>That's no different for the pilot at that moment, you fly the airplane exactly the same. Disagree — I find it hard to believe the flight characteristics would

>That's no different for the pilot at that moment, you fly the airplane exactly the same. Disagree — I find it hard to believe the flight characteristics wouldn't change with this level of leading edge damage: https://i.imgur.com/aEWw6UG.png https://i.imgur.com/aEWw6UG.png (On the other hand, compensating with more right rudder! won't feel too unusual!) >Loss of pressure is trained for too - a lot. Agreed. But the two together compounds the problem and makes it a more dangerous situation that's trained for less. >What happened here is remarkable but that does not play a role for flying, more for what happens after landing (for example, the whole world covering the incident...). Well, not exactly. Loss of pressure would prompt the pilot to dive to breathable altitudes, the rate of which might really matter given what we've seen of passengers wearing oxygen masks improperly. A slower rate of dive might have resulted in some real injuries from hypoxia. (That said, it seems like a higher rate than the performed 3000 fpm might have been justified.) >I'm a measly PP-ASEL and while I applaud the captain all the "hero" and especially the "only a fighter jet pilot could do this" articles are ridiculous. Same, and agreed. Did the pilot do her job as described? Yes. Could a lot of people have died if she hadn't properly followed procedure? Definitely. Did she go above and beyond and pull off a near-impossible feat like US1549? Probably not, but there probably wasn't anything above and beyond that could be done — following procedure and training was the right move. Does that make you a hero? That just depends on your definition. Certainly she's as much of a 'hero' as the fireman who saves people from a burning building, as his job specifies.