Just back from seeing the movie, "Sully", with Tom Hanks as the heroic pilot

[mnhtnbb]

who landed the US Air flight on the Hudson River in the middle of January, 2009 after the plane lost both engines due
to a bird strike almost immediately after take-off.

It focuses on not only the incident, but the subsequent NTSB investigation of whether Sully made the right choice
to land on the Hudson, or whether he should have headed back to LaGuardia or even attempted
to get to an airport in NJ to land.

It raises the question of assigning blame--which is in the interest of insurance carriers and the airlines-- and all about the money.

Definitely worth seeing. I have flown in and out of LaGuardia many, many times. I'm very happy we never had to make a water landing.

[NightWatcher]

1. Something else to take away from the movie.

[lunatica]

2. I wouldn't mind being stuck on a deserted island with him

Speak for yourself!

I Tom Hanks!

[NightWatcher]

3. Until you get a cavity and Dr Iceskate comes around for you.

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. You have to bring your own soccer ball tho.

[Xipe Totec]

53. Or George Clooney

Gravity

The Perfect Storm.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. The job of the NTSB is not to assign blame or fault

but to determine the probable cause and contributing causes of accidents so ways can be found to prevent those accidents from being repeated. Their probable cause findings are actually inadmissible in lawsuits arising from an accident - legal fault resulting in liability is not necessarily the same as what the NTSB decides the probable cause(s) are. So it's inaccurate to look at the investigation as some kind of witch hunt because it isn't - they have to consider all possible causes.

[mnhtnbb]

5. I haven't read Sully's book--which is what the movie is based on--

but the movie clearly presents the NTSB investigators as working from an agenda to discredit Sully's decision that he couldn't either
make it back to LGA or get to either Teterboro or Newark for a landing. The movie focuses on the conflict from second guessing a decision
made in the moment of crisis when later confronted with information that pilots in simulators were able to get the aircraft back to LaGuardia.

It's a psychological drama. But the message that there are insurance companies and aviation corporate interests who would
rather cite a 'pilot error' as being responsible for wrecking a piece of equipment--and putting lives at risk-- is there.

This is an interesting piece: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201005/did-sullenberger-actually-screw

[JonLP24]

12. I know 'true story' pieces often create conflict

For Drama purposes. Honestly it reminds of the film Flight with the exception of a drinking pilot but I would hold the NTSB stuff with a grain of salt, I didn't hear him called anything but a hero following this.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. The NTSB report is very detailed and very thorough.

The whole thing is here: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf

The way the NTSB works is this: When an accident occurs they send a "go-team" of NTSB and FAA people to inspect the scene, collect evidence and reassemble the wreckage to the extent possible. The agency calls on "interested parties" to participate in the investigation: these normally include the aircraft manufacturer and parts manufacturers, the airline, and the pilots' union, ALPA. Since these entities usually have conflicting interests, involving them on an equal basis is intended to prevent any of them from having too much influence on the probable cause findings. The airline will want the accident to have been caused by some defect in the airplane caused by the manufacturer; the manufacturer will want the cause to have been a failure on the part of the airline - maybe maintenance or pilot training. Assigning fault (not the same as the NTSB's probable cause) to the pilots doesn't get the airline off the hook in terms of legal liability because of the doctrine of respondeat superior (the employer is liable for the acts of the employee). Therefore, even if the conclusion is pilot error the airline will still be responsible if there is litigation and a jury reaches the same conclusion (the NTSB's probable cause conclusions are not admissible in court). Airlines also get stuck for damages in most accident court cases because of the higher standard of care required of a common carrier.

In this case the NTSB's probable cause findings were as follows:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this
accident was the ingestion of large birds into each engine, which resulted in an almost total loss
of thrust in both engines and the subsequent ditching on the Hudson River. Contributing to the
fuselage damage and resulting unavailability of the aft slide/rafts were (1) the Federal Aviation
Administration’s approval of ditching certification without determining whether pilots could
attain the ditching parameters without engine thrust, (2) the lack of industry flight crew training
and guidance on ditching techniques, and (3) the captain’s resulting difficulty maintaining his
intended airspeed on final approach due to the task saturation resulting from the emergency
situation.

