Capt. Sully actually did practice glide landings in the simulator after a dual engine failure after takeoff. He had expressed concerns about bird strikes before

Capt. Sully actually did practice glide landings in the simulator after a dual engine failure after takeoff. He had expressed concerns about bird strikes before. It was thought that the chance of both engines being destroyed (engine core failure) was minimal. There are plenty of cases where an engine with a damaged fan blades keeps producing some thrust until shut down. One thing that most people don't realize is that if Capt. Sully had lost one engine, and turned hard into the dead engine to return to LaGuardia, chances are he would have crashed. He made the right call to confirm (dual) engine failure. Its also well known that a controlled crash landing is better than trying to stretch the glidepath, and loosing control. I suspect that "automated" airliners will be programmed with crash landing areas for the 0.00001% its actually needed. There was a mishap when a F/A-18D crashed on final, both engines out, and its theorized that if the pilot had flown the pattern higher the jet would crashed away from the houses. A lot of factors lead to the crash, and 4 people in the houses died. Of course, flying dead-stick instrument approach with low clouds is almost unheard of. > The problem is that the TransAsia-type pilots and situations far outnumber the Sullenberger's. That is a huge problem. A lot of training programs are very scripted, regimented, and do not encourage pilots to make decisions like intentionally putting a jet into the water. NASA trained the shuttle crews for unrecoverable situations (that don't result in an emergency landing) so the crew would still keep functioning and hopefully bailout.