Sully

[raytoews]

Have seen the trailer for the new movie "Sully".
Tom Hanks usually does good movies reasonably accurate depictions.

It seems like Captain Sully gets racked for his actions?

Is that fact?

Wouldn't surprise me, I read the captain of the Gimli glider got chewed for running out of fuel by Transpirt Canada?

The real criminal was the idiot govt who made us metric.

Just curious when I get to see the movie?

[martymayes]

Most investigations get intense. x2 when the NTSB is involved. The armchair guys love to second guess decisions pilots have but a few seconds to make.

[silver-eagle]

Have seen the trailer for the new movie "Sully".
Tom Hanks usually does good movies reasonably accurate depictions.

It seems like Captain Sully gets racked for his actions?

Is that fact?

Wouldn't surprise me, I read the captain of the Gimli glider got chewed for running out of fuel by Transpirt Canada?

The real criminal was the idiot govt who made us metric.

Just curious when I get to see the movie?
I believe the date is September 9th. Only a 2.3 weeks to go.

[Floatsflyer]

In the aftermath of incomprehensible and inexplicable events, and after the storyline of incredible skill, heroism and courage under the most intense negative conditions and stress is revealed, it is not at all unusual to start to question one's actions and assign blame. Happens all the time when horrible events occur.

In the case of Sully the movie, it's based on Sully's own autobiographical book. In the past 2 weeks Sully the person has been quoted as saying, "The story being told came from my experiences and reflects the many challenges that I faced and successfully overcame both during and after the flight.....I was involved in the development (of the movie) and am thrilled it's being brought to the screen."

Sully is not the first pilot(s) who has been second guessed and tormented about actions taken in the face of overwhelming odds to make a choice he/she thought was right and correct.

Captain Robert Pearson, the pilot of the incredible, famous Gimli Glider, otherwise known as a Boeing 767, was demoted for 6 months by Air Canada. The TSBC sited Air Canada management as responsible and negligent and praised the pilots for great skill. Captain Pearson was also sited as a cause for the fuelling errors.

In 2001, Canadian airline Air Transat Airbus 330 on a flight from Toronto to Lisbon with over 300 on board ran out of fuel over the Atlantic, 100 miles from the closest land mass. 100 miles out from the Azores islands and with zero power he made the most unbelievable pin point deadstick landing on a runway on the Azores. Investigation revealed the cause as a fuel leak because of poor maintenance. But Captain Piche, despite his amazing piloting skills and airmanship and saving the lives of over 300 passengers, was also sited for pilot error for failing to identify the fuel leak.

I think as pilots we all know that despite various circumstances within and beyond our human control, the PIC has final responsibility for all that occurs.

The most incredible, fateful facts that turns out to be unbelievably common in these 3 surviving aircraft events, is that all 3 pilots were experienced and accomplished glider pilots. What are the odds that these 3 guys were in the right place at the right time?

[Frank Giger]

In defense of the NTSB, when SHTF they have to dissect the event in detail, even when the pilot makes the absolute best of a bad situation.

It has to be infuriating to the guy that makes the save, but the questions of why and how could you have done it better have to be asked, including digging into the state of mind of the pilot and any possible medical effects on the pilot.

I wouldn't want to be on either side of that table.

It [expletive] worked, didn't it? is a natural response; could it have been done better? is a natural question, even if the answer is a No, you couldn't have done a better job at it.

[wyoranch]

My question is what could sully have done better? While I understand that accidents NEED to be dissected, there has to be a point in which the pilot just flat out gets a pat on the back and a thank you. I have reached the point that even a f my plane is hit by a meteorite and crashes, the root cause will be pilot ts inability to avoid piece of projectile space debris traveling at 12500 mph.
Rick

[rwanttaja]

My question is what could sully have done better? While I understand that accidents NEED to be dissected, there has to be a point in which the pilot just flat out gets a pat on the back and a thank you. I have reached the point that even a f my plane is hit by a meteorite and crashes, the root cause will be pilot ts inability to avoid piece of projectile space debris traveling at 12500 mph.
But if the meteorite is visible at ten miles, that gives you almost three whole seconds to see and avoid. Surely a decently-trained pilot would be able to maneuver in time... :-)

The sad thing about Monday-morning quarterbacking is that it generally doesn't invoke startlement of a real-time event. Give two days, two hours, or even two minutes to think about it, of COURSE one can come up with superior responses to an emergency. But the real-time participant doesn't have that luxury; he or she has to assess and react NOW. The fact that all of Sully & Stiles' passengers and crew survived should essentially be the key factor.

I occasionally simulate the Impossible Turn in my Fly Baby (engine lost on climbout after takeoff) to see what kind of altitude loss I see. I include five seconds of YGTBSM! delay before starting the turn, specially to accommodate the surprise factor.