Contributing to the survivability of the accident was (1) the decision-making of the flight
crewmembers and their crew resource management during the accident sequence; (2) the
fortuitous use of an airplane that was equipped for an extended overwater flight, including the
availability of the forward slide/rafts, even though it was not required to be so equipped; (3) the
performance of the cabin crewmembers while expediting the evacuation of the airplane; and
(4) the proximity of the emergency responders to the accident site and their immediate and
appropriate response to the accident.

The only item that could be interpreted in any way as any kind of flight crew deficiency was "the captain's difficulty maintaining his intended airspeed on final approach due to the task saturation resulting from the emergency situation." But even this is attributable not to negligence or poor judgment but to human factors resulting from what the NTSB considered to be industry-wide inadequate guidance and training on ditching techniques. If the crew had never been trained on ditching in the first place it could be expected that they would be task saturated because they had to invent a procedure on the fly. In contrast, the agency attributed the fact that everyone survived in part to "the decision-making of the flightcrewmembers and their crew resource management during the accident sequence."

Sounds to me like the NTSB - far from conducting a witch hunt - thought the crew did a fine job. But that doesn't make for a very good movie, does it? "Government Agency Fails To Crucify Heroic Pilot But Instead Praises Him For Saving Passengers" doesn't get those gummint-hatin' juices going.

[mnhtnbb]

17. Thanks for linking to the NTSB report

It is interesting reading.

Buried within the report is the information that simulations were indeed conducted to determine whether the choice to ditch in the Hudson was the best option, or whether
the plane could have been successfully landed at either LaGuardia or Teterboro.

Simulation flights were run to determine whether the accident flight could have landed successfully at LGA or TEB following the bird strike. The simulations demonstrated that, to
accomplish a successful flight to either airport, the airplane would have to have been turned toward the airport immediately after the bird strike. The immediate turn did not reflect or account
for real-world considerations, such as the time delay required to recognize the extent of the engine thrust loss and decide on a course of action. The one simulator flight that took into
account real-world considerations (a return to LGA runway 13 was attempted after a 35-second delay) was not successful. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that the captain’s decision to ditch on
the Hudson River rather than attempting to land at an airport provided the highest probability that the accident would be survivable.

p.89

Put yourself in Sully's shoes--which is what we, as audience members, are invited to do. The NTSB report does reinforce that the manuals were inadequate; that pilots had not been trained
on ditching techniques at low altitude with no power; that the performance of the pilots and crew contributed to the survival of everyone on board when the NTSB report itself states:

The NTSB further concludes that, during an actual ditching, it is possible but unlikely that pilots will be able to attain all of the Airbus ditching parameters because it is exceptionally difficult for pilots to meet such precise criteria when no engine power is available, and this difficulty contributed to the fuselage damage.

p. 96

So, there it is. If only Sully had immediately known he had no time to lose to figure out what the hell to do and had headed back to LGA, he wouldn't have cracked up the airplane in the river!
The movie takes the point of view that the NTSB investigators had to be convinced that the pilots made the right decision and I suspect that all of the second guessing on their decision was not easy to take.

[Hortensis]

19. Thanks, Velveteen Ocelot and Mnhtnbb

for these posts. Very interesting. And, hardly the most important part, but it really does sound like the NTSB's reputation was sacrificed to entertainment.

Given that this pilot was a national hero (for doing his job competently), with millions in a positive rapture of idolatry, somehow I doubt it ever seemed a good idea to anyone in the NTSB to try to turn him into a scapegoat.

[Major Nikon]

25. The NTSB is the envy of the world

It's just another example of how the government does something better than anyone.

[Yavin4]

49. Your post gives me further evidence when I argue with Libertarians

I always ask them what they want to do with the FAA? Who would do the work that you've outlined in your post?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

50. The FAA and the NTSB are separate agencies, but I get your point.

Both get directly involved in accident investigations, which takes a really strong stomach if you're on a go-team. I teach a college class relating to aviation safety, and one semester I had a student who was, shall we say, unusual. We were discussing the functions of these agencies, and the student offered the opinion that the government shouldn't regulate aviation safety at all and the FAA should be abolished because "the market" would take care of aviation safety - that is, if an airline crashed a lot of planes eventually nobody would want to fly with them and they'd go out of business. I asked her how many people would have to die before this happened and she just shrugged. The other students looked at her like she was nuts.

[Yavin4]

51. They wouldn't go out of business.

They'd just re-organize under a different name.

[cwydro]

7. I saw it today too!

I really enjoyed it.

The NTSB stuff was an eye-opener to me.

