he report tells us (and shows us) the lightning damage- as determined over a matter of months at 0 knots and 0 feet AGL.
Would you have blamed Sully for aiming for the river instead of returning to La Guardia if the engineering simulations and flight simulations showed that different crews were able to safely reach La Guardia with some margin and safely land, every single time that it was attempted? Of course not. In that case Sully would just (and rightfully) say "you should have given me this information when I was up there".
Sully said "the river was the only surface that was long enough, wide enough and smooth enough that I knew I could reach"
That said, I don't want to err on the opposite side either. I don't know what the pilots knew and how they judged the condition of the plane at the moment. It may very well be the case that there was no reason to judge that the plane was unsafe to fly and an immediate landing was required no matter what. The pilots decided to land instead of go around even when they had multiple reasons to go around before and after the touch down. But we don't know (at least yet) how was their thought process to say if it was good or bad judgement on their part. The fact that they didn't even discussed a go around at any point (for example, they didn't say "committed to land, no go around", but neither briefed a go around, and they didn't even said a word upon the 2.5 cycles (5 repetitions) of the "GO AROUND, WINDSHEAR AHEAD" warning (which REQUIRED a go around unless they used the PIC prerogative to deviate from any requirement in the name of safety) is indicative of a breakdown at least in CRM, if not in judgement too.
Leave a comment: