[Human Factor]

Yes but kept them to myself!

Actually I was very surprised when something in the cockpit was warning them "obstacle" as they approached that bridge. I wouldn't have thought that such a VFR feature would be present. Anyone know if that aeroplane actually has such a feature?

Depends on the mod state and database of the EGPWS.

[kanga]

... As predicted by Mrs matspart3, however, I spotted a couple of technical gaffes in the film. She told me I'm a 'sad b@st@rd that needs to get out more'. ..

she (and we other nerds) would probably have been both surprised and a bit worried if you had not

[Paul_Sengupta]

She told me I'm a 'sad b@st@rd that needs to get out more'. She's probably not wrong.

Aren't we all?

I'd love to "get out more" but only if it means doing so in an aeroplane. Weather, time and money, that's all it takes I'm told!

[GrahamB]

Saw it on a flight to the US earlier in the week.

Large pinch of salt around the inquisitorial portrayal of the enquiry, but I thought the actual in-cabin sequences completely convincing, including the completely unexpected chanting by the flight attendants. Bloody well done overall.

[MichaelJP59]

I'm fairly late to this discussion as I never saw the movie at the cinema, but just watched it at home. I do like aviation movies but I don't like it when things are exaggerated when they don't need to be. Surely this story was dramatic enough without needing to go overboard. Case in point, this shot from the movie as they are approaching the George Washington bridge:



They are clearly well below the top of the GWB towers (500ft) as those tops are above the horizon, and yet they are discussing with ATC whether they can make Teterboro. This makes the pilots look stupid, but actually in real life at that point they were at 1300ft.

Compounding this in the movie from this point it takes them another 2m47s to hit the water!! A descent rate of 180ft/min and an impossible glide ratio of 86:1, more than even a performance sailplane - no wonder the whole sequence feels false.

Again, in the actual incident they were only 1m55s from ditching, a descent rate of the order of 650ft/min, and a real glide ratio of approx 20:1.. why stretch time out? In reality what Sully did was remarkable in the short time available, when a dual engine failure was such an unlikely occurrence, how well he did to accept the situation and fly the aircraft.

Finally, the whole courtroom setup of the NTSB ‘prosecution’ was totally wrong, especially with the sim team on the video link testing out various landings ‘live’.

So overall, disappointing, I was hoping for much, much better.

[stevelup]

Did you grab that screenshot from the nightmare sequence? He was dreaming - wasn't supposed to be real...

[MichaelJP59]

No, that was from the full sequence in the movie at about 1h20, after the NTSB 'courtroom' travesty. Worse was about a minute after my shot, the pilots stare wide-eyed out of the side window as they slide past the bridge towers, followed by Sully inexplicably choosing to fly low over the city for a while (which he didn't do.)

[JoeC]

It's a fillum. Not a documentary.

[MichaelJP59]

Yes, it's not a documentary. But I still believe that when film-makers decide to use real-life events to make a movie there are boundaries that shouldn't be crossed. More important than the gross errors in the depiction of the accident flight I mention is the highly inaccurate painting of the NTSB as carrying out a witch-hunt against the pilots. The actual investigators concerned are real people and it didn't happen that long ago.

[kanga]

Yes, it's not a documentary. But I still believe that when film-makers decide to use real-life events to make a movie there are boundaries that shouldn't be crossed. ...

.. especially as many, including especially many Americans in my experience, absorb much of what they 'know' about both recent and distant history from Hollywood glosses on it ..

[Lefty]

I sat down to watch a movie. I didn't sit down with a copy of the NTSB report and a screen grab kit - looking to find inaccuracies in the movie.

What does it matter if that shot is taken from a lower perspective - or it takes longer to touch the water - than it did in real life?

[flybymike]

Cos we are all anoraks innit?

[MichaelJP59]

Lefty, I'd already read the NTSB report, and like (I would hope) everyone here, I am a pilot so the incorrect flight path looked completely wrong. Obviously if this was a film review forum, my comments would be unnecessarily geeky, but the only reason this thread is here is that this movie is an aviation film about a very interesting event.

Why does it matter about the shot? Because it makes the pilots look bad, swerving over the city at less than 500ft. It also makes handling the event look much easier than it was, with loads of time for the pilots as they float lazily onwards, barely sinking as they consider what to do.
Why does it matter about the NTSB? It's offensive to the actual investigators who in the real report highly praised the flight crew.

[cambioso]

How did you manage to watch it "at home" please?
Amazon advise me that it is not available until the 27th March, I Googled it and couldn't find a link to the full film.........
Having missed it at the flics, I am waiting for it.
Cheers,
Jez.

[stevelup]

It's been released on Blu Ray in the USA since the end of December, yet not here in the UK until three months later.

And people wonder why piracy is rife...