Miracle on the Hudson Got Any Ideas?

[@billbowden8047]

Firefighters have an expression that works just as well for flying: In the heat of the moment, you will not rise to the occasion, you will rise to the level of your training.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

So true!

[@nancychace8619]

True for many things. My training as an EMT sticks with me to this day, though I'm out of it now.

[@MattH-wg7ou]

Yep. Military aviation uses this saying as well.

[@billmorris2613]

I totally agree with your opinion on the training and the rest of your assessment. I was a crew chief on a C-130 and traveled with my aircraft any time it went cross country. At the same time I was working on my commercial pilot’s license, using my GI Bill. After my active duty I stayed in the reserves as a Flight Engineer on C-130. I have had two engine failures in a single engine aircraft. The first one I made it to an airport with no further damage to the aircraft. The engine was tearing up and bits of metal blocked the course oil screen so I lost all oil pressure. I was at 7,500 feet on a severe clear day, with flight following from center. Radar vectors got me to the closest airport. The second one, the engine loss occurred at 1250 feet? It quit just like I had closed the mixture. It ended up being a bug had built a mud nest in the vent to the fuel tank I was running off of. I chose a sugar cane field road to land on but as I lined up on final there was a truck parked on the road. I had changed fuel tanks during the turn and the engine restarted. I leveled off but flew through some power lines, which I did not realize until I landed back at my home airport. I had a 25 foot section of half inch cable caught up in the step to get up on the wing. It was a low wing aircraft. I had heard a loud bang and thought I had hit a bird. I have always believed that both my civilian training, and more so, my military training saved my life. The things I did, I did automatically. And both times I did not get shook up until after I landed. One of my favorite lines from a movie came near the end of the movie depicting this accident. I’m not sure if it was real or put into the movie by the scriptwriters. At the end of the NTSB investigation the First Officer was ask, “Is there anything your would do different, if you could?” His answer was, “Yes, we would do it in July.” The wording may not be exact but I believe it is very close. Close enough to understand its meaning.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Great story thanks for sharing!

[@RK-kn1ud]

I would like to commend the traffic controller...dude is a MONSTER. I didn't realize how little time this plane had until you really watch the tradeoff of altitude for speed starting around @9:25 in this video. The amount of work this traffic controller was able to comprehend and execute in that small amount of time is something you only witness maybe once per decade. I've worked in a NOC for a major wireless carrier, where seconds of disruption equals millions of dollars lost...and sometimes lives. I consider myself really good under pressure, but this guy trumps my abilities by a significant margin.

[@minnesotajack1]

What saved those people was the fact that, in the cockpit, there were two guys with mustaches. Two things I heard were that the flight attendants didn’t know it was going to be a water landing… and they were probably better off given the circumstances. Also, Sully was fighting the plane at the end because he wanted to stall it a few feet over the water and belly flop down but the plane wouldn’t let a stall happen

[@Dan-cm9ow]

I think this is a great crew ATC example. The controller didn't pretend to be the pilot in command and start giving orders, plus the pilot didn't put his decisions on the controller -- something I see a lot in fatal air crashes. Instead the pilots made the hard decisions and the controller quickly facilitated everything possible to enable their decisions. Lastly the pilot just stopped talking on the radio when it stopped helping and focused on getting the plane down.

[@rbhoward9123]

Yup... Aviate, navigate, communicate

[@GOLDVIOLINbowofdeath]

I don’t know what videos you have been watching on YT, but of the several hundred air crash examples I have watched, over-reliance on the ATC has not been an issue, quite the opposite.

[@GOLDVIOLINbowofdeath]

@@rbhoward9123 You left out, don’t rely on ATC to help.

[@johncarter1137]

Thank you for not using the H-word in describing these pilots. They were very competent and professional for sure.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

The Airbus computer instead was the real hero by pushing the nose down when Sully pulled the nose up to 14 degrees at 200 agl, which if not corrected by the Fly By Wire, COULD HAVE PRODUCED A FULL STALL AT 300 AGL. Lots of lies by the Liberal USA Media looking for an American Hero while covering up his mistakes THAT WERE CORRECTED BY THE FLY BY WIRE European Safe System. You been lied and fooled many years. I was a CFI that analized that accident to the minute detail.. The movie lied too.

[@rjbishop12]

@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 Bulls**t. Sully knew he would have envelope protection, that's why he turned on the APU to ensure he had enough electrical power to power the hydraulics and computer. He knew full well that commanding as much elevator as he could, the computer would keep the pitch of the aircraft at a safe level. Yes, the computer played a role, but to act like this would have been a disaster had the computer not intervened is pretty much garbage. No way in hell Sully would have allowed that thing to stall... he's a better pilot than that. Prove me wrong- bet you can't.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

@@rjbishop12 So you say he knew the A320 could not let him do a chicken fear stall, so he pulled the nose up to 14 degrees up ON PURPOSE?? GTFO. Only a chicken shit will pull like that at 300 agl and expect not to slow down too much and drop too hard or stall. He was lucky the A320 system stopping him from stalling and killing all like it has happened. The A320 is the hero for that. Also the A320, Even when hit at 4 times the impact allowed, it didnt sink like others.. The A320 is The Volvo of the Airliners. Volvo pioneered safety devices others copied decades later. They came with seatbelts since 1956, That is 10 years before american cars, which came with bigger gas guzzling v8 engines, AND NO SEAT BELTS. Stupid or not?

[@mikemorgan5015]

@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 If I know a control surface has a computer limit, and I need every bit of that limit, I'm not going to inch up to that limit manually. I'm gonna get to that limit the easy way. And that is to take the controls past that computer limit and trust the computer. THAT IS WHAT IT'S THERE FOR. Operators of modern heavy equipment do this all the time without thinking about it. Production/cycle time is money. They are trying to get every ounce of hydraulic pump's capacity translated into motion to get the most work done. So it's very common to max out multiple control in order to harness as much of that pump's capacity as possible. It's not an aircraft, but the methodology is the same.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

@@mikemorgan5015 That method of maxing out the controls and relly on automation to correct for the exageration only works when say you are not going to kill 156 people if the machine does not correct for your exageration and lack of finesse. Also you need to keep the speed up to the Vglide to have speed to flare. You cannot exagerate the controls on an airplane. Im a fllight instructor of EFATO and aerobatics for many years. Have 4 engine problems on take off. Landed them all. You cannot exagerate the controls on an airplane, and say.. Naaa, i just let the computer correct for the idiot things I do. Naaa.!!

[@pairadocs4]

Very well said. As a physician who occasionally has to deal with dire emergencies with only a couple minutes to react, my best assistants 1)listen to what I’m saying, thinking out loud, totally ready to ASSIST;2) prepare things they might think I will need; 3)stay quiet otherwise. This last bit-staying appropriately quiet yet fully responsive and engaged, allows the expert (captain) to dwell in the computer of his mind and visualize what needs to happen. I would go so far as to say that more ‘checklist chatter’ as you are a couple hundred feet from impact are wholly counterproductive. Sometimes silence is golden for an optimal outcome.

[@Ryanboy2020]

Scott, thanks for giving us your take on this accident. I agree, CRM was done, but it was done without words and with trust in each pilots abilities. I had the honor of meeting both Sully and Jeff at an event for veterans and they were as humble as you would expect from a professional flight crew as these two fine examples of what training can do for you in an emergency when the brain stops working correctly.

[@whoever6458]

You're damn right about that! It's only by learning the rules so that you could dream about them in your sleep that you will know when those rules simply aren't going to entirely apply to some random situation that actual life throws at you. When the standard protocols are second nature, that leaves you with time both to realize that you're going to have to improvise and to find a way to do so. I was an EMT when I was younger and I took the training extremely seriously because it was going to be people's lives in my hands. I literally did often dream of emergency scenarios. Most of the time, the job was pretty uneventful but I ended up being known for sometimes breaking the protocols. However, no one could say that this was a bad thing even though ambulance companies like for you to follow very standardized procedures too. Every time I broke protocol, it saved someone's life and was the only way to do so in that situation and I was able to make these decisions quickly and decisively precisely because I could consider the protocols in a fraction of a second, determine they wouldn't work in the particular situation, and come up with something else when there simply wasn't time to do anything else. Know the rules so that you know when and how to break them. On a side note, I've had the experience of a large bird threatening to hit me right in the head. I was driving my motorcycle at probably at least 80 mph on the freeway as per the usual. I had just a fraction of a second to see a large Common Raven flying at nearly a right angle to my direction of travel and realized the bird would hit me in the head. I had no time to slow down and no distance left to meaningfully change directions so I did the only thing I could do, which was to duck and I had to duck by leaning back because there wasn't enough time or space to duck leaning forward. So I leaned back and watched that big ass bird pass within a few inches of my head, all without losing even the slightest bit of control of my motorcycle. I wasn't so lucky on several other instances with bees though so sometimes shit happens and of course the bees found the time to sting me as they were being pulverized by my body literally speeding through the air. After all the shenanigans on my motorcycle, it was a drunk driver who eventually took me down.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Great story, Who! thanks for sharing!

[@alanwright3172]

Sully went for the least worse option whilst the FO did his best to relight, unfortunately the E11a accident in Afghanistan may have had a different outcome if they had set up to glide to the nearest airfield and then tried to relight. CRM by definition is best use of the available assets, I had a cockpit fire incident and the Captain flew to the nearest aviation facility (unlicensed) whilst I dealt with the coms/passengers/checklist and although we at first thought there was no CRM we later realised that we had actual cross checked and co-operated instinctively (training?) Good Pilots think ahead, as in Sully's APU start (non checklist) we had discussed in the crew room about the use of the unlicensed airfield as it was the first onshore "safe haven" even though we were flying under commercial rules.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Great points!

[@johnchase9054]

I don't agree with the Airbus philosophy of never letting the pilot fly the aircraft out of the envelope. But I understand it's necessity given the lessor experience of many of the pilots who fly the Airbus worldwide. I prefer Boeing's philosophy which in this instance would have allowed Sully to put the aircraft on the water at a much lesser speed. Giving the pilot and not the computer the final say.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

I also preferred Boeing.

[@johnturnbull7798]

I am not a pilot but having watched many of the results from ditching on water a common problem seems to be stalling a wing which hits the water causing the plane to cartwheel. That usually creates a fair number casualties. On the other hand how many pilots have the experience to fly such a plane in those conditions? Do it in a simulator? Yes thats the stock industry solution but it doesnt confer the experience that a glider pilot gains everytime they fly.The higher speed hopefully prevents the pilot dropping that wing, Maybe Sully would have been able to succesfully use the wider envelop available to him but how many other pilots would? I suspect the increased amount of damage may be more acceptable than unsuccessfully using the increased envelop. At slower speed I would expect the plane to be less responsive and sluggisg so judging that moment of contact with the water more critical. If you scrub off too much speed you stall a wing and then you've lost contriol.

[@44R0Ndin]

They've had that philosophy right up until they threw it out the window with MCAS.

[@pamagee2011]

If I ever meet Sully I’d want to ask him if he had previously contemplated using the Hudson as an emergency landing site. I know that I have places picked out (roads, fields) for post takeoff engine failures around airports where I operate regularly in my single engine. A double failure in a modern jet is almost beyond comprehension, but still, one of the first things he said to ATC was, “we’re probably going to be in the Hudson.”

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

He was admiring the Hudson 30 seconds before they hit birds.. It its called Target Fixation on motorcycles and fighter Pilots jargon. Like a Mental Fixation. You tend to go towards what you look to, even if no good to do that.

[@CFITOMAHAWK]

The river froze 2 days later. Weehawken Ferries where empty and waiting for the rush hour to start in 15 minutes. The airplane didnt break so much even with the hard hit on water. Very lucky guys.

[@adventuresof3bravowhiskey896]

Great video Scott. I think planning ahead for possible problems is not only a good habit for flying, but for life in general.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Absolutely!

[@jcheck6]

Good vid Scott. I believe Sully was at full aft stick and the a/c would not slow below Flaps 2 min speed due to Normal Law. Have always wonder if he had called for Flaps 3 say at 100'- 50' AGL would that have given him a little more elevator control as the a/c slowed to Flaps 3 min speed. Regardless I find no fault with Sully nor Jeff...well done by both. Ex Bus driver with fading memory.

[@billylain7456]

Excellent video Scott. Thank you.

[@philipcollura2669]

I always believed that "miracle" shortchanged these two consummate professionals. Just the fact that it takes longer to describe the event than the events' elapsed time I think supports that. If there was a miracle is that they took off from Rwy 4, which made the Hudson available.

