Un petit miracle--le dernier voyage du 320 de Sully

[4Cs]

et une belle maîtrise apparente des PNTs : http://fr.news.yahoo.com/2/20090115/twl ... d2a39.html

[Ancien]

Oui belle maitrise comme tu le dis !
A la radio ce matin une info : le pilote , un ancien militaire , avait 19000 heures de vol et........67 ans !!
Le sang va couler en face

[opslady]

J'ai appris tout ca 30mn apres.
US Airways est connu pour avoir de tres bons pilotes, genre ex-militaires.
Les rapports a la tele etaient impressionnants.
Le Captain s'est rendu compte environ 3 min apres le decollage, ayant perdu la
puissance des 2 moteurs, d'ou il pensait un enorme bird strike. D'apres ATC, il a vu
une piste de l'autre cote du Hudson, et ai demande a ATC ce que c'etait, car il voulait poser
son avion la. C'etait Teterboro Airport en New Jersey. Ils avaient du vite faire l'analyse pour
se rendre compte que si l'on n'avait pas assez d'air-speed ni altitude, ils finiraient par se crasher
sur des maisons.
Il a utilise le Hudson longitudinalement comme une piste, descendant au centre, essayant de donner le plus de temps
possible aux pax + crew pour se preparer...puis "Brace for impact".
On fait des eloges au Cdb, le traitant de heros: (des cheveux bien blancs sur sa photo)

Captain Chesly Sullenberger has flown for U.S. Air for nearly 30 years. He's been a local safety chairman for the airline pilots association, and has helped the NTSB in its investigations of some previous airline crashes. He knows his job and his duty as a captain. With his plane sitting in the Hudson and his passengers waiting for rescue, Sullenberger walked the inside of his plane twice to make sure everyone got out okay.

J'ai vu qqs temoignages des passagers, dont un qui fait des frissons dans le dos (litteralement!).
Un monsieur, assis tout au fond de l'avion racontait qu'etant pres de la queue, l'eau montait vite la-bas,
jusqu'a son cou. Il s'est desabille, pour mieux flotter. La vraie panique. Mais des l'ouverture d'une
des portes , tout le monde etait calme. Les photos des pax debout sur l'aile sont impressionnantes.

A cause du courant, l'avion se deplacait de plus en plus dans la riviere. On a fini par l'ancrer.
Le NTSB commence son enquete le matin du 16Jan.

Voici plus d'infos:
320 dans l'eau

[Ancien]

Lady , si tu veux faire rire les pros de Chicago : Aux infos de 13 heures sur la chaine télé FR3 , un " spécialiste de l'aéronautique " a déclaré que le pilote avait 67 ans , donc une grande expèrience qui lui a permis de réussir son amerrissage , mais que si il avait été plus jeune sa vue aurait été meilleure et il aurait vu les oiseaux !!!!!!!!!

[Sheriff]

Il aura bien mérité sa retraite (quand il aura le droit de la prendre... c'est quoi la limite d'âge pour un CdB de liner chez les cow-boys ?)

[mkl]

US Airways est connu pour avoir de tres bons pilotes,

Je connais cette Cie pour avoir fait une qualif machine chez eux à l'epoque où elle s'appelait encore US AIR.
Le Training Center etait à l'epoque à Pittsburgh, PA.
Si Pittsburgh en hiver ne m'a pas laissé un souvenir impérissable, je garde un excellent souvenir de l'ambiance de US AIR, de ses instructeurs et de tous les copains que je m'y suis fait.
J'ai fait deux autres qualif par la suite chez AMERICAN AIRLINES à Dallas, TX, par la suite. C'etait aussi efficace, mais là c'etait trop grand pour s'y faire des copains. Même au simu,on changeait d'instructeur presque chaque jour ( ou chaque nuit, car c'etait un peu l'usine ).
Cat' lady, je ne sais pas si je suis devenu bon, mais je suis fier d'y avoir reçu une proposition d'embauche à la suite de mon stage.....
On serait voisins maintenant.

[opslady]

Mkl, je savais que tu avais fais du training a Dallas, mais pas chez US Air a Pittsburgh! Effectivement, on aurait ete des voisins!
Depuis mes debuts ici, j'avais souvent entendu parler de leurs pilotes , tout ca bien avant les avions 'glass cockpit'.
J'aime l'ambiance chez de telles compagnies aussi. Ils avaient du aimer avoir le gars a l'accent francais
parmi eux! Tu avais surment attire l'attention des femmes lors de tes sejours aux USA..

