PDA

View Full Version : Film adaptation - US Airways 1549 "Sully"


crablab
21st Aug 2016, 23:45
It has come to my attention that there is a film coming out on the 9th September which tells the story of US 1549: trailer here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kODNqB64nMI&feature=youtu.be), Wikipedia Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sully_(film))

I wonder how accurate it will be? In the trailer I see some very exciting banking manoeuvres which I'm would be verboten under Normal Law. Will they include the APU startup (a crucial detail which was observed in the NTSB report)...

EDIT: for those in the UK we have to wait until December 2nd - xmas present methinks

SASless
22nd Aug 2016, 01:33
Am reading the Book now....seems there is a lot more to the Story than is in the public domain currently. The Forced Landing event was just the start of a longer story about Sully and how the event impacted him and his family.

419
22nd Aug 2016, 01:34
I know that film producers are good at padding out storylines, but how do you turn something that took less than 3 1/2 minutes from the aircraft hitting the geese to it touching down in the water into a full length film (normally around about 90 minutes)?
The trailer is 2.52 long and this basically shows the entire flight from take off to ditching.

I don't know what happened there. I tried editing my post for a spelling error and ended up deleting it, hence the reason why it now appears after the reply from SASLess.

meadowrun
22nd Aug 2016, 01:53
Can't really see any point in seeing the film (might when it's on TV free) as it was done to death by the news networks and the herds of talking heads.


Want to stump your friends down the pub? "What was the name of the first officer?"

SASless
22nd Aug 2016, 02:12
Some folks can rub a Buffalo off a Nickel!:D

RAT 5
22nd Aug 2016, 06:55
Tom Hanks always wanted to be a pilot?? And he looks more like Sully than John Travolta. I wonder how much input Sully had? Did he hold the rights to the story? Considering some of the outrageous errors in Hollywood aviation films, and even Air Crash Inv, it would be odd indeed to have access to 'the horses mouth' and not consult it.

Nervous SLF
22nd Aug 2016, 09:42
Due out on September 12th over here.

Tankertrashnav
22nd Aug 2016, 09:59
Considering some of the outrageous errors in Hollywood aviation films

Not just aviation films. U 571 springs to mind :*

PLovett
22nd Aug 2016, 10:27
Having seen the trailer, it has been doing the rounds on YouTube, it would appear that the film covers the ditching and the events following the ditching as well as some of his earlier flying career life. One scene that springs to mind and was a reflection on some of the comments on this forum was him being questioned about why he didn't turn back immediately as it was alleged he could have made it back to La Guardia. With Eastwood as the director I think it will be an honest and workmanlike film.

dixi188
22nd Aug 2016, 11:52
About 3 years ago there was a Boeing 737 at Lasham in the UK being prepared for filming with a blue screen behind. The word was that it was to do with a "Sully" film.
So how accurate would that be?

Hempy
22nd Aug 2016, 12:16
Considering they didn't start filming until about 18 months ago, not much

yellowtriumph
22nd Aug 2016, 12:33
About 3 years ago there was a Boeing 737 at Lasham in the UK being prepared for filming with a blue screen behind. The word was that it was to do with a "Sully" film.
So how accurate would that be?



Possibly 'Miracle landing on the Hudson' made by the National Geographic channel at the 'Black Hanger' studios which are based at Lasham. They have a very large water tank, and a complete interior of a 737.

West Coast
22nd Aug 2016, 13:43
Hempy, you are aware more than one flick was made?

lomapaseo
22nd Aug 2016, 14:48
I still feel the outstanding performance in the real life accident goes to the ATC guy that handled the return and behind the scene phone calls.

Although clearly out of his comfort zone he performed what I thought was commendable. Thus having gleaned all kinds of off the net recordings I overlaid his recordings on top of the available summary videos.

If his full part is not included in the movie, I shall not watch.

dazdaz1
22nd Aug 2016, 16:13
Plot spoiler alert, have seen some film rushes the a/c lands/crashes on/in the Hudson river.

oldchina
22nd Aug 2016, 16:28
lomapaseo:

"I still feel the outstanding performance in the real life accident goes to the ATC guy that handled the return and behind the scene phone calls"

OK. But the lil'ol A320 kept her cool too ...

Cazalet33
22nd Aug 2016, 18:58
Want to stump your friends down the pub? "What was the name of the first officer?"

All he had to do was push the Ditching tit.

Who are they going to hire to play him?

http://www.openspace.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/aereo-pi-pazzo-del-mondo-pilota-automatico.jpg

Will they mention the La Guardia landing option? Or is that a CRM thing?

Saintsman
22nd Aug 2016, 19:07
The producers have got lucky because the pilot already had a nickname (even if it was a shortened version of his real name).

As is the way in these sort of films, I'm sure it will also be padded out with a couple of love interests.

Oh, and a theme tune.

sitigeltfel
22nd Aug 2016, 19:22
"No geese were harmed in the making of this movie."

connoisseur
22nd Aug 2016, 21:35
About 3 years ago there was a Boeing 737 at Lasham in the UK being prepared for filming with a blue screen behind. The word was that it was to do with a "Sully" film.
So how accurate would that be?

Very accurate and the same 737, sans wings, remains at Lasham not far from the base of the film company responsible. Still painted US Airways but a little worse for wear, sat on girders and surrounded by shipping containers.

11Fan
22nd Aug 2016, 21:45
As is the way in these sort of films, I'm sure it will also be padded out with a couple of love interests.

and theme tune. And the story line changed. They ditched near an uncharted island surrounded by FedEx boxes. Sully eventually fabricates a sail out of the Vertical Stabilizer and ties it to the top of the fuselage but by the time they get back home, the hanger has been repainted with an American Airlines Logo.

broadreach
23rd Aug 2016, 00:36
Looking forward to watching the movie. All on here have read the post-ditching minutiae and I'd bet director Eastwood and actor Hanks are aware they'd never get away with phonily recounting the accident itself. The real story will be elsewhere.

tdracer
23rd Aug 2016, 02:00
Surprising amount of criticism for a movie that nobodies seen yet :confused:
Eastwood has repeatedly demonstrated he's a pretty darn good director, and Hanks has repeatedly demonstrated he's a pretty darn good actor.


I suspect the result will be a pretty darn good movie.

SASless
23rd Aug 2016, 02:38
You don't reckon there might be a story of interest AFTER the Water Landing in the Hudson or some thought being given as to prior experiences, training, and background that afforded Sully and his Crew to be as successful as they were?

Those who know something about CRM might be interested to consider that aspect of the Account.....ya'll do recall Sully's background in Safety?

But....let's not let reality get in the way of some JB Ranting based on nothing shall we?

For sure i bet there are no German speaking Submariners using a Code Machine anywhere in the film!

lomapaseo
23rd Aug 2016, 04:23
Eastwood has repeatedly demonstrated he's a pretty darn good director,

Maybe so, but I'm just as interested in what special side plots and or/effects the collective members of this group might add to the flick.

So is the Sully characeter supposed to have a female somewhere somehow or do we have to work in that ubiquitous blow-up doll in the other seat?

What about some side conspiracy about feeding the geese in some backyard and releasing them just in time for the meet up?

