Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sully (Miracle of the Hudson movie)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sully (Miracle of the Hudson movie)

    Too soon?

    In theaters September 9!http://sully-movie.comhttps://facebook.com/sullymovieRead the book that inspired the movie: http://goo.gl/8SzZrQFrom Oscar-winning di...
    AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

    Originally posted by orangehuggy
    the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

  • #2
    Sullenberger, The Movie

    I just found out about this, releasing in September. I'm curious to see how technically accurate it will be. It seems to be mostly about the the fame and scrutiny Sullenberger went through after the crash... er... forced water landing.



    At one point in the trailer a man informs him that "the left engine was still operating". Well, first of all, both engines were still operating but unable to produce useful thrust. Secondly, Sully himself already knew this because he observed this on the CVR. It is an entirely irrelevant fact in any case. But as I recall, the press pounced on every detail.

    What is missing on the trailer is the real bit of pilot error that caused the impact damage and water ingress: lack of focus on airspeed. Sully was below green dot and even below VLS during the descent and well below VLS in the last 150 feet. He pulled full aft to attempt the flare but the Alpha Protect limited the pitch response to about 3.5° below critical angle and thus the high vertical rate at impact. If not for the Alpha Protect, a wing stall could have occurred, resulting in a catastrophic loss of life, but perhaps Sully knew he still had the protections and the aft stick was a safe move.

    The final report exonerates him for this error as understandable under the stress and time compression.

    Anyway, given the techical nature of that bit of pilot error, I would be surprised to see it depicted in the film. So I'm curious as to how this technical story can be told to a mainstream audience.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      I just found out about this, releasing in September. I'm curious to see how technically accurate it will be. It seems to be mostly about the the fame and scrutiny Sullenberger went through after the crash... er... forced water landing.



      At one point in the trailer a man informs him that "the left engine was still operating". Well, first of all, both engines were still operating but unable to produce useful thrust. Secondly, Sully himself already knew this because he observed this on the CVR. It is an entirely irrelevant fact in any case. But as I recall, the press pounced on every detail.

      What is missing on the trailer is the real bit of pilot error that caused the impact damage and water ingress: lack of focus on airspeed. Sully was below green dot and even below VLS during the descent and well below VLS in the last 150 feet. He pulled full aft to attempt the flare but the Alpha Protect limited the pitch response to about 3.5° below critical angle and thus the high vertical rate at impact. If not for the Alpha Protect, a wing stall could have occurred, resulting in a catastrophic loss of life, but perhaps Sully knew he still had the protections and the aft stick was a safe move.

      The final report exonerates him for this error as understandable under the stress and time compression.

      Anyway, given the techical nature of that bit of pilot error, I would be surprised to see it depicted in the film. So I'm curious as to how this technical story can be told to a mainstream audience.
      If it's with Tom Hanks, It's guaranteed to be a good movie (regardless of it's technical accuracy).

      I think that one of the engines finally was fully flamed out bey when they reached the water.

      In another part of the trailer a man says "Simulation showed that you could make it back to the Airport", to what Sully replies "Not possible". I don't know if this dialogue really existed in real life, but the logical answer would have been "Good, you should have given me the simulation results before take off".

      I remember in an interview he said something like "The Hudson was the only surface long enough, wide enough and smooth enough that I knew I could reach".
      I always thought that "knew" was the operative word there.

      The fact is that, in the simulations, some crews managed to make it back to La Guardia and some didn't. But even if all of them whould have made it back with a few hundreds of feet to spare, the situation is the same. Sully didn't know it. Very well he might have thought "Perhaps I can make it back, but what if later I find I can't? What are the options then? It's safer to land under control in a place where I know I can make it easily, I can't miss it, rather that risking something with a possible perfect outcome but also with a possible catastrophic one, for my plane and for people on the ground."

      Regardless of whether he could have made it back or not, the decision was perfect and a very tough one to make. It's hard for a pilot to know that you will not be able to complete the mission, and now, on top of that, he is now deciding not to aim to the tempting safety of a runway and go instead for the water, where he knows the airplane will be totaled and there may be many casualties, but it is still the safest course of action. Very very tough decision. I imagine many pilots in his shoes would have attempted to go back to the airport, and most of them would have failed to reach the runway, most of them with catastrophic consequences.

      For that decision, and not hand-flying a successful water landing, he is my hero (even against his will).

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

        In another part of the trailer a man says "Simulation showed that you could make it back to the Airport", to what Sully replies "Not possible". I don't know if this dialogue really existed in real life, but the logical answer would have been "Good, you should have given me the simulation results before take off".
        Absolutely. The final report found that after a delay of 35 seconds at least one of the sims couldn't make it back to LGA. Sully seemed very composed about CRM and was probably intent of getting situational awareness before deciding where to go. That would have peobably taken more than 35 seconds.

        Clint Eastwood directed so I'm expecting something techically researched
        .

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          ...In another part of the trailer a man says "Simulation showed that you could make it back to the Airport"...The fact is that, in the simulations, some crews managed to make it back to La Guardia and some didn't...It's safer to land under control in a place where I know I can make it...rather that risking something with a [very] possible...catastrophic [outcome] for my plane and for people on the ground..."
          Ok to analyze from the arm-chair, but at the end of the day, and in-context, to ask, "What would/should another human being do differently given this circumstance, with zero forewarning and training"...not much!

          But, hey, couldn't someone develop an intuitive, easy-to-use, I-phone app to calculate and plot turns back to the airport in the event of total power failures? [Which of course, as appropriate, would display the classic message, "You're best bet is "straight ahead" (minor directional deviations excepted)"]

          Originally posted by Evan
          ...below green dot...VLS...Alpha Protect...
          Sounds like lines right out of Hollywood...heavy on jargon, light on information...
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            If it's with Tom Hanks, It's guaranteed to be a good movie (regardless of it's technical accuracy).
            Oh, I don't know..."Big" was nothing special...

            Comment


            • #7
              Are you kidding? Great was big!!! (oops, sorry, the other way around). And that was 1988.
              You could have chosen a worse movie with Tom Hanks, like... "He Knows You're Alone". Which was in 1980.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment

              Working...
              X