[whistler162]

29. Good fiction usually is!

[cwydro]

30. Why do you call it fiction?

Sullenberger himself said the movie was true to what happened.

[whistler162]

32. NPR Tom Hanks interview

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/09/493150297/in-sully-a-pilots-heroic-water-landing-and-its-real-life-fallout

"On the basis of the movie Sully, you manufacture a crisis out of a minor footnote. You turn the story of a man whose heroism was trumpeted by everyone on the planet into a story of government persecution.

The movie begins the morning after the event: Sully — played by Tom Hanks — is having a nightmare in which he crashes the plane. But his real nightmare is about to begin. The National Transportation Safety Board is out to prove he could have landed the plane safely at either LaGuardia or nearby Teterboro Airport in New Jersey."

[cwydro]

33. I'll check it out, thanks!

But the movie is still a good one!

Of course, I'm a Tom Hanks fan.

[LanternWaste]

41. As is good non-fiction as well!

As is good non-fiction as well!

(six of one, half a dozen of the other-- and both containing exclamation marks to appear more valid)

[whistler162]

47. Problem is too much of the story appears

to be fiction.

[Bucky]

8. insurance investigation & deposition fiction is an underrated genre

zzzz

[Upthevibe]

9. I saw it yesterday and thought it was excellent! There were no crazy story lines. I found it

very interesting to see how the process works (and disturbing too).

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Don't take this movie as being an accurate depiction of how the process works.

[mnhtnbb]

18. Right.

Because the NTSB reports on AA 11; UA 175; AA 77; and UA 93 from 9/11/01 are the whole truth and nothing but the truth and have not been influenced
by any other agency or official.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. Because 9/11 involved criminal acts the NTSB was not the primary investigator.

If an air accident is suspected to be the result of a crime the NTSB cedes the investigation to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. The NTSB provided technical assistance to the FBI but did not issue a probable cause report regarding 9/11.

[mnhtnbb]

21. The "technical assistance" of the NTSB has left a lot of unanswered questions regarding 9/11

for many aviation professionals.

I know what the function is of the NTSB. I understand the process. My husband held a general aviation pilot's license for years.

To me, the movie "Sully" succeeds because it pits the experience and abilities of a seasoned professional to deal with a crisis of
life and death in a matter of seconds against the Monday morning quarterbacking of people who want to make recommendations
about manuals and protocols and training on how to deal with a crisis in a split second. It can't be done. Just like Sully says
in the movie (and the NTSB acknowledges) the pilots hadn't been taught how to respond to a low altitude loss of power in both
engines. They had no guidebook. Even if they DID have a guidebook, they had only seconds to make a decision of where to
land before they had to focus on how to make the landing on water, which wouldn't leave much time for consulting the manual.

On the other hand, the clock was ticking for a very long time when four planes were hijacked on 9/11 and nobody could figure
out what to do about it. You can listen to the tapes. But, if the airlines had followed the recommendations of the White House
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, 9/11 would probably not have happened--at least according to the official reports
of how hijackers took over the unsecured cockpits. http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4532 and perhaps the air traffic
controllers who noticed planes no longer responding to communications--but still on radar--would have had a better plan for what
to do about it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Me, too.

I'm recently retired from a major airline where I was an instructor, and I've taught an aviation safety/accident analysis course for almost 20 years, so I'm pretty familiar with the process, too. The most important thing about any NTSB investigation is their recommendations. The agency has no power to create or enforce safety regulations so it has to make recommendations to the FAA, which can then decide (after a complex rulemaking process involving soliciting comments from the public and anyone else, including the airlines) whether or not to adopt the recommendations. Their investigation into any accident is not for the purpose of assigning "blame" to anybody but to determine what, if anything, could or should be done differently if the same situation occurs in the future. In this case there were a number of recommendations regarding training, checklists and procedures for low-altitude loss of engine power and ditching. I know that the FAA quickly adopted many of these recommendations because we started teaching ditching procedures in the simulator. Realistically, ditching does not usually end well, especially if an airplane goes down in the ocean - the waves and swells are likely to cause it to flip over. But everybody knew that. The real improvement is probably related to checklist procedures for low-altitude loss of thrust.

