protectthehornet write much that seems sensible, but then...
I also submit that sully's glider experience is not the saving grace some think it is.
I will be interested to hear his opinion - he is the only one that can judge that.
Sailplanes often fly for hours finding thermals or other forms of energy to keep flying. No such luck on that fateful day.
True but that's a poor point that doesn't really support your contention.
Characteristics of flying a glider that I suspect were relevant:
- running out of "up" is a normal experience, and unexpectedly landing in the middle of nowhere is SoP
- there is no such thing as an "ideal" circuit. In a powered aircraft the circuit is good if the plane is at the specified height/speed/direction all the way round the circuit. If they encounter air moving at +6kt or -6kt they just adjust the throttle. Glider pilots aren't fazed by not having a means of "getting out of sink"; they just adjust the pattern accordingly. Which he did rather successfully.
- standard training includes repeated "engine failures" at 150ft when climbing at 35 to 45 degrees (If the mud floats around your face, you got it about right, if it hits the canopy you were too enthusiastic
It isn't unusual for glider pilots that are converting to powered licence to be congratulated (by the instructor) for their speedy accurate reactions (nose down, choice of the appropriate field) to surprise engine failures on takeoff
- accurate zero bank landings are mandatory, with a 25m wing 1m off the ground - might have been helpful avoiding digging one engine into the water
- glider pilots are used to knowing how the aircraft behaves when low and slow (they speed up in order to land E.g. in older gliders the best climb in a thermal occurs just above stall speed, so it is normal to be in a 45 degree bank experiencing pre-stall/spin wing buffet.
So, I suspect gliding experience was helpful, but I'd like to hear the captain's opinion.