Just watched the movie "Sully"

[rbridges]

Don't like to brag, but I could have got the plane back to the airport.  

 

I thought it was a good movie, but I'm pretty ignorant of a lot of the behind the scenes of an investigation.  I'm sure a lot of it was dramatized to make the movie more interesting.  Still a good watch IMO.

[thinwing]

got in envied to Sherriff Squadron pre screen...I love water landings

[cliffy]

Monday morning QB?

Have you tried it in the sim?

"Thinking you might make the airport" is a long way from knowing you have the river made.

Coming up slightly short for the airport means lots of dead people not involved with the airplane itself.

Lots to think about in 2 mins.

I'm rated in those airplanes but have never tried a dead stick in one (long retired)

I have done many dead sticks in 737 sims (727 also). It can be done but we always were set up in a position that it could be done  (better than 300/mile away) if we did our part correctly. A 737 losses 2000' doing a 180 at best L/D.

[Immelman]

Once you have some energy to play with, the A320 is an amazing glider. Amazing. 3 degrees at 250 knots clean. Better than that at best glide (200-220 +/- depending on weight).

Its also (in the sim) quite a handful when they did the dead stick demo. I got it onto a runway but it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be.

But what do I know, I'm still a complete noob at it. 160 hours in the thing, and have a lot more to learn.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Immelman

[N201MKTurbo]

18 minutes ago, Immelman said:

Once you have some energy to play with, the A320 is an amazing glider. Amazing. 3 degrees at 250 knots clean. Better than that at best glide (200-220 +/- depending on weight).

Its also (in the sim) quite a handful when they did the dead stick demo. I got it onto a runway but it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be.

But what do I know, I'm still a complete noob at it. 160 hours in the thing, and have a lot more to learn.

I have 4 approaches in the sim, it is a weird airplane to fly. The sim guy told me that kids who play video games do better at first then pilots.

[carusoam]

I'm looking forward to seeing the Movie.

Sully did a respectable job of identifying the challenges, finding a spot to land, executing the landing and not losing anyone.

Power out in a Jet in NYC has not been kind to anyone that has tried.  Avianca airlines, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52

It's not quite The Gimli Glider running out of fuel at altitude. It was an unknown amount of Running out of power on departure.

Power outage is different than losing a rudder, but jets falling in NYC are usually pretty bad. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

 

Newark airport is only a few miles down the Hudson River.  If the airplane could maintain flight, it had to cross at least one major highway to get there.  Landing short would be disastrous.

Does the movie go something like this?  Power out, lower the nose, prepare to land straight ahead, make adjustments if you can...  Fill in the story with a really cold day on the Hudson with small ferries coming out to pick up passengers and crew. 

 

Best regards,

-a-

 

[carqwik]

Is it worth seeing in the movie theater or is it a "wait for the DVD?" 

[kortopates]

Is it worth seeing in the movie theater or is it a "wait for the DVD?" 

Of course that totally depends on whom you would be seeing it with!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rbridges]

5 hours ago, carqwik said:

Is it worth seeing in the movie theater or is it a "wait for the DVD?" 

 

that's tough to answer.  Without giving too much away, the movie centers around Sully and the NTSB investigation.  Basically, he wonders if he made the right decision; was landing in the Hudson his only choice or could he have made it to an airport.  

I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood and Tom Hanks, and I thought the acting and directing were pretty solid.  My perspective is the issue.  A lot of you guys fly professionally, including the big jets.  You know how things work and may find big holes in the realism of the movie.  I cut people's gums for a living, so I don't have a lot of insight.  

[MyNameIsNobody]

You want to spend some money on great movie that WILL definitely have academy award nominations for acting etc...Go see "Hell or High Water".  Chris Pine and Bridges are spot on acting.  A great plot.  I know how Sully ends....but we will still go and experience a "good landing" on the big screen.  

Glad I did not have to make that decision...which was the right one.  EVERYONE lived.  I am a sucker for a happy ending.

[flyboy0681]

Let's not forget just how tight the runways are at LGA. The Hudson provided a tremendous amount of free space to bleed off speed and gently glide her in.

There are times when I second guess a pilots decision, but in this case Sully did the absolute right thing, earning him hero status in my book.

[Piloto]

Going back to the airport would have been risky in a crippled plane were controllability (hydraulics failure) was unknown.

To me the fault lies on the engineers. Knowing that bird ingestion cause engine failure how come the airplane is allowed to fly where there are birds. A simple porous cone shaped deflector shield in front of the fan disk can deflect incoming birds and keep them from getting ingested. Bird ingestion is not rare and cost money replacing fan blades. It is time for a design change. After all our little Mooneys have an air filter to keep bugs from getting ingested.

In the big cities with high rise buildings birds get together on the roof tops. When an incoming plane is approaching them they all get scared and start flying in front of the plane path. This is a recurrent event, it happens every day!!.

José

Edited September 10, 2016 by Piloto

[ArtVandelay]

1 hour ago, Piloto said:

Going back to the airport would have been risky in a crippled plane were controllability (hydraulics failure) was unknown.

To me the fault lies on the engineers. Knowing that bird ingestion cause engine failure how come the airplane is allowed to fly where there are birds. A simple porous cone shaped deflector shield in front of the fan disk can deflect incoming birds and keep them from getting ingested. Bird ingestion is not rare and cost money replacing fan blades. It is time for a design change. After all our little Mooneys have an air filter to keep bugs from getting ingested.

In the big cities with high rise buildings birds get together on the roof tops. When an incoming plane is approaching them they all get scared and start flying in front of the plane path. This is a recurrent event, it happens every day!!.

