Who's seen Sully the movie?

[Litespeed]

As per always credit goes to the top and blame will too when its a cockpit.

 

This offcourse is a unnatural system as we all know generally blame gravitates downwards

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Just downloaded and watched it. It was ok, nothing more.

 

Maybe they should have called it "Hindsight" instead.

 

I am always hearing about the Captain (Sully) but what about the FO Jeff Skiles, you never hear about him much.

Did you see that movie "Robin the Boy Wonder"? No, cause it doesn't exist.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Aside from the movie, bit disappointed with the whole incident.I am always hearing about the Captain (Sully) but what about the FO Jeff Skiles, you never hear about him much.

 

It was not just Sully flying that aircraft !!

 

Also the cabin crew was involved, seems all we hear is Sully the hero !

 

Jeff Skiles Speaker - Co-Pilot of U.S. Airways Flight 1549, "The Miracle on the Hudson" - Keynote Fee & Cost Info - Book Today!

One of the better points in the movie for me was how it and in fact Sully kept highlighting that it was a full team effort. At no stage did I think through the movie that he thought anything else.

 

The other highlight was his obvious care for the welfare of his passengers and crew.

 

At the end of the day though it was the captain who would have worn any blame.

 

 

[facthunter]

The "BUCK" stops with the skipper. No one can relieve him of that role. He can consult with and obtain information form ALL sources and would be encouraged to do so but at the end it's the CAPTAIN (not PF) who bears ALL responsibility. The river was a more certain destination as far as making it was concerned. Have I seen It? NO and won't . I've read the book written by the Capt and assessed it from another pilot's point of view, as no doubt many Pilot's have and I think I know as much as most would how critical the situation was and the last thing you need is a delay in making a decision. If there was a say, 80% chance you could make a runway, would you risk ALL the people's lives as not making it would have done or know you can reach the river and concentrate on doing that in the best and safest way possible. It's the sort of decision most pilot's hope they will never be faced with, where there is no GUARANTEED good outcome where there will be NO damage. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

NO-haven't seen the movie. YES - read the book plus dozens of reviews

 

From an instructing viewpoint: the crew procedures were a great example for anyone faced with a total power loss:

 

1. they kept it flying and adopted best glide speed asap

 

2. they almost immediately turned toward the 'clearest' area

 

3. they made a conservative decision not to extend the glide

 

4. they avoided any chance of collision with buildings, towers, boats

 

5. they 'flew' the aircraft right to a fully controlled touchdown

 

They got all the fundamental stuff right in a very short time. This was a very public display of excellent flying and airmanship.

 

But to all of the GA and RAAus pilots in Australia who have successfully saved their bird and skins after a total power loss.........congratulations: you are in Sullys' class too.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Robbo]

Well had a few hours to kill and walked past the cinema and saw it was starting at 12:05 and that was in 5 minutes so said what the hell.

 

Went in, watched it and agree it is a good movie but one thing I hate about all movies is the way the split things up and then goes back over like they kept reverting back to the incident, Confusing the way they do that.

 

Overall good movie. 7/10 for me. Must say first time I have been to a cinema in years.

 

 

[cooperplace]

It was not just Sully flying that aircraft !!

Also the cabin crew was involved, seems all we hear is Sully the hero !

yep; Sully did a great job, just like the rest of the crew.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

4. they avoided any chance of collision with buildings, towers,

I believe that's the only one needed to justify the decision. He probably considered the chances of them dying were very high but the guarantee of not taking others out as well was a better decision.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I know the investigators had to look at the possibility that he could've made it to a nearby airport but Sullenberger was the one in the hot-seat, and trying to glide a powerless aircraft across the city in the "chance" that you could make it there would've been a very hard decision. The consequences of not quite getting it right are extreme.

 

Especially as the aircraft doesn't really give you many clues as to how far it'll actually go (or how that will change with flap selection to get your speed back, etc) and while you do train for temporary dual engine flameouts from higher altitudes, you don't train for glide approaches in big jets because they're so extremely improbable.

 

The best he could do was hit "green dot" speed (min drag for an Airbus) and stay there while looking for somewhere without buildings, even if it was the water.

 

I haven't seen the movie but I have seen the CVR transcript. They did well with very little time available!

 

 

[facthunter]

Gimli glider and another in the Atlantic had longish glides, and there's another hijack incident, all fuel exhaustion, and the BOAC 747 with volcanic ash that lost 4 but recovered a bit of power..Wouldn't hurt to have a "guide" to how many "air" track miles can be achieved from certain levels. Most wouldn't know how well an Airliner can glide. From most cruising levels you would make 140 NM taking over 20 minutes. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I know the investigators had to look at the possibility that he could've made it to a nearby airport but Sullenberger was the one in the hot-seat, and trying to glide a powerless aircraft across the city in the "chance" that you could make it there would've been a very hard decision. The consequences of not quite getting it right are extreme.Especially as the aircraft doesn't really give you many clues as to how far it'll actually go (or how that will change with flap selection to get your speed back, etc) and while you do train for temporary dual engine flameouts from higher altitudes, you don't train for glide approaches in big jets because they're so extremely improbable.

