View Full Version : "Sully" The Movie.
MATELO
30th Jun 2016, 15:58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ3zSRgDtkA
Jury is out on this one.
I guess they had to "ham" it up a bit
lomapaseo
30th Jun 2016, 20:10
I guess they had to "ham" it up a bit
yea, they should ditch the music
G-ARZG
30th Jun 2016, 20:16
The man himself (Sully, not Hanks) gave a talk to a crowded house at last year's NBAA. Spell-binding ! I fear the film will be an anti-climax after seeing 'the real deal'...
nonfrequentflyer_NCL
1st Jul 2016, 07:06
Ahh I thought this was gonna be about the big Blue monster from Monsters Inc. :)
Whilst this was a very well executed water landing, I feel that the heroism bestowed on Mr. Sullenburger, and the associated hype was a little over the top. [Guess it would be, as it's America]. The event would have been the same, even if he had an empty aircraft, because he would still need to save himself. He had the whole of the Hudson to land on. In my opinion, the much better film would have been about the Air Transat A.330 that had a thin piece of concrete to land on, and made it, from a very long way away, after running out of fuel with a major leak.
MrSnuggles
1st Jul 2016, 09:41
JEM60
Wasn't there some hush-hush about the Transat case? I recall the Capt was interviewed once on camera but during and after the investigation he has been very silent.
I thought what that Capt did must have been equally amazing as the Hudson ditching, so I wonder what the hush is about.
DaveReidUK
1st Jul 2016, 10:01
He had the whole of the Hudson to land on. In my opinion, the much better film would have been about the Air Transat A.330 that had a thin piece of concrete to land on, and made it, from a very long way away, after running out of fuel with a major leak.
A movie based on Air Transat 236 would lack the essential "will they, won't they?" tension - the aircraft was only 65nm from Lajes at FL345 when the second engine flamed out, so there wasn't really much doubt that they would make it (in fact the crew had to perform an orbit to lose enough height to make their final approach). Even the Gimli Glider incident, where it was far from certain that they would reach any airport, resulted in a pretty naff movie.
Compare that with the unknowns around US1549 - would they find an open space anywhere to land, would the A320 break up on impact, would it stay afloat long enough for the passengers to get off? While I'm sure the movie will take some liberties with events, I think we should wait to see it before making up our minds. :O
Right Way Up
1st Jul 2016, 11:47
I recall the Capt was interviewed once on camera but during and after the investigation he has been very silent.
Maybe something to do with the reason they lost all their fuel :\
Groundloop
1st Jul 2016, 11:48
the Air Transat A.330 that had a thin piece of concrete to land on
That "thin piece of concrete" is called a runway, isn't it? Pilots are used to landing on those. Ditching is a whole different ball game.
El Bunto
1st Jul 2016, 11:54
I don't usually have much emotional budget for airframe drivers, but I do feel somewhat sorry for Mr Skiles. He is obscured by the 'Michael Collins Effect' which is frustrating in this allegedly-enlightened era of CRM and emphasis on teamwork.
MrSnuggles
1st Jul 2016, 12:11
RightWayUp
Maybe something to do with the reason they lost all their fuel The reason Air Transat had to glide was an incorrectly installed fuel pipe of some sort, wasn't it? I remember the crew had some difficulties calculating the fuel because of this, but I don't recall the Capt being responsible for maintenance of fuel pipes.
El Bunto
Agree on Mr Skiles. I have seen interviews with him and he seems just as top notch as Sully himself.
Piltdown Man
1st Jul 2016, 12:15
It will also be interesting so see if the rape of US Airways pilot's pension scheme is included. I think one if the reasons that Sully was not paraded in public by his employers after the event was that he gave them both barrels every time he did. Imagine being one of US Airways PR people. You have an incredible story that you'd like to tell but it will get stuffed up your bum if you try. You might even find that Sully insisted that reference to this this was included as a price for his help in making the film. It will be interesting to see.
Right Way Up
1st Jul 2016, 14:09
The reason Air Transat had to glide....was that they opened the fuel xfeed with a fuel leak. If handled correctly the worse case scenario was they would have ended up with half their fuel, more than enough to fly a single engine landing in the Azores.
DaveReidUK
1st Jul 2016, 15:11
Five of the 12 causes/contributing factors identified by the GPIAA related to acts or omissions by the crew in respect of fuel management.
PAXboy
1st Jul 2016, 16:45
I'm now going to commit heresy so, first: The ditching with no minutes warning, at very low altitude whilst still in the intial stages of climb out AND whilst over a significant part of the world - was brilliant.
But, I could not help noticing that he was deeply fortunate that the Hudson was on the ebb and was heading in the same direction as he wanted to go. So the ditching was with the tide, not against it. Had the wind and tide been opposite, he might not have had the height to orientate to where it was going - even if that info was available to eyesight when you're doing so much else. I sit to be corrected on this.
I realise that the meedja folks want to make money out of anything but, I don't see how you make a whole movie out of an event that was less than 10 minutes start to finish? The actual time from strike to stopped in the water was, I think, even less?