My real point is that the NTSB are not the bad guys; they have no agenda to assign blame to anybody because that's not their function. They normally do an excellent job ferreting out safety problems that can be fixed; it's then up to the FAA and the industry to do the fixing. Having worked in the industry for many years I'm likely to find the movie annoying because of all the stuff they'll probably get wrong in order to create "drama." I sure felt that way about the movie "Flight" (the Denzel Washington movie about the drunken pilot flying impossible aerobatic manuevers), which had so many technical errors it was almost unwatchable except as a comedy.

[LanternWaste]

42. I also enjoy people who upon hearing a joke, will correct it for accuracy

"which had so many technical errors it was almost unwatchable except as a comedy..."

I also enjoy people who upon hearing a joke, will correct it for accuracy, making even more funny and humorous!

[Major Nikon]

26. I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the promos it appears as if the process is highly dramatized

[DinahMoeHum]

10. "Ask-The-Pilot" has a good take on this film. . .

. . .and a caveat to "consider the source":

http://www.askthepilot.com/sully-upon-hudson/

(snip)
If the trailer is any indication, together with complaints from those who’ve seen the film, Clint Eastwood’s political biases have a role in “Sully” as well. His antigovernment sentiments are no secret, and here he’s casting Sully as a kind of everyman American hero, in battle with vindictive NTSB bureaucrats out to railroad him.
But is that really how things played out?
Already there are rumblings over this aspect of the storyline.
“The portrayal of the NTSB investigators in the new ‘Sully’ movie as prosecutors is not only wildly inaccurate but grossly unfair,” says Mark Dombroff, an aviation lawyer who represented U.S. Airways during the investigation.
From what I gather, you’re likely to hear more of such criticism in the coming weeks.
And expect some folks at the NTSB, which is about the most highly respected government agency that exists, to be duly pissed off.
(snip)

[mnhtnbb]

11. Oh? Hmm...I'm sure a corporate mouthpiece has no axe to grind...

The film doesn't pretend to be a documentary.

In order to have a drama, you need to have a conflict. The second guessing, the well documented attempt by the investigation to
demonstrate that landing the plane at either LaGuardia or Teterboro would have been an option, is in the NTSB record of the investigation. You don't get do-overs
in the midst of a crisis. You get one chance...

[Major Nikon]

28. You also have those on the left who raise nutty allegations about the NTSB

https://www.google.com/search?q=NTSB+wellstone&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[mnhtnbb]

31. As The Nation said in May 2002, getting rid of Wellstone was a passion for Bush, Karl Rove, and

Cheney. "There are people in the White House who wake up in the morning thinking about how they will defeat Paul Wellstone," a senior Republican aide told The Nation. "This one is political and personal for them."

Motive and opportunity. The NTSB--in their simulations--couldn't crash Wellstone's plane. Other pilots in the area at the time said weather conditions weren't that difficult.
Experienced pilots--with whom Wellstone had flown many times previously and was comfortable.

For the conspiracy theorists, this is probably the best summary: http://www.opednews.com/thoreau1203_wellstone_assassinated.htm

The whole thing seemed very fishy. Too convenient.

[Major Nikon]

34. "couldn't crash Wellstone's plane"

The EMF and mind control ray creative speculation was some pretty funny shit. And if motive were all there was to it, then that means the Clintons killed Vince Foster.

The NTSB report is very thorough and the interviews with the peers of the pilots is considerably more valuable than whatever assessment Wellstone, who wasn't a pilot, had of them.

[MicaelS]

36. Some people are really Koo-Koo.

EMP weapons? Mind control rays? Shit like this is why conspiracy theorists are dismissed.

[Major Nikon]

38. Stuff like that was all over DU and still pops up from time to time

Some of the right wing conspiracy theory stuff gets kinda funny sometimes, but there's also people on the left that really believe in government sponsored mind control, chemtrails, water fluoridation conspiracies, alien invasions, and all sorts of other nutty things. To those, the Wellstone crash was all just part of the plan and anyone who doubts the conspiracy, including the NTSB must be part of it. Meanwhile back in the world most call reality the NTSB found both pilots had performance problems and lost it in the soup on an instrument approach killing themselves and their passengers.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0303.pdf

[JonLP24]

44. The mind control stuff is/was more real

The other stuff I don't think so but that's why they cover heads, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, etc. They've done research studies in the 60s and 70s, MKUltra and others like Project Bluebird.

What they learned and what they use today I don't have a clue but there certainly is evidence on that front.

[Major Nikon]

45. All conspiracy theory nonsense has an element of possibility

EMP is also a real thing. None of this means it's practical or probable, which is why sane people don't wear tinfoil hats.