 

The best he could do was hit "green dot" speed (min drag for an Airbus) and stay there while looking for somewhere without buildings, even if it was the water.

 

I haven't seen the movie but I have seen the CVR transcript. They did well with very little time available!

If you accept that the movie is a drama movie and not a documentary, and that scenes had to be shot for box office financial recovery (so the theme is the human side), I think you'll be happy with it.

Sully was on the set all the time, and Tom Hanks in an interview said he had one of the first copies of the script, and even after one segment had been cut out/shortened, he still insisted on going over it to get Hanks to understand what the real issues were with that segment.

 

They did tweak the NTSB involvement from what NTSB routinely does, to make it look as if NTSB had an agenda to prove force landinsg could have been made, and with the benefit of hindsight that wasn't fair to NTSB, but it was dramatic license to make it clear to the audience, of which probably less than 5% would understand the technicalities, just how good the combined actions were.

 

Some people have suggested it was all focused on Sully being a hero, but they must have missed the parts where all the key players were highlighted including the cabin crew.

 

I don't think anyone could put themselves in their shoes, and know exactly what THEY would have done.

 

 

[johnm]

how does 24:1 sound ? - glide ratio for a big bird - numbers from post 35

 

cruise ? - 35,000 ft

 

140 nm - 850,000 ft

 

glide = 24:1

 

 

[bushcaddy105]

Saw it 2 days ago. If you take it for what is intended (a great story BASED on fact), it is extremely well done. Meant a lot to us as Sully and Skiles were guest speakers at the International visitors welcome at Airventure 2009 - barely 6 months after the event. It was awe-inspiring to hear their story first-hand.

 

 

[octave]

If you accept that the movie is a drama movie and not a documentary, and that scenes had to be shot for box office financial recovery (so the theme is the human side), I think you'll be happy with it.Sully was on the set all the time, and Tom Hanks in an interview said he had one of the first copies of the script, and even after one segment had been cut out/shortened, he still insisted on going over it to get Hanks to understand what the real issues were with that segment.

 

They did tweak the NTSB involvement from what NTSB routinely does, to make it look as if NTSB had an agenda to prove force landinsg could have been made, and with the benefit of hindsight that wasn't fair to NTSB, but it was dramatic license to make it clear to the audience, of which probably less than 5% would understand the technicalities, just how good the combined actions were.

 

Some people have suggested it was all focused on Sully being a hero, but they must have missed the parts where all the key players were highlighted including the cabin crew.

 

I don't think anyone could put themselves in their shoes, and know exactly what THEY would have done.

Totally agree with your assessment turbs. Whilst leaving the cinema I listened to the comments of other audience members and I think it is clear that us pilots probably see it through a different lens to the non pilot viewers. It is a shame the movie needed a bad guy but I suppose if it stuck exactly to the facts it would end up being an episode of Air Crash Investigation.

 

Interestingly I saw this movie at the Sun theatre Yarraville, the owner recently did an around the world trip in a 2 seat amphibious aircraft. When I went into the cinema this guy was just packing up after giving a lecture to a school group about his trip. He show us a picture of him landing on the Hudson River in his amphibious aircraft. I would have prefered skipping the movie and having a chat to this guy!

 

No Cookies | Herald Sun

 

But back to Sully. These quotes are from an interesting critique of the movie:

 

In fact, in his memoir, Sullenberger reflects that he was “buoyed by the fact that investigators determined that Jeff and I made appropriate choices at every step”. When he and Skiles were invited to the cockpit voice recorder playback, Sullenberger notes the investigators were eager for the opportunity to hear the pilots’ thoughts. As he describes, the playback happened four months after the flight in a room with six people. Yet in Sully the playback occurs days after the flight before a packed kangaroo court. The exhausted pilots are hounded by ankle-biting bureaucrats, and presented with incriminating simulations that show test pilots easily making runway landings.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the investigators are embarrassed into decency. Sullenberger achieves victory by demanding – essentially from the dock – that the simulations include the time needed for adequate situational assessment.

 

 

 

In reality, investigators first asked simulator pilots to attempt airport landings immediately after engine loss to establish the bounds of practicality. Notably, even with the benefit of perfect hindsight, barely half of these optimal test runs made it back. And then the investigators – not Sullenberger – asked a pilot to wait 35 seconds before attempting an airport return. That flight didn’t make it. Consequently, the NTSB was unequivocal in its declaration that the Hudson was the right call.

