Sully: liked it.

whereisrandall

whereisrandall

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
333
Location
Wiscasset, Maine
Display Name
Display name:
Randall Williams
And yes, I'm aware there's another Sully thread, but it's already devolved into something else.

As someone who has flown low-level over the Hudson, and studied that incident in particular in some detail, I enjoyed the film - thought it was reasonably well done, despite the primary tension being adversarial NTSB investigators hell-bent on proving that LGA and TEB runways could be made. The "gotcha" moment in the hearing probably isn't real, but that's okay with me.

My question: how many big-iron drivers on this board have run this scenario or a similar situation in the sim, and what did you get out of it?
 
I crashed. But it didn't hurt cause it was stimulated. And I'm just talking about my normal landings.
 
I saw it last night and liked it. I'm not an airline pilot so I don't know how realistic they kept everything but I thought the acting and directing were good.
 
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.

Was the airplane salvaged? Does anyone know?
 
Last edited:
Having flown in and out of LGA there aren't many options other than water, unless you can make 3rd base at Citi Stadium.
 
Saw it. Good enough well made movie. Inspiring at times. Yes, it's Hollwood, not a documentary. Yes the NTSB investigates throughly and what ifs everything. That's their job and the results of what has been learned from that over the years has probably saved uncountless thousands of lives. No, it's not pleasant being second guessed and sometimes questions that are just that, questions, seem accusatory at times, especially when you are in the hot seat. I did not like the overdramatizing of the NTSB. But it's Hollywood, there has to be a bad guy, right? I hope Sully does the right thing and puts it in perspective publicly.
 
Intentionally spelling it that way can be revealing too! If you've never been in an airline sim that's probably why it went over your head.
 
http://www.carolinasaviation.org/commercial/miracle-on-the-hudson-flight-1549

tWfmLMI.jpg
 
I did it successfully in a Sim but it was a global express.
I know the sim is supposed to be lifelike but I was surprised that it actually sat there and bobbed in the water until we ended the simulation.
 
rbridges said:
I saw it last night and liked it. I'm not an airline pilot so I don't know how realistic they kept everything but I thought the acting and directing were good.
Click to expand...

They did the job right. They did detail right down to the blue stone in Sully's graduation ring from the Air Force Academy. They also did detail down to how a glider pilot would land a huge aluminum glider (tail down to the last instant) since Sully was a glider instructor at the Academy and maintained his CFI-G all through the years. That probably kept the engines from digging in on impact and making the recovery from an inverted aircraft a bit more difficult. The only thing they screwed up on was the bartender saying that the "Sully" drink was a shot of Grey Goose and a splash of water. The Sully is TWO shots of Grey Goose and a splash of water (two engines, remember?).

I can't speak to HOW the NTSB conducted their investigation in this incident, but as the PIC subject of an NTSB investigation into an accident, I can assure you that they are not there to make you happy, the airframe/engine manufacturer happy, or anybody else happy. They have a particularly nasty job to do, and they do it very impartially. I respect their work.

The one thing I learned and did NOT know is that Sully was a PSA (Pacific Southwest Airlines) pilot that was moved to US Air when USA bought PSA. (I worked my way through college in the PSA Radio Shop back in the '60s.)

I thought it was a pretty damned good movie.

Jim
 
I tried it in the sim during the ATP ride. I had a dual engine faliure and slat/flap failure. I made it back to the airport without issue.
 
Mary and I saw it last night, and liked it. As usually, Tom Hanks was superb, and Clint Eastwood knows how to tell a story.

We had no idea that the government was gunning for Sully in the weeks and months after the incident. Seeing it on TV (like everyone else), we just assumed that he was universally hailed as a hero, and that there was no question about him doing the right thing. I have no idea how accurate the portrayal of the investigation was, but it had me squirming in my seat as much (or more) as the actual crash sequence.

It's funny, we had breakfast at the table next to Sully and his wife at Oshkosh, the summer after the incident. They were constantly interrupted by an endless stream of well-wishers, which Sully took in stride but you could tell was really starting to annoy his wife. I can't imagine going from anonymous to hero the way he did. The movie captured that feeling of disorientation very well, we thought.

It was a well-spent twenty bucks. It was good in IMAX, too.
 
Real NTSB report linked from another thread. Whole "could they make it back to the airport" in a sim, rated a whopping one paragraph in an over 100 page report, and the answer in the actual report was no.