Le Cdb n'a pas encore parle aux medias, mais j'ai vu sa femme prendre la parole ce soir, avec ses 2 jeunes filles a cote
d'elle. (tres jolie blonde, je dirais pas plus de 40 ans). Elle n'arrivait pas a cacher ses emotions. Elle a dit de
son epoux "he's a pilot's pilote (hmmm, moi je disais ca juste hier soir au sujet de US AIR.), un homme qui apprecie beaucoup l'art de l'avion".

Lady , si tu veux faire rire les pros de Chicago : Aux infos de 13 heures sur la chaine télé FR3 , un " spécialiste de l'aéronautique " a déclaré que le pilote avait 67 ans , donc une grande expèrience qui lui a permis de réussir son amerrissage , mais que si il avait été plus jeune sa vue aurait été meilleure et il aurait vu les oiseaux !!!!!!!!!

Il y aura toujours quelqu'un de mauvaise langue! Quelqu'un qui aurait mieux fait, quelqu'un qui aurait evite ce probleme..

Sheriff, je pense qu'ils avaient fait une erreur de math ..je pense qu'il a plutot 57 ans. L'age de la retraite etait de 60ans
avant le 14Dec; W avait signe la nouvelle loi qui a change l'age en 65 ans:

"presse release de la F.A.A. 14Dec 2007"

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) welcomes the legislation signed into law last night by the President that allows U.S. commercial pilots to fly until age 65. The determined efforts of Congress have averted a lengthy federal rulemaking process while enabling some of our nation’s most experienced pilots to keep flying.
Effective last night, the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act allows both pilots on a domestic flight to be up to age 65. For international flights, one pilot may be up to age 65 provided the other pilot is under age 60, consistent with the November 2006 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard.

[mkl]

Ils avaient du aimer avoir le gars a l'accent francais

.
Zut, moi qui faisait tout pour faire croire que j'etais suisse !

[didier le chaton]

l'âge du CDB de 67 ans n'était il pas une coquille ?

il semblerait qu'il n'en ait en fait sensiblement moins !

ceci dit : chapeau ! ( il est couillu le caribou ! )

[Ancien]

l'âge du CDB de 67 ans n'était il pas une coquille

( il est couillu le caribou ! )

Ben la coquille c'est pour protèger le caribou ?

[opslady]

Le A320 de USAir, connu pour l' amerrissage dans le Hudson River par Captain Sullenberger fait son tout dernier
voyage, sur une autoroute.
C'etait le vol 1549, l'incident en Jan.2009. Le A320 etait en route a son nouveau hangar, un musee d'aviation dans la North Carolina. L'avion a quitte un magasin de stockage dans la New Jersey.

Sur cette photo, l'avion passe devant la mairie de Newark, N.J, le 04Jun, sans les ailes.
Souvenez-vous de la photo inoubliable avec les passagers debout sur les ailes.

le dernier troncon du vol 1549

[chomel]

Charles Campi m'a envoyé cela :

Subject: Fwd: CLINT EASTWOOD V. NTSB The $65 Million Misunderstanding










CLINT EASTWOOD V. NTSB




The $65 Million Misunderstanding









By Roger Rapoport




Flight Safety Information Contributing Editor














image001.jpg









Until I read the script, I didn't know the investigative board (NTSB) was trying to paint the picture that he had done the wrong thing. They were kind of railroading.




-Clint Eastwood in Promotional Trailer for Sully














For those who are the focus on the investigation, the intensity of it is immense (the process was) inherently adversarial with professional reputations absolutely in the balance.




-Chesley Sullenberger, The New York Times



















By now we all know the story of the January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549. A flock of Canada geese, flying above their assigned New York Terminal Control Area altitude, met their maker inside the twin engines of an Airbus A320-214 piloted by Captain Chesley Sullenberger and First Officer Jeff Skiles. Unable to return to base or an alternate airport, the pilots correctly made an emergency landing on the Hudson River. Final score, US Airways 155, Canada Geese 0.









With $60 million in hand, getting those facts right was no problem for Eastwood's production team. Unfortunately, the public is now beginning to learn, there is a very good reason why it took Eastwood nearly eight years to go beyond the true story and discover what no one else knew, that the NTSB was trying to railroad Captain Sullenberger.









It turns out that events, dialogue and key scenes in the film never happened. As the NTSB hearing links below show, Eastwood has apparently succeeded in brainwashing himself with the help of screenwriter Todd Komarnicki.









After an extensive analysis of the wreckage and simulations of the flight conducted by accident investigators with the cooperation of the airline, Airbus, the pilots, flight attendants, and passengers, the National Transportation Safety Board convened a Washington D.C. hearing on the event in June 2009. Chief Investigator Robert Benzon told the board that after the bird strike:









"The captain soon concluded that a landing in the river was the safest alternative available. During the course of the investigation, flight simulations were conducted. These flight simulations revealed that a successful return to LaGuardia or a diversion to Teterboro (New Jersey) Airport was not assured."









