captains do not like having their actions being questioned by anyone. No one has that right in their opinion. Though from what I have seen from Sullenberger on TV he does not come across that way. Still, I think it is unfair to the investigators and I imagine many moviegoers will leave the theatre with an even greater dislike or distrust for our government than they already have. Afterall, Americans love their heros and damn anyone who tries to tarnish them. Unfortunately in this particular case, it will most likely be unwarranted
Click to expand...

IMO the NTSB had to be the bad guy. Without some big obstacle, there is no interesting plot. In the movie, the questions were direct but the NTSB's biases were somewhat substantiated by facts they had in the movie. I figured it was loosely based but I don't think they made them look like horrible people.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I have not seen it yet. I wanted to see it this weekend but we decided to spend the weekend bumming around the Charleston area. I will still see it soon regardless of the BS about the NTSB trying to blame him or take away from what he did. I believe the story put forth by the NTSB investigators. I do not know if the manner in which the NTSB was portrayed in the movie was the fault of the screenwriters, Eastwood or was actually Sully's opinion of how they were towards him. The latter is indeed possible as investigators can ask very pointed probative questions that some people being interviewed do not like and many airline captains do not like having their actions being questioned by anyone. No one has that right in their opinion. Though from what I have seen from Sullenberger on TV he does not come across that way. Still, I think it is unfair to the investigators and I imagine many moviegoers will leave the theatre with an even greater dislike or distrust for our government than they already have. Afterall, Americans love their heros and damn anyone who tries to tarnish them. Unfortunately in this particular case, it will most likely be unwarranted
Click to expand...
I think it's just dramatic license. It's like in the movie Apollo 13 where Jack starts losing it and thinks that there's no way to make it home and NASA knows it and Fred starts bashing him for causing the explosion. That never happened in real life. I saw an interview with director Ron Howard and he said the real crew was unhappy about that scene but he was not making a documentary. He was making a $200 million budget Hollywood blockbuster and he needed enough drama to sell tickets.
 
Well in my opinion it is one thing to dream up private conversations between Abe Lincoln and his wife in a movie in an attempt to fill things in a bit as long as you do not create a nonexistent controversy but it is entirely another thing to intentionally create controversy or conflict in regards to a modern day historical event where no controversy or conflict otherwise exists especially when the parties involved and witnesses are alive to be interviewed. To me the latter is unethical and despicable. While I am not surprised that Hanks might be involved in such an endeavor, I am a bit surprised that Eastwood is.
 
I felt the movie portrayed the NTSB investigators as sympathetic people who had a job to do. I thought the questions were presented in a very respectful way. I feel “Why didn’t you land at the airport?” is a reasonable question.

When Captain Sullenberger asked how many times the pilots had crashed the simulator they told him and when he asked for decision time they gave it to him. They quickly changed their minds when the people flying the simulator were not successful when the decision time was added.

Ed and I both enjoyed the movie a lot.

The movie had character development, conflict and resolution.

Who could ask for more?
 
Vance Breese said:
I felt the movie portrayed the NTSB investigators as sympathetic people who had a job to do. I thought the questions were presented in a very respectful way. I feel “Why didn’t you land at the airport?” is a reasonable question.

When Captain Sullenberger asked how many times the pilots had crashed the simulator they told him and when he asked for decision time they gave it to him. They quickly changed their minds when the people flying the simulator were not successful when the decision time was added.

Ed and I both enjoyed the movie a lot.

The movie had character development, conflict and resolution.

Who could ask for more?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Mr. Breese, but your logically and observant kind are not welcome in here. We only admit the argumentative, the uninformed, and the totally ignorant. Please take your well thought out comments elsewhere. :cheerswine:

Jim
 
Vance Breese said:
I felt the movie portrayed the NTSB investigators as sympathetic people who had a job to do. I thought the questions were presented in a very respectful way. I feel “Why didn’t you land at the airport?” is a reasonable question.
Click to expand...

The giveaway is that every other character in the movie is based off a real life person, but all of the NTSB characters were fictitious. That's a hint that the screenwriter needed a stronger antagonist and was concerned about portraying someone poorly.

Vance Breese said:
When Captain Sullenberger asked how many times the pilots had crashed the simulator they told him and when he asked for decision time they gave it to him. They quickly changed their minds when the people flying the simulator were not successful when the decision time was added.
Click to expand...

And that seems to be the part where the movie had to fake up some stuff for drama and also to cram the 15 month instigation into a couple of hours. As far as I can tell from the public transcripts (just got through reading about 400 pages of them) no such interaction between the simulator investigators and Sully ever took place. The screenwriter had to use the convenience of a face to face accuser to accusee scene and make it seem like the "wise old Captain" took the NTSB to "school".

Which made for a good movie, but it's where the movie completely departed from reality for reasonable moviemaking reasons.

Keeping the Captain in the "driver's seat" of the movie even as he felt out of control, was better for the plot than the reality that he simply testified to his role, and other folks figured out the problems created by assumptions in the simulations.