How about that missed Teterborough approach can we show a side line of the party they were having on the ground so they never got the phone call in time from the ATC? or a large boat stranded in the river with an engine failure itself, that just managed to get out of the way in time

I mean shirley we can stretch the truth just enough for the public to believe in the film. We certainly need a heavy in this someplace (Trump maybe??)

How about side plots as passengers were reliving their lives as they passed before their eyes?

So how is it supposed to end as the credits roll by? do we see several nests of young geeks breaking out of their nests along the river ready for another try in a few years?

SASless
23rd Aug 2016, 04:51
Hey....even Top Gun lost a Goose too!

ChrisJ800
23rd Aug 2016, 10:02
Its got to be better than Firefox, another Eastwood movie!

TowerDog
23rd Aug 2016, 10:16
.
I suspect the result will be a pretty darn good movie.

Doubt it. The last airliner flick Hollywood made with the drunk guy flying upside down was a disaster. :sad:

Mane the public will eat it up but I won't be shelling out $9 + pop corn to watch Tom Hanks wrestle the bus down to the river.:sad:

fitliker
23rd Aug 2016, 19:08
The opening scene has Tom Hanks sitting on a bench waiting for a bus sharing a box of chocolates and his storey about people telling him to " float sully float "
And that is all I have to say about Forrest Gump playing Sully :)
Although if the movie is half as good as Forrest Gump it will be worth the price of admission.

Cazalet33
23rd Aug 2016, 19:24
He's already auditioned for the part of Sully:

Ma CFI tol' me that a sim session is like a boxa choclits....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMF5BrS-KBo

Turbine D
23rd Aug 2016, 19:48
Hollywood does need a winner sometime after a summer of flops except for the animated films. That is not to say this one will be a winner. BTW, the latest flop was the remake of the 1959 original Ben-Hur.

tdracer
8th Sep 2016, 16:22
Well, it's hit the theaters and the reviews are pretty good:

?Sully?: Tom Hanks fits comfortably in the pilot?s seat | The Seattle Times (http://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/movies/sully-tom-hanks-fits-comfortably-in-the-pilots-seat/?utm_source=The+Seattle+Times&utm_campaign=23d8a4ae86-Morning_Brief_9_08_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5beb38b61e-23d8a4ae86-122002565)

Apparently some in the NTSB are objecting that they get a bum rap in the movie :rolleyes:

lomapaseo
8th Sep 2016, 17:47
Apparently some in the NTSB are objecting that they get a bum rap in the movie

Yes, the clip I saw appeared confrontational

The NTSB is never confrontational unless they are lied to in a cover-up.

Aggressive investigators don't last long

Rwy in Sight
8th Sep 2016, 20:19
lomapaseo sine you mention the NTSB, on the film reviews here I read that Sully was on the spot about not landing to Teterborough. Since I don't have the book anymore - one way rent to friend who gets beaten by his wife - I would be grateful if you could remind me if Sully was second guessed about landing back to Teterborough.

Kulverstukas
8th Sep 2016, 21:48
Is there chances next Eastwood film will be about Powers Overflight?

Chef Bruz
8th Sep 2016, 22:35
I bought and read the book, because I think Sully deserves his royalties for that 3&1/2 minutes of action.

It covers his life from being inspired by Air Force jets, to flying the F4 in Europe and the events after the ditching.

Not the most exciting life, but that's what you're aiming for as a pilot.

I particularly liked his question to the FO after he had everything set up to ditch....

lomapaseo
8th Sep 2016, 23:14
Rwy in Sight

I would be grateful if you could remind me if Sully was second guessed about landing back to Teterborough.

All over the place on the internet discussion boards with the "what-ifs" and "simmers"

So they had to work that into the film somehow with live actors :E

For me it doesn't work out as a causal factor with a means of preventing future accidents. so a simple statement along the line of "unable to continue safe flight and landing" is sufficient.

Gordy
9th Sep 2016, 01:01
One thing I do know:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/helokat/funnies/Tom_zpsa0rmeuae.jpg

Carbon Bootprint
9th Sep 2016, 01:18
Good one, Gordy! :D:D

onetrack
9th Sep 2016, 03:23
I trust this Hollywood version is done accurately and correctly - and the A320 explodes in a massive fireball right after the last person just makes it off!! :ok:

Oh ... and I hope they can fit in a crazed gunman, who has to be taken down by a gun-wielding Sully, just to add a bit of "artistic licence"! :)

Mark in CA
9th Sep 2016, 06:31
New York Times review: http://nyti.ms/2bXrhlu

“Sully” is a portrait of a hero — Mr. Sullenberger’s decision to land the plane on the Hudson helped save 155 lives, his own included — but one who, after the accident, is troubled both by what might have been (death, destruction) and by an unassuming man’s discomfort with the spotlight.

Sully played by Tom Hanks! Article includes trailer and other video.

Sober Lark
9th Sep 2016, 07:27
Hanks practiced on the Pacific with DHL (Sorry FedEx - thanks Huck) before getting his run on the Hudson.

Huck
9th Sep 2016, 07:30
T'was Fedex....

mrdeux
9th Sep 2016, 08:01
I enjoyed it. About the only movie I've ever seen that made any attempt at getting the aviation right.

If you've never been in an accident, then lucky you. The aftermath isn't a fun place, and that's what the movie is mostly about.

misd-agin
9th Sep 2016, 13:28
Rwy in sight - they had enough to reach LGA. It also had clear space around it (rivers).
TEB would have been a much tougher choice because the clear space is almost non-existent.

Ground track map shows the dustance flown vs the distance required.

Could Flight 1549 Have Landed at La Guardia instead of in the Hudson River? | James' World (http://www.jebriggs.com/blog/2009/01/could-flight-1549-have-landed-at-la-guardia-instead-of-in-the-hudson-river/)

The administrator's comment that a right turn would have worked and a left wouldn't have ignores the reality that a left turn, as flown, flew a distance to the crash site which was longer than the distance required to reach the runway.

But you have to have instant awareness. If you don't it's not the time, or place, to be wishy-washy. Sully made the right decision going for a known open area vs trying to became a hero attempting to make decisions that he wasn't sure of and had limited second choices if he was wrong.

Chronus
9th Sep 2016, 19:36
Such a pity Groucho Marx could not have auditioned for the part. Am sure Dirty Harry aka Clint East...wood have preferred him for his better moustache.

WhatsaLizad?
10th Sep 2016, 03:12
misd-agin (http://www.pprune.org/members/128797-misd-agin),


Are you a pilot or just some babbling chatboard resident?
I ask this question because of the remarkable stupidity of the following point from your link posted that you used as a reference. Read it carefully and tell the group if you see any problems with it.


"3) Also, a news report on the web said the A320 “ditch switch” had not been activated, thus allowing more water than necessary to enter the plane."

Wow, a "news report" on the web. Surely a reputable source for an aircrew. Surely you can fill us in with the details relating to this point.


Thanks

Clare Prop
10th Sep 2016, 03:54
All I can think of when I see Hanks as a captain is "ditch, Forrest, Ditch!"

underfire
10th Sep 2016, 07:11
Very accurate and the same 737, sans wings, remains at Lasham not far from the base of the film company responsible. Still painted US Airways but a little worse for wear, sat on girders and surrounded by shipping containers.

