Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sully

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

  • Sully

    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?

  • #2
    The movie starts near the end when Tom Hanks (Sully) says "Can we get serious now?".

    --- 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


    • #3
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      1. A Hollywood oversight?

      2. Is that true?
      2. As explained to me long ago: It's a movie, it's just pretend.

      1. If the aircraft always appears to have two wing mounted engines, then it is a highly accurate Hollywood production.

      You're welcome.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #4
        Another thing: During the SIM sessions, the pilots make almost immediate turn-backs rather than attempt to relight the engines. Sully contests that human factors would delay that decision, but what would be the reaction even without a human factor delay? Wouldn't the first action be to work the problem, to go to the engine failure checklist and attempt to restore them? Wouldn't that take up at least a minute before deciding to make an immediate return?

        It's also interesting how the SIM pilot making the failed attempt for Teterboro keeps a hand on the thrust levers throughout the approach. Good habits die hard I guess.

        Comment


        • #5
          I can't say for sure but it was a first. It hadn't happened before so they may have been trying to figure out what their best options were. If they had been trained for something like that happening from the beginning I'm sure they would have turned back sooner. Maybe we can get Sully on Jetphotos Forums and he can answer that. : )

          Comment


          • #6
            When you are single-pilot, in a total loss of power the order of priority is select a landing field, start navigating there, and then troubleshoot. In a 2-persons flight crew the PF would do that while the PM troubleshoots (part of the troubleshoots requires calls that the PF need to respond or confirm). These is pretty much with Sully and crew did, after the 1st several seconds of startle. I would say that some of the seconds of the delay was not actually startle but the field selection process.

            --- 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


            • #7
              Originally posted by Michael Rodeback View Post
              I can't say for sure but it was a first. It hadn't happened before so they may have been trying to figure out what their best options were. If they had been trained for something like that happening from the beginning I'm sure they would have turned back sooner. Maybe we can get Sully on Jetphotos Forums and he can answer that. : )
              Dual engine failure is something pilots do train for.

              --- 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


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                These is pretty much with Sully and crew did, after the 1st several seconds of startle. I would say that some of the seconds of the delay was not actually startle but the field selection process.
                59 seconds, according to the final report. Probably a brisk 59 seconds in that confusing situation. I wonder how many pilots would turn back within the first 15 seconds rather than spend 30+ seconds assessing the engine situation. Apparently, after a delay of 35 seconds, no one could make any airfield.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  59 seconds, according to the final report. Probably a brisk 59 seconds in that confusing situation. I wonder how many pilots would turn back within the first 15 seconds rather than spend 30+ seconds assessing the engine situation. Apparently, after a delay of 35 seconds, no one could make any airfield.
                  In any event, I always highlight this, the question is not if there is any field within reach, but if there is any field that YOU KNOW is within reach. Deviating from a 2nd best option (other than a field) to aim for a field that you THINK MAYBE you can reach only to later find yourself unable to reach the field OR the 2nd best option is a typical killer in these situations. The greatness of Sully's decision making is that, with several fields around that MAYBE he could reach (he just didn't know), he made the decision that he was going to total his plane and put it in the longest and widest smooth surface that HE KNEW he could reach. This is a VERY difficult decision for a pilot, it's hard to admit that you will end up in an off-airport crash and concentrate on finding the best way to crash rather than still trying to reach an airport (and risk a worse crash). Even if the simulator tests showed that after the 35, 55 or whatever number of seconds one airport was still within reach, that is of zero value to analyze the pilot's actions. Hindsight of simulator test showing that "you could have made it to this airport" can only be replied with "well, why didn't you tell me that back then?".