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

regardless of how Hollywood glamorize the movie, Sully goes down in history as the guy that applied inspired improvisation and made a heroic recovery. Can talk about everything that might have went wrong but the end result shows that something went right.

[wyoranch]

regardless of how Hollywood glamorize the movie, Sully goes down in history as the guy that applied inspired improvisation and made a heroic recovery. Can talk about everything that might have went wrong but the end result shows that something went right.
+1

[Low Pass]

regardless of how Hollywood glamorize the movie, Sully goes down in history as the guy that applied inspired improvisation and made a heroic recovery. Can talk about everything that might have went wrong but the end result shows that something went right.
+2. Ironic. I get to have a meeting with internal audit today. Their perspective, much like accident investigators, is such a sterile, academic perspective. And many thrive on picking out faults to fill the report, despite whether or not the process accomplishes the intended result. But it is life.

And let's not forget that the Sully/Canada-Goose-population-growth-program-around-airliners story, must have some conflict or it wouldn't evoke emotion and sell tickets.

[Cary]

When my engine threw a rod and I landed in a field, at first I prided myself in doing things right, the way I was taught. Then I went through the "what could I have done better?" stages, analyzing what I did, how I did it, the mistakes I made that I had to overcome, etc. I didn't have the NTSB or FAA breathing down my neck with alternatives, but I concocted my own alternatives.

So yeah, it's a normal process of investigation, whether formal via the NTSB or informal, sitting in the airplane after an event, to rehash it and figure out what could have been done better--in case the situation arises again.

Cary

[whviii]

<snip> The fact that all of Sully & Stiles' passengers and crew survived should essentially be the key factor. <snip>

For the record the FO was Jeffrey B. Skiles not Stiles.

[Bill Greenwood]

If they had llittle or no power, they were not going to get far. If they tried to make it back to the takeoff airport and are short then they would have gone in to a congested area and probably lost everyone on the plane as well as people on the ground, especially with the full fuel load.
It was fortunate that the river was there, and that they had the skill and judgement to safely go into the water as well as anyone could have touched down.
I think they did a great job.

[WLIU]

If you have the opportunity to hear Jeff Skiles speak, do not pass it up. When working for EAA he did a tour of chapters. Great speaker, great sense of humor, very down to earth, and after he did the EAA talk, and the first person asked "What was it like to land in the Hudson River", he offered a great perspective on the landing and the subsequent experience. His writing for the magazine is great too.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[cluttonfred]

And just because I can...did you here the one about the cocktail named after Sullenberger?

The Sully
Two shots Grey Goose vodka
Splash of water

;-)

[Floatsflyer]

Saw the movie yesterday. It is very well done and well told, the acting of the key leads is superb and the accuracy of the actual flying(in the A320 and the recreation Sims)scenes is executed with unusual realism and attention to detail. I particularly liked the non-linear storytelling style which keeps the viewer involved in the drama that is unfolding from start to finish.

Sully and Skiles had 2 moments of extreme crisis, adversity and hardship to successfully overcome--one in the air and one in front of the doubting, second guessing NTSB. The only flaw in my opinion is that the movie does not set out and make clear the timeline of the investigation. Was it over a period of just a few days or weeks/months after the controlled ditching(notice I did not say crash)?

[Jim Hann]

Don't believe everything you see...

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-08/real-life-investigators-object-to-portrayal-in-sully-movie

[martymayes]

Don't believe everything you see...

Or read.

Investigations take months. During that time theories are formulated, options explored, coulda, woulda, shoulda opinions appear, people take sides, agendas are misinterpreted. The crew in the incident didn't have the luxury of months of time to evaluate and choose more desirable options. They had to evaluate and act, processing information faster than some of the super computers in the world. That's where good training enters the picture. It's relatively easy to retroactively look at an aviation accident/incident and see where an airman was well trained or not so well trained. Sometimes, the conclusion (good or bad) is of the airman's own making. I think that is what the NTSB looks for in an investigation- are we taking care of business in the cockpit or falling short? Did the airman make it better or worse? Sully has said his training and experience over the long term prepared him for the day he landed in the Hudson. I would have to agree. The fact is there were no fatalities and that remains true regardless how the event is interpreted.

[Floatsflyer]

Don't believe everything you see...

Jim, I'm compelled to say right back at ya. The news item you quote is the viewpoint of the lead NTSB investigator just like the movie has it's own viewpoint of events. No more, no less. The movie however, is based on the book written by Sully and Sully himself has said the movie interprets facts and events as they occurred during and after the the ditching including the investigation.