[@PoasLodge]

I seem to recall an interview, though I can’t find the source right now, where Sully said he had often considered the lack of options for a dual engine out leaving New York and had previously determined the Hudson was an option since crashing into one of the highest population densities in the hemisphere would have the potential for more casualties on the ground than aboard the aircraft.

[@outwiththem]

They were flying over the low buildings of north bronx not over manhattan. Manhattan buildings were 5 miles away and no factor on the glide path to LGA.. Did he really say that?? I taught pilots on that area and lived there 7 years..

[@jjohnston94]

@@outwiththem What did this have to do with the heights of the buildings?

[@PoasLodge]

jjohnston94 I think he was implying that there were no tall obstacles which would impede his return to the airport if possible

[@PoasLodge]

outwiththem my point being, if the airport is not an option... what else do you have? Densely populated areas. And a zero thrust Airbus isn’t going to be subtle.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

@@jjohnston94 On that flight, they were over the much lower buildings of North Bronx area. Manhattan buildings are 5 miles south and no factor on that flight.

[@JamesWilliams-en3os]

I agree. Training is paramount, and moreover currency of training. I recently made an engine-out off-airport landing in my M20K that resulted in no injuries and an only slightly bent airplane. I had reviewed that very procedure with my CFI at my recent BFR, and I attribute the positive outcome to that training as well as the emergency procedures training I had received in my PP training 10 years ago, my Mooney transition training, and every BFR I have done along the way. Thanks for this video and this channel, Scott. 👍

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks James. Excellent job!

[@tomh6779]

great reflection on a great crew. you are right on the money here. thank you!

[@kentreg1]

Always enjoy your perspective Scott, cheers.

[@zidoocfi]

Any landing you can swim away from. Seriously, it showed a virtually perfect example of how important it is for training about emergencies to focus on core principles that can be adapted when needed.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Absolutely! You can’t have a file for each type of emergency.

[@leeadams5941]

One of the top two aviation channels on You Tube period. Scott and Juan give professional input and observation unlike the hundreds of self proclaimed EXPERTS that propagate the channels with ignorance and BS.

[@PoasLodge]

It also seems that there is a distinct point when Sully decides that the controller has added all he can to the scenario and at that point, Sully’s full attention returns to the cockpit and they complete the task together.

[@outwiththem]

Very lucky guys. The river froze 2 days later. I have seen mini icebergs coming down from upper New York state the size of big houses before freezing river.. That A320 hitting icebergs at that 147 mph could be destroyed and sunk it in minutes. Also the Weehawken Ferries were empty waiting for rush hour to start in 15 minutes. Really Lucky Captain. A once in lifetime Miracle for sure

[@larumpole]

One of the best analysis of this incredible moment in aviation history. I agree with the passenger who commented that they were lucky. The passengers were lucky to have such a well-trained air and cabin crew. I think someone else commented that they recalled an interview Sully gave where he mentioned that he had previously considered using the Hudson in the event of an emergency where he could not make it to an airport. Situational awareness meant he had already considered his options.

[@kevinmalloy2180]

Fascinating as always Scott. Thanks so much. Have been studying AF447 (in English and French) and Airbus automation. Your point about Normal Law is particularly interesting to me. And what a huge contrast between the overall preparedness of Cactus 1549 versus AF447 crews-and between the role of automation in French versus US crew training before both 2009 accidents.

[@brianburchart7592]

Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing your knowledge

[@hughoneill9861]

The movie's portrayal of the "attempt to fault the crew" does raise a good point. An example is the crash of the Swissair Flight 111. The crew "followed the book" in their effort to contend with the fire, while had they broken with "the book" they could have diverted to Halifax and landed. So, crews might at times be averse to "creative" action in contending with an emergency lest they be found at fault. Another good example is TWA Flight 841 where the crew was wrongly faulted.

[@SVSky]

Being able to tell at a glance where you're going to land in a glide has been a skill that has transferred well to powered flying (for me). The instinctive pitch down had to play a role that day.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. The Aviate part was done by Skyles when he let the nose be lowered, he was the pilot flying when hit the birds. The NAVIGATE (To the Hudson) part was done by Sullenberg. For me, the navigation part should have been gliding it to LGA instead of the Hudson river. 24 trials by Airbus confirmed it was totally safe to glide to LGA if done within 17 seconds after the bash. Sully was lucky the airplane didnt sink fast and Weehawken ferries were there within a 3 minutes to start picking up all passengers. Dam lucky guy..

[@SVSky]

@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 Easy to say after the fact man, There are multiple other cases where people assessed engine problems too quick and ended up crashed. YOU would turn back to LGA, but you weren't there and weren't faced with plowing into buildings if you were wrong.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

@@SVSky A 19,000 hour pilot that ignored how many miles his airplane he claims to be an expert on CAN GLIDE. That is an Imcomplete Pilot. Some are so afraid of glides they dont want to even think that airplane can do that. They can glide, but the pilot cant. A shame..

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

@@SVSky And for your info, i had to turnback twice to airport because of engine problems. Over houses..

[@nancychace8619]

That took some serious skill to land that plane like that. I haven't seen the movie, but can recommend Sully's book. It's been awhile since I read it, but I do recall something about being taken to task by the NTSB for not following some inane rules. What part of "everyone survived" did they take issue with? Outrageous that Sully couldn't get past the computer under those circumstances. Seems like a recurring theme with some of these accidents. If he could have slowed the plane down more, how would that have changed the outcome? Also I can see how glider experience would have helped. In my view these pilots and crew did an outstanding job in the face of some of the most trying of circumstances. Unless one has actually been in the heat of a moment such as this, they can only speculate how they might handle it. Good training and experience add up to good instincts. Will never forget finding this on the internet when it happened after a long day. Thanks for a good review.

[@wicked1172]

"We were very lucky", Luck is where preparation and circumstance meet, "Training is fun and, it just might save your life". My thoughts are that General Aviation should be promoted more in order to develop more great pilots.

[@lyfandeth]

I've heard that model Airbus also had an unusual "water landing" control, which sealed off the usual air intakes that would have admitted water and flooded the plane, and Capt. Sullivan knew to engage that.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

It had a Ditch switch and from what I've been told that would have closed the outflow valves (which have to do with pressurization) and put the FCC into Direct Law... amongst a few other things.

