"Sully"

I'm sure others can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe simulations were run to see if he could have made it back to the airport, but the movie added quite a bit of unnecessary drama.



Mark

 

If you make the turn and do not make it to the airport, everybody dies, plus an unknown number of casualties on the ground. There are hundreds of dead pilots who tried that turn and died that might have made it if they had continued ahead and made the best crash landing they could. I know of examples all the way back to WW-I, the most famous of whom was McCudden.

 

Airplane accidents are pilot error until proven otherwise, sad to say. I remember reading about an experimental pilot who had an engine failure shortly after takeoff. Investigation found a large amount of sand or some similar substance in his fuel tank. NTSB blamed thr pilot for not ensuring the fuel system integrity. Pilot says his plane was sabotaged(and iirc provided evidence of same.)

 

I knew several pilots who elected to make "the turn" after engine failure to get back to the airport or runway. I can think of three right now that are no longer here because of the turn. One of them had a smooth plowed field about 12 deg. to his right and he elected to try to turn back to the strip. I can still hear my instructor yelling after cutting power on take off or during a maneuver, " STRAIGHT AHEAD, NOSE DOWN! STRAIGHT AHEAD!"

 

Bob- Affirmative, in addition to not having the energy to make it back, many stalled during the turn and died with no airspeed and lots of sink rate.

 

The cowboy that crashed the B-52 in Spokane was a prime example of what happens with low airspeed and trying to make a steep turn. The same thing occurred with a C-17 in Alaska when the hot dogging pilot ate up all his energy and airspeed by some steep turns and climbs and then made one last steep turn and went in the same way as the B-52. One of the commandments: "Thou shall maintain airspeed lest the earth arise and smite thee."

 

And I think they'll find that was the same thing that happened with the Mallard that just went down in Australia.

 

Was thinking the same thing... sure looks like it.

Thought of the B-52 while I was watching the Mallard video.

 

Affirmative, by 90 degrees of bank, it takes an infinite number of "g"s to maintain level flight, regardless of airspeed. Nose high unusual attitude training for fighters was to go to mil, roll to 90 degrees of bank whichever way was shortest to let the nose fall through (and it did, very quickly) until you reach the horizon and roll wings level.

 

Except the B-52 was well known cowboy from all I have read and Peter in the Mallard was definitely not.. so apart from some superficial initial comparisons that's about as far as you can go down that path, if even that far.. we all downunder patiently await the reasons behind what happened.

 

Alex- Sorry about your friend. Hopefully the accident report will shed more light on what caused her to stall.

 

There was no intention to compare the Mallard to those mentioned. No way right now to know what happened there. I think that I did notice an increase in power before they hit and it was obvious that he wasn't hotdogging.

 

I think the question was, did the movie accurately depict the FAA investigation of the accident?

From my understanding the FAA was not happy with their depiction in the movie calling their accusations as shown in the movie false and Sullenberger suggested there was some creative liberties taken with respect to that. It sounded like Sullenberger was trying to find middle ground with the FAA and Clint Eastwood.

 

Sorry, I wasn't making a comment on your friend or the reason for the stall (medical, mechanical?). I was just commenting on the stall itself.

Did not mean to imply that he was hotdogging like the B-52 pilot.

 

From what I was reading it is fairly accurate. However keep in mind that it is showbiz so a little over the top is what we should expect.

The comments above do sum it up though! They ran tests to determine if he could have turned around. If he could have than Sully would have put lives in danger by putting it into the water vs turning around.

 

B52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pviuk_WuwmM

C-17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrngajyaPx4\

Mallard Crash

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2017/jan/27/plane-crashes-into-perths-swan-river-as-thousands-look-on-video

 

Tamas- That is assuming nothing else went wrong, like an engine coming apart with pieces flying about. Sully made the best decision with the information he had and I agree with it. He knew he had enough airspeed to get to the Hudson, even with further problems, but did not know for sure he could turn and make it. Results are more valuable than Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

This. 100% this.



Mark

 

Cheers and thanks.