In their human performance summary of the accident, the NTSB's Dr. Katherine Wilson and Captain David Helson praised Sullenberger and Skiles "excellent crew resource management."









NTSB Board Member Robert Sumwalt, a former US Airways Airbus 320, pilot thanked Sullenberger for "representing the piloting profession as you do."









In May 2010 the NTSB's final report, based on 20,000 hours of investigation, "validated the Captain's decision to ditch into the Hudson River saying that it "provided the highest probability that the accident would be survivable.









"Contributing to the survivability of the accident was the crew resource management between the captain and first officer, which allowed them to maintain control of the airplane, increasing the survivability of the impact with the water."









In his memoir Highest Duty with Jeffrey Zaslow, the basis for Eastwood's big money maker, Sullenberger agrees. He writes that he was "buoyed by the fact that investigators determined that Jeff (Skiles) and I made appropriate choices at every step."









According to the NTSB no one on the Eastwood/Warner Brothers production team bothered to do fact checking with the federal agency. This appears to have been an oversight, considering that NTSB officials spent years fighting for some of the key safety improvements and procedures contributing to the survival of all 155 aboard flight 1549.









Screenwriter Komarnicki, perhaps best known as the producer of Santa driven comedy elf, is celebrating Christmas a bit early this year thanks to his ability to rewrite history and dramatize incidents that never happened.









Warner Brothers damage control experts, Eastwood, Sullenberger and Hanks can't explain why Komarnicki and Eastwood's narrative invent a series of events that do not show up in the 560 page transcript of the NTSB's three day June 2009 hearing on Flight 1549. It's hard to believe that Sullenberger who covers aviation stories for CBS and is universally recognized as a white hat in aviation safety, would not have caught these obvious and unforgivable mistakes in the script.









Eastwood's revisionism portrays agency investigators as no nothing amateurs eager to smear the pilots. The embarrassing and inexcusable factual errors begin when Hanks , playing Sully, wakes a union rep insisting that he put in an early morning call to Airbus in France.









The "nervous" US Airways Captain wants the pilots in Toulouse to speed up simulations of the Flight 1549 landing pattern at LaGuardia and Teterboro. This phone call never happened nor did Airbus pilots rush through the simulations portrayed in the film. In fact this sequence never happened.









At the hearing, bullying NTSB investigators (perhaps to avoid the possibility of libeling them, their names have been changed) make the case that Sully and Skiles could have kept their passengers high and dry by landing their plane at LaGuardia or Teterboro. A pair of Airbus simulations, supposedly made available for the hearing thanks to pressure from Sully's union, demonstrate they could have made it back to LaGuardia or landed at Teterboro.









In the Eastwood version, Sully brilliantly persuades the hearing officers to phone Airbus and ask them to instantly rerun both simulations. In the film this is done with a realistic 35 second delay necessary for the pilots to assess the bird strike triggered crisis at dangerously low altitude.









When the hearing reconvenes after a short recess, the French simulator pilots show a new more realistic scenario that plane could not have reached either airport. This is portrayed as a humiliating defeat for the big bad wolves in the NTSB lair.









The fact is, as Eastwood, Hanks and Warner Brothers know, none of this ever happened. Tom Haueter, who directed the NTSB's Office of Safety, at the time it oversaw the Flight 1549 investigation and final report says:









"We never got any pushback from Sullenberger. The movie's portrayal of the French rerun of the simulation of the crash never happened at our hearing.









"The movie makes it look like Sullenberger forced us to do additional simulations during the hearing. We had done those simulations months before and he had nothing to do with them.









"We concluded before the hearing that he was right, that he made the best decision he could have at the time, that he could not have made it back to either airport."









What about the scene in Eastwood's film where an investigator challenges Sullenberger on whether or not one of Flight 1549's engines was potentially capable of producing enough power to get the plane back to LaGuardia?









"Not true," says Haueter, now an independent safety consultant in Great Falls, Virginia. "They couldn't have produced full power if they tried. They weren't going to fly anymore.









"We concluded that they made the best decision they could have made. They could have tried to do x, y and z and land the plane in Central Park but that would not have been a bright idea."









"We believe 99.9 percent of all pilots in that situation would have done the same thing."









Another inexplicable Eastwood change was playing the cockpit voice recorder during the film, an event that triggers heartfelt words from the investigation team.









"We never played the cockpit voice recorder during the hearing, as shown in the film," says Haueter.









