'Sully' the movie about landing on the Hudson River NYC [SPOILERS]

[Bundy Bear]

Also wait until the the music starts at the end credits as there is some pictures of the actual plane in the river and the comment from the wife regarding the Christmas cards.

 

[kpc]

Planning to see it on Saturday evening...best I stay out of this forum til then

 

[get me outta here]

There is an interview with Clint Eastwood in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/m...0160908&nl=nytoday&nlid=75978695&ref=headline

 

[Simo]

Looking forward to seeing the movie in Gold Class

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Just saw it myself, great movie, yes would have been hard to be Sully and have to go through the thoughts, some of them would have been very personal.

Biggest feeling was when they had seen doing the flight again in the simulator during the NtSB investigation, Showed them landing the plane.

How many attempts, asked Sully

17 was the reply.

That, plus the fact the crew replicating the flight in the sim knew they were going to have a double engine failure and the plan was to land at La Guardia or Teterboro, so didn't have to trouble shoot anything plus have the responsibility for 155 lives riding on their decision. The NTSB didn't allow for any kind of human factor elements in the equation.

When you do see it, and you hear reference to 'sub idle'....that means the engine is below the normal idle rpm, is not responding to thrust lever inputs, and the only possible recovery is to shut down, and try to restart it. So, sub idle is basically a fat lot of good.

I saw the movie today as well and am curious as to the sub-idle bit. Why did the NTSB not know about the above, specifically that an engine on sub-idle being non-responsive to thrust lever inputs? The only thing (in the NTSB eyes) that seemed to absolve the crew of blame for not landing at an airport was when salvage teams recovered the left engine and found that just like the right engine it too had suffered catastrophic damage and that the report from Airbus was wrong. What was the Airbus data or report the NTSB was referring to?

I had watched on YouTube a couple of days prior which had a computer re enactment of the flight along with the actual audio ATC transcripts which was followed by a couple of documentaries interviewing passengers from the flight which was good as it let you identify those people in the movie.The docos were then followed by the Air Crash Investigation episode.

 

[jb747]

I think I'd take much of the NTSB stuff with a grain of salt. The fact that it took 17 goes to get it to work would not have been lost on them. If anything, I'd expect more issues from the airline itself. Sadly, even other pilots.

If you search back through AFF, you'll find that my comments on this event were more or less that the landing itself could have been done by most pilots, but the decision to go for the river was the item that separated Sully from the pack, and it was that which ensured the people would survive.

 

[opusman]

I haven't seen the film but I'm sure a lot of the NTSB stuff is for dramatic effect and not a completely accurate depiction.

According to the wikipedia article the report said:

"The immediate turn made by the pilots during the simulations did not reflect or account for real-world considerations..."

which certainly suggests they were understanding of the situation and the demands on the pilots to make quick decisions.

 

[Buzzard]

Definitely going to see this move.
I quite like Tom as an actor.

 

[jb747]

... that the report from Airbus was wrong. What was the Airbus data or report the NTSB was referring to?

I think they were referring to ACARs data. Airbus don't monitor the aircraft in real time...

 

[Danger]

May I suggest that the only spoilers in this thread be in reference the aircraft. I'm looking forward to watching but I'll probably wait until it comes out on iTunes. I can't remember the last time I went to a cinema.

 

[GarrettM]

I doubt I will see it, for a bunch of reasons. Not least because I have a vast preference for reading about these sorts of things rather than watching a re-enactment, no matter how compelling.

What that in mind I present William Langewiesche's Vanity Fair piece published a few months after the incident. US Airways Flight 1549: Anatomy of a Miracle | Vanity Fair

I've now read a lot of his stuff - on aviation politics, crashes, technology etc...

Big fan.

 

[tgh]

Enjoyed the movie very much even allowing for the necessary dramatisation.
Otoh , swmbo was somewhat ambivalent.
Nice to know that a ditched hull will float for a bit, although a 3m ocean swell might change all that.

 

[Craigie]

First of all, I loved it. Great movie. Captivating from beginning to end.

I have a question though: maybe spoiler alert so don't read on if concerned. But am I right in guessing that when they ran the simulations, that was under the assumption that the left engine still had "some" thrust, so the simulations were useless anyway because the parameters were wrong?

 

[opusman]

Nice to know that a ditched hull will float for a bit, although a 3m ocean swell might change all that.

As might a panicked passenger opening the rear door!

 

[PLANT]

Why did they not throw the kitchen sink at this in making it so it has 4D.... Water effect on top of wind and 3D.... Or is the majority feelings and thoughts from PTSD?

 

[jb747]

I have a question though: maybe spoiler alert so don't read on if concerned. But am I right in guessing that when they ran the simulations, that was under the assumption that the left engine still had "some" thrust, so the simulations were useless anyway because the parameters were wrong?

Take the simulations with a large amount of salt. They may prove that, in theory, the aircraft had enough energy to get to a runway. But, they also showed that such a return had 94% chance of killing everyone. And that was with pilots who knew what to expect, had probably had a chance to play with the numbers, and who were probably not line pilots anyway. I didn't see any allowance for the massive drag increase from selecting the gear either.

The engine would not have had any worthwhile thrust. It would have been less than the amount produced at idle. It may have been enough to drive the accessories gearbox, and so provide some level of electrics and hydraulics, but the APU start would have taken care of that anyway.

 

[jb747]

Nice to know that a ditched hull will float for a bit, although a 3m ocean swell might change all that.

I wouldn't worry about floating after a night deep water ditching....

 

[tgh]

I wouldn't worry about floating after a night deep water ditching....

Could you please explain a little about landing on water ?
Would sully have attempted to touch right on stall , flat or nose high ?
Is there a flap configuration that helps the attitude on impact ?

Most of the actors on the wing had no lifejacket , do you know if this is how it really happened?
Did the passengers fail to find them?

 

[jb747]

Could you please explain a little about landing on water ?
Would sully have attempted to touch right on stall , flat or nose high ?

If he was in normal law (which I think he was) he would not have been able to get to the stall. The books talk about attitudes around the 8-9º (vs normal touchdown at 4-5º) which would mean you'd have to be a bit slower than usual. But, it's very difficult to judge height over water. I suspect he just hung onto to whatever was the maximum alpha that the aircraft would allow, and let it fly into the water. I don't know that there was much of a flare, if any. That would give an increased sink rate, but would minimise the forward speed.

Is there a flap configuration that helps the attitude on impact ?

More flap will help you get to a lower speed. Final stages give a more nose down attitude. Sully only used flap 2.

Most of the actors on the wing had no lifejacket , do you know if this is how it really happened?
Did the passengers fail to find them?

Plane crashes into freezing New York river - World - BrisbaneTimes

That's exactly what happened. I think I can even see some luggage!

 

[Himeno]

Most of the actors on the wing had no lifejacket , do you know if this is how it really happened?
Did the passengers fail to find them?

There were images when it happened showing most pax on the wing didn't have jackets.
Someone opened the rear door, which was below the water line, allowing the cabin to start flooding. Once that happened, I think most people would have forgotten to even look for the jackets and just rushed for the over wing exits or the forward door rafts.