EMBFlyer

The engine might have been making power, but no one knew how much or for how long. Until you're in the seat those 2 guys were in, I'd hold off on Monday Morning Quarterbacking the most successful ditching in history (unless of course your "Army" felt slighted by them).

WARich

If only we had cheerleader or dirty all would be good. Of course something tells me I would get, "you're on dirty!!!"...Hmm yes I am, that's what the frequency is for you tool. But you know it's easy to tell the guard police, they're the ones that respond to center before hitting that darn one more button back to radio 1. lol

GoHomeLeg

Either way an engine making some power deserves a little discussion before attempting a maneuver that has an unbelievably low chance of success. The fact that no discussion happened implies it went unnoticed. Luckily that incident didn't come with fatalities. The whole point of analyzing accitdents is to learn from them. "Armchair quaterbacking" stems from that process. It is disingenuous to not learn/discuss where improvements could have been made simply because it happened to work out ok.

Reguardless, my original point was the man is not the god that a lot of people make him out to be. Even when presented with compelling argument to the contrary it appears you still view him as such.

Now ask yourself this: if it were a regional pilot that did the exact same thing would you still hold them with the same regard you hold Sully?

Justdoinmyjob

Producing power and producing thrust are two different things.

GuppyPuppy

Good Lord.

He is a professional.

GP

scambo1

I think you misunderstand. When an engine fails and stays windmilling, all you see in the cockpit is a low oil pressure indication. If it's windmilling, you have generators and hydraulics.

Apparently you've never had an engine failure...in real life.

2StgTurbine

No, we did not all pass the same ATP ride. I have seen three training departments and they all varied greatly. One was run by a bunch of check airmen who went from a 172 to a turboprop check airmen in two years. As a result, they tried to give me a TP for being -3 REF at 10 feet above the runway. The next training department was superb and spent a lot of time reviewing FOQA data and addressing common human factors issues. As a result, the training prepared us both for the worst case scenarios, like an engine failure at V1, while also training us to catch smaller problems much earlier in the accident chain. The other training department had no idea when to fly the special engine departure procedures and told me when you have an engine failure during takeoff, the priority is to get back to the runway as soon as possible, not to run the checklist. I have heard one company even tell me that the market is to competitive to do any more than the bare minimum the FAA requires. I passed all three type rides and recurrent rides, but the quality of all three training departments varied greatly.

80ktsClamp

We've got a doozy here. 9/11 truther, too?

Engines do not necessarily die immediately in that situation, and that is exactly the case here. The APU takes around 40 seconds to start on fifi.

What's sad is a supposed professional pilot coming to conclusions like you have with an obvious significant lack of knowledge both of the event and the functionality of the aircraft involved.

Gypsy Pilot

Good Lord this is true! Not to mention the rather frequent shenanigans on the C2 frequencies, pilots and controllers alike.

rvr1800

Could you please point out where exactly you made a compelling argument? All I've read is a bunch of speculative BŚ.