[JonLP24]

46. I'm completely unfamiliar with emp

But I would guess it depends on the theory, mind control would more likely to be used on an individual basis with information warfare used on the masses (Iraq war coverage).

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. That accident was caused by plain old pilot error.

I actually knew one of the lawyers who worked on the litigation that arose from it, and I had previously met the co-pilot, who (briefly) worked for the same airline I did. He was fired after a few months because he couldn't learn the systems of the airplane he was assigned to. And the captain was, in fact, a weak pilot (with a criminal record and a doctored logbook) who was known to turn over the actual flying to his co-pilot. Wellstone, who didn't like flying, was comfortable with the captain because of his pleasant and reassuring demeanor, but Wellstone didn't know crap about aviation and had no reason to know the guy really wasn't such a great pilot. The charter outfit he worked for had done a poor job vetting and training their people, and the FAA got on them about that after the accident. Charter operators have much lower standards than scheduled airlines, although that has improved recently.

The weather wasn't terrible but there was a cloud layer and the visibility was not great. They were conducting a non-precision approach which, by definition, is only accurate enough to get you close enough to the airport to find it. The ATC track showed that they didn't intercept the VOR radial correctly and overshot the final approach course, then allowed the airplane to get too slow while they were trying to find the runway - and the airplane stalled and crashed. There was nothing mysterious about it. Much as I loathe Cheney and Bush, if they'd wanted to get rid of Wellstone they could have done so in a way that didn't breed stupid conspiracy theories.

The NTSB report is here: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0303.pdf

[Major Nikon]

39. I always thought the true tragedy is nobody said anything about the pilots

From the NTSB narrative, it sounded like both of them were just getting by on the skills of their co-pilots. When the two of them were paired up the results should have been fully predictable. Their peers must have known they were incompetent and their company should have known.

[MicaelS]

13. I read the entire article and all the comments.

There was a whole undertone of pissing in other people's Wheaties by the professionals. Seems like some people have to try to tear other people down, no matter the circumstances.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. And here are some comments from NTSB investigators

making it very clear that they were not on a witch hunt or trying to blame Sullenberger: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-07/crash-investigators-pan-their-portrayal-as-villains-in-sully

The board’s final report, adopted on May 4, 2010, gave Sullenberger and Skiles credit for making what should have been a horrific accident survivable for all aboard. As the agency always does in an accident, it put the pilots’ performance under a microscope. The reason was not to assail them, according to Benzon. It’s part of the process of ensuring similar accidents can be prevented. Among the areas they examined was whether Sullenberger -- who had taken control of the plane in the emergency -- could have made it back to LaGuardia instead of having to make the dangerous water ditching. While simulations showed it may have been possible to turn back immediately and land at LaGuardia, it wasn’t reasonable to expect any pilot to have done that without taking a few seconds to assess the situation. By then, it was too late to reach the airport and Sullenberger made the most sensible decision, the NTSB concluded in its report.

But every story needs a villain.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

24. I always thought the NTSB was somewhat deferential to Sully in the Probable Cause findings.

Usually "failure to maintain" airspeed isn't followed by an excuse why airspeed wasn't maintained. These reports never pull any punches and are probably no fun to read by families of dead pilots. The reports are brutally honest and aren't meant assuage feelings.

As a GA pilot, I've always said Sully's ability to accept the situation he was in, and go for the sure-thing water landing, was where his expertise and experience shined through.

Inherent water landing risks notwithstanding, always better to touch down anywher under control rather than two blocks short of the "ideal" spot - uncontrolled in to the roof of a hotel by the airport.

The NTSB is the best of the best in what "gubmint" can do. I love throwing it in the faces of freeper types who claim government can't do anything well. The NTSB is relentless in pursuit of truth.

[Major Nikon]

27. For the most part NTSB reports are findings of fact

Only after the culmination of an exhaustive fact finding exercise to they offer highly educated conclusions based on those facts which are generally highly qualified.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. Glad You Liked It

Me, i'll pass. An entire movie based upon 60 seconds of outstanding crisis management. Not appealing to me.

[LanternWaste]

43. Your critique seems full of relevant knowledge in regards to the films.

Your critique seems full of relevant knowledge in regards to the films.

[ProfessorGAC]

48. Huh?

I said the concept didn't appeal to me. What the heck are you going on about?

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. DON'T SPOIL THE ENDING!!!!!!