Deities aside, that was an incredible piece of flying. Also give the FAs credit for getting the rafts deployed and the plane evacuated in record time.

Considering the fact that he was flying over a densely populated area, he probably saved more than 150 people.

"Flight 1549, which apparently hit a flock of Canada geese shortly after taking off from New York's LaGuardia airport"

Blame Canada!

Seriously, it's animal rights nutbags & bureaucrats who are to blame for the fact that these feathered pests haven't been exterminated within several miles of every airport in North America:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/requirements-for-taking-of-geese-in-ny

Paterson blurts out the heaven opened up! explanation -- that it was "a miracle."

Couldn't heaven have opened up and sent a little breeze to blow the geese off course?

And this photo shows how close Flight 1549 came to colliding with the New York skyline, instead of the Hudson River:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/01/15/us/20090115-PLANECRASH_10.html

So weird! I had a 'discussion' with some christian ladies in another forum about this being a miracle. I guess the fact that god's creatures were the reason the plane went down to begin with went over their heads.

Hah - great point.

I am always amazed at the scope of gods powers, thousands of peoples lives in danger, millions in damages, and yet rather than stop a dozen birds he helps divert a plane.

If god does exist hes a fucking moron who needs a course in resorce managment.

The real kicker here? As talented and skilled as this guy is he'll be forced to retire in a year or so

Pic.

How exactly would one exterminate birds form around every airport? They do, after all, travel. Can't exactly use a fence.

I always love when atheists expect god to be running every second of everyone's life. Wouldn't that negate the point of you BEING alive? I rather doubt god intervenes much, if at all.

You gotta love competence, whereever you find it. Excellence is so much better, and more scarce. Seems this guy's got both in spades.

Actually luj, that's not true anymore.

I have to suppress the urge to vomit in my mouth, when people refer to this as a miracle.

> Considering the fact that he was
> flying over a densely populated
> area, he probably saved more than
> 150 people.

This event did much to repair the mindspace for aviation and the New York skyline, if you catch my drift.

> he'll be forced to retire

Until 2007, maximum age of retirement for commercial pilots was 60, but now it's 65 (regular tests for vision and blood pressure, etc.). Mixed feelings: There's got to be a cut-off somewhere, but a lot of these pilots do to a great deal of trouble to stay healthy. Author Tom Wolfe once said "It's hard to top brain surgeons for sheer ego, but test pilots come close." Being healthy is a big part of it. Two women who've seen video of his family described Sullenberger's wife with the word "trophy." One of them was my mother (78), who thinks Sully's attractive.

Shes not the only one. Someone's pointed out that if he did want to retire from aviation, Hillary's senate seat is his for the asking.

Ah, the precise Wolfe quote, courtesy of that Amazon lookup thang:

"It's hard to top surgeons for sheer ego, but fighter pilots come close."

He and his family seem like a real class act...

And here's

He's not the only one who could have done that.

Wrong button...

Patrick Smith's take on the incident.

I remember talking to my dad (a commercial pilot) about five years before 9/11 about flying in and out of NYC. Two gems I remember from him:

1) Someday someone was going to get drunk or completely lose their shit and plow into the twin towers (they were close to the landing pattern for the airport)

2) If he ever had to put down in an emergency he'd put down in the river. This is apparently discussed in break rooms and the general consensus is "splashdown"

He's a smarter man than I gave him credit for during my teens.

Not to do the "miraclists" work for them but how's this for a better arguement on their side:

It was an act of God, miracle, holy coincidence, whatever, that THIS man was in charge of THIS flight on THIS day.

From everything I've read this was no ordinary commercial pilot.

1. He earned his glider license at 14 y.o. and his pilot license at 16 y.o., the earliest, respectively, that one could earn those.

2. He attended the US Air Force Academy. The Academy uses a incremental approach to learning how to fly the Air Force way. First you fly gliders, then you fly small prop-job trainers, and, eventually, small jet trainers.

3. He flew F-4's (aka "lead sleds") for the AF.

4. He obtained a graduate degree studying crew dynamics and communications during flight emergencies.

Of all the A-320 pilots in the US, he would probably be the one that you would pick, just on the the resume alone, to be in charge in an emergency like this. And, lo and behold, he was. (And the "miraclists" would then look at you and say, "And God put him there", or somesuch.)

(As to "putting things there", at last nights Monstor truck show the rear assembly on one of the trucks blew up. It threw parts into the crowd. An 8 y.o. boy was hit by flying parts, and bled to death. I wonder if the "miraclists" think God put THAT boy in THAT seat for THAT show, or what.)

David, that's when they say, 'It was god's will.'.

The Missus.

"From everything I've read this was no ordinary commercial pilot."

And just how many commercial pilot resumés have you examined to make this determination?

My point is not that Sully isn't a great pilot. My point is that yes, there are a lot of guys like this.

