Sully

pmanton

pmanton

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
5,274
Location
Indian Hills Airpark Salome, AZ
Display Name
Display name:
N1431A
I finally watched the movie Sully. I wonder if the NTSB was really as aggressively trying to pin pilot error on the crew as the movie depicts.
 
pmanton said:
I finally watched the movie Sully. I wonder if the NTSB was really as aggressively trying to pin pilot error on the crew as the movie depicts.
Click to expand...

What didn't play right with me is that an experienced group of accident investigators wouldn't allow time for the "Oh snitz" and "Now what" factors that are inevitable in such situations. In all of our departure stall simulations during primary training my instructor always added reaction (or non-reaction) time after pulling the power.

Like you, I think the premise of the aggressive NTSB was a bit of movie making that did not match reality. But... :dunno:

-Skip
 
The EAA had an interview with Sully sometime last year and published it in their magazine. He described the differences between the movie and reality. It's probably on-line but you need to be an EAA member to read it.
 
pmanton said:
I finally watched the movie Sully. I wonder if the NTSB was really as aggressively trying to pin pilot error on the crew as the movie depicts.
Click to expand...

This is "artistic license" since every movie needs a villain and in the true story, there wasn't one. They had to invent one and the NTSB drew the short straw.

Cheers
 
Cap'n Jack said:
The EAA had an interview with Sully sometime last year and published it in their magazine. He described the differences between the movie and reality. It's probably on-line but you need to be an EAA member to read it.
Click to expand...
Skiles did a lengthy article about the movie in the EAA magazine. I'll dig it up later and post the issue/date.
 
Sure, no loss of life but nobody ever mentions anything about all the luggage that was lost......:rolleyes2::lol::lol:
 
X3 Skier said:
This is "artistic license" since every movie needs a villain and in the true story, there wasn't one. They had to invent one and the NTSB drew the short straw.

Cheers
Click to expand...


Pretty much. That being said, I thought the rest of the movie was about as accurate of an aviation movie as I've ever seen. The attention to detail was incredible. Down to cutting the raft loose from the a/c with the raft-equipped knife. My wife is an FA so she went through and nit-picked the portrayal of the FAs while I did the same with the flying parts (I used to fly the Bus). The errors were minuscule and could be counted on one hand. Example: the life vests saying USAir vs USAirways, which might not even be wrong depending on the useful life of the vests. Also the Continental 737 in LGA had the curb feelers on the wings vs the normal winglets that were used at the time.

All in all, it's on the exact opposite end of the spectrum from Airport '79.
 
Rex Kramer said:
Pretty much. That being said, I thought the rest of the movie was about as accurate of an aviation movie as I've ever seen. The attention to detail was incredible. Down to cutting the raft loose from the a/c with the raft-equipped knife. My wife is an FA so she went through and nit-picked the portrayal of the FAs while I did the same with the flying parts (I used to fly the Bus). The errors were minuscule and could be counted on one hand. Example: the life vests saying USAir vs USAirways, which might not even be wrong depending on the useful life of the vests. Also the Continental 737 in LGA had the curb feelers on the wings vs the normal winglets that were used at the time.

All in all, it's on the exact opposite end of the spectrum from Airport '79.
Click to expand...
The Coast Guard might complain about the name on the vests if they didn't match the carrier. If shipboard I know for certain they would complain.
 
Jeff wrote a magazine article which pretty much says most of the "drama" in the movie was done for the "movie's sake" rather than reality. You gotta do something to stretch a 2 minute event into a 90 minute movie.

My favorite movie however is still HANKS (starring Sully):
 
Apollo 13 astronaut Fred Haise said much the same after he was an advisor during the filming of the movie. He said director Ron Howard patiently explained to him the movie was intended to entertain, and there was a difference between filming a drama and a documentary.
 