Always cheaper to film in the 3rd world countries.

FLCH
10th Sep 2016, 14:23
Pinewood studios are making a movie called "Nige" about a BA Airbus that popped a couple of cowls over London thought about plopping it in the Thames but then thought again.

West Coast
10th Sep 2016, 15:33
Narked Nige over the northern Thames?

IBMJunkman
10th Sep 2016, 15:57
Sully has been on a couple of our late night talk shows. He has been asked and has said he is happy with the film. Visited the set a few times.

So he is either a huge sellout or is happy with the result. I think the latter.

PLovett
11th Sep 2016, 02:44
Buttonpusher

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bloody Hell
Age: 57
Posts: 384
Pinewood studios are making a movie called "Nige" about a BA Airbus that popped a couple of cowls over London thought about plopping it in the Thames but then thought again.

Perhaps more fitting would be a film about a B777 that can't get its engines to spool up whose captain is then brought down by a whispering campaign that management is unable or unwilling to stop. Pure fantasy of course, would never happen in real life.

spInY nORmAn
11th Sep 2016, 22:05
I found this review of the movie by a retired commercial pilot to be quite informative (to a non-pilot). Sully and the impossible turn - Air Facts Journal (http://airfactsjournal.com/2016/09/sully-impossible-turn/)

Mark in CA
14th Sep 2016, 06:17
Let's not forget the real vicitms of this incident:

The Onion Reviews ?Sully? - The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/video/onion-reviews-sully-53908)

Stanwell
14th Sep 2016, 07:54
Disgraceful.
And to think that the bereaved members of the flock were not even offered anything in the way of counselling -
let alone any consideration of compensation.

Curious Pax
14th Sep 2016, 16:21
At the risk of waving a red rag in the face of some of the bulls in this part of Pprune, this article in The Guardian gives an interesting slant: Sully film and the NTSB (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/sep/12/sully-clint-eastwood-hudson-river-plane-crash-ntsb)

In a nutshell the author praises the parts covering the crash, and the way the crew (all of them!) are portrayed, but has great issue with the role the NTSB is given. The investigators are portrayed as a kangaroo court eager to stitch Sully up, which doesn't chime at all with how his book presented it. Basically the article chimes with Lomapaseo's thoughts a couple of pages back.

Whether there was an anti government political thread behind the NTSB portrayal, or whether there had to be guys in black hats to make sure the guys in the white hats looked as good as possible I'll leave for you to decide!

megan
15th Sep 2016, 04:05
Curious Pax, I thought the NTSB part detracted from the entire film, and was the only sore spot for an otherwise great film. I see "Sully" ensured the names of the real people on the board were not used. I can see why the NTSB would be less than impressed, to put it mildly.

VP959
15th Sep 2016, 10:25
I don't know much about the NTSB, but would guess that they are held in as high esteem as the AAIB here. The film probably needed something to add some tension after the accident, so they used a bit of artistic licence to make the NTSB appear more hostile than they were in this particular investigation.

That's probably unfair, but then maybe there have been past investigations where they have been more hostile? I don't know, but I do know that our excellent AAIB can, very rarely, exhibit poor behaviour. I know of a case where an investigator joined this forum under a pseudonym, not to investigate, but to provoke. The same investigator gave evidence under oath in a court that contradicted the explanation for an observation that was written in the accident report (and, for whatever reason, the accident report was not admitted as evidence, perhaps so the jury could not spot this contradiction, or read some of the other information in it).

My personal view is that accident investigators do an outstanding job, in very difficult circumstances, and deserve the good reputation they have gained. However, I am also sure that, like me, the film makers knew that these organisations are never perfect, and can fail to live up to their own high standards at times.

G-CPTN
15th Sep 2016, 15:00
However, I am also sure that, like me, the film makers knew that these organisations are never perfect, and can fail to live up to their own high standards at times.
So, it is OK to 'punish' someone for something that they didn't do - but had on a previous occasion?

Of course, this can happen in a court of law when a defendant has a reputation of offending - though a appeal could be lodged - however not in this case.

Would it have been acceptable if the film had portrayed the NTSB in a kinder light than they had behaved in this case because they were usually 'really quite good sorts'?

VP959
15th Sep 2016, 16:13
So, it is OK to 'punish' someone for something that they didn't do - but had on a previous occasion?

Of course, this can happen in a court of law when a defendant has a reputation of offending - though a appeal could be lodged - however not in this case.

Would it have been acceptable if the film had portrayed the NTSB in a kinder light than they had behaved in this case because they were usually 'really quite good sorts'?
No, I don't think it's OK at all, I'm just offering a possible reason as to why the film makers decided to add a bit of tension using that scenario, nothing more.

SASless
15th Sep 2016, 17:48
35 Safety recommendations were made by the NTSB as a result of this Forced Landing in the Hudson River.

So far.....6 of them have been accomplished.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/safety-recommendations-unfulfilled-7-years-072657572.html

lomapaseo
15th Sep 2016, 18:47
35 Safety recommendations were made by the NTSB as a result of this Forced Landing in the Hudson River.

So far.....6 of them have been accomplished.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/safety-re...072657572.html

Like many recommendations, they are nice to have on paper, but:

likely to have unintended consequences more often than what they fix

impractical to incorporate in present day aircraft and may be dealt with when new aircraft designs make them more practical or unnecessary.

Priority for addressing a study of means to accommodate is just below accomplishment of "World peace"

VP959
15th Sep 2016, 18:53
I agree. A read through them seems to show that many are just impractical, when put in the context of the probability of a similar event to this happening again.

It reminds me a bit of planning permission here. Every single domestic planning application I've ever read has had a recommendation from the Fire Service that a sprinkler system be installed. 99% of the time this is just ignored, because sprinkler systems are very expensive and good alarms to make people aware and get them out of the house are cheap. So, linked fire/smoke/heat alarms are mandatory in new houses here, sprinklers are not (except in a few specific types of house).

SASless
15th Sep 2016, 18:55
Please to remember there was no requirement for there to be any kind of flotation gear on the aircraft per FAA Regulations.

This is the same FAA that decided in its infinite wisdom that Flights in Boeing 727's from New York to Miami need not carry any floatation gear as the probability of an aircraft having to ditch in the overwater portion of the flight was "nil".

Two weeks later a FE managed to shutdown all three engines due to mishandling the fuel system.

Fortunately, the Crew managed to correct the problem and get all the Engines re-started before impacting the water.

The FAA had a re-think and put the requirement for flotation gear back in place.

The NTSB is all about Safety.....the FAA not so much.

vapilot2004
15th Sep 2016, 19:04
I agree. A read through them seems to show that many are just impractical, when put in the context of the probability of a similar event to this happening again.

Also agreed. The NTSB is often the guy in the corner of the room during a meeting that nobody wants to ask any questions of - and there is a reason this is so.

A survivable ditching is a fairly rare event, chance of surviving being somewhere between a miracle and not very good. Vests haven't changed much since the 1960s other than the auto inflator, and are simple, light weight, proven flotation. Advances in materials and construction have improved rafts over the past couple of decades, but again, this is proven kit based on a simple design that works as it says on the tin.

