Originally Posted by
BuzzBox
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?
You answered it in your own post.
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."
Why would you test alternative options if it was not for the fact you were critical of the decision to land on the Hudson? Again the simulations had been run, initially saying that a return to land could be made. Several media outlets at the time ran with this that there the flight could have returned to La Guardia, then there was debate about whether a normal human could make an immediate decision and the test were re-run with the 35 second startle factor before the inquest was convened, so by the time of the public inquiry the evidence fully backed Sully. Again you are looking at this using retrospective analysis, not what happened in the direct aftermath. Even though the subsequent simulator tests confirmed his decision he still had to face a full panel in public, why?
So there is no doubt that following the landing on the Hudson the crew still had to justify their actions, even in a public circus for everyone to watch. So yes, Sully was put through a very public wringer involving media coverage, various releases like the outcome of the simulations and then the public inquiry. None of which would have been pleasant or comfortable to deal with for any normal human. I think you guys are thinking of a 'wringer' being like an old cops show where they put the spotlight on you and throw things around, even if you do things completely arse about they won't do that to you in a transport investigation.
When you go through these sorts of investigations you are sitting around thinking about your actions, waiting and dreading phone calls, hoping the media doesn't run with some sort of random thing you did, dealing with multiple calls and emails from various agencies. Its not fun and even lessor incidents can feel like being tortured as you don't exactly know whats coming next.