[@nickinportland]

Love this type of video Scott. Do more!

[@thomasculligan4348]

A truly outstanding video! I have always thought that CRM and training played a major part in this event!

[@Mrsournotes]

Enjoyed hearing your expert take on this accident. I still get a shiver watching this flight. And...I learned a new footlong German word...Fingerspitzengefühl!

[@lynnhawkins799]

Great Recap.

[@williamelkins1613]

Great video. Liked your perspective.

[@jacksmith827]

Great Video and I agree with your comments.

[@timothyjones1577]

This was an excellent analysis of the event without the added drama (as you referenced the movie) to understand the decision process that the cockpit had to make in very short order. I know that you do not want to get bogged down in revisiting too many past accidents, however I would like to see your presentation of United Flight 232 DC-10 accident at Sioux City in 1989. This would be in the context of the systems employed on that era DC-10 compared to the current fleets of "fly-by-wire" airliners and how that may have impacted the outcome of the accident. The other factors of the unique mechanical failure and the immense luck of having such an experienced crew in the cockpit.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks Tim. I actually met the pilot of United 232 once. Great guy!

[@greyjay9202]

Not only was Sullenberger glider-trained, he was also a pilot instructor. He and Skiles had no time, no altitude, and no engines, but they pulled it off. A brilliant piece of airmanship.

[@petrairene]

He is also an ex fighter pilot. I guess that trains quick reflexes for solving problems into pilots.

[@tomfrmnh]

Great video Scott. That was a well thought out analysis. I agree with you, no breakdown in CRM in my opinion. Just because there was no challenge response coordination with all checklist (no time) delegation of duties is just as important in CRM; especially with limited resources (ie time). Likewise, hopefully no one thinks the ditching checklist should have been done to ensure the ditching switch was pushed. I mean come on, limited time folks and everyone walked away.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Well said!

[@garymartin9777]

Two engines out. Can't relight. 100 feet above the river. Sully: "Got any ideas?" Styles: "sure, I'll just pull something out of my rear and save the day!"

[@jeffwalther3935]

Your series is and does peerless work on KZbin Scott. Upon first hearing of the incident, I too would have chosen the Hudson AND made the decision to ditch in the Hudson AND always saw and considered the river and waterways wide open like NOTHING around for many square miles, but the worst places to crash land - heavily populated residential city. That Sully chose to go with the wide-open Hudson river flat-as-a-pancake water ditch, being at maximum fuel weight too, the ditching was clearly the only way to go. Navy pilots obviously, have water ditching as second nature, always an option and, as a matter of course that land-trained pilots may not consider viable or survivable, yet may always be wide open to them - mistakenly just out of consideration.

[@marcelflying]

Excellent video! Thanks for your insights Scott.

[@bobjackson3307]

Super video!

[@FlyChuckyFly]

Between professionals working together, communication or CRM does not necessarily have to be verbal and audible. A grunt may be enough to get the message across in a compressed time situation. They made the absolute best choices they could based on the information they had during the limited time that they had. Fortunately everything was a success!

[@tomcorwine3091]

Yeeeessss. I say this all the time. A grunt. Pointing at an instrument. Seeing the other reach for a switch so you know it’s been taking care of. A glance. All sorts of non-verbal ways of communicating that a CVR doesn’t pick up.

[@77thTrombone]

That "wind your watch" guidance is just gonna confuse the young pups coming up now. "Why would you ever wind a watch? Does he mean wrap a wire around it?"

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Haha!! Good point!

[@markb.1259]

Excellent, Excellent Review!! Thank You!

[@MalcolmRuthven]

Thanks for that great analysis, Scott. It brought out things that I hadn't known. One question: Was there something that could/should have been done to allow Sully full control over the plane so he could have has less airspeed on landing?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

My understanding is if they had pushed the ‘Ditch’ switch they would have gone to Direct Law and been able to do that.

[@MalcolmRuthven]

@@FlyWirescottperdue So would you consider that to be a mistake they made?

[@bfarrell1224]

They didn't have time to get past the first page of the dual engine failure checklist, let alone get a ditching checklist out. For all it's worth, most airliners won't stay together in a water landing, especially with under slung engines and the extremely unlikely chance of both engines touching the water at the same time and the fuselage continuing straight and in one piece. Most take a spin and break apart in some manner. Like Mr. Perdue said, most checklists are written as if you have time to execute it. I've flown both types and prefer the Boeing too. But hey, they did a great job with that Airbus.

[@zidoocfi]

There is something that he could have done, but it strikes most pilots as totally counterintuitive. It involves bringing MORE speed into the flare so that a SLOW speed can be reached at touchdown. If you go to the official NTSB Accident Report (AAR 10/03), it's on pages 49-50 in section 1.16.3 (Operational Factors and Human Performance Simulations), and the money quote is the one about the Airbus test pilot near the bottom of page 50. In day 2 of the hearing testimony, that pilot made reference to the AIM, where in section 6-3-3 (11.e.1) about ditching without power it specifically says "a GREATER than normal approach speed should be used down to the flare" and explains why. If you look at the NTSB animation of USA1549, Sully inadvertently ballooned from about 200 feet to about 350 feet on short final when the flaps were put out, thus bleeding off about 50 knots, so the descent from that point was at too slow an airspeed to allow him to arrest the descent. The Airbus FBW protections had a minor effect on that. If those protections weren't there, Sully MIGHT have been able to flare perfectly without stalling, but it would have needed to be flown perfectly to walk that fine line.

[@bfarrell1224]

@@zidoocfi Very true, The FBW was just doing what it was intended to do, not knowing it was about to get wet. The plane would have started to maintain speed by dropping the nose if it got beyond its "too slow" point the computers calculated. The Airbus "Retard, retard, retard" call out in the flare is sort of the same thing you mention in a dead stick situation of carrying speed and trading it for a gentle water landing. If you let a couple or 3 of the "retard" calls come out during a "normal" landing (this isn't by anyway an accepted technique, just an observation), the engines will spool up a bit and give the reduction in vertical to give a "greaser". Maybe i'm wrong on that. It's been a long time. Cheers

[@petrairene]

Interesting take on this story. But the story I find even more amazing is Carlos Dardano's incident where he flamed out in a hailstorm, deadsticked the plane out of it to ditch in a canal and then found a levy to do a smooth landing on. And all of that with only one eye. In my opinion the Hudson story pales compared to that stunt. There is an interview with him on youtube, the guy is quite the character.