I am sorry to hear that the First Officer has been sidelined by the flaming meedja. As to Cpt Sullenberger stuffing it to his employer? Go boy go. [They don't like it up 'em Captain]
MrSnuggles
1st Jul 2016, 16:56
RightWayUp, DaveReidUK
I checked it out on Wikipedia and yes, it seemed the crew made the fuel leak worse. Didn't read the report yet though. However, apparently the engine maintenance was really sub par, fitting a pipe of another dimension. This was the underlying cause for fuel leak. Unfortunately the crew failed to notice the leak. Will read the report, it may explain why they didn't notice/understand their fuel status.
AeroSpark
1st Jul 2016, 18:01
Whatever happens, it can't be any worse than that Denzil Washington film ffrom a couple of years ago!
DaveReidUK
1st Jul 2016, 18:58
Will read the report, it may explain why they didn't notice/understand their fuel status.
Do - it does.
Right Way Up
1st Jul 2016, 19:59
Hi MrSnuggles,
It is quite an interesting read.
Ultimately they didn't realise it was a leak and preferred to think it was a computer problem, and even more unfortunately carried out the fuel imbalance checklist by memory hence opening the XFEED.
If they had used the QRH as they should have done, the first line would have told them to not carry out the checklist if fuel leak suspected.
IMHO: Sully's real skill was in making the decision to ditch in the Hudson and not make a 50/50 attempt at the beckoning runway ahead. That was the real skill; the ditching was a notch down on that. Skilful? Yes; something i hope all of us would expect to be able to execute. Would all of us have made the ditching decision/choice? I wonder.
The Air Transat scenario was a classic Swiss cheese affair. Many factors contributed to the crew being in a hole; some stupidity from engineers and from themselves. Pure luck put a runway within reach. They then executed a 'get out of the hole' manoeuvre excellently. Does that deserve medals and commendations? Not for me to comment, but they all survived. Without Lajes we'd be discussing the merits of Sully A320 on a calm river v A330 on a lumpy sea in the middle of nowhere. I suspect the latter would not have been fatality-less, and a deep sea rescue op would have involved more than a couple of ferries.
Chesty Morgan
1st Jul 2016, 22:29
I realise that the meedja folks want to make money out of anything but, I don't see how you make a whole movie out of an event that was less than 10 minutes start to finish? The actual time from strike to stopped in the water was, I think, even less?
They're not or they'd have called it "Ditching in a River" not "Sully".
MrSnuggles
2nd Jul 2016, 17:46
RightWayUp, DaveReidUK
I finished the report. Feel somewhat bad for Capt Piche: I'm sure he and his co-pilot didn't intend to flame out any engine and yet they did. They even had help from the ground that didn't catch the error!
It was a great piece of flying that took him to the Azores though. I feel like he is kind of like that Chinese Capt that managed to upset his own flight by restarting engines outside of SOP but somehow regaind control just a few thousand feet about to crash in the ocean. A brainfart that resulted in something bad, but was saved due to some excellent piloting after the brainfart.
If only someone on the AF447 had had the kind of anti-brainfart mindset...
I have a copy of it, probably burned for me from Discovery channel, Air Transat 330 I mean!
lomapaseo
2nd Jul 2016, 20:05
I feel like he is kind of like that Chinese Capt that managed to upset his own flight by restarting engines outside of SOP but somehow regaind control just a few thousand feet about to crash in the ocean.
you mean restarting engines that had not failed and were still running.
Once you turn the fuel off, it takes a bit of time for them to relight and spool back up even in a dive
joy ride
3rd Jul 2016, 07:54
Although I feel that USA goes a bit OTT on hero worship, I wish Britain would show a bit more respect for those who display exemplary skill. Interesting to compare Sully with Burkhill/Coward ("Who?" !) BA38:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38
Add in the RYR captain at CIA who, as PNF, took over at very low level as the F/O PF commenced a GA after an engine spluttered during a multiple bird-strike; only for the 'good' engine splutter also as increased thrust was requested. He planted the a/c on the runway and all walked away, after kissing the ground. Horrors to think what the outcome might have been if the 'good' donk quit at 1000' during the climbing GA. Lots of houses around CIA. It really would have been a burning hole.
Another un-sung hero. There must be many.
PAXboy
3rd Jul 2016, 17:12
Chesty Morgan
They're not or they'd have called it "Ditching in a River" not "Sully".I take your point, they appear to be looking at the whole career that culminates in a moment of superb leadership and skill.
It's just that that happens every day in every walk of life. The movie studio reckon that the free publicity of the (now) nationally known name will bring in more cash.
As I heard in an interview many years ago, about the studios: "The boss men don't care if they're making movies or baked beans - as long as they make money." Which is, amusingly, how airlines now also function ...
Mike Tee
24th Jan 2018, 07:01
Having just watched the "Sully" movie which I must say I found to be quite entertaining I have a query which hopefully can be answered here.
Just after the birdstrike and with two dead engines Sully switches on the APU which I presume is powered up using battery power. Question, which controls, flying surfaces, instrumentation, communications etc can be powered by the A320 APU.
Thanks.
DaveReidUK
24th Jan 2018, 08:08
Having just watched the "Sully" movie which I must say I found to be quite entertaining I have a query which hopefully can be answered here.
Just after the birdstrike and with two dead engines Sully switches on the APU which I presume is powered up using battery power. Question, which controls, flying surfaces, instrumentation, communications etc can be powered by the A320 APU.
Thanks.
PPRuNe: A320 dual engine failure scenario (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/587981-a320-dual-engine-failure-scenario.html)
Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River US Airways Flight 1549 Airbus A320-214, N106US (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf)