Sully - Did the FAA really give him a hard time?

[SimSlim 5]

The movie is excellent in many respects but the portrayal of the NTSB (not the FAA) was ridiculous.  Read the report.  The multiple simulator runs were done as a standard part of the investigation, with the cooperation of US Air, Airbus and the pilots' union, all of whom were parties to the investigation.  There wasn't a kangaroo court where an unfairly-accused Sully stood up and insisted on them.  The results of the runs were that even without the 35-second delay, just over half the crews (53 percent) were able to make the runway safely.  The additional run with the 35-second delay was added by the investigators themselves - and it failed to achieve a safe landing.  The simulator runs, like everything else in the investigation, were just a matter of the investigators doing their job - due diligence in order to rule out possible causes.  Eastwood is a fine director and I've enjoyed a lot of his work.  But he's also a hardcore small-government advocate, and that's what played out here - a sort of political theme about a strong lone American hero dragged down by petty, vindictive bureaucrats.  It does a massive disservice to an agency that actually functions well and does its job protecting the pubic.  I'm disappointed that Sullenberger, who claims to be a safety advocate, went along with a storyline that undermines a safety-oriented organization.  

I agree. NTSB has a job to do and the Eastwood portrayal was a shameful and bogus anti-government pile-on.

 

BTW, Saint-Exupery is my hero.

[Alan_A 1,650]

I agree. NTSB has a job to do and the Eastwood portrayal was a shameful and bogus anti-government pile-on.

 

BTW, Saint-Exupery is my hero.

 

What was entertaining to me was that several times, when I criticized the film, people said, "Well, it's Hollywood, he had to do something to make the story more dramatic."  And my follow-up question was, "OK, great, how would you have felt if he'd made it dramatic by turning Sullenberger into an alcoholic?"  That didn't go over well.  In other words, drama is fine as long as somebody "evil," like the gummint, is to blame.

 

Glad to meet a fellow Saint-Ex admirer.  There are worse heroes.

[Overload 91]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Sounds like either way, the film is worth a viewing.

Eugene

[Alan_A 1,650]

 

 

Sounds like either way, the film is worth a viewing.

 

It is, absolutely.  The cockpit, cabin and rescue scenes are dead-on accurate and really compelling, and Hanks is a fantastic actor.

 

It's only because so much of it is so good that I complain so much about the rest of it.  If it was all bad, there wouldn't be any point in talking about it.

 

By all means, go and check it out.

[tf51d 284]

The NTSB did their jobs, which is to ask difficult questions pertaining to any crash; obviously, the movie overdramatized those probing questions to create drama.  You can read the NTSB final report, or better yet, watch the hearing and derive your own conclusions.  From my perspective, the NTSB acted appropriately...

 

 

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/accidentreports/pages/AAR1003.aspx

What we really need to see is the initial hearing videos and or transcripts. The ones depicted in the movie, to see if the movie accurately represented the NTSB or not.

[Alan_A 1,650]

 

 

What we really need to see is the initial hearing videos and or transcripts. The ones depicted in the movie, to see if the movie accurately represented the NTSB or not.

 

But that's the point - there weren't "initial hearings" as depicted in the film.  The video shows the only public hearing.  Everything else was done in working groups in the normal course of the investigation.

 

The simulator runs - which are the focal point of the film's courtroom scene - are described on pages 49-50 of the NTSB report.  They were conducted over a three-day period at Airbus in Toulouse.  On hand was the NTSB Operations and Human Performance Group, which included members of Airbus, the ALPA and the BEA.  There were three scenarios tested - a normal landing on LGA Runway 4 to establish a baseline, the turn back after double engine failure, and ditching in the Hudson from 1500 feet.  For scenario 2 - the relevant one - there were 20 test runs, with five discarded for bad data or simulator problems.  Of the remaining 15, only 8 (53 percent were successful).  Only one of those included the 35-second delay.  So even with perfect foreknowledge and an instant turn to the airport, nearly half the attempts failed - not a set of odds you'd want to rely on.  All of this was reported, not in an open hearing, but in writing by Airbus.  In other words, no drama.  The investigators weren't putting Sullenberger on trial for incompetence, they were testing the turn back to the airport to substantiate what was already pretty clear - that ditching the airplane in the Hudson was the better option.  That's something investigators do - test things to rule them out.  There was no Perry Mason moment because given the circumstances, the idea that Sullenberger should have tried to make it to LGA or TEB was never seriously in play.

Further evidence - in Sullenberger's book, there's barely any mention of the NTSB investigation and no mention at all of any kind of confrontation.  The main reference echoes what Hersman says in her opening remarks - that the investigators told him they were extremely happy to have a live flight crew to talk to because sadly, in most of their investigations, that's not the case.

Lack of information is a kind of information.  Evidence for a confrontation between unfairly-accused Sullenberger and the NTSB can't be found outside of Clint Eastwood's head.  

