The way the NTSB was represented in this movie actually made me angry. Especially the part where they are "caught red-handed" by Sully with the stimulator recreations where other pilots made it to a runway. The delay for human factors and checklists is brought up like a "gotcha" moment, and the NTSB is portrayed as being disappointed when the simulator pilots can't make a safe landing. It almost implies that the NTSB was purposely concealing the truth of the matter. I have nothing but respect for the NTSB, and they are not a group that assigns blame, they are there to prevent similar incidents from occurring again.
"Artistic licence," I guess. But yeah.- I agree... Thankfully, the industry is mostly past the 'bad ole days' where FAA, manufacturers, etc. seemed to be happy to just blame the pilots and 'move on.'
Yeah, it was put in for the sake of drama and to have a "villian" for a better climax of the movie. Sully himself even said he hated the depiction of the NTSB, and it was not accurate. The NTSB testing on taking an immediate return lead to a crash about 50% of the time when tested with multiple pilots in simulator, so they concluded that even if Sully had immediately turned back as soon as engine failure happened the risks were still extremely high that he would have crashed, so what he did was the safest option.
Sully's work that day was beyond reproach. Regardless of whether he could have done it differently, he brought the plane down in extreme circumstances without loss of life. Sully's a true hero.
Great video. I know from the book - Highest Duty - that Captain Sullenberger acknowledged that the NTSB treated him benignly. Eastwood did want to bring in a protagonist to add a little drama and you have the end result. Had it not had that dramatic element at the end, I could see the movie just fizzling out. I think the strongest point was the accident sequence, the fact they re-used the cockpit and ground conversations word-for-word is rare and a testament to Eastwood and Sullenberger.
Hey! You’re back! I’ve never seen the movie myself, but still, this comparison was really interesting to watch. I get that some people like the dramatised versions, but I’d watch a thousand TH-cam videos on channels like yours before watching any “based on a true story” movie. In fact, between Three Greens, Disaster Breakdown, and Mentour Pilot, I probably have. ;) Awesome video anyway. Please, keep up the great work!
I watched it to see the source material he was referring to and to make a movie just have to bend the truth a bit. I don't think they really bent it too far it was a great film to be fair
To anyone who isn’t really into aviation it would be considered just a great movie, but like many I didn’t like the way the NTSB were portrayed as unprofessional buffoons and I felt sorry for the fictional Sully. I have nothing but the utmost respect for both parties in real life.
Yours is a fair depiction. The NTSB is one of the most effective government agencies as opposed to the FAA which is traditionally more closely tied to the aviation industry and sometimes reluctant to implement the NTSB recommendations. Overall, the movie portrays accurately the actions of the crew and passengers.
I think the NTSB scenes in this movie are typical of how much Clint Eastwood hates any Federal organisation. Just look at how many movies he's made where he's up against "Goliath". A real shame, 'cause otherwise it's one of the best air-crash movies ever made. It could, of course also have been a conscious decision to add drama to the movie. Ron Howard did the same thing in "Apollo 13", where he had Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) scream at his people, where that never happened, and in fact, Gene Kranz himself protested against this "temper tantrum" scene, but Ron Howard explained to him that it was necessary to create cinematic tension.
You're too charitable about the film's depiction of NTSB. In engineering circles, the NTSB's post-incident methodology is highly regarded. They are some of the best-known proponents of investigating indirect contributing factors, and probably the last people to knee-jerk cop-out on human error. Their reports have real impact on industry. It's irresponsible for filmmakers to smear the NTSB's credibility to the lay movie-goer.
I'm not sure what's worse really, the depiction of the NTSB as looking to try and blame the pilots, or the fact that that newsreader said that an A320 is a "commuter jet" lol
I disliked that after they ingested the birds that the flight spoilers came up. For some reason Hollywood movies always seem to deploy the spoilers when something happens to the plane.
That was a brilliant video (yours, not the movie!) and I really enjoyed it. I’ve heard one of the real NTSB say that unlike whatever the movie watchers had thought about the NTSB after that scene, he had met Sully during the enquiry and he was treated politely, with the utmost respect by all NTSB personnel members present. The first article I read on this was in a book about incredible survival stories. Even that described the FO as “reading the manual on how to restart the engines” and I thought, if he didn’t even know how to start the engines he couldn’t have been much good as a pilot! I still remember - I’m from the U.K. - the scenes on the news and that huge looking plane in the middle of a river. It looked so out of place!
The problem with trying to glide to a runway at LGA is that the margin for error is zero with huge, horrible consequences for missing by even a little. That airport is surrounded by acres of buildings, as well as a seawall and the bay. The Hudson River always seemed like a much safer alternative... and it seems Sully agreed with this assessment. What an excellent display of airmanship he and Styles accomplished.