The movie uses a lot of dramatic license. Still entertaining, but movie doesn't appear to match the real world, which is what movies do...
 
I think what happened to Sully and Skiles versus people flying the scenario on sims is analogous to being in actual IMC versus wearing foggles. There's just no way to re-create the life-and-death urgency of losing the engines, trying to re-light them, diagnosing the problems, decision-making under that kind of duress...AND flying the plane. Talk about total task saturation...

True Hemingway-esque grace under pressure for both of them. Can't wait to see the movie!
 
Jay Honeck said:
Mary and I saw it last night, and liked it. As usually, Tom Hanks was superb, and Clint Eastwood knows how to tell a story.

We had no idea that the government was gunning for Sully in the weeks and months after the incident. Seeing it on TV (like everyone else), we just assumed that he was universally hailed as a hero, and that there was no question about him doing the right thing. I have no idea how accurate the portrayal of the investigation was, but it had me squirming in my seat as much (or more) as the actual crash sequence.

It's funny, we had breakfast at the table next to Sully and his wife at Oshkosh, the summer after the incident. They were constantly interrupted by an endless stream of well-wishers, which Sully took in stride but you could tell was really starting to annoy his wife. I can't imagine going from anonymous to hero the way he did. The movie captured that feeling of disorientation very well, we thought.

It was a well-spent twenty bucks. It was good in IMAX, too.
Click to expand...

They weren't. As an adviser to the movie Sully asked that the NTSB character names be changed because the actual investigation was not as adversarial as the movie. Hollywood.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Go for the surest option that saves lives. Even if it means sacraficing the airplane.
Click to expand...
And that goes for any emergency. Who gives one about the airplane as long as the people in and around it make it out unharmed.
 
My wife and I just saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
I think what happened to Sully and Skiles versus people flying the scenario on sims is analogous to being in actual IMC versus wearing foggles. There's just no way to re-create the life-and-death urgency of losing the engines, trying to re-light them, diagnosing the problems, decision-making under that kind of duress...AND flying the plane. Talk about total task saturation...
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the NTSB report said. They also said Sully starting the APU outside the checklist flow for dual engine failure was a significant factor in the survivability of the ditching. They only made it 1/3 of the way through that checklist.

They spent considerably more words in the final report discussing the internal NTSB debate over whether or not it was classified as a "ditching" vs a "forced landing" than they spent on any of the simulator landing drama in the movie. That says something right there.
 
I like forced landing. Ditching has the connotation of getting rid of something. You want to save lives, not get rid of them!
 
He was on Colbert the other night sans the extra eyebrow , looked at lot younger.

They closed the show sticking a fake one on him !!
 
This thread has me excited about seeing it. This board is notorious for absolute ripping apart minute details and if more than half of those that have seen it and posted suggest it is a good movie... Then it must be awesome!!!
 
arkvet said:
This thread has me excited about seeing it. This board is notorious for absolute ripping apart minute details and if more than half of those that have seen it and posted suggest it is a good movie... Then it must be awesome!!!
Click to expand...

People here can be overly critical? Nooooooooooooooooo. Don't believe it.
 
Scrabo said:
Anyone else think it was an odd weekend to release a movie about a plane crashing in New York ?
Click to expand...

I did at first, but then I realized it's been 15 years. And that this is a story that, unlike 9/11, ended positively. NYC probably needed a heroic tale involving a plane after all the tragedy.

I'm good with the decision.

Also, I saw the movie today and thought they did a great job. I didn't feel like they over-dramatized anything beyond maybe going a bit overboard in villianizing the NTSB. They kept it real. They kept Sully real. I liked it.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
NYC probably needed a heroic tale involving a plane after all the tragedy.

I didn't feel like they over-dramatized anything beyond maybe going a bit overboard in villianizing the NTSB.

I liked it.
Click to expand...

The line about NYC needing an uplift from an aircraft accident after 9/11 was in the movie.

I am in no way an apologist for the NTSB. They got my accident dead wrong, but that's another matter.

You are charged with figuring out what happened in an accident. You have the pilot on one hand swearing up and down that the engine was producing no thrust from what he "felt". You have hard data from the black (orange) box that contradicted that. Until somebody pulls that engine out of the muck and you can see for yourself that the internals were completely thrashed, which one do you believe? Emotions aside about how good the pilot is, which one do you believe.

I liked it too.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
The line about NYC needing an uplift from an aircraft accident after 9/11 was in the movie.