 

 

Anyway, I enjoyed it!

 

 

[dutchroll]

It is a shame the movie needed a bad guy but I suppose if it stuck exactly to the facts it would end up being an episode of Air Crash Investigation.

Not even ACI is guaranteed to be totally free of poetic and dramatic licence.

A friend of mine was actually on the flight deck of the QF32 incident. The ACI depiction of the First Officer in their version of it was pretty much of a goggle-eyed pilot anxiously looking to Captain de Crespigny for guidance. My friend's personal eyewitness account was very different. It was of a First Officer totally in control and methodically working through the situation as a team member, as well as actually keeping it on the rails when it looked like getting sidetracked!

 

 

[Marty_d]

Not even ACI is guaranteed to be totally free of poetic and dramatic licence.A friend of mine was actually on the flight deck of the QF32 incident. The ACI depiction of the First Officer in their version of it was pretty much of a goggle-eyed pilot anxiously looking to Captain de Crespigny for guidance. My friend's personal eyewitness account was very different. It was of a First Officer totally in control and methodically working through the situation as a team member, as well as actually keeping it on the rails when it looked like getting sidetracked!

What did your mate think of Richard de Crespigny's book?

 

 

[facthunter]

I've been involved with quite a few investigations of incidents, some of which could have become as dramatic as this.. I've always had a fairly intense interest in these things. My role was to ensure the pilots and other crew get a fair go and can freely present their side of things. Often the accusing bodies take literally months to assess a situation which the crew must decide on in seconds. Often they will completely overlook some feature that was part of the decision that reverses their judgement once it becomes accepted it's a significant factor. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

What did your mate think of Richard de Crespigny's book?

He has refused to read it, as far as I know.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

What did your mate think of Richard de Crespigny's book?

Yeah, was there any de sCrepancies?

 

 

[dutchroll]

Yeah, was there any de sCrepancies?

I think the objection is predominantly the self-serving nature of a lot of what went on afterwards including internal things you'd only know about if you were in the employee loop, perhaps not helped by the odd embellishment or slightly hazy recollection here and there. I realise this is considered part of human nature, but in this case there was only one member of the entire crew who did it. The rest just got on with life.

 

 

[facthunter]

They are all very lucky to have the opportunity to do just that. Nev

 

 

[bob.carlos]

I thought it was a great movie, I also thought the NTSB came across accurately. However if I ever saw Tom Hanks getting on a ship, spaceship or aircraft I was about to board, I would change my method of travel.

 

 

[Bernie Knight]

The members of Geelong Sports Aviators at Lethbridge - YLED - organized a movie night in Geelong last Wednesday. Fourteen of us whom attended made up a total of eighteen in the theatre, pity as I thought it is a very good movie.

 

I agree the investigators once challenged with reducing the simulator response by the 30 odd seconds - trying not to spoil it for those that haven't seen it - certainly capitulated. It is also interesting that the simulator runs had no interaction with the air traffic controllers and the options the controllers were giving. All of that would have taken up time.

 

At the end of the day, I feel Sullenberger did a fantastic job and as the Captain deserves the accolades and he did constantly and immediately acknowledged all of his crew throughout.

 

A few things that I particularly took in were just how financially under pressure Sully was and how both he and his wife were under pressure from the media.

 

I left thinking the media saw him as a hero, as did the passengers and I was thinking yes he did a fantastic job. The way in which he ran up and down the isle checking and then agonising that he had everyone safe on land show his character.

 

Don't leave the theatre until the credits finish - I stayed and left with a lump in my throat as I watched the real passengers step up and state their seat number and listened to The actual Sully and the actual crew and passengers - very telling.

 

Yes rate it maybe a high 8.

 

If the Second Officer gets $10,000 to $20,000 for a speaking engagement, maybe Sully will not have a finance problem moving forward. Not to mention his advisor fee that Clint Eastwood would have paid.

 

 

[MikeBravoYanky]

Just an aside,The Mt Erebus crash in the antarctic, THEY (we know who there are) tried to blame the pilot for bad navigation, raided his home to take everything from there.

Even though the government Changed the flight map to remove a mistake that all pilots knew about, Without telling anyone.

 

spacesailor

Best movies.. based on true events.. I can well accept the NTSB attitude.. they're lawyers remember! CASA legal very much worse. I have a criminal conviction from them based on lies and fraud.. Just completed hearings at the AAT trying to save my PPL(A).. no decision yet. But RAAus will not let me join or register my SupaPup until the AAT decision is made. Seeing 'Sully' it was like re-living the nightmare.. only it was not a dream.

 

 

[M61A1]