When interviewed on-air about it and was asked cause I felt all I could fairly say was to point to 3 general areas which could produce any tragedy: Pilot judgement, Mechanical or Medical.. and leave it at that until we get facts in and be patient for them..

The interview is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8yEUiekZsU&t=6s

 

Would be expected, as testing/simulation is part of almost every accident investigation these days. The critical thing to remember (and this is just a general comment not directed towards anyone) is that Sully and his crew had very little if any advance warning, unlike those participating with the testing/simulation. Hard to add the human nature aspect into testing and despite any amount of training there are certain situations, such as this one, where immediate ingrained action will not occur nor is necessarily warranted.

 

God that sucks, well done interview if you can call it that under the circumstances. Did I gather that he was helping to build a residential air park in Australia and had done so in the US? And the Mallard was absolutely stunning. I can only imagine the last moments when the sight of the water filled their windscreen. Just tragic. I Pray none of us here ever see that sight. And no none knows at his time, but it does look similar in some ways to the other you tube videos. Of course that does not mean that is what happened. RIP

 

Thank you.

He was instrumental in getting so-close-to-approval-now airpark http://www.evansheadairpark.com.au at historic WW2 Evans Head https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_Head_Memorial_Aerodrome

A bit like a fire jumping a firebreak the nearby town limits have jumped the road separating runway surrounds and the town and now encroached on the "natural" catchment of the aerodrome with a single row of lots "airside" and will destroy the clear view across to the runway and end up looking like yet another suburban street.

The developers I'm sure would love nothing better than to keep going and turn it into yet another carpet development of tightly packed homes and move on and losing the unique and historic location forever.

I hope with Peter's passing something can be done in keeping the push forward to resist this and keep the airpark development concept approved and up and running..

We don't have many airparks here but have a million ugly and bland residential carpet developments.. we don't need another.. and especially at the expense of losing something unique. I know which one i'd prefer to see win out.

----

I can't imagine the unimaginable horror of seeing from the windscreen view.

Peter's funeral is tomorrow. RIP and fair skies..

 

When I was still in California I lived very close to him. I didn't know him but knew people who did. When all that happened he was a big time home town hero but no one knew better than he how lucky he was. If he had turned for an airport he would have been justly criticized for risking a lot of people assuming he had made it. No question he did the right thing. The only people at risk were on the aircraft, not great but the better of 2 lousy options.

I still have not confirmed it but I heard his first comment after the landing when it all subsided and the plane was floating was "that went better than I expected".

 

I had the opportunity (and pleasure) to listen to Capt Sully last night (our local little airport was celebrating its 50th anniversary and he flew in as the guest of honor and did a talk, Q&A, and then we watched the film).

During audience Q&A, one of the first questions was "was the NTSD really that adversarial?"

His answer was appropriately nuanced and very careful. Paraphrasing, he said that Clint Eastwood was responsible for telling the story and making it interesting. And, Clint knew that the story needed an antagonist. So...the NTSB guys were painted as they were (he added that his input was not always sought nor followed, but he did say that he was happy with the accuracy of the flying scenes/comms). Sully went on to say that the NTSB process is appropriately stressful, exhaustive, does not jump to conclusions prematurely, and was not confrontational. He has immense respect for the entire process and all participants and views it as a very necessary and effective piece of the overall safety environment.

As a follow-up, someone asked "how long before you knew that the water was the only/best place to put the aircraft down"?

His answer was (paraphrasing again); I suspected it from the beginning because I had flown into and out of the NYC area many, many times and had high Situational Awareness. I had thought about what to do and what the options would be for emergency landing there many times. I knew the distances and options thoroughly before I boarded that flight that day. After losing thrust, with ATC we reviewed the two other options (return to LGA and Teterboro) and quickly realized we would not safely make it with high enough confidence and going down before the runway over land would be a bad outcome.

Finally, he was wonderful to listen to throughout, but one great/memorable line was this:

He talked about the challenge of landing on water (too steep is bad, flaring too early could be a drop to the water, also bad), and after the plane came to a stop on the water, he said both he and Jeff Skiles said "that wasn't so bad"!