Engine restart procedures are naturally best suited to recovery at flight level and not down low. More and more modern FADEC engines will relight the fires for you if configured properly and if you are at less than 1,500 AGL, on the backside of the energy curve when they stop turning and burning, well, good luck getting that choked up turbine to behave before you glide into Farmer Jack's pond.

lomapaseo
15th Sep 2016, 21:17
Also agreed. The NTSB is often the guy in the corner of the room during a meeting that nobody wants to ask any questions of - and there is a reason this is so.

being that this is Jet Blast and I'm on the hooch again, .... I seem to remember industry invitations to the NTSB to attend think tanks on how to solve problems, that were turned down by the NTSB because it wasn't in their charter. We finally worked out a work-around by allowing the NTSB to like audit a course and avoid taking the responsibiity of a final exam and they ended up being the gorrila in the room.

West Coast
16th Sep 2016, 02:22
Been at seminars with NTSB types from field offices, nice guys, informative.

ExSp33db1rd
16th Sep 2016, 05:55
The NTSB is all about Safety.....the FAA not so much.

and the airlines, i.e. bean counters, even less so.

cattletruck
16th Sep 2016, 10:59
Another opportunity for Tinsel Town to get all touchy-feely post event and exaggerate everything to shove it down hard the masses' throat.

I get post traumatic event syndrome just thinking about the damage Hollywood have done to the facts as we know it.

However if in the movie Sully disembarks all the pax then proceeds to shut all the doors in the company of a stewardess he fancied then takes off out of the Hudson sans geese, I would give the movie some real Hollywood respect.

OldCessna
17th Sep 2016, 16:31
To join the FAA one needs a degree. I have found that many have degrees in Taotian Tap Dancing and Bosnian Basket Weaving and other such bizarre qualifications

A degree in common sense should be a mandatory requirement

lomapaseo
17th Sep 2016, 21:35
To join the FAA one needs a degree. I have found that many have degrees in Taotian Tap Dancing and Bosnian Basket Weaving and other such bizarre qualifications

A degree in common sense should be a mandatory requirement

I never knew that

West Coast
18th Sep 2016, 05:13
OldCessna



To join the FAA one needs a degree.


Not true. There are many, many controllers working for the FAA who came from military ATC that don't have degrees. Same said for technicians, many of whom came from the military minus a degree. Perhaps piloting positions do, but not all.

Lonewolf_50
25th Sep 2016, 20:33
Saw the movie today, my wife really liked it. I enjoyed it as well.

In terms of telling a story, I think Clint Eastwood did a fine job as a director. As for the Hollywood style NTSB, I think Clint used that as the vehicle for all of those people second guessing the flight deck crew. (In retrospect, that appears to be no small number of people who post on PPRuNe).

It's hard to get it close to right, and I think this one was done pretty well.

Rwy in Sight
25th Sep 2016, 21:48
At the initial examination Sully is told about the left engine being at idle according to the QAR. Later at the big hearing Sully is told the QAR was incorrect. How was that possible?

A good movie that I enjoyed it at an open air theater the last day possible before raining and dropping temperature made such attempts difficult.

lomapaseo
26th Sep 2016, 00:38
At the initial examination Sully is told about the left engine being at idle according to the QAR. Later at the big hearing Sully is told the QAR was incorrect. How was that possible?

Is it not due to the points per second capture rate and or latching of a value with no specific time line?

QARs are fine for after the fact maintenance that an event occurred vs a flight regime but not for exactly when in that regime.

tdracer
26th Sep 2016, 05:03
Having looked at dozens of QAR outputs over the years, you need to understand the limited capabilities of the system. First off, the s/w is "Level E" - which means it's allowed to be crap (for example, the scaling may be wrong - something I've often seen). Second, data from Level E system is readily corrupted when there is a power upset (such as you'd get if both generators dropped off line). If main bus power is lost, you can get anything from "last good value" to total garbage - valid data is highly unlikely.
Investigators know this, but that doesn't mean it would be accurately reflected in the movie...

Rwy in Sight
26th Sep 2016, 06:06
Thanks to both of you for the explanation. I am a little bit wiser now.

ExSp33db1rd
26th Sep 2016, 07:29
Isn't this the same system that is supposed to have "suggested" where MH 370 headed, if so, given the erroneous information initially given to the NTSB, maybe MAS should ask Sully where their aeroplane is ?

UL730
26th Sep 2016, 08:56
Tom Hanks when interviewed by Total Film relates that Chesley Sullenberger told him he was very concerned that Hollywood would take liberties with the story. "No Sir" Hanks told him."We'll lie, we'll condense, we'll omit and I'll say things you never said and do things that you never did but barring that, we'll be as authentic as we can"

:uhoh:

vapilot2004
26th Sep 2016, 10:44
Isn't this the same system that is supposed to have "suggested" where MH 370 headed, if so, given the erroneous information initially given to the NTSB, maybe MAS should ask Sully where their aeroplane is ?

ExSB, I believe the system you are referring to is SATCOM. MH370's possible last tracks were extrapolated from data collected by the satellite provider for the SATCOM radios installed on the aircraft via routine hourly system pings.

The QAR - Quick Access Recorder, is a small device that listens to various data busses and captures flight control, instrument, NAV, and engine data among other customizable channel options.

lomapaseo
26th Sep 2016, 13:53
Tom Hanks when interviewed by Total Film relates that Chesley Sullenberger told him he was very concerned that Hollywood would take liberties with the story. "No Sir" Hanks told him."We'll lie, we'll condense, we'll omit and I'll say things you never said and do things that you never did but barring that, we'll be as authentic as we can"

Some relation to those Prang documentaries

"we'll condense, we'll omit, we'll get somebody else to say what we want and we'll get the last word in that the audience hears.

The unedited version would be more interesting to hear :)

mickjoebill
10th Oct 2016, 08:21
There was only a passing reference by ATC chap that water landings usually don't end well.

I think they could have made far more of the consequences of not keeping wings level on impact.
Steady hand at the tiller was the final skill that saved them all.

Easy for the punter to understand.

Also the risks of hypothermia were downplayed.

Make sure you wait for the end credits:)

Mickjoebill

ehwatezedoing
11th Oct 2016, 07:43
the risks of hypothermia were downplayed.

And the importance of safety demos too :p

http://asj.nolan-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/usair-pax1.jpg

oldchina
11th Oct 2016, 14:15
Steady hand at the tiller was the final skill that saved them all ...

Wouldn't argue with that, but part of the skill belonged to the designers of the fly-by-wire controls which made it easier to not drop the tips into the drink.
Plus he could fly as slow as he wanted without fear that it would stall into same liquid.

lomapaseo
11th Oct 2016, 19:47
Plus he could fly as slow as he wanted without fear that it would stall into same liquid.

If I wanted to go at 52 knots speed on landing how would I get the plane to do that?

megan
12th Oct 2016, 08:10
part of the skill belonged to the designers of the fly-by-wire controls which made it easier to not drop the tips into the drinkNot difficult to keep wings level.Plus he could fly as slow as he wanted without fear that it would stallThe trouble with that was when he reached 50 feet stick movement was attenuated by the alpha protection, and he was unable to flare the aircraft from that point on. Without alpha protection he could have pulled another 3.5° before stalling. Ditching certification assumes a max of 3.5 f/s descent, whereas it impacted at 12.5 f/s. He probably wished he could get that other 3.5° pitch. All's well that ends well though.

