Originally Posted by
43Inches
And yes, I have no idea how somebody would think that 3+ days of public inquiry is a pleasant experience, regardless of the tone of the investigation. .
Did anyone say that NTSB hearings are a "pleasant experience"? @MickG0105 challenged you to provide a reference for your claim "The NTSB was highly critical of Sullys' decision to land on the Hudson...". That claim is certainly not supported by the official transcript of the NTSB hearing. Indeed, Robert Benzon, the investigator-in-charge, stated very early in the proceedings: "The captain soon concluded that a landing in the river was the safest alternative available. During the course of the investigation, flight simulations were conducted. These flight simulations revealed that a successful return to LaGuardia or a diversion to Teterboro Airport was not assured." Sully was subsequently asked by another investigator, Dr Katharine Wilson, "What were the options that you were choosing and why did you finally choose the option of landing on the Hudson River?" Sully summarised the options and his thinking, to which Dr Wilson replied "All right, thank you." Now perhaps I've missed something, but that could hardly be described as "critical" or a "grilling" or being "put through the wringer". If I were the Captain of an airliner that ditched in a river, I'd expect to be asked similar questions by investigators, public hearing or not.
The Sully movie made it appear that the NTSB investigators took an adversarial approach and were extremely critical of Sully's actions, but how much of that is actually true? I recall that some investigators expressed their disappointment (to put it mildly) at the way they were portrayed in the movie. Perhaps you'd care to rise to Mick's challenge and provide some evidence to support your claim?