You know, the office is kinda complicated. If you're at home here, chances are you're pretty good.

The news media sells tragedy. Stories of incompetence, greed and sloth should never make you forget how many people actually know what they're doing.

There may be a lot of guys this good, but it's very difficult to believe the last ten flights you or I have been on would have landed as safely in a similar crisis in a similar setting. There's probably as much variation in the quality of pilots as there is in waiters or mechanics or anything else.

Steamer said "Couldn't heaven have opened up and sent a little breeze to blow the geese off course?"

Then we wouldn't have had a 'miracle' to talk about, would we?

momof3 - atheists don't expect your deity to run around everyone's lives, we just get annoyed when everything positive is attributed to it but everything negative is blown off.

What I want to know is, what were the geese doing in NY in January? It's been a long time since I grew up in Wisconsin and Ohio, but I thought they were all further south than that.

I can't speak for Wisconsin or Ohio, but there are hordes of Canadian geese which hang out in DC all winter. Either geese don't fly as far south as one would think, or they just really like to winter in the city, what with all the theaters and restaurants; summer in rural Manitoba probably gets pretty dull.

One of the birds' major hangouts is the national parkland surrounding the George Washington Parkway, particularly at the picnic area which sits at the north end of National Airport's main runway. The airport authority has a couple of noise machines at either end of the airport to keep the birds at a reasonable distance. So far, it's worked - drivers on the Parkway (and tourists at the picnic area) seem to have more to fear than do the planes. Great honking beasts they are, some of them the size of a pit bull.

And I'm with Crid on this one. There are a lot of good pilots out there. But from everything I've read, this guy's combination of piloting skill, clear and rational thought, and calm demeanor (while working with a cushion of less than 3000 feet) is pretty remarkable.

"There's probably as much variation in the quality of pilots as there is in waiters or mechanics or anything else."

Of course, my point is that although Sully had a bunch of time in different planes and jobs, this doesn't mean he's a better A-320 pilot than anyone else, either. Your point here doesn't deny this.

The higher the standard of training, the farther the distance there is between pilot competency and this incident. Ask The Pilot makes the point many times, in many different articles.

The circumstances of each aviation incident make it hard to say different pilots will do the same things correctly, but you can look up Aloha Flight 243, United Airlines Flight 811 and Air Canada Flight 143 and see how these guys act, knowing they'll be the first ones to the crash scene.

I back Cid's opinion as well. The Pilot was quite able in his field and this is one of the factors why he succeeded his landing in the Hudson.

The whole miracle spiel is insulting for me. Sky-Daddy did nothing in this. The landing was due to a experimented (and combat-hardened) pilot, the proximity of the Hudson and a couple of geese with the Canadian citizenship. I would debate the "Miracle" sticker if the exploit was made by a 8-years-old kid, and even then, only on metaphysical grounds.

Of all the A-320 pilots in the US, he would probably be the one that you would pick, just on the the resume alone, to be in charge in an emergency like this. And, lo and behold, he was.

Not really. All the guys I fly with have similar resumes. E.g., I have 2700 hours in the F-111, USAF Fighter Weapons School grad, flown in combat, couple tours as an instructor pilot.

There's probably as much variation in the quality of pilots as there is in waiters or mechanics or anything else.

Perhaps surprisingly, there isn't. The minimum qualifications for the job are extremely high, and the training is demanding. The variation on the low side just doesn't stand a chance.

There are a lot of good pilots out there. But from everything I've read, this guy's combination of piloting skill, clear and rational thought, and calm demeanor (while working with a cushion of less than 3000 feet) is pretty remarkable.

He performed under pressure. I'd like to think that if it came to it, I could do the same. In fact, the Mighty Bosstones probably said it best:

... have you ever had the odds stacked up so high
You need a strength most don't possess
Or has it ever come down to do or die
You've got to rise above the rest
I've never had to knock on wood
But I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if I could
It makes me wonder if
I've never had to knock on wood
And I'm glad I haven't yet

(excerpt from "The Impression that I get")

the whole miracle thing is insulting.

Hey Skipper - I suspect that most pilots would rather land in the Hudson than on a carrier deck.

Yet carrier pilots do it hundreds of times. I suspect that this display of competence by Sully is just shocking people silly because they are told continuously that they are idiots, who cannot do anything right. It's then hard on the ego to admit that there is an entire class of people who are not only competent, but in ways that are difficult to imagine.

If you think Sully is wonderful, I agree with you. But he has hundreds of brothers in the air who work in an office like this. Can it be more obvious that idiots don't get to stay and play that instrument?

Sad to note that it could, Raddy: "Results 1 - 10 of about 51,800,000 for pilot error. (0.30 seconds)"

From the wiki (link #1 above): "For scheduled air transport, pilot error typically accounts for just over half of worldwide accidents with a known cause.[2]"

Etc.