Missing from the script is the fact that some of the NTSB's safety recommendations resulting from the Flight 1539 investigation and hearing have been implemented to the benefit of American airline passengers every day, including people who work for Warner Brothers. Eastwood doesn't spend one second on this side of the story.









Should he, Tom Hanks (Sullenberger) and Aaron Eckhart (as Skiles) win Oscar gold , their Hollywood victory will clearly be at the expense of the "bureaucrats" at the NTSB falsely accused of trying to sully the flight crew's reputation.









Damage has already been done as some fans of the film stream out of theaters cursing a diligent and highly praised federal agency that has made many life saving significant contributions to aviation safety.









"I understand the need for a movie to make money," says Haueter "But I have gotten a lot of calls from pilots blasting the NTSB who believe the false story shown in the film is absolutely real. This is going to be detrimental to future accident investigations because people who see the film think they can't trust the NTSB.









"There are intelligent people who have seen the film who think it is absolutely accurate, that this is the way we are doing business. It says we don't trust the pilots . We are asked:









"'Why should we trust you people, you are only a shill for management trying to do in pilots. You are trying to make us look bad, why should we talk to you.'









"The people I have talked to from pilot unions who participated in this investigation are shocked by the movie. Unfortunately for the NTSB, it is not going to be pretty.









"I have not heard anything from Capitol Hill but I wouldn't be surprised if they are getting calls from Congressmen and Senators asking what is going on.









Hanks and Eckhart's convincing performances as Sully and Skiles have made the problem worse.









"People see the NTSB hearing scene," says Haueter, "and they absolutely believe 100 percent that this is what happened, that every word is true."









It's not going to be easy to undo the fictional dialogue in the film that has already crossed the $94 million mark worldwide, blasting away competition like Blair Witch and Bridget Jones's Baby.









"From the day the movie came out," says Hauter, "I have had people call and ask, 'how does the NTSB run an investigation this way.'









"People who really know me say, 'wow, it's a movie, it's not real.'









" But other people think that the film is telling it like it was, that we were out to screw Sullenberger."









"Eastwood believed it was true. I find it interesting that when they made the movie they never approached the NTSB.









"Sullenberger knows what happened. You would think he would have said something."









***









FSI Contributing Editor Roger Rapoport is the producer of the feature film Pilot Error. He can be reached at 231 720-0930.









Copyright Roger Rapoport, All Rights Reserved









Here are video links to the three day NTSB public hearing on US Airways Flight 1549.




http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Page ... s1549.aspx Video appears under "related video" on the left.









The accident docket, documents 110, 111 and 112 presents a transcript of the hearing.




http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitli ... etID=47230









NTSB Report on Flight 1549




Executive Summary




http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acci ... AR1003.asp

[DC8]

Merci Chomel pour cet excellent article . On oublie trop souvent que les films , c"est avant tout du spectacle pas un documentaire d'investigation. la mention : " Based on a true story " le dit bien . Bases. pas reproduction fidele...c" etait la meme chose avec le film " Flight" avec Denzel Washington sur le MD80 d' Alaska airkines. On rajoute des bouts inventes pour rendre l'action plus interessante. Pas nouveau mais c'est toujours bon de le rappeller.

[C25S]

[color=#FF0040]US Airways est connu pour avoir de tres bons pilotes, genre [u]ex-militaires.[/u][/color]

C'est vrai tous les autres sont des "brèles" - Sympa pour toutes les formations civiles..........

[Arcimboldo]

Jaloux !

Regardez la date du post où vous avez trouvé cette phrase : il date de 2009.

Mais on va considérer que depuis, non, non, rien n'a changé ! Sans doute !

Je sors car je vais me faier insulter

Sans rancune aucune, C25S.

Arcim

[C25S]

Pas du tout - aucune "rancune" ........mais les choses ont-elles changé depuis 2009........

C'est une bonne question, merci de l'avoir posée.........

[chomel]

Oui les choses ont changé un petit peu. En 2009 justement, lors d'un passage à Airbus Toulouse et à St Yan, J'ai été repris vertement sur les programmes de formation que j'avais installés en Malaisie et en Thaïlande, programmes qui comprenaient 10 séances de voltige, de 30 mn. Depuis les choses ont changé, les stagiaires un peu partout font de la voltige et/ ou du vol à voile. L'idée d'un pilote bien formé au pilotage de base reprenait du sens, petit supplément de cout de formation, face à des crashs évités.

[C25S]

Malheureusement la leçon n°2 - de La Montagne Noire (1° cycle planeur) dans les années 1970 a été un peu oubliée.......