[@SuperDave_BR549]

tom hanks is just excessive weight. eta: jumped at an old C-182 DZ in OK, the ex-pat brit that was running the place was an old glider pilot, can still remember him catching the thermals to help the aeroplane get us to 10K, man it sure made ya dream of a 208 or maybe a dhc-3.

[@DocMWH]

Great summary, as always. I thought at the beginning of the video you had something you were really going to criticize the pilots for, but you really helped affirm a few things in my own head. For example, when you asked if they'd accomplished CRM, my answer was YES! So it was a relief when you agreed. They worked together in such a way that you'd never know they hadn't flown together before. I completely agree that CRM means a division of tasks and doesn't require constant cross-checks when they're unnecessary. When they were, they happened. (and, BTW, minor nit - it's Canada Geese, not "Canadian")...

[@flyingcaba5874]

I liked this video very much, very educating. I´ve never seen before the nicely done transcript together with the radio calls and the actual flight path of the airplane. From the bird strike to water impacti it took less time it took me to fetch a beer. Good job guys!

[@richardspees841]

Thanks you very much for this. They got the most important things right: Everyone survived, and it was not by "luck" but by training and quick decision making.

[@alrivas1477]

Magnificent breakdown of the Miracle Flight.

[@41istair]

Professionals are the first to admit that they make (mini) mistakes every day, as any deviation from "perfection" is considered a mistake, in order to seek continuous self-improvement.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Spot on!

[@CFITOMAHAWK]

What mistake did he admit he made?? He published 2 books with another "helper" about how great he is making decisions and managing problems.. That is not admitting any important mistakes. Like to know what he admitted..

[@Mike-01234]

You could relate this to engine failures and turn-backs where lot of times I read that more then often it's the more experienced high time pilot who is attempting a turn-back instead of just landing straight ahead. Sullenberger didn't attempt a turn-back even though there was some simulator testing to see if it could be done. Why is it more often higher time pilots crashing during turn-backs?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

I don't know that your assertion is true.

[@do8472]

thanks for your opinion. I personally agree.

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day, Yay Team Scott, I concurr, Sully did a really good job, and his Co-Pilot rose to the Occasion admirably. I strongly agree with your observation regarding Sailplane Experience. My ultimate arguement being that the top-scoring Allied Fighter Jocks in WW-2 (Johnnie Johnson & Richard I. Bong) learned to fly in Tiger Moths & Stearmans..., and both were credited with 40 Victories in Aerial Combat. Whereas Erich Hartmann was credited with 352 witnessed & confirmed Aerial Victories..., his mother was a Gliding Instructor, he made his first flight as a Foetus and then at age-3, on his mother's lap, in a Sailplane, and his First Solo was at 8, in a Primary Glider. I think he was shot down & crashed about 8 times, so technically Ulmarri Jutilainan of Finland was a "Greater" Fighter Pilot - with 94 witnessed & confirmed victories, and, quoting Aeroplane Magazine, London, "His Aeroplane was never hit by any Bullet fired from any of his Aerial Opponents"... Which makes no mention of Groundfire (!), and that feels like Cherry-Picking as I read it ; but, still - Adolf had to furnish Erich with 9 Operational Fighters to have 352 Enemies downed, but Mannerheim only had to provide Ulmari with 1, for 94 Enemy Shootdowns. So far, I haven't heard what Juttilainan did his Ab-Initio in, maybe being in Finland it was Biplanes on Skis over Snow (?). But, in my ideal world, it would be illegal to teach anybody to fly in Powered Aeroplanes until they first gain their FAI International Gliding Certificates, A, B, & C ; because I'm certain that such a Regulation would greatly improve the Breed, as a whole (!). Learning to fly The WING, before ever introducing the complication of a Noisy Generator of Oily Smells into the Learning Process, means that forever afterwards ; whenever the Fire expires then it's easy to revert To NORMAL..., and glide down onto whatever Emergency Outlanding Location one selected before flying into that position. Glider Pilots are trained for Tow/Winch-Rope-Breaks, by the Instructor pulling the Release while onTakeoff..., it's all a lot more REAL than is idling the Engine and then climbing out rather than actually landing. So, Yay TEAM Sailplanes ! Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@jg6438]

Hello Scott, a nice rehash of the same. May I offer further information on the Ditching PB description? To prepare for ditching, the flight crew must press the DITCHING pushbutton on the CABIN PRESS control panel to close the outflow valve, the emergency ram air inlet, the avionics ventilation inlet and extract valves, the pack flow control valves and the forward cargo outlet isolation valve. Nothing to to do with alternate law. What "more control" over landing speed? On a previous Q&A video I asked about your Airline experience that was not answered. I realize you are not able to answer all the questions but there is no need now as I find you were hired 1986 and retired Oct. 2019 at age 65. I don't mean to rain on your parade, I do enjoy your videos, well, most of them anyway. LOL Happy Retirement. Regards, JG

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

I flew mostly.Boeing. Except for the Fokker 100. The trouble is that to achieve the pitch angle and descent rate to successfully ditch an Airbus 320..... you cannot achieve it in Normal Law. Only in Direct Law. I figured that Airbus would have a method of getting there... turns out they don’t.

[@Ravenscaller]

I never learned what happened to Skiles the FO. Sully retired and became a hero but the FO sort of disappeared. Did he continue to fly for instance?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

I believe he flew for awhile and then retired from USAir and went to work for EAA. Last I heard he bought a Skywagon.

[@Ravenscaller]

Thanks

[@mountainmama1951]

Gotta wonder about the ad for incontinence underwear that popped up just as Sully stopped radio communication. Coincidence? I think not.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Could be. I have nothing to do with that at all.

[@billmorris2613]

The word that best describes this accident has been used since day one! “MIRACLE”

[@billmorris2613]

Good morning from SE Louisiana 26 Feb 21.

[@saintsi6997]

I think that there was no time for Sully to come to terms with the fact that they were going into the Hudson or to make an explainable descision . He just did what was necessary under the circumstances within the expertise he had gained through his flying career. training or gliding experience or just self-preservation.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

I agree.