Most of his actual public testimony was pretty cordial actually, and more than one Board member said it was a pleasure to actually be speaking to a live Captain and FO, vs listening to a recording of dead ones, the latter being far more common day at work for them.

Nevertheless many of the movie lines were directly lifted from the public transcripts, and that's neat. They stuck as close as they could to the real story, it looks like, while still making a watchable movie out of it.

Which, as we all know in aviation movies, isn't really the norm.
 
My wife and I were not looking for a reason to enjoy the movie less.
I find there is value in suspending disbelief.
I know how it feels to question my decisions and have them questioned by others and felt empathy for the emotions portrayed by Tom Hanks.
I am pleased when 75% of my decisions work out well.
I had already read the NTSB report so I was not looking to learn what happened.
I suspect some of the posters on POA allowed unreasonable expectations to diminish the joy we found in watching the movie.
 
We went yesterday. Thought it was a great movie. Even my 16 year old said it was better than she had thought it would be. Definitely got my 11 dollars ticket price worth out of it.
 
Went and saw it yesterday with the fiance'. We both enjoyed the movie and found it very entertaining. Folks just need to view for what it is - a drama based on actual events and not a documentary.
 
Stingray Don said:
Went and saw it yesterday with the fiance'. We both enjoyed the movie and found it very entertaining. Folks just need to view for what it is - a drama based on actual events and not a documentary.
Click to expand...

I'm just glad this thread has remained on track for 63 posts. :D
 
Bride and I saw it last night, thoroughly enjoyed it. Amazing just how much it got to me, even though I knew how it was all going to turn out. Wife agreed.
 
Interesting fact that was in the actual NTSB report was that the accident aircraft was one of only 20 EOW (extended over water) USAIR 320s. These aircraft have life preservers under the seats and additional life rafts/slides that non-EOW aircraft aren't required to have. I was under the impression all airliners had LPUs under the seat. Without the EOW gear, many more passengers would have been in the freezing water with only seat cushions for flotation help. As it was only a very few did any swimming.
 
Went with the girlfriend last night to see the movie. Thought it was really good, she even liked it more than she thought she would. Clint Eastwood did a great job with it and Tom Hanks played the part really well I thought. But for anyone who has ever seen the show Yes, Dear...was different seeing Mike O'Malley as a ******** NTSB investigator instead of the goofy mooching brother in law.

Living in Charlotte I still remember when they brought the plane down here to the Aviation Museum at CLT. There were people packed onto overpasses all the way down I-77. (Of course I was working and not one of those people). All in all, pretty good movie, not here to pick it apart or argue anything. Just amazing what that flight crew and all the lives saved. Couldn't have worked out any better.
 
What?! Absolutely no one on POA likes those sort of things. Especially sarcasm.


Edit: Ok, so I followed the link and looked at the guy's list. While I won't bother making my own list, I must say his list is so wrong (especially #1) and he obviously knows little about aviation. Goose, copilot? Really? Yes I know the article was intended to be a funny bit but it fell flat. Many on his list would not make mine (especially his #1) and many I would include were not on his list. No John Wayne as Dan Roman from High and the Mighty? No Robert Conrad as Pappy Boyington? No George Peppard from The Blue Max? No Robert Redford as The Great Waldo Pepper? No Jimmie Stewart as Lindbergh? Come on man! Again, I realize it was supposed to be satire or something of the sort but it sucked.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, really not meant to be taken as a serious list put together by a real pilot judging actual pilot qualities of these characters -- for entertainment purposes only ... or not. I thought his comments on ageism and the value of guts & instincts were right on re: "Sully."

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
Mrs. Redtail and I saw it a few hours ago in IMAX and thoroughly enjoyed it! Since we were both off today, we decided to catch the 11:30am show, while she got her car serviced at BMW next door, thus killing two birds with one stone :D.

She's not much into aviation but said it was "very good", especially their testimony on "real life" vs "simulation".

One thing that stood out in the film that I never paid much attention to (even after seeing this image of the flight path), is how much he flew over land before turning towards the middle of the river. He flew left of the GWB but I always thought he flew over the center of it.
Flight_1549-OptionsNotTaken.PNG
I remember firing up X-Plane and simulating this flight shortly after it happened. I setup the failure mode to lose both engines at the same altitude but I just headed for the Hudson to simulate the landing. Didn't even want to play making it back to the airport, lol.

Great film!

P.S.
After that last Hollywood disaster call "Flight", I didn't think I'd ever enjoy another airline movie.
 
Last edited:
So.... is there any reason NOT to just wait and watch this on Netflix? I get that it's a pretty good movie, but it sounds as if it is mostly about the aftermath and interactions between the pilots and the NTSB investigators. That's the kind of movie I'd like to see, but there doesn't seem from the descriptions to be much advantage to the "big screen experience" in this case.