RetiredBA/BY
2nd Dec 2016, 20:13
Just seen the film, absolutely brilliant. Superbly acted and, as far as I could see, technically, absolutely correct.
Probably the best aviation film I have ever seen.

And there but for the grace of God"................

Pace
2nd Dec 2016, 20:46
I was expecting this to be a romanticised version of the American hero but it was an incredibly factual film of the awful situation Sully found himself in and then far from the hero the attempts to discredit his actions of ditching in the Hudson and endangering the lives of 155 people instead of turning back.

It is a masterpiece! factually detailed and aviation accurate so might loose some who aren't aviation knowledgeable

There was a lot of luck with Sully in an event which could have had a very different outcome without a Dollop of immense luck

Did he make the right choice going for the Hudson? I am sure yes. Was he very lucky to bring out 155 live people? equally yes

Very well worth viewing and beautifully acted by Tom Hanks

cyflyer
2nd Dec 2016, 22:55
I will also add that I thoroughly enjoyed this amazing movie and recommend evryone to see it. To the last two posters that have just seen, and enjoyed the movie, obviously in the UK also, what I cannot understand is why it opened at UK cinemas 3 months after it opened in the rest of the world ? I saw it at the cinema while on holiday in Cyprus in September ! It won't be on dvd for months, whereas the usa version dvd is released before Christmas. I have already pre-ordered it from Amazon USA.

Lantern10
2nd Dec 2016, 23:28
Watch it here

Watch Sully For Free On 123Movies.to (http://123movies.is/film/sully-16298/watching.html)

CONSO
3rd Dec 2016, 01:07
Rwy in Sight



All over the place on the internet discussion boards with the "what-ifs" and "simmers"

So they had to work that into the film somehow with live actors :E

For me it doesn't work out as a causal factor with a means of preventing future accidents. so a simple statement along the line of "unable to continue safe flight and landing" is sufficient.
TRY READING the NTSB report
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf
Accident Report

National
Transportation
Safety Board
NTSB/AAR-10/03
PB2010-910403

Yes- the board hammered him for months- claiming that he could have returned, etc. Ran multiple sims at Airbus facilities to prove he screwed up. In the film and in the report- they finally ran sims with a 36 second delay from engine out before trying to return-( as Sully in real life and copilot took about that long to sort out the problem )- and the sim crashed, and crashed. Also their claim that one engine was still producing thrust was finally disproven.

So it was in the NTSB report- so it was in the film !!

CONSO
3rd Dec 2016, 04:36
" The trouble with that was when he reached 50 feet stick movement was attenuated by the alpha protection, and he was unable to flare the aircraft from that point on.."
close- the number was/is 150 feet per NTSB report page 48

1.16.1.2 Airbus Simulation
Airbus performed a simulation of the last 300 feet of the accident flight, which indicated
that the airplane was performing as designed and was in alpha-protection mode from 150 feet to
touchdown. The Airbus simulation indicated that, from 1530:36 to 1530:43, the flight control
system attenuated the effect of the pilot’s airplane nose-up (ANU) sidestick inputs below 100
feet radio altitude

ExSp33db1rd
3rd Dec 2016, 08:36
Surprised to learn only last night that it is only now being released in UK, WTF ?

Saw it here in NZ sometime ago, remarked to Mrs. ExS. during the performance that they hadn't taken into account the .... "Wot the fcuk was that ?" factor i.e. the time delay before positive action took place. All the subsequent computer programmes, and simulator pilots, knew what was going to happen and reacted immediately. Life ain't like that.

At the risk of being shot down ... was Sully a "hero" ? My definition of hero is someone who deliberately puts his own life in danger to save others. Sully didn't do that, he had no choice, hero doesn't seem to me to be the right word, which is in no way trying to diminish his professionalism or terrific skill and concentration under tremendous pressure -although .... I guess deliberately walking through an aircraft that might sink at any moment, to see that all had been evacuated might be termed heroic ?

( OK, I'll go .... )

cyflyer
3rd Dec 2016, 09:20
Yes, I would call him a hero. He did his job in a cool, calm, and collected manner and that enabled him by his actions to save everybody onboard. He remained behind to ensure that everyone was safely off. Contrast that with a similar situation such as the captain of the recent Colombia crash. Reports have him shouting "please help us" over the radio. He would have been one of those trying to fly the aircraft over the city with no fuel on board, not thinking straight. Then again, he wasn't thinking straight when he agreed to fly that airplane with insufficient fuel on board. Contrast that with Sulley. He would have declared an emergency and tried to find a flat area to put the aircraft down when he was down to fumes. Yes, Sulley is a hero.

UniFoxOs
3rd Dec 2016, 09:25
I didn't intend to see this, having watched a documentary about it on the TV some time ago, and read Sully's book. After seeing the above comments I will go and see it when it comes to our local cimema.

One thing has always puzzled me. One of the first things Sully did was to start the APU. Apparently this was not on the checklist. Seems to me a strange omission. All modern a/c need loads of electricity and failure to re-start one of the engines would surely soon deplete or overheat the battery. Also it would give a minute amount of thrust - not a lot maybe but just a few extra yards could make a big difference to the outcome.

MungoP
3rd Dec 2016, 10:12
At the time this event occurred I was instructing at FlightSafety at LaGuardia.. Needless to say the incident became the main topic of conversation during our CRM sessions for some time after. I was always amused at how competent the class felt themselves to be and how they would have handled it in their own minds many almost convinced they'd have made it back to the field.
I provided endless amusement for myself once having got them into the Sim.. based on what we knew of the event at that time I'd set it up without warning that they would experience a similar set of circumstances.. one engine winding down followed shortly after by the other. I can state here that almost all became catatonic. None would have made it safely anywhere.
As someone here mentioned the WTF factor comes into play stalling thinking for vital seconds. A windscreen suddenly full of another aircraft will elicit an immediate response on the controls because the action requires no thought.. Multiple failures are entirely different... reaching an understanding combined with a disbelief that this is actually happening can slow the process down dramatically.
Training, Training and regular good quality training is what can make the difference at crucial moments.. Sully had had the benefit of that over a long career and a lot of people are alive today who may not have been as a result. He may not have trained for that exact event but he was calm enough to handle the situation and stick to the basics.. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Bergerie1
3rd Dec 2016, 10:27
ExSp,

I fully agree with your views on heroes, and I am sure Sully would too. Definitely the best aviation film I've seen, all the flying very accurate - and the PTSD afterwards. I don't think most of us realise how much self-doubt affects people after such an incident, even if they have done everything absolutely right.

The only bits that didn't ring true were in the NTSB hearings, but I accept the need for dramatic effect. However, I am sure both Sully and Skyles felt the pressure much as it was shown in the film.

ibelieveicanfly
3rd Dec 2016, 10:39
I have seen the movie and I went out of the cinema with quite some emotion I must admit. I sought this could happen to me or any airline pilot! How would my company support me for that? Or maybe the investigation authorites would try to blame me first and stick to this direction? How would I react in a similar case,which decisions?
I found it also nice that that movie will probably reinforce the non aviation public to estimate in a more appropriate way the job and training we face and we are not just push button pilots or "drivers".