[@RoadRunnerLaser]

The “dramatisation” in the movie angers me, too. That bit of fiction will soon become “canon” and it will be an uphill struggle to convince people not to go around saying that the NTSB were out to drag Sully and the crew. In much the same way, a lot of people still think that Jack Swigert aboard Apollo 13 transmitted, “Houston, we have a problem”. Coincidentally, Tom Hanks played a part in that one, too.

[@davidpinkham3256]

Hi. I don't know if you'll see this at this date, but I've had some discussions with folks, and just read some excerpts from the NTSB report, and would appreciate some clarification on your statements about how partial power kept the fly by wire system in normal law, which overrode Sully's inputs, resulting in a harder than needed impact. Around page 89 of the NTSB report starts a discussion of descent and ditching airspeeds and related, consequent factors. It seems that the descent airspeed was too low all along - below V-LS, and this prompted the plane to stay in, or initiate, alpha protection mode, which limits the amount of pitch up the pilot could apply - apparently Sully was using full aft stick, but the alpha protection mode limited the angle of attack - this sounds like what you were saying, but the thing is, the airspeed was too low to allow a greater angle of attack (if I understand). Higher airspeed would have allowed a higher angle of attack, because there would have been more flare energy, and that could have resulted in a softer landing, but at the speed they were going, if Sully were able to get into, what? direct law?, and thereby command a greater angle of attack, a stall was the more likely result. This is fascinating stuff, and your presentation has precipitated some good discussions that I'd like to continue with more info.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

I was told by Airbus folks how that works. I was surprised to learn there is no way for the aircrew to disconnect Normal Law. Direct Law would have allowed a slower speed on water contact. Which would have been a better option.

[@davidpinkham3256]

@@FlyWirescottperdue thanks for that. But at that airspeed, would he have had sufficient energy to flare, or would the increased angle of attack he was trying for just led to a stall?

[@TakeDeadAim]

I met Jeff Skiles here at Oshkosh a couple of times. He was involved with the "Young Eagles" program. Like you said "good shit" for sure! I too purposely didn't start interrogating him about the incident...just tacky.

[@ProbableCause-DanGryder]

And me.... mines coming.

[@chuckmartin5773]

Missing the bonanza flights, hope there are some coming soon?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Me too Chuck. Charlie is in for an avionics upgrade. I’m going crazy!

[@chuckmartin5773]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Sweet, can’t wait to see it!

[@christophergoggin5524]

WISDOM DEFINITION= Knowing what to do next

[@EstorilEm]

Great video, not sure how I haven’t found your channel till now. I disagree a bit with some peoples thoughts on normal law somehow altering the outcome of the landing impact. They were very stable upon impact, it’s not like they commanded pitch and it didn’t happen THEN they hit. I think you’re talking a few degrees and a few knots - on the flip side they were protected for the entire envelope and there have been crashes where pilots “lost it” very near landing or approach. Having their full flight protections pretty much ensured that couldn’t happen.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks Alex, I appreciate your input. For me I'd rather keep the vote. I'm stuck in the mud, what can I say.

[@pamagee2011]

Skiles: “I picked a great time to get that Airbus type rating.”

[@sqlpilot9711]

Another thought on timing is that this accident happened during the day in VFR conditions, thank God!

[@outwiththem]

Yeah.. This is a bad week to stop drinking he said.. LOL>.

[@jeffwalther3935]

SCOTT: You're gonna love this EXCLUSIVE story Addition on the Miracle on the Hudson ditching accident story. The iconic photo that captured the heart of the world that came to symbolize the 0 casualties best part was all the passengers lined up, virtually wingtip-to-wingtip, all the way across meant all were out of the water and thus entirely SAFER. What supported the wings so much so that they stayed afloat so much so or why the aircraft didn't immediately sink, like a bus fallen into the river? Are aircraft usually so buoyant, and if so, how so? Two years after the accident I was looking at the picture and realized that 1) it was the wings and nothing else that were high up and 2) the wings were FULL of AVGAS where all the aircraft's fuel was immediately after DEPARTURE when any aircraft has a full load of fuel. AVGAS like all gas is slightly lighter than water. Therefore, it was the AVGAS that ultimately saved everyone the most in the whole accident!

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Jeff- Thanks for watching and commenting. I'll make a quick response here. First the fuel in the tanks was Jet A, which is close to Diesel Fuel and heavier than Avgas. Second, Dumping fuel might be an option at altitude, but given the low altitude that this event happened dumping fuel was not really an option... and would have been a distraction. Third, empty fuel tanks don't leak... for the same reasons that fuel doesn't leak out of them in the first place. If they had been empty they would have provided more buoyancy and may very well have kept the airplane floating longer. Fourth, the primary reason the airplane floated as long as it did was the fact that the airplane was pressurized. The fuselage was a pressure vessel with only the outflow valve open (which the crew forgot to close) to the water... and the damage to the tail section... admitting water to the fuselage. These things slowed the 'fill' rate. Eventually, the cavities filled with water and the airplane sank, but I'm sorry to say the difference in weight between Jet A and water (and water is indeed heavier than Jet A) would not have made a difference. Consider why boats float in the first place. But, I'm really happy that the video got you thinking about the whole process and all the little pieces that needed to fit in to result in no fatalities. It was indeed a Miracle.

[@cyrooski4]

Everything you say is true and I love watching your videos however, and I am still wrestling with this, I firmly believe that as soon as he heard the birds hit the engine or engines had he started a sharp turn back to laguardia he would have landed there. So I have established a rule for my own plane that if I hear any engine roughness or I see any gauge giving me a questionable reading I start a turn immediately... as long as I have 600 ft AGL to play with for my RV 12.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

As long as you’ve thought it through and have a metric. Sounds good to me.

[@outwiththem]

Yes, you should know when to turnback and when to not. At end of 1990's CFI years i taught those turnbacks to many as CF. I always thought after seen he had 3,000 agl over north bronx low buildings, 200 knots and only 4 miles from LGA, I think it was better to glide to LGA instead of glide to Mid Manhattan on the Hudson 5 miles away. He didnt know that turnback or had doubts.. Lucky the river had no icebergs like i have seen and Weehawken Ferries were empty due waiting for rush hour to start in 15 minutes... Dammm lucky guys..

[@nickhart5332]

Great work Scott! Such a miraculous deal and such great work fly the flight crew!

[@TakeDeadAim]

"When in command....COMMAND". First law OF command....There ARE times when the captain needs to take over and make decisions independent of outside influences. "Nickel on the grass...save a fighter pilots ass"!

