I don’t know the person, but at the end of the day the result was great.
If we can learn something that’s great but I think it is a foolish pilot who lays scorn on a fellow pilot who got the end result we see here. I wouldn’t dare lest I be tested next week.

How could you have been in Singapore when the A380 incident occurred, but hear a rumour that they had tried to replicate the exact scenario in the sim but failed? It would’ve taken weeks to learn what exactly had happened and programmed it into a simulator session so I don’t see how it’s possible.

It was a remarkable feat of airmanship achieved by all crew on the flight deck that day, more demanding than a simple engine failure but by no means was it a miraculous outcome that any other crew placed in the same situation would have failed in.

Control the aircraft after the failure, prioritise the important ECAM actions to set the aircraft up for landing, land and control the situation on the ground. It wasn’t something that has baffled investigators and mystified pilots, those pilots onboard that day simply used their professionalism, experience and knowledge to achieve a safe result. I’ve no doubt every well trained crew would’ve achieved a similar result in the same situation.

I was chatting to an Airbus Safety investigator about this incident a few months after and he said that Airbus were a bit dismayed as to why it took so long to get the aircraft back on the ground as there were no longer runways available for them to return to but a lot of time was wasted trying to find the perfect mix of entries to the performance software to generate a result that showed they could land when in reality the fiddling with the numbers didn’t change the reality of the situation just meant lots more time spent in the air with a LAND ASAP. He also said that the crew hadn’t done anything extra special and that any average A380 crew could have recovered the aircraft safely, I got the feeling this was a bit of a dig at the QF32 Captain who was on a bit of a book tour at the time spreading the story that he pretty much single handily recovered the crippled aircraft against all odds.

It has nothing to do with the ABC’s reporting of which I do concur has a lot of diatribe at times.
It was all to do with what “HE” said about the incident, his words not the reporters.
if you read the story on the ABC’s web site you will understand.

/facepalm

and whoever tried going at me about downplaying the Qantas emergency, it wasn't exactly a combination of excellent CRM, all round teamwork and flying skills like the Hudson flight! There simply is no comparison.

The biggest challenge for the Qantas crew was working out if the beast was going to land and stop on the runway... and have you seen the runway length? The biggest challenge for the Hudson crew was where to put it down and keeping it in one piece!

Some of the opprobrium directed towards RDC comes from https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...as-ir-war.html

He went on to the front page of the Australian, shortly after the airline was shutdown during an IR dispute, and used his notoriety to throw his colleagues under a bus. This was perhaps to advance his own prospects at a management job as all pilots know the consequences of speaking to the media ‘out of school’. It was a betrayal.

Interestingly, seven years later, RDC continues to enjoy those legacy conditions he railed against.

DirectAnywhere has hit the nail on the head.

When Sully landed on the Hudson and found himself an instant celebrity he used his celebrity to advance the cause of all pilots in th US by pushing for more rigorous safety standards.

When RDC found himself an instant celebrity he used it to line his own pockets and threw his colleagues under a bus industrially.

To those that had encountered him before the incident was he always like this? And did the incident simply exaggerate his...erm personality?