Capt. Sullenberger is flogging the film on the talk show circuit so I think it's safe to say that he is fully on board with the film.

I am seeing it tonight at the Imax here in HNL. Hope it's good.

I heard on the news today that the actual investigators are furious with the producers of the film as it portrayed them as ruthless and not believing Sully. They said this is not even remotely accurate and that Sully "is a hero">

"Sully," the Movie and the Mythology
 

I've posted an article about the new "Sully" movie, starring Tom Hanks and directed by Clint Eastwood.

It's not a review. I can't review it, because, in the interest of self-preservation, as an airline pilot, I’m afraid to see it. Call me a coward, but when Hollywood does airplanes, the results are always a mess, ranging from borderline realistic to off-the-wall preposterous. It was all I could do to muster up the courage to take in the trailer.

If the trailer is any indication, together with complaints from those who've seen the film, Mr. Eastwood's political biases have a role in "Sully," and are about to touch off some controversy. The director's antigovernment sentiments are no secret, and here he's casting Sully as a kind of everyman American hero, in battle with vindictive NTSB bureaucrats out to railroad him. Already there are rumblings over this aspect of the storyline. Expect some folks at the NTSB, which is about the most highly respected government agency that exists, to be duly pissed off.

Plus, a look at the mythology behind the supposed "Miracle on the Hudson."

Nothing that Sullenberger and his first officer did was easy, but on the whole they did what they had to do, and what, we should hope, any other airline crew would have done in that same situation. Sullenberger himself readily admits as much. Not out of false modesty, but out of due respect for his colleagues everywhere. It wasn't heroics that saved the day, it was, to use a word I normally dislike, professionalism.

And nowhere in the public discussion has the role of luck been adequately acknowledged. Flight 1549 was stricken in daylight, and in reasonably good weather that allowed the crew to visually choose a landing spot. Had the engines quit on a day with low visibility, or over a crowded part of the city beyond gliding distance to the river, the result would have been a total catastrophe. No amount of skill would have mattered. They needed to be good. But they needed to be lucky too. They were both.

There's a longstanding unfairness to the whole pilots-as-heroes thing that gets under my skin, and that this film exacerbates. Why don’t we have a John Testrake movie? Why don’t we have a Bernard Dhellemme movie? Or an Al Haynes movie, or a Brian Witcher movie? And others too. Chances are you’ve never heard of these people -- maybe because their planes didn’t come splashing down alongside the world’s media capital?

Meanwhile, over the years, there have been countless aviators who, confronted by sudden and unusual danger, performed admirably, with just as much or skill and resolve as can ever be hoped for. But they weren’t as lucky as Sullenberger. By virtue of this and nothing more, they and many of their passengers perished.


The full article is here:

www.askthepilot.com


-- PS

surely will be watching this. I didn't know, the incident went with so many controversies.

Hmm... don't think this will end up on IFE, so I guess I'll have to catch it while in the theaters or wait till it's on iTunes.

Saw it tonight. It was good, not as good as I was hoping it would be, but very good. But only because I was hoping for more plane related action. It was more about the investigation, and it was definitely slanted in the direction of the investigators insisting that Sully and Skiles made the wrong call and could have/should have made it either back to LGA or to Teterboro. Both Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart were excellent, as usual, and I liked how they showed the ATC perspective and also gave a lot of credit to the ferries that came to the rescue. And I am flying tomorrow :eek:

It's a Hollywood movie not a documentary. There has to be a bad guy. Tom Hanks doesn't play bad guys or at least not often. He's this generation's Jimmy Stewart.

I've thought from the beginning that the real miracle was that the voluminous regulatory requirements - for training and evacuation certification, in this case - worked exactly as intended. But that's not a miracle. It's validation that human systems frequently work even when they're designed and implemented by government bureaucracies.

Your point that this success directly contradicts Mr. Eastwood's politics is well taken.

I just got back from seeing "Sully". It was fantastic...goosebumps the whole time. SO EFFING GOOD. ^^^^^

Was watching the trailer and came across this funny scene.
https://s12.postimg.cc/pqngocq99/image.png
New AA paint job. Also Continental and United wouldn't merge for another 3 years.

I was paying quite close attention when I watched it tonight and I'm 99% sure that they fixed it in the release.

I remember being happy the birds said Continental. Though the Schimtar Winglets are still there.

I don't recall seeing the AA Livery, but it could've still been there.

I hope those who are angry about "Mr Eastwoods political biases" are equally angry about political bias of ALL types evident in other movies.

Or is it only ONE type of view that is not allowed to intrude?

Why does it seem to be all about the Captain. What about the co-pilot?

Because the movie is called "Sully" not "Sully and the guy who sat beside him whose name no one remembers.";)