Listen, I realize that like perhaps no other time in the past three generations, this is a week when Americans are horny to believe in the masculine power of our institutional and establishment figures to protect us. (See blog item from Sunday.)

I think crediting these personalities is a habit that needs boundaries, like anything else. I'm happy to credit and admire Sullenberger, and not just his uniform. It's personal, and it's specific to his performance.

How many of those are errors that lead to something more than increased maintience after landing, or deal with people flying their private planes

PS for computer geeks: When I hit the google link again, the search took only a third as long, meaning the result was cached. No surprise, but that's still a remarkable difference.

Crid, this is amazingly sloppy - I didn't expect you to come up with meaningless numbers like that.

For just one instance, the number of hits on a term is just an indication of public concern, not of any statistical merit. You'll get a million hits on Paris Hilton, but there's still only one of her.

Better that you - and everyone - should observe the Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Center, which will take hours to read, then compare that with the number of flights and passenger miles.

You've been told that driving to the airport is more likely to kill you than the plane trip, and that's still true. Part of the reason is that yes, there are a bunch of people like Sully. Another part is that aircraft are amazingly well built. Look through JACDEC, and you'll find that not one commercial jetliner has been brought down by small-arms fire to the airframe.

There are many reasons not to fly. An unskilled pilot is not one of them.

Radwaste:

I hope I didn't succeed in conveying the opposite of what I meant.

Sully is extremely skilled and qualified; however, in that respect he is not the least bit unusual in the major airlines.

Anyway, I just wanted to make clear you are exactly right. (BTW, I fly the MD-11, which looks essentially the same on the flight deck as the 777.)

Also, having landed on a carrier, I would take it over the Hudson in a heartbeat.

Crid:

Sad to note that it could, Raddy: "Results 1 - 10 of about 51,800,000 for pilot error. (0.30 seconds)"

Unfortunately, that is a very superficial point of view. Something like 85% of mishaps are attributed to pilot error. However, nearly all mishaps are the result of a chain of circumstances, the last of which is an incorrect pilot action.

For example, windshear mishaps were always attributed to pilot error. Have you heard of any happening in the US in the last decade or so?

There are reasons for that -- better warning systems on airfields, pulse doppler radar capable enough to allow predictive windshear warning on the aircraft itself, better training in windshear encounter recovery, and more precisely defined criteria for what constitutes windshear.

There is a lot more to pilot error than pilot error.

Given the circumstances here, all the guys I fly with would have done the same thing, with the same result.

To that extent, deifying Sully is understandable, but wrong. That said, it takes a hell of a lot of experience, training, and the ability to retain one's cool when things are going to hell in a handbasket.

No one gets that far as a pilot without each of those qualities.

Still, isn't this the first recorded instance of landing a jetliner on water without a loss of life?

Getting something that big to go where you want it with a dead stick?

That's an act of will that most people will never be able to muster.

Whether you find the word "miracle" repulsive or not due to spiritual underpinnings, what the guy accomplished is not exactly normal.

Could other pilots do it? Very likely I'd imagine. How many have actually TRIED, though?

Water landing is something that most pilots have only tried in simulation, as people tend to frown on tossing a plane for a training exercise.

And it diminishes the man and his commitment to his passengers to say that what he did was merely expected.

And while we're at it, how about that flight crew? I don't care how much training you get, it's a testament to the quality of the flight crew as individuals that they all kept it together when they were "in the shit" so to speak.

Consider that the next time you don't get your drink fast enough.

Let me suggest that air transportation is not a subject that can be thoroughly vetted on one blog page.

Hey Skipper, no, we're on the same page - although I'm surprised again to find an Air Cadet with carrier time, too. I kid, of course, having done none of that - I was on subs, and have zero logged time aloft despite having two parents with thousands and driving an old Bellanca 14-13-2B around with Dad; Dad was in MAG-23 and Mom was a Ninety-Nine. I spent time at Riddle in airframe & powerplant before enlisting. I'm pleased to make your acquaintance here.

Dang. There are so many people who have been there and done that more than I have. Well, good for us all!

I mentioned JACDEC; Patrick Smith recommends AIRSAFE.com, and if you have several hundred hours of spare time, you can learn a lot about the industry browsing the photos at airliners.net. It's really beautiful.

Still, isn't this the first recorded instance of landing a jetliner on water without a loss of life?

The first in 45 years - according to a news story I read.

There's probably as much variation in the quality of pilots as there is in waiters or mechanics or anything else.

Perhaps surprisingly, there isn't. The minimum qualifications for the job are extremely high, and the training is demanding. The variation on the low side just doesn't stand a chance.

The survival rate for mechanic and waiter mistakes tends to be higher than for pilot mistakes. Mistakes in waiting tables and engine repair don't tend to happen at 30,000 feet.