I got Sully sick when it all happened, and then the film and tv appearances, etc, and it's one I always scroll by as a rule. This is great as always from this poster 👍👌but 6:24 I'm shocked and feel that anyone that blamed Sully in any way shape or form instead of giving him the key to the city for going above and beyond, really needs psychiatric help.
This is a great video, the concept is different to the norm. I think sully and Skiles did an excellent job and I didn’t like how the movie tried to portray otherwise. I get movies need high drama but this story is pretty dramatic already!
In the opening scene, I would have thought they would interview them seperately and also each pilot to have provided a written from memory perspective report prior to the interview.
I watched this film, due to the references to it. It was a great movie. Probably the best recreation one would expect in order to make a film profitable. Ty for making this video
I think it's one of those fake events. All we get is some grainy footage of a plane landing in a city jam packed with people and cameras. Lots of other anomalies. Then we get a movie with Tom Hanks 😂
It must have been a helluva fake, as they seem to have taken into account all those people in Manhattan with West-facing windows (and those in NJ with East-facing windows). I guess all our eyes were just deceiving us that day, eh?
@JosieJOK they pulled off a much bigger one in 2001. Another in 1969. And another in 2020. It's incredible how they get away with it, but they do, simply because most people just accept the 'official story'. Those, like me, that question, are just conspiracy loons. So be it.
The way the NTSB was represented in this movie actually made me angry. Especially the part where they are "caught red-handed" by Sully with the stimulator recreations where other pilots made it to a runway. The delay for human factors and checklists is brought up like a "gotcha" moment, and the NTSB is portrayed as being disappointed when the simulator pilots can't make a safe landing. It almost implies that the NTSB was purposely concealing the truth of the matter.
I have nothing but respect for the NTSB, and they are not a group that assigns blame, they are there to prevent similar incidents from occurring again.
"Artistic licence," I guess. But yeah.- I agree... Thankfully, the industry is mostly past the 'bad ole days' where FAA, manufacturers, etc. seemed to be happy to just blame the pilots and 'move on.'
Yeah, it was put in for the sake of drama and to have a "villian" for a better climax of the movie. Sully himself even said he hated the depiction of the NTSB, and it was not accurate. The NTSB testing on taking an immediate return lead to a crash about 50% of the time when tested with multiple pilots in simulator, so they concluded that even if Sully had immediately turned back as soon as engine failure happened the risks were still extremely high that he would have crashed, so what he did was the safest option.
Thank you for covering this. Sullenberger exhibited supreme ballsy airmanship.
Sully's work that day was beyond reproach. Regardless of whether he could have done it differently, he brought the plane down in extreme circumstances without loss of life. Sully's a true hero.
Thanks for sharing. 😉👌🏻
Great video.
I know from the book - Highest Duty - that Captain Sullenberger acknowledged that the NTSB treated him benignly.
Eastwood did want to bring in a protagonist to add a little drama and you have the end result. Had it not had that dramatic element at the end, I could see the movie just fizzling out.
I think the strongest point was the accident sequence, the fact they re-used the cockpit and ground conversations word-for-word is rare and a testament to Eastwood and Sullenberger.
Hey! You’re back!
I’ve never seen the movie myself, but still, this comparison was really interesting to watch.
I get that some people like the dramatised versions, but I’d watch a thousand TH-cam videos on channels like yours before watching any “based on a true story” movie. In fact, between Three Greens, Disaster Breakdown, and Mentour Pilot, I probably have. ;)
Awesome video anyway. Please, keep up the great work!
I watched it to see the source material he was referring to and to make a movie just have to bend the truth a bit. I don't think they really bent it too far it was a great film to be fair
To anyone who isn’t really into aviation it would be considered just a great movie, but like many I didn’t like the way the NTSB were portrayed as unprofessional buffoons and I felt sorry for the fictional Sully. I have nothing but the utmost respect for both parties in real life.
Yours is a fair depiction. The NTSB is one of the most effective government agencies as opposed to the FAA which is traditionally more closely tied to the aviation industry and sometimes reluctant to implement the NTSB recommendations. Overall, the movie portrays accurately the actions of the crew and passengers.
I think the NTSB scenes in this movie are typical of how much Clint Eastwood hates any Federal organisation. Just look at how many movies he's made where he's up against "Goliath". A real shame, 'cause otherwise it's one of the best air-crash movies ever made. It could, of course also have been a conscious decision to add drama to the movie. Ron Howard did the same thing in "Apollo 13", where he had Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) scream at his people, where that never happened, and in fact, Gene Kranz himself protested against this "temper tantrum" scene, but Ron Howard explained to him that it was necessary to create cinematic tension.