(When I lived in MI I thought nothing of popping down to the nearest suburban Star Theatre and shelling out $6 for a good entertaining movie. No such thing here closer than Burlington or Williston, just the local movie house in town, with no parking lot, only metered parking in the street with a 2-hour limit.)
 
azure said:
So.... is there any reason NOT to just wait and watch this on Netflix? I get that it's a pretty good movie, but it sounds as if it is mostly about the aftermath and interactions between the pilots and the NTSB investigators. That's the kind of movie I'd like to see, but there doesn't seem from the descriptions to be much advantage to the "big screen experience" in this case.

(When I lived in MI I thought nothing of popping down to the nearest suburban Star Theatre and shelling out $6 for a good entertaining movie. No such thing here closer than Burlington or Williston, just the local movie house in town, with no parking lot, only metered parking in the street with a 2-hour limit.)
Click to expand...
Some people have mentioned "the sound" - it's supposed to be pretty good.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Hey, if you lose all your engines shortly after takeoff and all you lose is the airplane, no injuries or loss of life, take it as a victory right? Even if he could have made it to the runways, he might not have. He KNEW he could make it to the Hudson....pretty obvious, but it is my view. Along with everyone elses really. I'll take the big safe long farm field as opposed to the airport if I ever lose an engine. Those runways are pretty small emergency targets.... Go for the sure thing (if there is one). Now if runway made is a sure thing, well, take it. Not the case here.

Just look at the odds. Say an 80% chance of success at making the airport, and you save passengers, crew and airplane. But if you don't make it to the airport you lose the passengers, crew and maybe as many as 500 or even more other casualties on the ground. Versus a near 100% chance of all crew and passengers surviving and losing only the airplane..

I think thats the lesson learned. Go for the surest option that saves lives. Even if it means sacraficing the airplane.
Click to expand...
I have no qualms about sacrificing an airplane to save lives but the chances for a 100% successful (no lives lost) ditching in the river were not anywhere near 100% in Sully's mind or statistically. I think his conclusion was the odds were better than making a runway and the consequences of a failed attempt for the airport were way worse than the consequences of an imperfect ditching. IOW in consideration of the chances and the consequences for each option the river was a much better option.

I only mention this because I see all too often that people make decisions based on only one of the two aspects of a choice, either the odds of success or the consequences of failure but not both and as pilots we need to consider both all the time. For example in choosing to fly over a large cold body of water in a single without a raft some pilots will conclude that's OK because the odds of an engine failure are pretty low and fail to consider that the consequences are quite severe. Alternatively one might choose to cancel a planned trip because there's a 50% chance the weather at the destination might not be good enough but ignore that the consequences would only be the inconvenience of spending the night in a motel near an airport part way to the intended destination with an easy short hop the next morning in good weather.

Was the airplane salvaged? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty certain that most of the airplane was recovered but there's no way anything in that airplane was ever used for anything other than a mommento or item to study.
 
azure said:
So.... is there any reason NOT to just wait and watch this on Netflix? I get that it's a pretty good movie, but it sounds as if it is mostly about the aftermath and interactions between the pilots and the NTSB investigators. That's the kind of movie I'd like to see, but there doesn't seem from the descriptions to be much advantage to the "big screen experience" in this case.

(When I lived in MI I thought nothing of popping down to the nearest suburban Star Theatre and shelling out $6 for a good entertaining movie. No such thing here closer than Burlington or Williston, just the local movie house in town, with no parking lot, only metered parking in the street with a 2-hour limit.)
Click to expand...
My wife commented that the movie would have been just as good on our TV and I agree with her. Even more amazing is that one of the local theaters was showing it at a higher price in iMax which IMO would be a total waste of money. I wanted to see it while it was fresh, otherwise I would have waited to see it on TV in a couple months.
 
gismo said:
My wife commented that the movie would have been just as good on our TV and I agree with her. This is not an "action movie" even though there are some FX and the big screen doesn't really add much at all.

Even more amazing is that one of the local theaters was showing it at a higher price in iMax which IMO would be a total waste of money. I wanted to see it while it was fresh, otherwise I would have waited to see it on TV in a couple months.
Click to expand...
 
gismo said:
My wife commented that the movie would have been just as good on our TV and I agree with her. Even more amazing is that one of the local theaters was showing it at a higher price in iMax which IMO would be a total waste of money. I wanted to see it while it was fresh, otherwise I would have waited to see it on TV in a couple months.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Lance. I will probably wait then, unless I find myself in Burlington with a couple of hours to burn. I suppose I could drive around the block 10 or 15 times at the theater in Montpelier looking for a parking space on a weekend, when the meters are not in force, but that's just a PITA. If a theater doesn't have abundant lot parking, I don't usually patronize it.
 
azure said:
Thanks, Lance. I will probably wait then, unless I find myself in Burlington with a couple of hours to burn. I suppose I could drive around the block 10 or 15 times at the theater in Montpelier looking for a parking space on a weekend, when the meters are not in force, but that's just a PITA. If a theater doesn't have abundant lot parking, I don't usually patronize it.
Click to expand...
If you find yourself in a hurry to see it before it appears on NtFx you could always do a $100 movie flight to a nearby airport with a crew car and a theater nearby. :cool: Or just wait a bit and watch it on your new HDTV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top