The movie also compressed into a few days events that lasted, what, a year and a half or so? To make the story fit into a two hour movie, it's necessary to leave out tons of stuff, and then to alter other things so that the overarching story still hangs together and conveys the gist of the matter.

Skiles' comments sound like the movie did a good job overall, remembering that it's just entertainment.

I did like the bar scene with the Sully cocktail: two shots of Grey Goose and a splash.
 
GRG55 said:
Apollo 13 astronaut Fred Haise said much the same after he was an advisor during the filming of the movie. He said director Ron Howard patiently explained to him the movie was intended to entertain, and there was a difference between filming a drama and a documentary.
Click to expand...

I got to spend some time with TK Mattingly in the lobby of a hotel after he gave a keynote address at a conference I was attending. He says that Gary Sinise's performance didn't begin to express the angst that he felt over missing that launch.

Note that you there are a lot of liberties if you go through the transcripts of the communications for the mission. Some were moved around in time sequence. Some were rewritten so that the viewer would understand. Some are completely made up.
 
murphey said:
Skiles did a lengthy article about the movie in the EAA magazine. I'll dig it up later and post the issue/date.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was Skiles, thanks for the correction!
 

Attachments

  • Article-19958.pdf
    402.8 KB · Views: 12
flyingron said:
I got to spend some time with TK Mattingly in the lobby of a hotel after he gave a keynote address at a conference I was attending. He says that Gary Sinise's performance didn't begin to express the angst that he felt over missing that launch.

Note that you there are a lot of liberties if you go through the transcripts of the communications for the mission. Some were moved around in time sequence. Some were rewritten so that the viewer would understand. Some are completely made up.
Click to expand...

Mattingly is a fascinating character in and of himself. At least on paper. Never met the dude.

https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/MattinglyTK/MattinglyTK_11-6-01.htm
 
pmanton said:
I finally watched the movie Sully. I wonder if the NTSB was really as aggressively trying to pin pilot error on the crew as the movie depicts.
Click to expand...
Well, at least he has is on arrival at CLT now...CHSLY TWO

And SKLES is one of the fixes
 
I really enjoy these videos, Skiles is such a humble guy!



 
Last edited:
I finally watched Sully last night because someone brought it to watch as entertainment after dinner. I was the only pilot so I had to field a number of questions...

I would have enjoyed a straight documentary better. I didn't need to hear emotional conversations with his wife, or watch his nightmares. But it was a movie for general consumption, so I get it.
 
Zeldman said:
Sure, no loss of life but nobody ever mentions anything about all the luggage that was lost......:rolleyes2::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah but what happened to the beer, wine, and liquor? I mean Sully was the last one onboard....just saying. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
Yeah but what happened to the beer, wine, and liquor? I mean Sully was the last one onboard....just saying. :dunno:
Click to expand...
I forget who the guy was that used to write for EAA...owned a bar at one time, and had a fire. The firemen filled their coat pockets with partial bottles of booze, 'cause once it's been in contact with water, the bar can't sell it anymore. ;)
 
Its the NTSB - of course they tried for pilot error. They have such a hard on for proving that EVERY accident is pilot error, it wold be beyond the most basic of all surprises to assume that they did not try to hang Sully as well.

The movie probably over-dramatized it, but mark my words, there was a draft somewhere by some dumbass at the NTSB that called the event's probable cause as "The pilots failure to avoid the flock of Canada Geese." A contributing factor was the lack of suitable landing sites within gliding distance.
 
SkyHog said:
Its the NTSB - of course they tried for pilot error. They have such a hard on for proving that EVERY accident is pilot error, it wold be beyond the most basic of all surprises to assume that they did not try to hang Sully as well.

The movie probably over-dramatized it, but mark my words, there was a draft somewhere by some dumbass at the NTSB that called the event's probable cause as "The pilots failure to avoid the flock of Canada Geese." A contributing factor was the lack of suitable landing sites within gliding distance.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't go down that way in this instance. Read the article.