RAT 5
3rd Dec 2016, 13:45
He may not have trained for that exact event but he was calm enough to handle the situation and stick to the basics.. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Key points that I suspect are missing in many of todays trained monkeys. First thought is "what is the SOP?" After the stress of the situation takes hold the memory is not up to it. That leads to some panic of 'I don't know what to do.' Eventually someone, you hope, starts to think like a pilot and goes back to basics.
Imagine: short finals, visual, one engine runs down due to bird strike. SOP says GA, so you do. Other engine goes AWOL = oops. FCTM says you can land ahead. So you do because no there's no choice. Except the landing is now a crash, whereas it could have been a more controlled SE landing after the initial run down. To me, with runway straight ahead, and a bird with a broken wing I'd rather be on the ground than still trying to defy gravity. Basics.
Regarding sim replays of emergencies can run into 2 categories.
1. finding out want happened; what the pilots saw, or didn't see; how the a/c & systems behaved; what options were there; what would happen if you did A B or C? Use the sim as an investigative tool.
2. Know it's going to happen; put a test pilot or HOT in the seat fully prepared and try to shoot down the crew.

However; I might digress, apologies, and accept this topic is about the merits of the film and not the industry training. We all know the more technical aspects of the event.

baselb
3rd Dec 2016, 15:11
And a nun singing to a sick child.

ExSp33db1rd
4th Dec 2016, 02:32
From an earlier post ....

With Sully, the film-makers were faced with a problem: how to make a feature-length movie about a six-minute flight? They took the easy way out and invented an antagonist. As a result, the takeaway is that the NTSB – as I heard one person leaving a screening say – “tried to stitch Sully up”.

..........and another comment that Sully insisted that the real names of the NTSB Board of Enquiry were changed so as not to impugne the real NTSB Board Members, who he claimed didn't act that way, tho of course they had to ask the searching questions.

One of my early Captains told me ... " Whatever you do, before you act always say to yourself .. at the subsequent Board of Enquiry can I justify the action I am about to take ? "

Sully could.

With ref. to my earlier comment about the definition of a hero .... to take on the NTSB publicly was heroic action !

I take back my Hero comments ... my OED states - quote... "Man of superhuman qualities ....man admired for achievements and noble qualities, for which Sully truly qualifies."
( now you're going to tell me that I'm sexist, i.e. are there no women hero's ? Don't blame me, 4th Edition dated 1950, and no, I'm not going to buy a new one ! ))

Pace
4th Dec 2016, 15:43
LWith ref. to my earlier comment about the definition of a hero .... to take on the NTSB publicly was heroic action !


A hero is someone who risks their own wellbeing for others
As with both engines stopped you are part of the situation and not putting yourself at risk for the benefit of others this cannot be a heroic situation in the true sense

A top racing driver is driving 3 people up a motorway when he has a high speed double tyre blow out. With his amazing skills he controls the car and comes to a stop on the verge.
He is not a hero
He jumps out runs up the bank and as he turns the car bursts into flames with the 3 passengers still inside
He runs back to the burning car and rips open the door to get the passengers out!
He is now a hero risking himself for the benefit of others

Sully was a very experienced Pilot, calm and decisive but was part of the impending accident whether he liked it or not
The outcome was due to his superb skills and decisions plus a big dollop of luck that the aircraft stayed intact and didn't sink

Americans love heros not sure if that is the correct term here !
He was very brave and competent and made the right choices in the circumstances which lead to 155 people surviving

Would most pilots go for the river ? Faced with a double flameout at low level given the choices the river would probably be my choice!
It's an endless runway meaning controlling the speed and landing is not so critical on length
A runway engine out is open to error in both speed and glidepath
Meaning a late touchdown maybe too fast or landing short into buildings

The water has its own risks and unknowns ? Freezing water, how long will it float ( unknown ) even exciting the aircraft with water pressure
On balance the water seems the obvious choice what do other pilots reckon here ?
Water or runway if it was you ?

UniFoxOs
4th Dec 2016, 16:41
He runs back to the burning car and rips open the door to get the passengers out!

Not the same as going all the way back through a potentially sinking a/c to ensure all the pax are out, though?

charliegolf
4th Dec 2016, 17:26
Not the same as going all the way back through a potentially sinking a/c to ensure all the pax are out, though?

That bit is simply fulfilling your responsibility as captain.

RAT 5
4th Dec 2016, 17:43
That bit is simply fulfilling your responsibility as captain.

As has been said, "if I pass you on the way out your are assume the rank of captain." (Dave G)

I still think that was a brave and correct move, the Hudson. One of the basic rules of any dynamic situation: you are in a hole, stop digging: don't make it worse. There are 150-ish lives at risk, don't vastly increase that number by trying the 10% possibility of making it to Teterboro or turning back. Limit the damage to your own sh*t storm. The survival possibility of the Hudson has to be better than 10% and risk to others close to 0%. That is why the desk jockeys who suggested searching for a strip of concrete were better on the ground than being in that A320 cockpit.
Someone has not yet ventured into the horror of if it had been at night. I hope same option for all the same reasons.

Imagine what might have faced the BA crew B777, a couple of minutes earlier, over central London with only the Thames & Hyde Park below and not just over the lights at LHR. I think Sully has opened many eyes to the possible rather than the unthinkable. Tarmac in sight can be magnetic, and deadly.

CONSO
4th Dec 2016, 19:23
Even if, weeks after the accident and careful scripting they'd 'proved' that he could have made it to a runway, I'd still have said that Captain Sullenberger made the right and safest decision. Both the movie and the NTSB report remarked that the Sim tests had a built in bias-the sim ' crew ' knew ahead of time what was to happen, and made an immediate turn to one of two "possible" runways when engines stopped. And many ' runs' were made or practiced. But even when knowing the situation- when they put in a 35 second " pause " after engines stopped - they failed to make the runway. The movie sort of over dramitized the sim game- but the basics were not changed.

Hempy
4th Dec 2016, 21:15
After seeing the movie I liken Sully to Al Haynes (and Dennis Fitch...not sure why Sully's FO hasn't had more credit) ex United 232 at Sioux City. Although very different situations, both remarkable feats of airmanship.

CONSO
5th Dec 2016, 00:18
After seeing the movie I liken Sully to Al Haynes (and Dennis Fitch...not sure why Sully's FO hasn't had more credit) ex United 232 at Sioux City. Although very different situations, both remarkable feats of airmanship.
from this SLF- a bit MORE than remarkable !!

