Call The Media!!! Sully Broke Sterile!!!!!
 

Pilot: Bird warnings from tower of little value - Yahoo! News



A cockpit voice recorder transcript released by the board showed Sullenberger and co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles were admiring the view of the Hudson River less than minute before their plane struck the geese and lost thrust in both engines.
"What a view of the Hudson today," Sullenberger remarked.
"Yeah," Skiles responded.


After all the ****storm from Colgan and such, it would probably come as a shock to all of America that their hero, the mighty Capt Sully, broke sterile cockpit also. Wow...I'm suprised that those 7 words didn't cause him kill everyone onboard!!!! Stupid media. I'm so sick of their witch hunt.

lol

<filler since it won't let me post three letters>

what a stupid post!

No, it is an excellent post showing how stupid the public and new media is. During the Colgan hearings we kept hearing about sterile cockpit violations and how nothing "not pertaining to essential flight operations" should be said below 10,000. The FAA and NTSB tried to paint Colgan pilots as a group that violates sterile constantly while the rest of the industry adheres to it 100%.

The fact is that nobody adheres to sterile 100% and this just shows how the media picks its headlines.

Actually what would have been more surprising was "I can't wait till Fedex hires again" "yea"

I don't see that as breaking sterile cockpit. Now if he was talking about a sight seeing trip he did on the Hudson it would be different. The argument could be made that the conversation was safety related for example pointing out potential emergency routes.

I think you are a little off. I do not think the mention of "Nice day on the Hudson" meant anything other than "nice day on the Hudson."

oh no that was bleep out from the tapes...
:D

I'll second that.

At least he was looking outside ;)

Talking about a crappy career takes mental bandwidth, admiring the view is a lot different.

I agree, it was not the reason that Colgan crashed.

Sounds like a simple weather observation to me? :rolleyes:

I would say the biggest difference here is that the USAir accident had a much different out come than did Colgan. Thus the media and public perception. As a former Colgan pilot I feel for you guys. The group as a whole is being judged based off of the actions of a few.
Sorry but thats the way it is.

Love to see the full transcript. There is a big difference in conversation between the US Air flight and the Colgan.

Well, the US Airways flight had just begun. It's also interesting to note that Sully was sightseeing on departure and another here says, "at least he was looking out the window". The Colgan crew is villified for not "looking inside" at the decaying airspeed.

Fact is, Sully's a hero, America needs it's hero's and once someone's proclaimed a hero, they can really do no wrong. Sully gets slack (I'm SURE he's broken sterile many times in his career) and others get the guillotine depending on the outcome.

BTW, great water landing.........they're saying it was so hard that a hole was punched in the fuselage, flooding the rear cabin and rendering a rear life reaft useless. Of course, they're investigating on how to blame something else and correct it for this.

Perhaps they'll blame a regional pilot ?

I couldn't agree with you more. Same goes for EagleFly...great post.

Just so I'm clear, my comments were not meant to attack Sully (the crew did a fine job), but to highlight the hysteria, hypocrisy and error in the media and its puppets, the public.

Now the FAA, who not only APPROVED Colgans training program, but OVERSAW it, must "crack down" on the perceived inadequacies IT has fostered.

Absurdity at its finest.

Yes, exactly.

Amen...Sully AND his crew did a great job...the media is a bunch of half-wit morons who couldn't cut it in a real job!

Bingo!!! That is the entire point

LoL is that what it was?! :p

Eaglefly,

You will find in one of the other threads an entire discussion of the role of the violation of sterile cockpit rules in the Buffalo mishap.

I was quite adamant in stating that the violation of sterile cockpit roles has never caused a crash that I know of. What has caused many crashes is a generic lack of SA, a lackadaisical attitude, etc.

What's the difference many ask? Well, if I was flying an ILS down to mins in icing conditions, was focusing 100% on the control of the aircraft, the performance of the aircraft, and the navigation of the aircraft - but was singing "Mary had a little lamb" to myself or telling a joke to my Capt - well, that would be violation. But, if I were on the same ILS but was half asleep and allowing myself to get 10 kts slow, etc - but being perfectly quiet except for checklist callouts - that would not. Which case would be more likely to result in a crash? It's the attitude and SA that matters, not the conversation. The attitude and SA leads to the conversation.