Couldn't heaven have opened up and sent a little breeze to blow the geese off course?

Perhaps God was mad at the geese.

I remember listening to the radio in LA on a Sunday in (I think) November of 1990. A military expert noted that things had been going well during the buildup to war. But this was one of the largest airlifts in history... He warned that given the amount of matériel in transit, we shouldn't be surprised to hear of a serious, perhaps deadly, accident in the times ahead, and we shouldn't thereafter assume that something fundamental was going wrong with our war effort.

In my memory, that crash came on Thursday, but you could probably look it up with Google.

Raddy & Skippy & maybe Conan want us to believe that the variations of cockpit talent aren't worth worrying about... But time is on my side, 2009 is a young year.

> I didn't expect you to come
> up with meaningless numbers

That's good, because I didn't! You guys are setting me up as a straw man to either [A] share your manly, encyclopedic knowledge of aviation or [B] argue as with a buffoon about aviation safety. This is not appropriate behavior on your part.

> the number of hits on a term
> is just an indication of
> public concern

Yes, as I've readily demonstrated, pilot competence is a popular and worthwhile topic.

> You'll get a million hits on
> Paris Hilton

Hey dude, I haven't hit on her more than 750,000 times!

> but there's still only
> one of her.

Yet there are many sexually alluring women, not all of them so attractive. There are many competent pilots, not all as gifted in a crisis as Sully.

> you - and everyone - should
> observe the

And...

> driving to the airport is
> more likely to kill you
> than the plane trip

Again, you're so horny to fight that you're roping passersby into the ring.

> There are many reasons not
> to fly. An unskilled pilot
> is not one of them.

Sloppy wording from a man who's trying to be careful with language. An unskilled pilot is a sensational reason not to fly: Just ask Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy. You're asserting that everyone who happens to be carrying a license today is as likely to be as good in a crisis as Sully. I don't believe you, and doubt even that most in the aviation industry would believe it, either. (But the pilots' union would probably like to take you to dinner.)

> that is a very superficial
> point of view.

Lord, deliver us from ex-military. (The failure to contract "that is" to "that's" stings more than the misbegotten insult.)

> nearly all mishaps are the result
> of a chain of circumstances, the
> last of which is an incorrect
> pilot action.

How is this comforting to you? Yes, I want pilots to handle chains of circumstance. I want everyone to handle chains of circumstance. When there's no more A-1 sauce at the busboy's station, I want my waiter to walk to the stock room to get me some.

> Let me suggest that air
> transportation is not a subject
> that can be thoroughly vetted
> on one blog page.

Let me offer that only the tech/macho contributors are eager to press the topic to that broad an extreme. Let me further submit that those of us proposing thoughtful boundaries to hero worship can fit our principles into just a few lines of neat text.

Sully did good work. Not everyone with epaulets is likely to do as well.

Also, I worry that given the mean age of the crew (54 by my math), Baby Boomers are likely to take this as an excuse to continue their smug illusions of grandeur, even in their Viagra years.

Furthermore, you can complain about what people are afraid of all you want, but I think it's particularly ham-headed to make fun of people who are afraid to fly. Our bodies were not build to readily cruise seven miles over the countryside in steel cartridges. People who understand that with a little more visceral ooomph than you and I deserve some respect for their private opinions.

We just don't get to choose everything that happens in other people's minds.

Crid said "Lord, deliver us from ex-military. (The failure to contract "that is" to "that's" stings more than the misbegotten insult.)"

I'm not that familiar with the military, but aren't they the ones that want to use acronyms for everything? It seems strange to me that they would go to all the trouble of inventing and memorizing so many acronyms but wouldn't use contractions.

Radwaste:

... although I'm surprised again to find an Air Cadet with carrier time, too.

Full disclosure. I was a guest of the Navy on the USS Stennis for a few days during initial carrier quals. I got to fly in the back seat T-45 with the Air Wing Commander for a few hops.

So, to be clear: I have not piloted a plane to a carrier deck, but I have seen it up close and personal enough to know what's going on.

Crid:

> I didn't expect you to come
> up with meaningless numbers

That's good, because I didn't!

Actually, you did.

Just out of curiosity, did you search on "pilot error" or "pilot"
"error".

Oh, never mind, I can answer that question myself. Searching on "pilot error" yields 443,000 hits. Which is on the order of .01% as many hits as your, um, "search".

Of course, that really is beside the point of discussing the meaning of the term pilot error. Abusing it as you do, where you bring a whole new lack of depth to the term "superficial", means you have no explanation for the fourth hit: "Pilot Error Declines as Factor in Airline Mishaps".

Raddy & Skippy & maybe Conan want us to believe that the variations of cockpit talent aren't worth worrying about...

That is because there is not a heck of a lot of variation at the major airline level -- which your Bessette-Kennedy example ignores completely.