This is not a he said/he said situation. There is a CVR, a FDR, the real life human pilots who survived in tact, an airframe and engines that survived almost intact, and thousands of pages of transcripts of the investigation to mull over when you've got a year of spare time to read it. When all is said and done, my instincts compel me to go with the the human equations over the computer, digital, mechanical simulations all the time. One of the major themes of the film is the human reliance on machines and how that can be a false and deadly occurrence as well as lead to wrongful conclusions and judgements. I don't want to be a spoiler for all those that haven't seen the move yet so I'll just leave it at this: the viewer will not be left with only a negative impression of the investigators. I think it's balance and nuanced.

[DaleB]

Face it... we're pilots. You have to know that if you ever end up in the left seat of an airliner slowly sinking into the Hudson river, within a few miles of several airports, it doesn't matter how much of a miracle it was, or that everyone is alive, or anything else. You got some 'splaining to do. And I don't think any of us would want the investigators to take a quick look and say, "Well, he seems like a pretty good guy, we'll just assume that splashing a $97 million dollar airplane stuffed full of paying passengers was the right move". Maybe you were totally right, and maybe you'll get a huge pat on the back when it's all said and done, but there are going to be some really tough questions asked... and a lot of arm-chair quarterbacking done.

[Sirota]

This was in todays' Av Web. It appears much of the confrontation was fabricated, er, poetic license.

Investigators who probed the ditching of USAir 1549 into the Hudson River in 2009 say the recently released movie about the event portrays them in an inaccurate and unfair light. The movie, Sully, directed by Clint Eastwood, was released over the weekend in U.S. theaters.
For dramatic purposes, Sully portrays the NTSB investigators as prosecutors initially intent on blaming Chesley Sullenberger III and his First Officer, Jeff Skiles, for making the wrong decision after the A320 they were flying had both engines snuffed by birds strikes on departure from LaGuardia. The film initially suggests the crew could have turned back to LaGuardia or landed at nearby Teterboro, New Jersey. It also implies that the left engine was still capable of generating thrust.
"We're not the KGB. We're not the Gestapo," said Robert Benzon, who led the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation. "We're the guys with the white hats on." The NTSB said it was not contacted during the scriptwriting or filming of Sully. Benzon is now retired.
As explained in today's review (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Sully-The-Movie-226928-1.html) of the film by AVweb's Paul Bertorelli, the script inserts tension into the story by taking events out of context and presenting them in a fictionalized NTSB public hearing. During the hearing, the Sullenberger character, played by Tom Hanks, explains to investigators that they failed to take into account human factors in concluding the airplane could have made the turn back to LaGuardia.
"Until I read the script, I didn't know the investigative board was trying to paint the picture that he (Sullenberger) had done the wrong thing. They were kind of railroading him into 'it was his fault,'" Eastwood, who's a helicopter pilot himself, said in a publicity video made to promote Sully.
According to Hanks, a draft script included the names of the actual NSTB investigators but at Sullenberger's insistence, these were changed to fictional names. Hanks told Bloomberg News, "These are people who are not prosecutors. They are doing a very important job, and if, for editorial purposes, we want to make it more of a prosecutorial process, it ain't fair to them. That's an easy thing to change."
Some investigators worry that the film's depiction of the investigative process will make pilots less inclined to cooperate with investigations. Tom Haueter, who headed the agency's major investigations branch at the time of the 1549 probe but who is now a consultant, told The Associated Press that, "There is a very good chance that there is a segment of the population that will take this as proof of government incompetence and it will make things worse."

[Jim Hann]

Sirota, that is basically a repost of the article I mentioned.

I agree on all accounts with the last couple posts. It is an entertainment product, not a documentary of the accident.

BTW, you can read some of the information here along with listening to different recordings: http://avherald.com/h?article=41370ebc and of course the report on the NTSB website: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAR1003.aspx

The flying parts were well done in the movie, I knew that the NTSB reaction was fictionalized before I saw it. How much? I don't know/care. We had the NTSB in the training center doing recreations after our hull loss a couple years ago, they weren't like the movie.

The most important thing is the crew did their job well and they had the same soul count after the accident as they did before it.

Yes, one comment was made in the movie about the insurance company and the hull loss, I won't type what I think about that because Glory will have to ban me.

[Low Pass]

One thing that's clear in my mind regarding the real world, I'd much, *much* rather be talking to NTSB guys than FAA...

[Jim Hann]

One thing that's clear in my mind regarding the real world, I'd much, *much* rather be talking to NTSB guys than FAA...

I agree completely.

[Bill Greenwood]

I just saw the movie and would recommend anyone seeing it. The last 10 minutes is strong.
As for the NTSB experts, to be really convincing they should have a chance, for real , not isn an simulator, to replicate the incident and show how perfectly they could have done it.
I'd be glad to ride with the real pilots.