Originally Posted by vilas
You Herd the NTSB statement so it's not a joke. It was NTSB"s opinion based on surely some corroborating evidence.
Where is that corroborating evidence then ... ?
There is a hype put on those protections in this case that is simply not necessary.
And what allows you to state that Sully would have stalled without protection ... ?
Truth is that Sully would have most probably obtained a better touchdown with direct law.
The threshold at LHR is not much moveable, on the Hudson Sully could place it at his willing which helps a lot when it's time to flare, as long as the protections don't interfere ...