But hey, what do I know. I only have 31 years of first-hand experience to go on.

Sully did good work. Not everyone with epaulets is likely to do as well.

Yes, he did good work. No, there was nothing about the situation that most all pilots at this level could not handle just as well. He had plenty of energy to make the river, and no other options. Landing in the water is no different than landing on pavement. The lack of waves was significant to the successful outcome.

"Lord, deliver us from ex-military. (The failure to contract "that is" to "that's" stings more than the misbegotten insult.)"

I would have thought that your self-inflicted wound from a week or so ago would have given you pause before criticizing someone else's correct grammar. Guess not.

I'm sorry to hear your guts turn to jelly when it comes to flying. Nothing you can do about that, I suppose.

He's an old white guy who served in the military, so how could he possibly have done anything right?

> Just out of curiosity,
> did you search on

I'm all about being helpful, so I included the link to the exact search in the comment, along with a cut & paste from the result. (The number is much smaller if you look at it today. Maybe Google refined the algorithm over the course of the weekend. But my computer records all clipboard activity, and that's the cut and paste. Who knows, maybe a lot of people are fighting about this over the weekend, so they've constricted the terms.) In any case, nearly half a million is enough: It's a topic of concern to people, capiche?

> Abusing it as you do,

Oh, you are so silly!

> means you have no explanation
> for the fourth hit: "Pilot Error
> Declines as Factor in
> Airline Mishaps".

What point are you making? That's a wonderful headline.... We're all just tickled pink about it. I think it would be great if the factor declined even further, don't you? Wasn't your point that it wasn't a worthwhile topic even theretofore?

> That is because there is not
> a heck of a lot of variation
> at the major airline level

That's probably true. I've always had good luck on planes, m'self.

> -- which your Bessette-Kennedy
> example ignores completely.

Context, fella, context. It was a specific rebuke to Raddy's loose-goose phrasing.

> But hey, what do I know.

(Opportunity foresworn. I want props from the gallery for this.)

> I only have 31 years of first-
> hand experience to go on.

No one seems able to exit the armed services without boasting that they've been given secret insights into how the world works such that they should be trusted without challenge. I'm never inclined to offer that trust, myself... Not to the intel spooks and not to the military grunts.

> No, there was nothing about
> the situation that most all
> pilots at this level could
> not handle just as well.

Well golly, we'll just have to take your word on that... Unless we don't want to. The experiment will never be precisely reproduced.

> criticizing someone else's
> correct grammar.

You weren't incorrect, you were just snooty.

> I'm sorry to hear your guts
> turn to jelly when it comes
> to flying.

Naw, I always fly comfortably. Unless I'm seated next to an ex-military.... I had a trip to Bangkok once beside an old soldier who explained what Gulf war one was really about. That was a long-assed flight.

The most excitement I ever had in the states was a blown engine ascending out of Vegas to NYC. We turned around and came back. The trucks were waiting on the ground, but there was no excitement. It was only an hour delay, then they put us on the plane at the next gate and off we went. The girl I was traveling with wasn't pissed, so like, whatever. The scariest part was that when they served us breakfast, and the eggs were still warm, and we realized they'd been kept warm throughout the delay. That was kinda scary.

I ate them anyway, because danger is my middle name.

The most excitement I ever had overseas was approximately here in Fiji. You don't fly a plane to just one of those islands, it's not worthwhile. So we had to stop near a town called Viani (I think) on the way to our scuba site. It was just a little airstrip dug into a Topanga-like canyon by the beach. The plane wasn't that new and there wasn't that much space, but the young pilot pulled us back into the air by force of will. Forty minutes later we were at the resort in Taveuni, enjoying drinks by the fire.

But I appreciate your concern.

Crid, go through Patrick Smith columns from end to end, since you seem to think Hey Skipper is lying to you. Patrick was never military.

Meanwhile, to analogize, when you hire a hundred guys who must all lift 400 pounds to qualify, all of them will be able to lift 100, 200 or 300 pounds in their regular job. You can distract them, the equipment can break in new ways and mess up their style, but it remains that airline qualifications are high.

This is not the time to get crazy because a whole class of people can do something you cannot. I can't do it, and I know why.

Aww, you're just messing with us about the unskilled pilot thing. That's cute!

What unskilled pilot thing? If you must be insulting, BE CLEAR.

Amy, I've always done the exact same thing during the safety spiel, for the same reason. Now I'll have to start paying attention, darn it!

Two women who've seen video of his family described Sullenberger's wife with the word "trophy."

Well, I don't begrudge MVPs at life their trophies.

As for "miracle"...as a religious type, I get really, really nervous when anyone implies that God is micromanaging things, be it who gets pregnant, who wins a Grammy, or who survives a plane crash. Determining miracles is above my pay grade.

