check out this blog entry. thankfully the blogger is looking for input from pilots about the validity of the points.

Vanity Fair: Did Sully Sullenberger Land in the Hudson? Or Did the Plane Land Itself? - The Middle Seat Terminal - WSJ

Just how important was Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger’s piloting skill to pulling off the fatality free spashdown of US Airways Flight 1549 Jan. 15?

Vanity Fair writer William Langewiesche touches on that topic in his 11,000-word dissection of the Hudson River landing in the latest issue of the magazine. The gargantuan piece ranges broadly over the elements that combined to create that remarkable situation back in January, from the the history of Canada geese in New York City to Sully’s stint in the Air Force, much of it spent traversing the Nevada skies in F-4 Phantoms.

Langewiesche also spotlights the development of the Airbus A320, the plane that Sullenberger and co-pilot Jeff Skiles brought down safely on the Hudson. Langewiesche writes that when the plane was first delivered in 1988, “It was without a doubt the most innovative civil airplane since the Wright Flyer—a narrow-bodied, twin-turbofan, medium-range jet with the approximate capacities of a Boeing 737 but with extensive use of composite materials, an integrated flat-screen instrument panel, a side-stick control like that of the F-16, and, most important, a full-on fly-by-wire interface between pilot and aircraft control.”

(Just for the record, Journal reporters Andy Pasztor and Susan Carey did report back in January that Sullenberger was able to keep the nose of the plane up while flying at a reduced speed partly because his aircraft’s so-called fly-by-wire system — essentially computer-powered flight controls — prevent the jetliner from stalling, or falling out of the air.)

Langewiesche later continues:

Sullenberger’s A320 went all the way to the water under fly-by-wire control. That means it handled the constant adjustments and repetitive chores of flight by itself, and responded to Sullenberger’s larger inputs according to a regime that is known as Normal Law … A full description of its arcane logic is beyond the scope of an article. Suffice it to say that if Sullenberger had done nothing after the loss of thrust the airplane would have smoothly slowed until reaching a certain angle with the airflow, at which point it would have lowered its nose to keep the wings from stalling, and would have done this even if for some reason Sullenberger had resisted.

In a story published back in 2000, Journal reporter Dan Michaels explains fly-by-wire this way: “With the fly-by-wire system, a pilot’s adjustment of the controls sends an electronic message, which operates a small motor off in some other part of the plane. It’s as different from flying a traditional jet as tapping a computer keyboard is from using a manual typewriter.”

Langewiesche, a pilot himself, is not trying to take anything away from Sullenberger’s ability as a pilot, alternately writing throughout the piece that the aviator “was justly celebrated for his skill and courage,” “showing his excellence as a pilot,” and “a quintessential pilot.” Still, the piece highlights in detail the role of the plane itself in the successful, fatality-free splashdown that we haven’t seen before.

Pilots, what do you make of the piece? Does it ring true to you?

 

where was that article from...Vanity Fair? They should stick to designer purse/nail polish articles and leave aviation alone. Does anyone know what law the airplane was in? Has the NTSB released that info? What if it was in Alternate Law, or any other law for that matter? Would Sully get more props in the eyes of the writer? What a scumbag to try and put a spin on this.

 

Imagine this:

You're a school bus driver. While driving a full load of kids over a bridge, you have a tire blow out while simultaneously hitting a patch of "black ice". Using your superior driving skills, you manage to recover without sliding into the opposite lane traffic that consists of a 10-ton semi truck or breaking into the guard rail and plunging off the bridge into the icy waters below.

You're a hero.

Until some {insert profanity here} writer notices that the bus, after all, had power steering, anti-lock brakes, and cruise control. So I guess it wasn't you after all . . you were just along for the ride.

To wit: it's kinda like that.

 

My understanding was the aircraft was in Normal Law, thus computers controlling. The one engines was still producing power, thus hydraulics and had electrical power via APU and one Gen.

 

I hear computers do all the work in reporting too - I mean, all the human does is tell the computer what to do.

Its not like these "reporters" work nearly as hard as their contemporaries 50 or 100 years ago, they're just glorified button pushers now-a-days.

 

Touche! Excellent analogy.

 

Hilarious.

 

I disagree. It is exactly like that.

 

Forget the business about fly-by-wire and Normal Law and whatever other technological crap that anyone wants to bring up. Sully made the incredible decision to commit to an off-airport landing with no less than four major airports in about a 10 mile radius. That took guts, smarts, and a level of cool-headedness that no computer will ever attain.

How many of us can honestly say we would've turned the nose of our Boeing or Airbus or Mad-Dog AWAY from 2 miles of concrete toward an icy river?

 

BINGO!

That's just it. I think William Langewiesche is pointing out that nowadays the term "Plot Skill" represents mostly decision making and leadership skills, less stick and rudder

Just like how Wolfgang Langewiesche (William's dad) pointed out that "Pilot Skill" was all about Stick and Rudder

Cheers
George