José

Given how rare a double engine failure is due to bird strikes and the amount of drag a porous cone deflector would add, I think the engineers had it correct.

canadian geese are big birds, these are not pigeons, which the engines probably can handle, and they fly in close enough formation that more than 1 may have been ingested.

An easier solution is to start shooting the dam things!

[cliffy]

BTW, if you have never been the focus of a full blown FAA investigation- trust me - you never want to be that person.

No matter how good your outcome!

I've seen them (not me as the focus) and it ain't pretty. Months for them to diagnose what you had only seconds to decipher.  

[rbridges]

48 minutes ago, cliffy said:

BTW, if you have never been the focus of a full blown FAA investigation- trust me - you never want to be that person.

No matter how good your outcome!

I've seen them (not me as the focus) and it ain't pretty. Months for them to diagnose what you had only seconds to decipher.  

that's kinda one of the main points of the movie.  Of course, the investigation and reviews seemed to take place in a short period of time.

[BDPetersen]

canadian geese are big birds, these are not pigeons, which the engines probably can handle, and they fly in close enough formation that more than 1 may have been ingested.

Remember the standard FAA 4 lb semi frozen chicken shot into an engine for bird strike certification?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Piloto said:

Going back to the airport would have been risky in a crippled plane were controllability (hydraulics failure) was unknown.

To me the fault lies on the engineers. Knowing that bird ingestion cause engine failure how come the airplane is allowed to fly where there are birds. A simple porous cone shaped deflector shield in front of the fan disk can deflect incoming birds and keep them from getting ingested. Bird ingestion is not rare and cost money replacing fan blades. It is time for a design change. After all our little Mooneys have an air filter to keep bugs from getting ingested.

In the big cities with high rise buildings birds get together on the roof tops. When an incoming plane is approaching them they all get scared and start flying in front of the plane path. This is a recurrent event, it happens every day!!.

José

Surely you jest?

Clarence

[Immelman]

I can see it now in the ultra-glossy, condescendingly French A320 brochure:

Bird ingestion screens. $100 AMU optional*

*Not available with known ice certification.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Immelman

[Piloto]

The cone shaped shield: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100287908

During the Vietnam war low flying aircraft were brought down by rocks on a slingshot. The rocks were ingested by the engine causing them to blow. Today a terrorist can do the same with a small drone exploding in front of a jetliner. That will be the next headline in the news.

José

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by Piloto

[cliffy]

Just because it has a patent doesn't make it feasible. It's weight, drag and an ice collector.

Find me one verifiable account of a rock and slingshot downing a jet during VN.

Drones?  The flyer would have to be real good to get one engine of two and the airplane will still fly on one.

Big enough explosion to take down the airplane? Now you're talking shoulder fired weapon and not a drone. 

[1964-M20E]

Let's see.

 

1. airliner full of passengers ingests birds in each engine = total shutdown both engines soon after takeoff, no fault of the pilot or crew

2. pilot makes decision to land in river (you only have seconds to make this decision and stick with it)

3. other options include rapid disassembly of plane by buildings and or terrain

4. everyone walks away.

5. investigation over

Investigating this much past this point to me is a waste of tax payers dollars.

JMHO

Sully did an excellent job and I'm not going to second guess him as a PP, non pilot or a commercial pilot flying the same type aircraft as he does.

Of course I have mentioned this before the pilot for TACA airlines in the mid 80s put a 737 down along side a levee in New Orleans everyone walked away and they flew the plane out.  Of course I think the final assessment in this case we lac of fuel for the engine out.  I have not heard of another case where a big jet did an emergency off airport landing and they were able to fly it out.

[flyboy0681]

2 minutes ago, 1964-M20E said:

Let's see.

 

1. airliner full of passengers ingests birds in each engine = total shutdown both engines soon after takeoff, no fault of the pilot or crew

 

One small correction:

Sean Hannity did blame the incident on Charles Schumer, who in 2004 had something to do with saving Canadian geese from an eradication program in New York City.

I didn't make this up folks.

[aaronk25]

Let's see.

 

1. airliner full of passengers ingests birds in each engine = total shutdown both engines soon after takeoff, no fault of the pilot or crew

2. pilot makes decision to land in river (you only have seconds to make this decision and stick with it)

3. other options include rapid disassembly of plane by buildings and or terrain

4. everyone walks away.

5. investigation over

Investigating this much past this point to me is a waste of tax payers dollars.

JMHO

Sully did an excellent job and I'm not going to second guess him as a PP, non pilot or a commercial pilot flying the same type aircraft as he does.

Of course I have mentioned this before the pilot for TACA airlines in the mid 80s put a 737 down along side a levee in New Orleans everyone walked away and they flew the plane out.  Of course I think the final assessment in this case we lac of fuel for the engine out.  I have not heard of another case where a big jet did an emergency off airport landing and they were able to fly it out.

The levee landing (gosh if I remember right) was a extreme amount water entering the engines at idle throttle. The engine mfg then changed the design as it was only tested with that amount of water in-gestation at higher power settings. They ran test and duplicated the scenario on a test stand. Can't remember what they changed but the engines now will take more water. I think I saw it on air crash investigations. Watched all of them.

Aaron

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArtVandelay]

The Taca incident was a result of heavy hail ingestion, they change the fan blades and nose cone to deflect the hail away. The ACI series is great but I wish they had more small plane accidents, Ive watch the aopa videos as well.

[1964-M20E]

I do remember initial reports of rain caused the flame-outs, I never heard of the hail but that is certainly possible, I also heard they just ran out of fuel.  I never investigated the NTSB report as to the official cause.