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

That's right!

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

Aviated (Nose lowered by Skyles who was PF when birds hit), then Communicated and Navigated to the river, by Sullemberg.. But.. Hey wait.. Is there something backwards here??

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Good question. But it is common for the captain to take over flying.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Mr. Perdue, I though a turnback to the nearest airport (LGA) the "Navigate" of 2nd step was required before any engine re-start procedure like the 2 done, then the "Communicate" done also before Navigating to nearest airport. A total of over 35 seconds were wasted while going away from airport at 195 knots, with damaged, impacted and unusable engines. Wasting time and altitude needed. According to Airbus 24 simulations with different pilots, If Sullemberg turned back within 17 seconds, a safe glide to LGA was possible. That part was ignored by the Hollyweird Movie and mostly ignored also by NTSB Investigation. That is weird, isn't it?? For me, SOP's were ignored due only the A320 and about 70 pets in the baggage hold were lost. And "A Hero" was created by the SOP ignorant USA Media which in January 2009 was really starving for good news. Sully was a very lucky guy. But.. Lucky guys should not be called heroes.. If you win the lotto., You aint no hero, just a lucky person... And Luck is Not Talent..

[@francisschweitzer8431]

It’s easy to see by the radar trace... Sully started lining up with the river pretty much right away... as a former flight status crew chief in the USAF... I’ve heard great and I’ve heard poor CRM... my view of what we head on the Hot Mic... was damn fine ... the last thing Sully needed was INFORMATION OVERLOAD... which is a real thing in the cockpit and it was first recognized by Air Force, Navy and Marine F-4 Phantom pilots....

[@robertbutsch1802]

So do you think in the case of FBW aircraft the crew should have the option (and maybe a checklist item) in certain emergencies to purposely put the system in Direct law to allow more piloting options? If Sullenberger had not started the APU (it was not a checklist item at that point) the airplane I believe would have degraded to Direct law. I have not yet watched Eastwood’s and Hanks’s film specifically because I have heard they vilified the NTSB simply to add some drama to the movie.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

I've been told the airplane would not have degraded to Direct Law. I do believe there should be an option for the crew to select Direct Law.

[@artnickel7624]

No breakdown in CRM! Sometimes, like this, no time existed for CRM as most would think of it. Checklists are great, when reading one won’t kill everybody.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

Memory items come way before pulling the long checklist book or app. Aviate, Navigate, then communicate in that order..

[@JamesDonald-bl3zp]

What were the chance of an explosion on this landing ?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Very low.

[@not2late2game53]

I was half gettin it till you said... "My nickel on the grass" ?! ;-')

[@robertwren2289]

He did a great job in with the time an altitude that he had. He flew the plane, and that saved everyone's life.

[@mileskifield]

I like the way you think.

[@damienmcbratney3197]

In this instance CRM was perfect given the circumstances. It was their saviour

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Indeed it was!

[@ShaunieDale]

Were they perfect? No. Did they do a damned good job, yes! They had insufficient time to do all that was needed, especially with regards to the ditching checklist. What they did do was make best use of every bit of time available to them. My hats off to these guys. What did the post accident report on the engines say? Given sufficient height and time were they restartable or were they too badly damaged?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

As I remember the assessment was that one wouldn't run at all and the other would not be able to run above idle.

[@ShaunieDale]

@@FlyWirescottperdue thanks for the reply. Good job they wasted little time attempting restarts.

[@1982MCI]

Hey Scott, were you ever stationed at Eglin AFB when you were flying the 15’s?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

No, TDY a few times.

[@1982MCI]

@@FlyWirescottperdue was just curious Scott. I was stationed there at the 33 TFW as a jet engine mechanic on the 15’s from late 80’s to early 90’s. My brother was also there but he was on the other side of the base and he was an electrical engineer for avionics/ guidance systems and some other stuff he was never allowed to talk to me about since he had a top clearance and I didn’t. He was an officer and I was enlisted so he always gave me the cold shoulder anyways, lol. He got out in early 90’s as well I believe but continued to work there as a contractor and is still there today and still does a lot of design on the radar/guidance/ avionics and does a lot of testing with you guys down there. I received an incentive flight in the 15 while I was there and that was the most incredible thing I’ve ever been thru and it gives you a whole new respect for you guys after seeing what you do up there. We respected you long before I had that experience but it went to a whole new level after that! You guys do an incredible job!! After I left Eglin, I ended up on 141’s and went over for Desert Storm for a bit then I got out when I came back home. Love the videos Scott, you do an awesome job!! Take care and stay safe out there!

[@asarangan]

Would they have been able to put it down in the Hudson if it was IMC that day?

[@stansutterfield4877]

I enjoy listening to your perspective, however, in my opinion, the correct action was to IMMEDIATELY turn back to LGA using 45 degrees of bank. They could have reached the airport. And even if they did not reach the airport, they could have still put it in the water.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Maybe, but you discount the power and influence of standard airline operating procedure. Action as you suggest doesn’t fit the mold they squeeze you into. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that the training forces a different response pattern.

[@jmwSeattle]

He didn’t know the plane had a ditch switch.

[@GOLDVIOLINbowofdeath]

I have been commenting about his failure to flip the ditch switch ever since the NTSB report came out and everybody except on this video has always attacked me, usually personally. It’s as if it was against the law for him to have read the manuals ahead of time Or to have worked out plan on what to do in the event have a low altitude double engine failure from this airport.

[@CFITOMAHAWK]

@@GOLDVIOLINbowofdeath Give him a brake. He only had 19,000 hours and thousands of landings and take offs from LGA... You need around 200,000 hours before you learn that if both engines are impacted, you turnback to the nearest airport NOW, and dont try to restart them, then turn...

[@garygraebe5528]

Glassy water landings..can be tricky , specially in a transport category airplanes, you gonna"pile drive it" first time 100%..I'm just Normal Law ,don't push the blame on me..LOL DoubleG out.

[@Parr4theCourse]

Yep, Hollywood always takes “creative license” and typically gets it wrong. Knowing so, I watch aviation movies with a grain of salt!