" I sat at a conference table surrounded by eight or nine members from the NTSB investigation committees. There was no adversarial tone in their questioning as was depicted in the movie, there was no condescension, but there didn’t need to be; it is a very intimidating process."
 
SkyHog said:
Its the NTSB - of course they tried for pilot error. They have such a hard on for proving that EVERY accident is pilot error, it wold be beyond the most basic of all surprises to assume that they did not try to hang Sully as well.

The movie probably over-dramatized it, but mark my words, there was a draft somewhere by some dumbass at the NTSB that called the event's probable cause as "The pilots failure to avoid the flock of Canada Geese." A contributing factor was the lack of suitable landing sites within gliding distance.
Click to expand...

Which would be great, if it wasn’t all untrue. Read the NTSB report and the transcripts.

Members of the Board had to decide whether they should recuse themselves because they knew the accident aircraft, had flown it, and knew Sully. It wasn’t adversarial or even leaning toward human error at all, and was a pretty straightforward investigation.

The movie, in this regard, is a steaming pile of BS designed to have a story arc and engage an audience.
 
denverpilot said:
Which would be great, if it wasn’t all untrue. Read the NTSB report and the transcripts.

Members of the Board had to decide whether they should recuse themselves because they knew the accident aircraft, had flown it, and knew Sully. It wasn’t adversarial or even leaning toward human error at all, and was a pretty straightforward investigation.

The movie, in this regard, is a steaming pile of BS designed to have a story arc and engage an audience.
Click to expand...

Tell it Nate! :thumbsup:
 
Everskyward said:
Yup, I didn't like all the unnecessary drama. But, as I mentioned before, it was made for general audiences who like that kind of crap.
Click to expand...

Yup.

And now we need this in the credits when it comes from Hollywood:

“No humans were sexually molested in the creation of this film.”

Kinda like that animal cruelty thing. LOL.
 
SkyHog said:
Its the NTSB - of course they tried for pilot error. They have such a hard on for proving that EVERY accident is pilot error, it wold be beyond the most basic of all surprises to assume that they did not try to hang Sully as well.

The movie probably over-dramatized it, but mark my words, there was a draft somewhere by some dumbass at the NTSB that called the event's probable cause as "The pilots failure to avoid the flock of Canada Geese." A contributing factor was the lack of suitable landing sites within gliding distance.
Click to expand...

Clueless much?
 
denverpilot said:
Which would be great, if it wasn’t all untrue. Read the NTSB report and the transcripts.

Members of the Board had to decide whether they should recuse themselves because they knew the accident aircraft, had flown it, and knew Sully. It wasn’t adversarial or even leaning toward human error at all, and was a pretty straightforward investigation.

The movie, in this regard, is a steaming pile of BS designed to have a story arc and engage an audience.
Click to expand...
Have you seen all of the drafts? If not, you can’t say for sure any more than I can.

All I can go off is the fact that the NTSB simply loves finding pilots responsible for everything.
 
nauga said:
Don't clutter his worldview with facts, man!

Nauga,
MOTO
Click to expand...

My apologies! ;)

55891384.jpg


Think you were a cat lover too. :D
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Have you seen all of the drafts? If not, you can’t say for sure any more than I can.

All I can go off is the fact that the NTSB simply loves finding pilots responsible for everything.
Click to expand...

Or you just think they do. There’s transcripts of the individual meetings. There’s no sign anywhere in them of any of the crap in the movie. Nor of your bias.
 
SkyHog said:
Have you seen all of the drafts? If not, you can’t say for sure any more than I can.

All I can go off is the fact that the NTSB simply loves finding pilots responsible for everything.
Click to expand...

Uh, we've given you the reference to read, from one of the ****ing pilots that was there and involved. Good Lord man. :rolleyes:
 
Much easier for the NTSB to blame the geese, who didn't live to defend themselves.

Where's the outrage?

Where's the empathy?

Where's the gravy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top