                  --- 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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Dual engine failure is something pilots do train for.
                    That is true. However, before that they didn´t train for dual engine failures at 3000 feet. The QRH and training was for dual engine failures at cruise altitude.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      In any event, I always highlight this, the question is not if there is any field within reach, but if there is any field that YOU KNOW is within reach. Deviating from a 2nd best option (other than a field) to aim for a field that you THINK MAYBE you can reach only to later find yourself unable to reach the field OR the 2nd best option is a typical killer in these situations. The greatness of Sully's decision making is that, with several fields around that MAYBE he could reach (he just didn't know), he made the decision that he was going to total his plane and put it in the longest and widest smooth surface that HE KNEW he could reach. This is a VERY difficult decision for a pilot, it's hard to admit that you will end up in an off-airport crash and concentrate on finding the best way to crash rather than still trying to reach an airport (and risk a worse crash). Even if the simulator tests showed that after the 35, 55 or whatever number of seconds one airport was still within reach, that is of zero value to analyze the pilot's actions. Hindsight of simulator test showing that "you could have made it to this airport" can only be replied with "well, why didn't you tell me that back then?".
                      Yes, I completely agree. Not to mention the lack of go-around provision if somebody didn't get the message and taxied onto the runway. I think he showed clear-headed decision making and uncommon nerve in a very panic-prone situation. I don't think there was pilot error in that decision.

                      My main criticism of the film is that it entirely misunderstands the purpose of the NTSB investigation. It wasn't an accusative smear attempt against the crew; it was looking for lessons to be learned (and taught) in a never-ending mission to make air travel safer. The report identifies the cause of the crash (sorry... forced water landing) as bird ingestion, but it also identifies the cause of the lower fuselage damage and water ingress and recommends that crews be better trained on ditching technique and awareness of low-energy ramifications on the A320. That's not an attack on Sully, it's them doing their job, and the investigation is not focused personally on one man, but generally on one incident. The tone of the film, a man unfairly accused and then vindicated, doesn't sit well.

                      One thing this incident showed us is how ditchable the A320 is. Perhaps, if the NTSB reommendations are taken to heart, the next one might even fly again.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Amen.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          My main criticism of the film is that it entirely misunderstands the purpose of the NTSB investigation. It wasn't an accusative smear attempt against the crew; it was looking for lessons to be learned (and taught) in a never-ending mission to make air travel safer. The report identifies the cause of the crash (sorry... forced water landing) as bird ingestion, but it also identifies the cause of the lower fuselage damage and water ingress and recommends that crews be better trained on ditching technique and awareness of low-energy ramifications on the A320. That's not an attack on Sully, it's them doing their job, and the investigation is not focused personally on one man, but generally on one incident. The tone of the film, a man unfairly accused and then vindicated, doesn't sit well.

                          Some would say the movie needed an antagonist, and others would say portraying the NTSB as aggressive and ignorant was the whole point of the film:

                          https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12...stwoods-sully/

                          https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ane-crash-ntsb


                          That's an interesting one about the green dot. But they should have done better - "The nose isn't coming up....I can't pull the nose up! What's it doing n.......(splashdown)"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
                            That's an interesting one about the green dot. But they should have done better - "The nose isn't coming up....I can't pull the nose up! What's it doing n.......(splashdown)"
                            Or simply: "Oh, shit, shit shit, shit, oh no, shit shit shit shit sh [splashdown]"

                            --- 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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              Or simply: "Oh, shit, shit shit, shit, oh no, shit shit shit shit sh [splashdown]"
                              What matters most is that 155 pax got on the plane and 155 pax got off again. That's 99% of it right there. Sully did his best. Airbus made a great airplane. The NY water taxi guys came to the rescue. It all came together at the right time. It any one of those things had been missing, it could have gone down a darker path.

                              So, what if it had been a 737? My guess is that, pulling up to flare while being 15 to 19kts below VLS with only about 3.5 deg of AoA to give, Sully would have flown it around the stickshaker, Gabriel style, and perhaps managed a bit more flare and touched down a bit more gently, because he is an instinctive veteran pilot who had his his head in the game. But one never knows who is entrusted with the next flight. All it takes is a wing to drop at that critical moment and the story ends quite differently. So the lessons need to be taught.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X