[@44R0Ndin]

Same with myself when they try to cover space-related things. For what it's worth, the movie "Apollo 13" got it probably 90% correct at least as far as the parts pertaining to the actual flight of Apollo 13. The movie "Gravity" on the other hand, really really did not. They entirely over-played the hazard that orbital debris poses to an actual spacecraft in low Earth orbit. They also massively UNDER-played how difficult it is to match orbits with an entirely separate space station (unless they're so close in orbit that they're actually at risk of colliding with each other). Pretty much all spacecraft used to get to and from low earth orbit (such as the Soyuz used in Gravity) would simply run out of fuel for the engines long before they were able to actually match orbits, this is because a "plane change" is the single most expensive change to an orbit you may have to make. Most spacecraft can only change the inclination or plane of their orbit by maybe a couple of degrees at most. And all three of the space stations visited in the movie are in entirely different orbital planes, each one off by at least 10 degrees from any other. It's a simple case of "can't get there from here". The easiest way to get to safety from orbit is to land on the Earth. If I was stuck in space with a reentry capsule with a damaged heat shield, I'd still try it because I'd rather die quick during reentry than slowly suffocate to death.

[@Parr4theCourse]

@@44R0Ndin I thought gravity was off but didn’t know what I didn’t know....

[@tbas8741]

Here's a Question regarding the "hudson miracle" If he was not flying an airbus with Alpha Floor Protection and stall protection. Would he have still made it in a 737 or similar planes from other manufacturers. Did the airbus safety systems make sure it landed or was it purely pilot skill.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

I think the result of Alpha Floor Protection forced water impact at higher speed leading to greater body damage which led to the aircraft sinking quicker. I think Sully in a 737 would have landed with less damage and more time to get folks out. But the result would have been the same. Additional time would have been the only factor. With all the boats that came to the rescue it worked out fine in this accident.

[@tbas8741]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Good points like always. now im wondering what would cause more damage, like 180knots lower AOA touch down with maybe -25ft/min (greased landing skipping like a stone as he did) Versus like 140knots higher AOA with maybe -250ft/min (soft/medium landing more of a splash landing with sudden stop)

[@christophergoggin5524]

Well. At risk of sounding "Hollow" Sulley was a Glider Pilot and so... if you really want to become a better and more accomplished pilot get your glider rating. You will be amazed at; How much better your approaches will be, sensitivity to wind and direction, how to fly without an engine! Plus the stick and rudder skills are completed isolated and direct, your judgement skills improve greatly.

[@joell439]

👍👍😃👍👍

[@eddy2561]

Any aviation mistake you can walk away from was a "good mistake"

[@howesfull8]

Did you actually say "training is fun..."? The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war (Patton).

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

When I was a young Marine that is what we’d say ALL the time!

[@SVSky]

Hell yes. A pint of sweat saves a gallon of blood.

[@LTVoyager]

Yes, Hollywood has to bastardize reality at least a little and typically a lot. I think Sully and Skiles did the best they could given the circumstances. I saw one joker comment somewhere that they should have turned back to land at LaGuardia as computer models after the fact showed they could have (just barely) made it back to a runway. I suspect the model was created by the insurance company that had to pay the hull loss damages. However, the model basically assumed that a nearly instantaneous decision to turn back to LaGuardia was made with nearly zero time for checklists and troubleshooting. That simply isn’t realistic in the real world. And had they tried that and ended up in a residential area killing people in the plane and one the ground, can you imagine all of the Monday morning quarterbacking about how they made a rash decision without taking time to analyze their situation, run checklists, and troubleshoot?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

You're exactly right! Not a realistic idea at all.

[@outwiththem]

Incorrect about the "zero time to start the turnback" they had. Airbus and insurance co. test showed with 24 trials and different pilots that if he turned back to LGA WITHIN 17 SECONDS after hitting the birds, a very safe glide landing could be made on runway 13 which approach was at his 8 o clock position. Of course, Hollywood omitted those test from the movie and only presented the failing 17 test they did AFTER he went to the river and only about 1, 200 agl. Too low to go LGA or TTB by that time. I studied all details about that accident due i lived and trained pilots on that area for years. And Im one of "The Jokers" that say he could have glide to LGA instead of kept going away from LGA for 39 seconds and wasting time starting broken engines while going away. I can debate you in the details in any forum you choose. Money or no money on the table. So you are the joker ignorant here, not me. email when and where..

[@LTVoyager]

@@outwiththem I see only 20 runs documented in the NTSB report and only 15 of those were used due to simulator “issues” and the success rate was only 53% even with an immediate turn back. 50/50 is not very good odds. And this was with pilots who were “fully briefed” prior to the run and knew exactly what was going to happen and what they were going to do so absolutely no surprise factor or troubleshooting required. Completely unrealistic as any actual pilot (not Microsoft Flight Simulator “pilot”) knows.

[@rjbishop12]

@@outwiththem If you were a true pilot, you would have more respect for what was accomplished and not want to pick fist fights. There are probably about zero pilots that could make this kind of decision with that many souls on board in less than 17 seconds. Yeah, sure YOU Know the facts now, but think what Sully had to run through his mind in that short amount of time. 1/2 mile +/- changes everything. 200 ft agl +/- changes everything. Everyone is an armchair quarterback after the fact.

[@outwiththem]

@@LTVoyager The 50% that didnt reach LGA on the Sim were the ones that were told to turnback AFTER 17 SECONDS. The tested from 40 seconds back to 17 seconds. All the ones that turned back under 17 seconds glided back at LGA. Sully waited almost 40 seconds before turning to the river. So my posted is true. IF HE TURNED BACK WITHIN 17 SECONDS HE COULD GLIDE BACK TO LGA. Instead he kept going away from LGA while did nothing for 8 seconds (froze) then ordered to re start the broken engines, then called, then turned to the river . All screwed up SOP. SOP's in case of fire or bad engines, is.. Aviate, Navigate to airport, then call, then try to restart while gliding to airport. SOP's for decades are that way..

[@johnstreet819]

Another good one Gunny. Once again the Airbus computer fails to let the PIC do what needs to be done. Pitiful.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

That is a lie. The Airbus computer instead was the real hero by pushing the nose down when Sully pulled the nose up to 14 degrees which if not corrected by the Fly By Wire, COULD HAVE PRODUCED A FULL STALL AT 300 AGL. Lots of lies by the Liberal USA Media looking for an American Hero while covering up his mistakes THAT WERE CORRECTED BY THE FLY BY WIRE European Safe System. You been lied and fooled many years. I was a CFI that analized that accident to the minute detail.. The movie lied too.