I am in no way an apologist for the NTSB. They got my accident dead wrong, but that's another matter.

You are charged with figuring out what happened in an accident. You have the pilot on one hand swearing up and down that the engine was producing no thrust from what he "felt". You have hard data from the black (orange) box that contradicted that. Until somebody pulls that engine out of the muck and you can see for yourself that the internals were completely thrashed, which one do you believe? Emotions aside about how good the pilot is, which one do you believe.

I liked it too.

Jim
Click to expand...
I would assume that the extremely experienced airline captain would be able to tell if an engine is making thrust or not.
 
MassPilot said:
I would assume that the extremely experienced airline captain would be able to tell if an engine is making thrust or not.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, Sully later said that he could tell that there was no thrust being produced because at the bird strike, he was pushed forward into his harness. That basic stick/rudder/seat of pants flying, man, I tell ya.
 
MassPilot said:
I would assume that the extremely experienced airline captain would be able to tell if an engine is making thrust or not.
Click to expand...

The extremely experienced NTSB investigator was NOT in the airplane at the time. All (s)he has to go on is one pilot's words and hard data from what is supposedly a reliable instrumentation system.

Being pushed forward into his harness came from reduced thrust. Whether or not it was totally reduced to zero or not isn't easily measurable by the PIC. The fact that his N2 meter went to zero would lead you to believe that it went to zero, so now you have two systems giving you divergent answers. Which one do you believe until you get a good look into the guts of the engine?

We all understand the etymology of the word ASSUME, don't we?

Jim
 
Last edited:
weirdjim said:
The extremely experienced NTSB investigator was NOT in the airplane at the time. All (s)he has to go on is one pilot's words and hard data from what is supposedly a reliable instrumentation system.

Jim
Click to expand...
Yes and 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. I can understand not just taking his word that he couldn't make it back to a runway but any pilot flying a twin engine jet should be able to tell if pushing the power levers forward results in climbing or maintaining altitude.
 
after reading this thread imma go watch it right now. got 20 mins to get there! brb
 
weirdjim said:
We all understand the etymology of the word ASSUME, don't we?
Click to expand...
Sure:
Assume (v.)
early 15c., assumpten "to receive up into heaven" (especially of the Virgin Mary), also assumen "to arrogate," from Latin assumere, adsumere "to take up, take to oneself, take besides, obtain in addition," from ad- "to, up" (see ad-) + sumere "to take," from sub "under" (see sub-) + emere "to take" (see exempt (adj.)).

Meaning "to suppose, to take for granted as the basis of argument" is first recorded 1590s; that of "to take or put on (an appearance, etc.)" is from c. 1600. Related: Assumed; assuming. Early past participle was assumpt. In rhetorical usage, assume expresses what the assumer postulates, often as a confessed hypothesis; presume expresses what the presumer really believes.
 
arkvet said:
This thread has me excited about seeing it. This board is notorious for absolute ripping apart minute details and if more than half of those that have seen it and posted suggest it is a good movie... Then it must be awesome!!!
Click to expand...

Haha. I'm sure most of us will like it. I mean hell, I like anything with airplanes. Even "Flight" which was nothing but a hunk of garbage! Because, airplanes!
 
If y'all hurry you can make it... About 20 minutes. Plus at least another 15 for previews. IMAX screen is way too big to take a photo of. Hehe.

49a9ebe283eff0adfe86f74d52335a4d.jpg
 
Dennis McKim said:
Sure:
Assume (v.)
early 15c., assumpten "to receive up into heaven" (especially of the Virgin Mary), also assumen "to arrogate," from Latin assumere, adsumere "to take up, take to oneself, take besides, obtain in addition," from ad- "to, up" (see ad-) + sumere "to take," from sub "under" (see sub-) + emere "to take" (see exempt (adj.)).

Meaning "to suppose, to take for granted as the basis of argument" is first recorded 1590s; that of "to take or put on (an appearance, etc.)" is from c. 1600. Related: Assumed; assuming. Early past participle was assumpt. In rhetorical usage, assume expresses what the assumer postulates, often as a confessed hypothesis; presume expresses what the presumer really believes.
Click to expand...

Ah, no sir. To ASS U ME is to make an ASS out of YOU and ME.

Jim
 
MassPilot said:
Yes and 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. I can understand not just taking his word that he couldn't make it back to a runway but any pilot flying a twin engine jet should be able to tell if pushing the power levers forward results in climbing or maintaining altitude.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top