5 ms·

That's pretty much the opposite, right? That the pilots would need to know an extreme emergency procedure. In other words you'd need a Sully level pilot to surv

That's pretty much the opposite, right? That the pilots would need to know an extreme emergency procedure. In other words you'd need a Sully level pilot to survive (and unsurvivable below a certain speed and height). If you ask me that's a damning indictment when a flawed autopilot results in a state like that.

namirez 7y ago
Except Sully actually screwed up and put the passengers life in danger by trying to land on water and rather than returning to the airport. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ntsb-sully-could-have-made-it-back-to-laguardia/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ntsb-sully-could-have-made-it-b...
- cjbprime 7y ago
  I don't know how you could read the article you linked and come away with that conclusion.
- YokoZar 7y ago
  The link you included says the opposite of what you're implying. > under the circumstances the captain's decision to ditch into the Hudson River was the better choice, documents released Tuesday by a federal safety panel said > He also would have had no way of knowing that he would be successful, and therefore would have been risking the possibility of a catastrophic crash in a densely populated area.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  This was disproven. And is a major plot point in the movie about Flight 1549 (Sully). From Wikipedia: > The NTSB used flight simulators to test the possibility that the flight could have returned safely to LaGuardia or diverted to Teterboro; only seven of the thirteen simulated returns to La Guardia succeeded, and only one of the two to Teterboro. > Furthermore, the NTSB report called these simulations unrealistic: "The immediate turn made by the pilots during the simulations did not reflect or account for real-world considerations, such as the time delay required to recognize the bird strike and decide on a course of action." A further simulation, in which a 35-second delay was inserted to allow for those, crashed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jfk13 7y ago
  Which says that "under the circumstances the captain's decision to ditch into the Hudson River was the better choice". And you're criticising him for .... what, exactly?
Animats 7y ago
"Sully level pilot" Sully didn't do anything hard from a piloting standpoint. He made the right decision to ditch in the Hudson. Once that decision was made, it was just a long glide. Plenty of room. He had the full Airbus flight control system doing most of the work. Read "Fly By Wire", by Langewiesche, which goes into this in great detail. The Ethiopian Air pilots faced a very tough problem. They were nosing down for an unknown reason, the standard recovery procedure didn't work, and they didn't have much altitude.
- blunte 7y ago
  A Sully level pilot is one with extensive experience, particularly in edge cases. There are many such pilots... They have decades of experience that include pre-automation days. Don't underestimate the accumulated knowledge and experience that gives one the ability to make a series of very important decisions in an extreme stress situation.
- dylan604 7y ago
  Maybe a Jim Lovell level pilot?

namirez 7y ago

Except Sully actually screwed up and put the passengers life in danger by trying to land on water and rather than returning to the airport. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ntsb-sully-could-have-made-it-back-to-laguardia/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ntsb-sully-could-have-made-it-b...

cjbprime 7y ago
I don't know how you could read the article you linked and come away with that conclusion.
YokoZar 7y ago
The link you included says the opposite of what you're implying. > under the circumstances the captain's decision to ditch into the Hudson River was the better choice, documents released Tuesday by a federal safety panel said > He also would have had no way of knowing that he would be successful, and therefore would have been risking the possibility of a catastrophic crash in a densely populated area.
Someone1234 7y ago
This was disproven. And is a major plot point in the movie about Flight 1549 (Sully). From Wikipedia: > The NTSB used flight simulators to test the possibility that the flight could have returned safely to LaGuardia or diverted to Teterboro; only seven of the thirteen simulated returns to La Guardia succeeded, and only one of the two to Teterboro. > Furthermore, the NTSB report called these simulations unrealistic: "The immediate turn made by the pilots during the simulations did not reflect or account for real-world considerations, such as the time delay required to recognize the bird strike and decide on a course of action." A further simulation, in which a 35-second delay was inserted to allow for those, crashed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jfk13 7y ago
Which says that "under the circumstances the captain's decision to ditch into the Hudson River was the better choice". And you're criticising him for .... what, exactly?

Animats 7y ago

"Sully level pilot" Sully didn't do anything hard from a piloting standpoint. He made the right decision to ditch in the Hudson. Once that decision was made, it was just a long glide. Plenty of room. He had the full Airbus flight control system doing most of the work. Read "Fly By Wire", by Langewiesche, which goes into this in great detail. The Ethiopian Air pilots faced a very tough problem. They were nosing down for an unknown reason, the standard recovery procedure didn't work, and they didn't have much altitude.

blunte 7y ago
A Sully level pilot is one with extensive experience, particularly in edge cases. There are many such pilots... They have decades of experience that include pre-automation days. Don't underestimate the accumulated knowledge and experience that gives one the ability to make a series of very important decisions in an extreme stress situation.
dylan604 7y ago
Maybe a Jim Lovell level pilot?