Sully

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

Post Reply
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Sully

Post by GAHorn »

As many of you know, I worked until last Nov. for a simulator training facility at DFW.
I recall one client who mentioned he'd once flown at Scenic in the Grand Canyon Tour business. He showed me a picture of he and his fellow pilots, all dressed in white shirts, black ties, and bell-bottom trousers and wearing Beetles haircuts. Standing next to him, dressed similarly, he pointed out his friend, Chesley Sullenberger. :lol:

I had a great opportunity to use real-life accident scenarios on clients who had agreed to it. These episodes would only be after a full lesson had already been completed with some left-over simulator time still available to the client, so I'd ask if they wanted to do anything else, and a common response might be, "Sure! What have you got in mind?"
They typically did not know what I had in mind exactly, although a few wanted to "try" what was in the current news. AirFrance 447 was one I liked to recreate. Another was not an accident, but a scenario of departing Aspen, CO in a twin-jet (Usually a Hawker or Citation-X) in high-overcast but good local VFR, something like 14K ovcst, 20 miles viz.... and give a blown-tire on takeoff that takes out the aft-mounted engine and results in contaminated cabin smoke/onboard fire warning... to see what they do. (For those not familiar, most pilots are reluctant to choose to land at Aspen with any sort of mechanical problem due to high density altitude, one-way runway (land to the southeast and takeoff to the northwest due to box-canyon, etc.), reduced mx capabilities coupled with pressure via their company preferences recommending Denver since it's only 30-40 mins away. This becomes a subtle mind-set in the flight crews which I took it upon myself to try to get them to reconsider.)
One of the habitual "errors" committed by most crews was when the Pilot Monitoring (PM) would call "Positive-Rate", the Pilot Flying (PF) would habitually respond "Gear UP"...and the PM would raise the gear (which I would promptly "stick/jam" in the wheelwell with a damaged tire, leading the crew into a self-generated multiple-failure when on short final they could not get the gear to extend. More on this later.)
Most of the corporate/charter pilots, having become highly-acclimated to operating on IFR flight plans had grown into habits that, having departed to the northwest from a VFR airfield with 8,000' of runway out into a deep valley with rising terrain in all other quadrants, ...they habitually continued the climb to the NW, then when clearing the 13K' peaks would request priority handling to climb up into the overcast and proceed to Denver with smoke/fire aboard. 8O They were loathe to limit their climb to a couple thousand ft above the field, then turn out in the valley at a 5-mile wide place only a mile ahead, reversing course and land back at VFR Aspen, all while in the clear remaining VFR. That's how determined they were to remain in an IFR operating environment...their usual operating mode. :? We are all creatures of habit.

Sometimes they would burn up enroute, sometimes they'd get to Denver, a very few times the crew would return to Aspen...only to do the next silly thing: When the landing gear fails to extend on short-final (because they'd habitually raised it, instead of leaving it Down for the blown tire, which in it's still-spining shredded state tore out the hydraulic lines and completely jammed it in the up position) ...of the very few crews who made what I considered the prudent choice of a VFR return for landing.... upon discovering the Lndg gear jammed.... would request "delaying vectors to sort out a gear problem" ...while still on-fire! (rather than land gear-up and evacuate the aircraft. 8O

Did I mention we are all creatures of habit?

It's easy to be a sim instructor and continually/mercilessly throw stuff at a crew to the point of insuring their failure. That's a sorry instructor who does that. The object is not to make the crew fail. Any instructor driving the simulator can throw enough problems to guarantee frustration.
I feel it's useful to create a realistic scenario, then let the scenario develop as realistic as it will based upon the crews actions.
I believe it's a good instructor who can create a realistic challenge for a crew to act on present-conditions, re-evaluate the situation, then act decisively and positively.... for the purposes of learning and self-improvement. If it results in a crash... the beauty of a simulator is, "we can do it over!" to see what we can do differently.

I did experience a couple of crews who, despite unusual situation, remained calm, behaved thoughtfully, and successfully landed the aircraft quickly.
Sully is one of the guys I'd expect to pull off the best action.

Anyway, what prompted this post was an email I got from a friend and thought I'd include you in it:



From Bob:
Have you seen this story and the side article by Paul Bertorelli ...or the movie?

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/1 ... ail#226929


Reply to Bob:

No, I've not seen anything other than short clips on the telly.
I've not got much inclination to see it, actually. While at work,
I tricked a few clients into the same scenario.... Take off from
LGA...one minute into flight, bird strikes/double flameouts....
Only one crew landed successfully in the river. Several hit bridges
and/or the random computer generated boats (I had no control over
the boats....they were just a part of the realism video created by the
sim mfr'r). One got back to LGA but collided with a departing aircraft
on rollout. None made it to TEB, although it's conceivable that the
landings in the neighborhoods would have had survivors, number
unknown.


Despite Hollywood, I've got a lot of respect and admiration for the professional flight and cabin crew of the Sullenberger flight.
I've not read the NTSB report, but it's unfortunate that they were portrayed in dim light by Hollywood.

Let's all make it our regular challenge to keep uppermost in our minds the many possibilities that await us on our next flight, and resolve
to review our emergency procedures (Do I remember where my cabin-air shut-off valve knob is? and have I inspected it lately for proper operation?)...
to remain calm, and review in our minds what we might do if faced with emergencies.
Happy and Safe Flying.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
User avatar
canav8
Posts: 1006
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: Sully

Post by canav8 »

George, the accuracy of the story is a little off. I am not personal friends with him but we have mutual friends at USAir. I work for that big Texas conglomerate. Sully was an Air Force Academy grad and never flew civilian. He was a glider pilot in the academy. He flew very little outside the military in gliders. He has been away from gliders for a min of 30 years but he did develop the skill set. I fly gliders currently and was a scenic grand canyon tour pilot and my career parallels his career time line. I do not believe he was there. If he was, his name would haunt the gallows and halls of Scenic Airlines. Anyway, your sim training take away is spot on, and without guys like you, airline professionals like myself would not even be half as prepared for the real world. Thanks for all you have done. Doug
52' C-170B N2713D Ser #25255
Doug
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20967
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Sully

Post by GAHorn »

Thanks Doug.
I may have gotten the airline/tour group wrong, but I saw the pic, and it was him. Perhaps Grand Canyon Airways? Or ??
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
Post Reply