So it finally came to Netflix and I got into the brace position and watched it expecting an ill-informed Hollywood movie. It's actually pretty realistic. The SIM sessions are flown by actual pilots. Acronyms are thrown about correctly. Sure, there is fire streaming out of the bypass, but overall, not as much eyerolling as I anticipated.
One thing though: there is a moment just before the ditching where the camera shows a close up of the PFD. I froze this to see if they would show an airspeed below green dot (as was determined to be a cause of the high decent rate and damage on touchdown). There is, in fact, no green dot on the speed tape, but rather a message: SET GREEN DOT SPEED. A Hollywood oversight or an intentional omission (Sully was a technical advisor for the film)?
I also find it hard to believe that the NTSB lead investigator would take an accusative stance as depicted in the film. I think the NTSB is well aquainted with human factors. But it makes for a more dramatic story I guess.
The most realistic thing in the film though is the lesson, that, after sudden and overwhelming events, it is unrealistic to expect instant decisiveness and optimum performance from human beings, but staying cool-headed, retaining effective CRM, running procedures and seat-of-pants flying that gets the plane down with everyone intact is certainly praiseworthy.
The actual time from the bird strike to the navigational turn was 58 seconds. I attribute this to the expectation that at least one of the engines could be relit. They are designed to withstand bird strikes (up to 8lbs, not fattened geese) and often only result in a recoverable compressor stall.
There is also a moment in the film when the investigation reveals that the left engine was "completely destroyed". It wasn't; it was still turning on impact, but not producing effective thrust. The investigator concludes that "the ACARS data was wrong." Is that true?
One thing though: there is a moment just before the ditching where the camera shows a close up of the PFD. I froze this to see if they would show an airspeed below green dot (as was determined to be a cause of the high decent rate and damage on touchdown). There is, in fact, no green dot on the speed tape, but rather a message: SET GREEN DOT SPEED. A Hollywood oversight or an intentional omission (Sully was a technical advisor for the film)?
I also find it hard to believe that the NTSB lead investigator would take an accusative stance as depicted in the film. I think the NTSB is well aquainted with human factors. But it makes for a more dramatic story I guess.
The most realistic thing in the film though is the lesson, that, after sudden and overwhelming events, it is unrealistic to expect instant decisiveness and optimum performance from human beings, but staying cool-headed, retaining effective CRM, running procedures and seat-of-pants flying that gets the plane down with everyone intact is certainly praiseworthy.
The actual time from the bird strike to the navigational turn was 58 seconds. I attribute this to the expectation that at least one of the engines could be relit. They are designed to withstand bird strikes (up to 8lbs, not fattened geese) and often only result in a recoverable compressor stall.
There is also a moment in the film when the investigation reveals that the left engine was "completely destroyed". It wasn't; it was still turning on impact, but not producing effective thrust. The investigator concludes that "the ACARS data was wrong." Is that true?
Comment