Well, except for the 1980 US-USSR Olympic hockey match. Jim Craig clearly had some otherworldly help there, and pulling Tretiak off of the ice was so boneheaded that I can only attribute it to divine intervention. But I digress.

HOWEVER, I think this is the type of situation for which the word "heroism" was coined. Sully and his co-pilot are heroes, and we are a nation in search of heroes at the moment. And yes, having an action movie-level act of heroism occur with a plane in the skies of NYC has struck a deep psychological chord in people. It doesn't resurrect the 3,000 dead or magically restore the Twin Towers to the skyline, but it does highlight the fact that we're in a battle pitting one side that uses airplanes as weapons against a side that can land them safely in the most unlikely of circumstances.

(Oh, add to the "hero" list the people at Airbus who decided to include a feature that allowed the plane to be "closed up" from the bottom in case of a highly, HIGHLY unlikely water landing. That's another reason that 150+ people are alive today. One reason I love Western civilization is that it produces heroes in the most unlikely of places.)

I read somewhere that they never actually got around to throwing that "ditch seal" switch. (Not complaining, not complaining, don't mean to be telling Babe Ruth how to hold the bat, just sayin'....)

Your point about airplanes in NYC is spot-on

She used to be fat, Amy! Wrong waist-to-hip ratio, etc

Crid, here you go: "An unskilled pilot is a sensational reason not to fly: Just ask Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy."

Simple truth: unskilled pilots do not work here, and so their presence is not a reason not to fly commercially.

We started this discussion off with Sully, a commercial airpline pilot, and his behavior in a commercial transport, and you whipped us all out into the land of hobbyists and ultralights, passenger miles and ton-mileage discarded, with the "pilot error" search. In short, a fat straw man slightly camouflaged by the fact that nobody told the blog what Sully was, having assumed it was obvious.

Hey, you have a choice, always. You can represent Sully as unique, or you can claim that he has company at his skill level. Hey Skipper, with experience, says the latter; step right up with your own story!

Raddy, I did.

Seriously, what are you guys going to say something goes badly? That it might just as well have happened to Sully? If he gets fêted in Washington tomorrow as he deserves to, that will be a tough sell for that you.

...next time something goes....

(Let's all chip in and buy Amy an editable comments module)

Crid:

I'm all about being helpful ... It's a topic of concern to people, capiche?

No, it is all about you providing a case study for the term "non sequitur".

There are 537,000 hits for the term "hunky dory", nearly twice as many for "pilot error." Which, I suppose, means people are twice as concerned about "hunky dory" as "pilot error".

With a great deal of effort, I might be able to come up with a more idiotic measure than you selected. But I doubt it.

When I said your understanding of pilot error is superficial, I did not mean that as an insult, but rather to indicate that the concept is far more complex than most non-specialists understand.

Well, I have changed my mind. It is an insult: your ability to deflect an opportunity to learn something is epic.

To review the bidding here:

Amy's point is spot on: there is no miracle here; rather, it is an example of making luck through experience and training.

Sully's resume is not unusual among commercial pilots.

His skill is not unusual, either. At this level, there is a sharp cutoff in flying skill and the ability to make quick and correct decisions under pressure.

> -- which your Bessette-Kennedy
> example ignores completely.

Context, fella, context.

Context, yourself. This is a discussion about airline pilots, not some barely qualified private pilot without the sense to know when VMC is the same as IMC.

> I only have 31 years of first-
> hand experience to go on.

No one seems able to exit the armed services ...

I have 31 years first hand experience as a professional pilot. I'll bet that is 31 years more first hand experience than you have. This is not a matter of trust, but rather admitting that, on this particular subject, your ignorance is complete.

> No, there was nothing about
> the situation that most all
> pilots at this level could
> not handle just as well.

Well golly, we'll just have to take your word on that...

Well, yes, given the depth of your ignorance, you should.

As a technical matter, there was nothing the least bit challenging about what he did. All professional pilots have frequently done things more difficult -- heck, my landing this morning (into a strong quartering headwind causing orographic turbulence off a nearby line of hills) was a more technically challenging.

Which is why I quoted the lyrics above. When things went to hell in a handcart, Sully stayed cool enough to execute. All pilots at his level can do the maneuver -- it was nothing more than turning base to final and managing a good landing on an extremely long and wide runway without any wind or weather to worry about. The only question in their minds is whether they would stand up under the pressure. It is a question they don't ever want to get asked.

The plane wasn't that new and there wasn't that much space, but the young pilot pulled us back into the air by force of will.

Ummm, no he didn't; in fact, that statement is just as stupid as saying Sully's performance was due to a miracle.

++++

Marion:

(Oh, add to the "hero" list the people at Airbus who decided to include a feature that allowed the plane to be "closed up" from the bottom in case of a highly, HIGHLY unlikely water landing.