This has been one of my overall favorite aviation stories for years!
You're too charitable about the film's depiction of NTSB.
In engineering circles, the NTSB's post-incident methodology is highly regarded. They are some of the best-known proponents of investigating indirect contributing factors, and probably the last people to knee-jerk cop-out on human error. Their reports have real impact on industry.
It's irresponsible for filmmakers to smear the NTSB's credibility to the lay movie-goer.
I'm not sure what's worse really, the depiction of the NTSB as looking to try and blame the pilots, or the fact that that newsreader said that an A320 is a "commuter jet" lol
I disliked that after they ingested the birds that the flight spoilers came up.
For some reason Hollywood movies always seem to deploy the spoilers when something happens to the plane.
Thanks for the video makes a very nice change
This is a fantastic idea for a series
That was a brilliant video (yours, not the movie!) and I really enjoyed it. I’ve heard one of the real NTSB say that unlike whatever the movie watchers had thought about the NTSB after that scene, he had met Sully during the enquiry and he was treated politely, with the utmost respect by all NTSB personnel members present. The first article I read on this was in a book about incredible survival stories. Even that described the FO as “reading the manual on how to restart the engines” and I thought, if he didn’t even know how to start the engines he couldn’t have been much good as a pilot!
I still remember - I’m from the U.K. - the scenes on the news and that huge looking plane in the middle of a river. It looked so out of place!
The problem with trying to glide to a runway at LGA is that the margin for error is zero with huge, horrible consequences for missing by even a little. That airport is surrounded by acres of buildings, as well as a seawall and the bay. The Hudson River always seemed like a much safer alternative... and it seems Sully agreed with this assessment. What an excellent display of airmanship he and Styles accomplished.
Admittedly im a non pilot, but could he have given it a little more flap just prior and splashed it in moreso? Gidday from nz
I got Sully sick when it all happened, and then the film and tv appearances, etc, and it's one I always scroll by as a rule. This is great as always from this poster 👍👌but 6:24 I'm shocked and feel that anyone that blamed Sully in any way shape or form instead of giving him the key to the city for going above and beyond, really needs psychiatric help.
Great video as always!
Small nitpick, it's Canada Geese, not Canadian Geese
Oh thats something ive been saying wrong for years too; thanks!
@@criodanomurchu1075 Yeah, it's very common, and everyone knows what you mean
I agree. Great review.
This is a great video, the concept is different to the norm. I think sully and Skiles did an excellent job and I didn’t like how the movie tried to portray otherwise. I get movies need high drama but this story is pretty dramatic already!
Wait, why did they suddenly turn into IAE engines @15:34?
been a while since the last video!
In the opening scene, I would have thought they would interview them seperately and also each pilot to have provided a written from memory perspective report prior to the interview.
His initial reaction is one that powered his fight. AI would never feel that
I watched this film, due to the references to it. It was a great movie. Probably the best recreation one would expect in order to make a film profitable. Ty for making this video
Nice!
Thank you for this. I always thought Sully was badly treated by the ntsb (from the movie). Now i know.😅
Hy. Can you do same for Flight plz? The accuracy etc plz?
8:49 And why is Skylar just sitting there,,looking all Skylary
Chitti Sully, Pedda Sully
After 10.000+ GA accidents NTSB released less, than 10 recommendations. Good job, NTSB, good job.
Can we get serious now?
The movie was great. Any differences between the movie and real life are minor. It was a movie, not a documentary.
The voice over is far too over dramatic and very annoying to listen to
You do realize this was not a documentary?
People tend to take movies as one, though.
I think it's one of those fake events. All we get is some grainy footage of a plane landing in a city jam packed with people and cameras. Lots of other anomalies. Then we get a movie with Tom Hanks 😂
It must have been a helluva fake, as they seem to have taken into account all those people in Manhattan with West-facing windows (and those in NJ with East-facing windows). I guess all our eyes were just deceiving us that day, eh?
@JosieJOK they pulled off a much bigger one in 2001. Another in 1969. And another in 2020. It's incredible how they get away with it, but they do, simply because most people just accept the 'official story'. Those, like me, that question, are just conspiracy loons. So be it.
@JosieJOK again. You answered your own question. All those people are watching, yet all we get is some grainy CCTV footage.
Oh please. Next thing from you will be “9/11 never happened” not everything is a conspiracy. Stop being a troll.
@@robbflynn4325 Yes, because any regular Joe Schmoe with a cell phone is going to produce film-quality videos.
Come on Aussie, come on, come on. Come on Aussie come on!