FROM THE NTSB REPORT Page 105-106
2.3.2 Decision to Ditch on the Hudson River
At the time of the bird strike, the airplane was about 4.5 miles north-northwest of the
approach end of runway 22 at LGA and about 9.5 miles east-northeast of the approach end of
runway 24 at TEB. During postaccident interviews, both pilots indicated that they thought the
Hudson River was the best and safest landing option given the airplane’s airspeed, altitude, and
position.
About 1 minute after the bird strike, it was evident to the flight crew that landing at an
airport may not be an option, and, at 1528:11, the captain reported to ATC that he did not think
they would be able to land at LGA and that they might end up in the Hudson. At 1529:25, the
captain told ATC that they would also be unable to land at TEB. Three seconds later, he stated to
ATC that the airplane was going to be in the Hudson. During postaccident interviews, the captain
stated that, “due to the surrounding area,” returning to LGA would have been problematic and
that it would not have been a realistic choice. He further stated that, once a turn to LGA was made, “it would have been an irrevocable choice, eliminating all other options,” and that TEB
“was too far away.” The NTSB notes that a direct return to LGA would have required crossing
Manhattan, a highly populated area, and putting people on the ground at risk.
Simulation flights were run to determine whether the accident flight could have landed
successfully at LGA or TEB following the bird strike. The simulations demonstrated that, to
accomplish a successful flight to either airport, the airplane would have to have been turned
toward the airport immediately after the bird strike. The immediate turn did not reflect or account
for real-world considerations, such as the time delay required to recognize the extent of the
engine thrust loss and decide on a course of action. The one simulator flight that took into
account real-world considerations (a return to LGA runway 13 was attempted after a 35-second
delay) was not successful. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the captain’s decision to ditch on
the Hudson River rather than attempting to land at an airport provided the highest probability
that the accident would be survivable.

Note that the movie ( hollywood again ) showed two simulations with 35 second delay which wound up several hundred yards short . ..

Espada III
5th Dec 2016, 17:29
Even having read the NTSB report, and taking account of 'artistic licence' to make the story more dramatic, it still made for a good movie. I'm am sure they could have more of various aspects; the contribution of the co-pilot; the back story of more of the passengers (especially the woman with the baby); the cabin crew etc etc, but in about 90 minutes the story got told reasonably accurately, it was dramatic and at the end of it, it made you feel good.

The best line of course is the last line (and presumably a real one)....but for those who haven't seen the film, I'll keep shtum.

Hempy
5th Dec 2016, 18:12
Audio

tC8QyJbC_lA

Espada III
7th Dec 2016, 22:03
Is that the one by the FO at the NTSB hearing?

Yes. Under the circumstances, quite funny.

stickandrudderman
11th Dec 2016, 00:17
I've just been to see it and was thoroughly impressed.
It leaves me with two questions:
1. Why didn't he use full flap?
2. why did it make me cry?

before landing check list
11th Dec 2016, 16:47
During the NTSB sequence when they had those simulated flights...they were moving the throttles. If the engines were inop, why were the throttles being moved? I.e. Idle in the flair? The movie could have made a bit more realistic don't you think?

West Coast
11th Dec 2016, 18:55
Short of reading the 200 plus pages of the NTSB findings, when was it determined that the engines were or were not putting out any amount of thrust? I would think that in sim testing it would be appropriate to move the thrust levers short of absolute knowledge they weren't putting out any amount of thrust. Moving the TLs during landing is something pilots will do at their core even to normalize, as much as one can, a power off water landing.

Jump Complete
11th Dec 2016, 19:36
Just seen the film with my wife. Both enjoyed it and I can say that it's probably the only aviation film I've seen that I couldn't pick holes in! (I did note Hanks as Sully calling "Number 1 rolling back!" to a shot of the EFIS clearly showing 2 rolling back (followed by 1 a few seconds later!)
I felt the investigation aggression was over done, but probably the only way to translate the arm-chair fliers second guessing into the film...
I guess I wasn't the only pilot to come out of the cinema with 'sim shirt' ?

ciderman
12th Dec 2016, 14:47
Seen the movie and agree with the comments that it was a good advert for our profession, given that the majority of viewers won't be too aviation savvy. But, I have a question. On the aircraft I flew we would not have shut the APU down by 2800'. Can a Bus driver tell me if you take off with it shut down or if not when do you shut it down? Seems premature to me but willing to be corrected.

RVF750
12th Dec 2016, 18:01
I know the B737 shuts down the APU on start of taxi usually, unless you need the thrust of a bleeds off take off. The A320 is probably similar..

The B146/RJ used APU for pressurisation on take off and landing. Not sure about others.

lomapaseo
12th Dec 2016, 18:33
In some cases (in the past) there have been limitations on using the APU in-flight. Obviously you can assue it doesn't affect the T/O cert or the emergency need to restart it should it be needed in-flight.

This may not relate to this specific event so carry on

Trossie
13th Dec 2016, 08:24
I have watched a lot of aviation-related films and I am usually very critical of 'imperfections'. This film was accurate in every aspect that it covered. My wife had to do the driving for our trip home afterwards.

(Jump Complete, he said "one engine is rolling back", not "number 1 ...")

If you fly, as passenger or crew, then watch that film.

RAT 5
13th Dec 2016, 12:41
I have watched a lot of aviation-related films and I am usually very critical of 'imperfections'. This film was accurate in every aspect that it covered.

That's excellent. I assume Sully was the technical advisor and would not allow imperfections. Perhaps he could get a job on Air Crash Investigation.

Jump Complete
13th Dec 2016, 16:58
I have watched a lot of aviation-related films and I am usually very critical of 'imperfections'. This film was accurate in every aspect that it covered. My wife had to do the driving for our trip home afterwards.

(Jump Complete, he said "one engine is rolling back", not "number 1 ...")

If you fly, as passenger or crew, then watch that film.

Thanks, that makes sense, like you say, it is extremely accurate. I whispered to my wife "This is not a relaxing film for a pilot to watch!"
Even little touches like Hanks / Sully releasing shoulder straps immediately after gear up. Non-SOP but we either do it or know people that do, and gives the impression of a real, experienced pilot..

Trossie
13th Dec 2016, 18:57
I whispered to my wife "This is not a relaxing film for a pilot to watch!"It is also not a relaxing film for a pilot's wife to watch. I am glad my wife was still fit to do the driving going home. We had a long discussion about the job and all its warts when we got home.

I think that we owe a great big thanks to Sullenberger and Hanks, one for committing it all to paper and one for acting it so well, to show the world how nasty things can turn out. I wish that those sitting in offices and armchairs could take note; I very, very much doubt it though.

11Fan
13th Dec 2016, 20:33
I just finished watching it again -for the fifth time- and I still get chills when the CC are yelling "Brace, Brace, Brace. Head down, Stay down....."

EngAl
13th Dec 2016, 22:21
Just got back from seeing it - an excellent film.
UnifoxOS Ref your post 96 and the APU not being on the checklist: When you see the film you'll hear the FO (Skyles) make the point to the NTSB that it was way down at number 15, but Sully used a bit of common sense and made that one of his first actions.
I felt wrung out after watching it. Sully rightly gets much of the credit, but what a team effort. I read somewhere that one of the survivors when asked how long rescue took said it seemed ages, but subsequently they found out they'd only been on the wing 7 minutes before boarding a boat.
As someone said earlier make sure you watch through the credits!

Karearea
14th Dec 2016, 05:16
Saw it back in September: for the first time in ages omitted to stay for the credits, must repair that omission next time I watch.
Superb film, intense.

West Coast
14th Dec 2016, 06:25
Sounds like I need to go back just for the credits.