Actually, that is a requirement to certify the airplane. I don't know when it came into effect, but the MD-11 I fly, designed in the mid-80s also has it. And, IIRC, so did the DC-9 I flew, which was designed in the sixties.

HOWEVER, I think this is the type of situation for which the word "heroism" was coined.

I disagree. Cool under extreme pressure, yes. But I think true heroism requires at least the risk of self sacrifice. That was simply not the case here. (Remember the Air Florida crash into the Potomac? A passenger put others ahead of him to be rescued. He died. That was heroism.)

++++

Amy:

With this woman's looks, she could probably have a lot of guys -- a lot of guys a lot richer and more powerful than a pilot.

An airline Captain on his first wife is probably worth at least a couple million, BTW. All the ones I know are.

> No, it is all

> Well, I have changed

> I'll bet that is

Again, no contractions for "it's" or "I've" or "that's". There's no need to work that hard being snotty...

> This is a discussion about
> airline pilots

It's a discussion about whatever we want. Amy runs a loose playground.

> 31 years more first hand
> experience than you have.

Yep. Has leaving the game let you bitter? I did that, so what I say goes on all ancillary topics!

The outcome we saw last week is essentially unprecedented. Everyone understands that these guys are skilled and trained. We don't care about the universe of possible outcomes... We care about our own safety, and that of passengers like the river-moistened flyers last week. You say we can trust a darling class of professionals to do it again and again. I'm tragically, morosely confident that events will prove you wrong.

Tell you what, Skipster.... If by 12/31/09 a consensus in this forum agrees that another airline pilot has performed as remarkably, I'll send you a certificate for dinner (for one) at a participating Red Lobster® restaurant.

> It is a question they don't
> ever want to get asked.

(Try: "It's a question...")

Street chats like these don't bother flattering the egos of the subjects being discussed, worrying about what they do or don't want to be asked.

> that statement is just as stupid

Don't be bitter. Enjoy retirement. After all that brutal training, you earned it, right?

Again, no contractions for "it's" or "I've" or "that's". There's no need to work that hard being snotty...

That is the way I write, get over it. Which begs the question*: why do you waste so many keystrokes on something that is of no consequence?

*A little review for those who have problems with word usage, yet feel compelled to have hissy fits over completely grammatical writing.

The outcome we saw last week is essentially unprecedented.

No, it isn't.

There have been very few dead stick landings on water sufficiently smooth so that the airplane wouldn't catch a wingtip and cartwheel.

However, since you are such an expert, I am sure you enlighten me as to precisely what the pilots uniquely did that led to this unprecedented outcome.

You say we can trust a darling class of professionals to do it again and again. I'm tragically, morosely confident that events will prove you wrong.

When? How many years of fatality free commercial aviation will it take to convince you that this class of professionals DOES get it right over and over again?

I'll put it another way. There is no reason to insist the sequence of remarkable pilot performance started a few days ago. Remember Sioux City? How about the L-1011 that made it back to Miami after suffering a total power loss? Perhaps the Air Canada 757 crew that did a dead stick landing onto a disused airfield?

Since this level of remarkable performance has already been demonstrated -- other pilots have performed even more remarkably -- can I have the certificate now?

> that statement is just as stupid

Don't be bitter.

Not bitter, just pointing out your stupidity. Look at the forces acting on an airplane. I guarantee you "will" is not one of them.

> 31 years more first hand
> experience than you have.

How much pilot experience do you have? Any?

BTW -- I'm still a little unclear as to this whole Google hit concept. Are people twice as concerned about hunky dory than pilot error?

I'm all about being helpful, so I included the link to the exact search in the comment, along with a cut & paste from the result.

I finally did just take a look at the link.

You searched for all occurrences where "pilot" and "error" occurred in the same file, not for "pilot error".

Big difference. About 7,600,000 worth of difference.

Do you sit there thinking of ways to make yourself look stupid (see question begging, above), or does it come naturally?

...maybe Conan want us to believe that the variations of cockpit talent aren't worth worrying about....

Variations in talent in critical jobs are always worth worrying about.

My comment was that when the minimal requirements to even interview for the job are high, the curve tends to be skewed. And, were you able to quantify the skills, I'm sure the variances from the mean for airline pilots would be smaller than for, say, mechanics and waiters.

Do I believe any other airline pilot could have done what "Sully" did? No.

Do I believe no other airline pilot could have done what "Sully" did? No.

Variations in pilot skill will always play a part in whether a pilot successfully executes an emergency procedure and in the survival of the plane's passengers and crew.

"Sully" was exceptionally well-prepared for an emergency and deserves the accolades being heaped upon him. Many other pilots are as well-prepared and, God willing, will never get the chance to prove it.

In the annals of fantastic pilot performance, don't forget the Aloha Airlines pilot who landed with half his plane blown away: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

An unskilled pilot is a sensational reason not to fly: Just ask Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy.