If you find that discussion, you will find many on this board that completely agreed with the media in that the discussion several minutes prior to the mishap was worthy of highlight. Although no procedures were violated (except for sterile cockpit) during the conversations, they were supposedly worth mentioning. It would seem that it's not just the media that takes these things out of context.

I read this the other day..and was thinking the same thing....the double standard is amazing

Yeah, I've been saying this all along, and some on this forum have actually been trying to defend these creeps...

Can't even imagine what a sham going to work every day must feel like for those media-types...?

I keep reading the head lines, and they (media half-wits) are calling the landing a "miracle on the Hudson." I'm just a bit disturbed by this. With no disrespect, I believe something on the order of, "fantastic execution of a much practiced emergency scenario" might be a little more accurate. Am I alone on this? Miracle just seems a bit too angelic.

Nice post, that was a good read starting around page 38. Do you think they'll ever release that actual audio recordings since no one died in this one? I know they generally are not released.

Spot on! Couldn't agree more!

Out of curiosity, how much do commercial pilots practice total thrust lost scenarios? While during private and commercial training, we did them all the time, but I imagine a archer or 172 handles a bit differently than a larger aircraft. I know much remains the same, but when would have been the last time they practiced them? I know when I went for my ME add on, I asked about total thrust lost and my instructor said it is not considered. When I went for my MEI, I asked if I should teach total thrust lost and was told same thing.

Bob Hoover practices it all the time.:D But seriously, you've practiced it with the SEL, and a twin isn't going to be much different, the weight is greater, but the drag is less due due to feathering of both engines, should be about the same. I've pulled both engines to idle and practiced, I couldn't tell the difference in a bug smasher.

The answer is, we don't. I've never once done a complete power loss in an airliner nor have I ever practiced a ditching. It is one of those things that is so rare that your time is better spent working on things that are more likely to happen.

Whats to practice with loss of all engines, If you dont know to point the nose down and look for the best place to land then you shouldnt be in the pointy end.
Here, Ill right the "Loss of Thrust All Engines-Training Manual"

1 MANAGE AIRSPEED
2 KEEP GREASY SIDE DOWN
3 DONT HIT STUFF!!!

lets add
4. if landing in a field watch out for the friggin cows...lol

Hit the softest, cheapest thing in the area
as slow as possible.....

...and at night during a forced landing, turn on the landing light. If you don't like what you see, turn it back off!

I can't take credit for that quote, but it's good stuff...

He was just remarking as to the good visibility surrounding his eventual landing site. Very apropos thing to discuss in a sterile cockpit.:D

So, am I to understand that you're as happy and comfortable with the CVR transcript and airmanship of the Colgan crew as you are with that of Sully's flight?! Night and day.

No I'm not saying that...but the media hype and craziness/outrage that they broke sterile cockpit...and that's why they crashed (I guess the stall had nothing to do with it) is redicilous. Sterile is broken thousands of times every day...not saying it should be...but it is. A little comment about something on the way in, a question about whether the other guy is gonna grab something to eat during the sit, or just the end of a conversation started at 12000ft...it happens on almost every flight I've been on either as a jumpseater (this includes mainline flights, as well as flights I've sat right seat on. The fact that I say, "man...its June...there's still snow on those mountains" and the Capt says " yup" at 9,000 does not spell the end of us. I basicly can sum up everything by saying

1. Aviation "Experts" should try getting in an airplane sometime
2. Media should report on something they know about (and aviation obviously isn't it)
3. Trying to increase ratings with the bull**** out there like asking folks who really don't have a clue whether they think regional airlines are safe...and then keep on digging until they get the answer they want (no) so they can have a great soundclip is biased journalism
4. Well...just screw the media

Always land with/parallel the furrows not against.