UniFoxOs
14th Dec 2016, 09:29
EngAl - yes I realise this now I've seen the film. The docudrama I saw on TV a while back just stated (IIRC) that it wasn't on the list and I don't think the book mentioned it. I guess the people who wrote the list were envisaging a total engine failure at cruising height when there would have been considerably more time to run through the checklist and discover you couldn't get an engine going.

oggers
14th Dec 2016, 12:24
I didn't think it was very good. It was fine as far as the flying stuff went but the completely fictitious way in which the investigators were cast as villains has left me with a diminished respect for Captain Sullenberger and Clint Eastwood.

paulc
14th Dec 2016, 12:36
If you are an EAA member there is a very good review in the Sport Aviation magazine by Jeff Skiles.

ciderman
14th Dec 2016, 13:55
Having seen the film, I decided to read Sully's book. Called "Highest Duty, My Search For What Really Matters". Fascinating read and highly recommended. I saw so much of my own feelings and family issues in the book that I suggested my wife read it because she will see so many of the issues we have faced in our lives in there. I won't spoil it but there are a few surprises in the book.

ExSp33db1rd
14th Dec 2016, 23:06
but the completely fictitious way in which the investigators were cast as villains has left me with a diminished respect for Captain Sullenberger and Clint Eastwood.

I've read that Sully didn't agree, with that aspect, and insisted that the names of the NTSB Board were fictitious in the film, to protect the innocent, who although obviously asking the questions, as they had to, did not act as portrayed.

Trossie
15th Dec 2016, 08:30
oggers, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaIdPb3d8A (30 seconds in) to get Sullenberger's approval of the film. To the 'victims' of an investigation the drawn out manner of that investigation will be intolerable and the only way to portray that in a cinema viewing timescale will be to concentrate that into a condensed and harsh investigation. The overall effect on those investigated will be the same and the film showed that very well.

As always, those sitting in armchairs and offices will 'know better'. But they are the real villains.

stickandrudderman
16th Dec 2016, 23:47
I'd still like to know why he elected not to use full flap!

Hempy
17th Dec 2016, 00:47
I'd still like to know why he elected not to use full flap!

From the NTSB Investigation Report;

2.3.4 Decision to Use Flaps 2 for Ditching

The Airbus and US Airways engine dual failure checklists indicated that only blue hydraulic power would be available and, therefore, that only slats would extend when configuring for landing. Although the dual-engine failure certification assessed this worst-case scenario, the possibility of having green and yellow hydraulic systems available was also considered. FDR data indicated that, during the accident event, all three (green, blue, and yellow) hydraulic systems were available and that the flight crew was able to extend flaps and slats. In the accident scenario, the NTSB notes that the selection of flaps 3 would have allowed the airplane to fly at a lower airspeed.

At 1529:45, when the airplane was at an altitude of about 270 feet, the captain instructed the first officer to set the flaps. The first officer then stated that they were at flaps 2 and asked the captain if he “want[ed] more?” The captain replied, “no, let’s stay at 2.” About 1 minute later, the airplane was ditched on the Hudson River.

During postaccident interviews, the captain stated that he used flaps 2 because there were “operational advantages to using flaps 2.” He stated that using flaps 3 would not have lowered the stall speed significantly and would have increased the drag. He stated that he was concerned about having enough energy to successfully flare the airplane and reduce the descent rate sufficiently. He stated that, from his experience, using flaps 2 provides a slightly higher nose attitude and that he felt that, in the accident situation, flaps 2 was the optimum setting.

The NTSB concludes that the captain’s decision to use flaps 2 for the ditching, based on his experience and perception of the situation, was reasonable and consistent with the limited civilian industry and military guidance that was available regarding forced landings of large aircraft without power.

stickandrudderman
17th Dec 2016, 08:37
From the NTSB Investigation Report;

Thanks, what he achieved just gets better and better!

LookingForAJob
17th Dec 2016, 09:42
I have watched a lot of aviation-related films and I am usually very critical of 'imperfections'. This film was accurate in every aspect that it covered.Maybe so from the pilot's perspective, but having been a controller for many years I'm afraid I can't say the same for the representation of ATC in the film.

Nonetheless, I thought it an interesting, thought-provoking and enjoyable film.

Seldomfitforpurpose
17th Dec 2016, 10:04
Nit picking from me but why did both the pilots in the simulators continue to operate the throttles after the sim had failed both engines?

If the film is true to story and the sim exercise back to La Guardian was practiced 17 times to get it right then clearly there was some skullduggery was afoot.

Pace
17th Dec 2016, 10:43
The other point with full flaps is the drag pitching motion they would cause on impact with the water
The biggest worry must be the aircraft breaking up
The aircraft remained afloat allowing the passengers to walk out onto the wings in a relatively dry and orderly fashion with no loss of life

Had there been a larger incursion of water the fatality rate would have increased substantially
I noted a huge chunk of not just skill but Luck in this water landing

Greek God
17th Dec 2016, 11:11
Small point but on the visuals the RAT didn't appear to be deployed.
Impressed from the report that it remained attached and undamaged after impact.
In general, excellent and a further reminder of how we can go from obscurity to intense public scrutiny in a heartbeat. The stressors of that must be 10 times worse. The book on the BA engine freeze on final is another example of the public and press pressure.

RAT 5
9th Jun 2017, 11:03
I just saw the film for the first time. In general, as a drama, it was fine. Technically there are always some nit-picking questions.

Even little touches like Hanks / Sully releasing shoulder straps immediately after gear up. Non-SOP but we either do it or know people that do, and gives the impression of a real, experienced pilot..

Maybe, but Hanks also only re-strapped in at very low height. Surely not.

I was also astonished at the 'bracing' of the pilots even with shoulder harnesses. They have recoil inertia locks, plus manual locks. The single arm did nothing except result in possible broken shoulder.
Even the pax had out-stretched arms on the seat back. That was shown, decades ago, to increase broken shoulders and so most airlines now advise head down and arms over your head.

If the film is true to story and the sim exercise back to La Guardian was practiced 17 times to get it right then clearly there was some skullduggery was afoot.

Indeed. I have to assume that was true as it casts bad light on Airbus & NTSB & the insurers. But is it true? Good call Sully.

but the completely fictitious way in which the investigators were cast as villains has left me with a diminished respect for Captain Sullenberger and Clint Eastwood.
I've read that Sully didn't agree, with that aspect, and insisted that the names of the NTSB Board were fictitious in the film, to protect the innocent, who although obviously asking the questions, as they had to, did not act as portrayed.


Indeed. That was just sensationalism, and I wonder why: unless it was similar to some cop films where the rogue detective is seen to be smarter than the desk jockey bureaucratic chief. The sequence of attempted turn-backs by AB test pilots led to just this after Sully claimed 35secs. I found it sad that the NTSB enquiry was depicted as a Middle Ages Mccarthy type inquisition. I would have expected the NTSB to have been aggressively opposed to that. They are a professional national agency, and on ACI are depicted as thorough & unhurried in their search for the truth. Is it also true that such a very early investigation would have been public? Did that really happen? Surely not.

All in all a good fair and entertaining film. The public might not have a fully correct overview of events, but they do have the correct conclusions. Not everybody watches ACI.