I doubt, with his minimal experience and lack of flight hours, John-John could have gotten a job as a pilot for a major airline.

GUYS GUYS GUYS

I think Raddy was wrong to say this:

> There are many reasons not
> to fly. An unskilled pilot
> is not one of them.

Note that he didn't say "a low baseline of talent among typical American airline pilots", he said "unskilled pilot".

Furthermore, I don't think you get to choose other people's perceptions of risk, any more than you get to dictate other cranial activity. A favorite friend who hated airlines once said she just knew the pilots were up there in the cockpit doing coke. (As Letterman put it, "Listening to Bon Jovi tapes on the flight recorder.")

She didn't mean it... But seeing Skip-types clumsily preening in Sully's glow seems unlikely to assuage her.

IIRC, the Aloha flight had excessive pressurization/depressurization cycles. It was an operational failure, the sort of thing for which everyone who's part of the company tends to be blamed. When people die during operations, the the family doesn't let the surgeon blame the anesthesiologist.

...the Aloha flight had excessive pressurization/depressurization cycles.

Yes, the plane had way too many take off and landing cycles (85,000+ compared to the 75,000 it was designed to handle in its operational lifetime).

The pilot's skill in controlling and landing the stricken plane with minimal loss of life was the example I was using in making my point.

The only death on the Aloha flight was not related to the post-incident actions of the pilot - a flight attendant sucked out of the plane by the sudden depressurization. Everybody else lived to tell the tale.

Likewise, "Sully" didn't cause the birds to blow out his engines. But we celebrate his skill in ditching the plane with no loss of life afterward.

> The pilot's skill in controlling and
> landing the stricken plane with
> minimal loss of life was the example

Word! Complete agreement!

But passenger gratitude is difficult to muster in these circumstances. I read a book about the Gimli Glider once which noted that after the dust had cleared, many passengers had wondered who, if not the pilot, was supposed to know how much fuel was in the damn thing anyway.

Blame Canada! If the government hadn't forced the switch to the metric system, the plane would have had enough fuel.

I don't know if the pilot has a fuel guage (like the one in your car), but it does seem reasonable that he would have some sort of indication if the tanks were only half-full.

Crid:

Let's get something straight.

Were you lying or stupid when you typed "Sad to note that it could, Raddy: "Results 1 - 10 of about 51,800,000 for pilot error. (0.30 seconds)"?

Since that was a championship caliber non sequitur, stupid seems more likely.

However, when called on it, you muttered something about optimized search. So, probably lying.

Yet you reminded me to look at the link, which showed you gooned the search. Stupid.

Then you add "force of will" to the forces of lift, gravity, thrust and drag acting on an airplane. Definitely stupid.

So, by my count you are a very stupid liar. But I could be wrong.

Note that he didn't say "a low baseline of talent among typical American airline pilots", he said "unskilled pilot".

Like you said, Context, fella, context. Raddy said that within, well, the context of a discussion having to do with airline pilots. Too bad about your comprehension issues.

If you must be insulting, BE CLEAR.

I trust the preceding is clear enough for you.

... many passengers had wondered who, if not the pilot, was supposed to know how much fuel was in the damn thing anyway.

This illustrates my point way above that there is a whole lot more to "pilot error" than just pilot error.

However, it does not contradict my assertion that as far as flying goes, what Sully did was, in fact, a precedented demonstration of the ability to function under extreme pressure. When do I get my Red Lobster dinner? (Depending on where you live, I'll be happy to buy the adult beverages.)

I don't know if the pilot has a fuel gauge (like the one in your car), but it does seem reasonable that he would have some sort of indication if the tanks were only half-full.

We have lots of fuel gauges. Unfortunately, there was a long sequence of errors that led to running out of fuel.

As a First Officer, it is my job to ensure the fuel load meets dispatch requirements. The process involves checking figures three ways, and using a function in the FMS to make liters / gallons / pounds / kilograms conversions.

> Let's get something straight.

Oh, get over yourself

In the space of this thread, you have:

-- spewed irrelevancies

-- proven you don't know how to do a Google search

-- lied when called out

-- taken the "un" out of "unprecedented"

-- added a hitherto unknown force acting on planes

-- and proved people care twice as much about hunky dory as pilot error

Helluva job, Criddy

That's Cridster to you.

"Um, They Call It "Skill" Here In The Land Of Reason"
Exactly how does "Land of Reason" figure into such flying ability?

Thank you so much for giving everyone a very superb opportunity to read critical reviews from this web site. It is always so fantastic and also stuffed with amusement for me personally and my office mates to search your blog at the very least 3 times per week to read through the newest secrets you have. And of course, I'm certainly fascinated concerning the impressive inspiring ideas served by you. Selected 3 ideas in this article are surely the most suitable I've ever had.