 

EDIT:  Interestingly, the main source for the "Sully was second-guessed" story seems to be this Wall Street Journal article, which is inaccurate on several counts - it seems to combine the first two simulation scenarios to say that the odds of a safe return were higher, and it also tries to stir up a controversy about Sullenberger's having made a cell-phone call from the cockpit while the plane was still on the ground at LGA.  Other reports did a better job (even if the headline in the second one is sensationalized).  Chances are, Eastwood picked up on one of these stories and used it to add drama to his screenplay.  That the storyline - lone hero vs. government - fits his political outlook probably helped.  

[Dean33 69]

I've just read Sully's biography 'Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters'. Available on Amazon of course.

 

This was a really good read covering his whole life and career over 40 years.

 

There was no mention of criticism or conflict in the book.

Sully and his copilot ran through the cockpit tapes and were quizzed on several occasions- but nothing like what is portrayed in the film.

[red259 31]

I've just read Sully's biography 'Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters'. Available on Amazon of course.

 

This was a really good read covering his whole life and career over 40 years.

 

There was no mention of criticism or conflict in the book.

Sully and his copilot ran through the cockpit tapes and were quizzed on several occasions- but nothing like what is portrayed in the film.

Sully didn't wan them vilified. He respects what the investigators do and he himself is a huge advocate in airline safety. 

[Alan_A 1,650]

 

 

He respects what the investigators do and he himself is a huge advocate in airline safety. 

 

When I read the book - just before the movie came out - one of the things that jumped out at me was that Sully had been an accident investigator himself, in the Air Force.  So the idea that he could have felt blindsided by the investigators or didn't know what they were after just doesn't hold water.  

[pfflyers 7]

At the risk of sounding like I'm white-knighting for Eastwood, I'd like to point out that his intent was to make an entertaining and compelling movie, not to make a documentary.

 

Since everyone buying a ticket for the movie knew Sully and his passengers survived, something else had to be used to ramp up the drama. 

 

I agree that it's unfortunate the NTSB ended up as the badguy. 

[garrett_frank 150]

At the risk of sounding like I'm white-knighting for Eastwood, I'd like to point out that his intent was to make an entertaining and compelling movie, not to make a documentary.

 

Fair enough, but Hollywood uses that as an excuse all too often and we, as consumers, are willing to accept it... far too often.

 

Just don't let the irony become lost here: we're all flightsimmers and want our flight simulation experience to mimic reality as closely as possible. I'd figure that we'd expect the same from much of the media we consume, especially when it's at least marketed as "based on a true story" or "based on true events." Even if not a straight-up documentary. Now, with regard to the phrase "inspired by true events"... I lend that no credence it all. Wasn't The Amityville Horror billed as such lol?

[Alan_A 1,650]

I'm almost but not quite willing to go with the "it's a movie" defense.  The problem I have with it is that, now that we're in the post-truth era, distortions have consequences.  "The NTSB - weren't those the guys that tried to railroad Sully?  They should be de-funded."  

 

I also think - and I'm probably in the minority here - that there was a better, less heavily plotted movie to be made about Sullenberger and what life was like for him, trying to come to terms with things after the ditching.  There's actually a lot of that in the film already - part of the problem with the witch-hunt stuff is that it seems to come in from left field, or from some other movie.  It doesn't fit well with the quieter stuff that's already there.  If I was Eastwood's editor, I might have told him to try another draft, maybe do something a little less strident, a little more focused on character.  Could have been interesting.  My take, at any rate...

[Wobbie 938]

IMHO, also, it IS meant to be a movie, NOT a documentary!

Of course, certain dramatically produced scenes were put into it!

It is the producer/screen writere/etc's portrayal of their impression of a real life storyas a movie & certainly NOT, as a documentary, as pfflyers quite rightly said!! 

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

I won't pay any money to watch this movie. I'd rather wait for it to appear in free TV.

 

If you'd like to watch a totally different way to tell the "forced water landing story", look out for the YT 58 min clip featuring First Officer Jeff Skiles - Miracle on the Hudson. It gives some insight and it's rather humorous.

[Alan_A 1,650]

IMHO, also, it IS meant to be a movie, NOT a documentary!

Of course, certain dramatically produced scenes were put into it!

It is the producer/screen writere/etc's portrayal of their impression of a real life storyas a movie & certainly NOT, as a documentary, as pfflyers quite rightly said!! 

 

Nope, sorry.  For the right way to put in dramatically produced scenes, have a look at Ron Howard's Apollo 13.  In real life, there wasn't a single critical course-correction burn - there were three separate ones.  But three is a lot for the audience to keep track of, so if you compress them into one, it's easier for the audience to follow, and it's more exciting because the stakes are higher.  But what he's doing there is intensifying the drama of something that actually happened.  What Eastwood is doing is putting in scenes that are the complete opposite of what happened - and slandering good people in the process.  It's not about drama, it's about politics.  "Based on true events except that the events that are central to the film aren't true."  I'll pass, thanks.