Noted, I stand corrected, and thanks for pointing out the report's analysis. I've read Sully's book heard Sully & Skyles relate the story in person (evidently before the report brought those facts to light) and maintain, as do you, that they did an extraordinary job in extraordinary circumstances.
I still say too that "anyone could have done it" is a difficult assertion to support. In my view, an either inexperienced or skills-atrophied pilot would have been a far slimmer chance of the successful "Hudson" outcome than Sully/Skyles or similar crew; his book profoundly asserts that opinion.
I've flown Boeing and Airbus; I like 'em both. So I'll summarise my thoughts:
- Airbus laws didn't keep Sully's wings level, Sully did,
- we'll never know if Airbus pitch protections absolutely saved Sully or whether he would have done just as well in a 737 with manual feel of 'approach to stall',
- preliminary info suggests AF447 was grossly mishandled after what was no doubt a confusing set of initial indications. Alternate Law, and even Direct Law, should not be used as excuses for flying into the water with full back-stick and idle thrust at approx 10000ft/min rate of descent. Such a tragedy is more likely to have been averted with better training and/or less skills atrophy and/or more more manual flying experience on the crew's part. (fatigue as a factor?... and no, I'm not blaming the crew; it's an organisational & regulatory issue)
So, to refer again to this thread's title;
When things go wrong, as they
still do albeit with decreasing regularity due to engineering improvements like fly-by-wire, my money is still on the aeroplane with a REAL pilot at the controls.
I'm still with Three Blader.